The Estate of Children of Church Members and their Right to Baptism, Treatise · Part 2 · Chapter 2

The Estate of Children of Church Members and their Right to Baptism · Treatise · Part 2 · Chapter 2

p. 151CHAP. II. Sect. I. The Explication of Rom. 11. 16, 17, &c.

LEt us now goe on to ſome proofs of that generall truth propounded, removing objections intervening, and then come to the particular of baptiſme. Let us then a little more fully cleare that place, Rom. 11. 16, 17. ſo farre as it concerneth the matter in hand. Our oppoſites in this point, would have the place onelyonly to bee applyable to the perſonall eſtate of this or that beleever, Jew or Gentile, and of the perſonall way of their inſerting by true faith. But wee affirme, that as the Chapter in other parts of it hath reference to the Jewes or Gentiles in the fruition or deprivation of covenant priviledges; it is in a collective, and not meerely a diſtributive way, ſo are thoſe Verſes mentioned taken in the like collective reference. And firſt, as the diſcourſe hath relation to the Jewes, either in their admiſſion or excluſion from Church priviledge; it is in a collective, not bare perſonall reſpect, as appeareth by theſe reaſons.

1. In that thoſe are intended, whoſe fall was the occaſion of the Gentiles ſalvation, and their caſting away was the life of the world, verſe 11. 15. and on whom God ſhewed ſuch ſeveritie, verſe 22. now none will reſtraine theſe to this or that particular perſons caſting away, but muſt underſtand it of the people, whether parents or children.

2. In that thoſe are intended, of whom it may bee verified, that they are in ſuch ſort, and ſo long caſt away as is from the firſt comming in of the Gentiles to their fulneſſe, which is the ſpace of many ages. Now none will ſay, that this can bee affirmed of one and the ſame perſon or perſons, but muſt apply it to the people, parents and children ſucceſſively, hence expreſſed by that collective name of Iſrael, verſe 25.

3. In that thoſe are intended of whom it may bee verified, they are caſt away, and yet to bee reconciled, verſe 15. cut off, and yet to bee re-ingraffed, verſe 20. 24. enemies, yet beloved, verſe 28. which cannot bee verified of this or that perſon, but muſt bee taken of that people.

4. In that they are intended, whoſe receiving in, ſcil. to actuall fruition of covenant and Church priviledges from which they are p. 152now de facto excluded, v. 24. will be to the inchurched world as life from the dead, verſ. 15. which muſt be taken collectively of that people, not diſtributively of ſuch a perſon, or perſons amongſt them.

5. It is intended of thoſe whom God from the firſt choſe unto himſelfe, which yet all the ſpace from the comming in of the Gentiles, till their fulneſſe, abode enemies, verſ. 25. 28. compared. Now none will reſtraine this to ſuch or ſuch elected perſons to whom blindneſſe could not happen ſo long, yet afterwards bee removed, as the phraſe, untill, ſheweth: but muſt bee applyed to Gods act of election of that people, as ſome judiciouſly obſerve upon the place; many thouſand perſons of this people, lived and died, and …ill doe live and die in this while: The ſpace being yet not accompliſhed in their ſinnes. Then it ſeemes, ſome that are ſubjects of election may live and die in their ſinnes. Yea verily, this abſurditie muſt follow, if you take election, verſ. 28. ſtrictly in reference to ſuch and ſuch perſons among them, and not largely in reference to that people. There is a twofold act of divine election, the one more generall, whereof the body of ſuch or ſuch people is the adequate ſubject, by this act God ſubjecteth ſuch a people from all other peoples to himſelfe; and yet ſundry particular perſons amongſt ſuch a people may periſh: Thus the people of the Jews were, collectively conſidered, enemies to the Goſpel, yet as touching election beloved, for their covenant fathers ſake, verſ. 28. of this electing act of God, ſee Deut. 7. 6. The other more particular and ſpeciall, whereby God maketh, as I may ſay, a ſecond draught, and out of ſuch or ſuch ſelected people culleth ſuch or ſuch particular perſons to bee ſaved by Chriſt: Now ſuch as are the ſubjects of election in this ſenſe, can never periſh, and in this ſenſe, the election among the Jewes attained it, and the reſt were blinded, ſee Rom. 12. 5, 6, 7. ſee John 10. 3. 11. 14. 27, 28, 29. Apoc. 13. 8.

6. In that it was intended of thoſe, to whom the Gentiles are oppoſed, and in whoſe ſtead they are inſerted; and againſt whom the Gentiles muſt not boaſt, verſ. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. 17, 18. But it were improper to oppoſe in ſuch ſort, ſuch a world as they are called, verſe 14, 15. compared, to ſuch or ſuch particular Jewes.

As the Jewes are thus collectively conſidered, ſo the Gentiles comming into their Olive eſtate, are taken in a collective ſenſe, therefore called the world, verſ. 15. the Gentiles, verſ. 12. notions not to bee reſtrained to the growne ſort of them, but neceſſarily including the ſpecies of Infants among them. Hence alſo, the collective p. 153notion of Thou and Thee often uſed, verſ. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. 24. And that this ſingular is not diſtributively taken of ſome one or other Gentile, but of the people of the Gentiles, hee therefore in other verſes ſpeaking to the ſame people mentions them plurally, Gentiles, verſ. 11, 12, 13. 25. Hence, the phraſe Yee, and Your, applied to them, verſ. 28. 30, 31. Beſides, they are ſtill ſet in oppoſition to the Jewes which fell, verſ. 11. 12. which were caſt away, verſ. 15. and broken off, verſ. 20. 24. 28. Now none will ſay, that thoſe refuſe Jewes are taken diſtributively, but collectively, as was proved, and much leſſe that the Jewiſh parents onelyonly, excluding their children, were underſtood; ſo then, if the oppoſition bee ſutable, and direct, the oppoſite parties muſt bee collectively taken alſo, and Gentiles children received in with their parents, as oppoſed to Jewiſh children excluded with their parents. Nay they are not onelyonly oppoſed, but the Gentile body is received in inſtead of the Jew-body broken off, verſ. 17. foreign in ramorum defractorum locum, Beza on Rom. 11. 17. and verſ. 19. They were broken off, ſaith the collective Gentile, that I might bee graffed in. The Apoſtle yeelds this as truth; well, [foreign] as if hee would ſay, it is true; now growne ones among the Jewes were broken off: who came in their ſtead? growne Gentiles. True, but Jewiſh babes and little ones too, amongſt other branches and ſprigs, are broken off, that Gentiles might come into covenant and Church eſtate in their ſtead. What Gentiles? growne ones? nay roome is made for them in the breach of the growne Jewes. Verily then ſuch a like ſpecies of Gentiles unto thoſe rejected Jewiſh ſprigs, ſcil. Gentile babes and little ones, muſt neceſſarily bee thus inſerted and admitted into that covenant and Church eſtate out of which the other were broken. So then, as Jewes were, ſo Gentiles are conſidered in this Chapters diſcourſe touching communion in federall and Church ordinances and priviledges, under the notion of Olive fatneſſe, &c. not in a bare perſonall way, but in reference to people of both kindes, and perſons of all ſorts, and ſpecies younger or elder, which is a ſtrong argument that God never intended to limit the benefit of his covenant grace to growne ones, or parents perſonally, but rather extends it to them in a parentall way at leaſt. Hence when that commiſſion, Matth. 28. 19. was given, for this end, it is in the old terme and notion of nation, a large word, and ſubject. God delights to inlarge his grace in theſe times, and his very intent in Matth. 28. is inlargement of Goſpel mercies. p. 154The more croſſe are their minds to Gods thoughts who from that very place would conclude a ſtraightning ſuch a Goſpell mercy as this mentioned, was and is both to parents and children, and for which they have nothing equivalent in ſtead thereof. The Apoſtle it's confeſſed bringeth in Rom. 11. 16, 17. as an argument to prove the receiving in againe of the Jewes, ſcil. unto actuall fruition of all covenant and Church priviledges, verſ. 15. For if the roote bee holy, ſo are the branches, verſ. 16. and ſo verſ. 28, 29. To the ſame purpoſe now, if the covenant with godly anceſtors bee ſo forcible to fetch in ſuch Apoſtates after ſo groſſe and long a time of their deſperate revolts from, and contempts of covenant grace in Chriſt; is it not much more of force to the receiving in of the babes of next beleeving parents unto the viſible fellowſhip of covenant grace? God forbid, that any ſhould obſtinately gaineſay it.

SECT. II.

BY roote, I. S. ſaith in that, Rom. 11. 16. is meant Chriſt perſonall, and yet the ſame author elſewhere would have it meant myſtically conſidered; and elſewhere, of union and communion with God in ordinances; and elſewhere of Abraham in his faith; and elſewhere of beleeving parents in part; for hee ſaith not onelyonly beleeving parents are the roote, &c. not onelyonly [in part, then ſuch parents are the root.] But indeed this author refuteth himſelfe, in that hee knoweth not where to fix. Abraham in his faith as latherly, and eying the covenant in this latitude, as to him, and his ſeed of Iſaac by propagation, and to the beleeving Gentiles with their ſeed by proportion, thus hee might bee a root in his faith; but if Abrahams faith bee conſidered in a meere perſonall reſpect, ſo neither Jewes nor Gentiles are properly, ſaid to bee inſerted into that, but rather into his faith with its object the covenant. It is improper to ſay of the Gentile that they ſtood in it, ſcil. in the root of faith, by faith, or that the Jew was broken off from Abrahams perſonall faith by unbeliefe. Abrahams faith was a ſaving faith, if this therefore had been in them all, or they in it, they had not fallen as many Jewes and Gentiles priviledged by externall covenant right, did and might; or ſuppoſing the root to bee meant, not of Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, but of Chriſt, as Mr. B. alſo affirmeth, who is elſewhere called a root, Apoc. 22. 16. and 5. 5, &c. if they had been in him, by any proper and inviſible union, neither thoſe of the Jewes had been, nor ſo many of Gentiles could have been p. 155broken off, as they were, & whole Churches of theſe are, witnes this Church of Rome, to which the Apoſtle wrote this. But otherwiſe, if underſtood of impropper and viſible union with Chriſt, ſcil. a viſible union with Chriſt myſticall; thus indeed many ſuch may fall away finally, as did theſe. Hence that John 15. 2. now in this ſenſe parents and children Inchurched, whether Jewes or Gentiles, by being in the holy root of thoſe covenant fathers, they are viſibly in that holy root Chriſt, or Chriſt myſticall, as was ſhewed. I. S. will and doth confeſſe the firſt fruits, of whom yet the ſame holy effect is affirmed, Rom. 11. 16. to be theſe fathers, and why not then as wel the ſame fathers to bee the root? ſince the context cleareth it, that the Apoſtle intendeth the ſame of the ſelfeſame perſons under divers Metaphors. Either then Chriſt is the firſt fruites, as well as roote intended, or thoſe fathers are the firſt fruites, as well as the root mentioned. Verily covenanting Abraham in reference to his ſeed is called a rock, whence that Church, as a Church was hewen; for in that ſenſe the Prophet ſpeakes to them, Eſay 51. 1, 2. yet is Chriſt the rock of the Church too in another ſenſe; and why is not Abraham then a covenant root to ſuch Church branches, as that from whence they in that ſenſe doe ſpring? And what I ſay of Abraham, is as well to bee referred to Iſaac and Jacob in the ſame reſpect, as being other veines, making up this one root, the Inſtrumentall meanes and cauſe of the mercy offered and exhibited both to Jewes and Gentiles, in regard that to them all this large covenant was made over in a radicall way, ſee Gen. 17. 2. 7. and 22. 18. compared with Gen. 26. 3, 4, 5. and 28. 13, 14. whence ſuch frequent mention in Scripture of Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, in reference to covenant bleſſings, yea their names are pleaded in prayer for that end, Exod. 32. 13. Deut. 9. 27. ſee more 2 King. 13. 23. and Mich. 7. 20. &c. This was not in reſpect of any perſonall holineſſe of theirs, or barely in reſpect of their perſonall faith, but it was by reaſon of that large covenant made with them in this reference, as the places quoted ſhew; ſee further for this end, Luke 1. 71, 72. Rom. 15. 8. Deut. 4. 37. and 10. 15. with other like Scriptures. Hence too, they are made here a radicall meanes of the Jewes receiving in againe, Rom. 11. 15. grounded on this reaſon, verſ. 16. compared with verſ. 28. Whence alſo, the Jewes which are called holy branches, by vertue of their holy root, verſ. 16. they are termed naturall branches too, ſcil. of that root, and Olive tree, verſ. 24. not naturall branches of Chriſt as the root. Our p. 156very oppoſites will ſay, that were improper to affirme; nor meerly of Abraham, but Iſaac and Jacob alſo; nor is it proper to call one Abraham [fathers] verſ. 28. or firſt fruits, verſ. 16. Now as to Jewes, ſo to Gentiles, were thoſe covenant [fathers] and root; God ſaith to Abraham and Jacob diſtinctly that hee would bleſſe all nations, and families, as in their ſeed, ſo in them, Gen. 12. 2, 3. In thee [Abraham] Gen. 22. 28. in thy ſeed, and Gen. 28. 14. in thee [Jacob] and in thy ſeed How in them at all diſtinct from the ſeed Chriſt, who is the ſole author, worker, and meritorious cauſe of all covenant bleſſing? Verily in reſpect of the covenant made with them, in reference as to the nation of the Jewes, and the families therein, ſo to Gentile nations and the families therein, to bee by virtue of that covenant partakers, at leaſt viſibly, of the covenant bleſſing. Hence wee Gentiles are ſaid to come and ſit downe with thoſe fathers, Matth. 8. 11, 12. as inſerted branches are in ſome ſenſe ſeated and ſetled in and with the root. Hence likewiſe, this root is ſaid to beare the Chriſtian Gentiles collectively taken, and for that cauſe the Gentile is not to boaſt againſt the Jew branches: branches of what? of the root mentioned: what root? Chriſt? That were improper to affirme: but rather, of thoſe fathers.

SECT. III.

THe Olive tree, ſome take it of the Fathers alſo in oppoſition to the other wilde Olive tree out of which the Gentiles were cut, verſ. 24. ſcil. Their wilde anceſtors, or anceſtors eſtranged from the covenant, Epheſ. 2. 12. The Jewes indeed are cut out of theſe fathers Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, as covenanting in reſpect of any preſent actuall benefit of the covenant, but yet are not cut out of thoſe fathers as begetting, as it is evident, they are ſtill Abrahams ſtock; which by the way obſerve againſt that diſtinction, by which ſome uſe to avoid our arguments in this buſineſſe; They ſay Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob were onelyonly a root to the body of the Jewes, as naturall and begetting fathers, and not as ſpirituall and beleeving fathers, or fathers by faith imbracing the covenant made with the Jewes alſo. Surely ſuch men would fruſtrate the ground of the Apoſtles diſcourſe here, ſuppoſing ſo ſad an excluſion of the Jewes from a former ſweet and ſappy Church eſtate, yea ſuch as into which the Gentiles could not come but by a preter-ſuper, yea contra-naturall way, verſ. 24. if they were in thoſe fathers as begetting fathers onelyonly, ſo are they ſtill their naturall children, and then p. 157not cut off from them at all, contrary to this expreſſe Scripture. Others would have the Olive tree, to bee meant of the viſible Church diſtinguiſhed from the root, verſ. 17. ſee Jer. 11. 16. ſpoken of the Jewes in their Church, as well as civill relation: into which as into their owne Olive, by that generall covenant right, Rom. 11. 16. 24. they ſhall bee re-ingraffed, in ſo farre as they are federally holy, verſ. 16. ſcil. intentionally, in ſo farre is a Church right their owne; with which latter reſpect of the Olive I fully cloſe; but of this more afterwards.

By [ingraffing into the Olive] ſeemes to bee meant, an actuall intereſting, and inſtating into the viſible Church, or into thoſe covenant fathers in reference to the Church, whence alſo ariſeth the actuall fruition thereof. By Olive fatneſſe mentioned, verſ. 17. muſt needs bee meant ſuch covenant or Church bleſſings, priviledges, and ordinances, &c. whereof all ſorts of Church members, even ſuch as may bee fatally cut off, may partake of as well as others: which are not the graces of the Spirit, for they flow not immediatly from the Olive the Church, nor from any of the beſt of the ſons of men, but rather they are the ſeales and other Church ordinances viſibly diſpenſed to perſons according as they are capable of them. Theſe are the inſtrumentall cauſes of the bright ſhining, at leaſt in viſible profeſſion of Chriſt, unto the whole Candleſtick, and all the greater or leſſer branches and parts of it, Zach. 4. 2, 3. 11, 12, 14.

SECT. IIII.

TO draw to a Concluſion. 1. Then looke how the Jew-branches were ſet into their Olive and root mentioned, ſo are the Gentiles which come in their ſtead, Rom. 11. 17. 19. But they with all their buds and ſprigs, ſcil. children, as Eſay 44. 3. and 18. 5. and 61. 9. and Pſal. 128. 3. they are called, were ſet thereinto, therefore in like ſort are the Gentiles with their children inſerted. Amongſt them were three ſorts thus inſerted. 1. Growne ones truely beleeving, as were godly proſelyted Gentiles. 2. Growne ones, which did not prove truly beleeving, as many of the proſelytes. 3. The children of Jewes, and of both thoſe ſorts of proſelytes, ſome whereof afterwards made holy improvement thereof, others abuſed and rejected their covenant priviledge: and ſo is it with us now.

2. Looke how they were by unbeleefe broken off, ſo are the Gentiles p. 158taken in by faith; but they both parents and children were broken off through the unbeleeving rejection of the covenant expreſſed by the wicked parents onelyonly, therefore the Gentiles are inſerted with their children, albeit the parents onelyonly expreſſe a beleeving embrace of the covenant. Gentiles children are not indeed expreſſed by name in this inſerting: but yet the Gentile is collectively ſpoken of as was proved, and ſo muſt needs include at leaſt the children of ſuch inſerted Gentiles; as in the cutting off of the Jewes, and caſting away of them, their children are not mentioned, except comprehenſively, here, or in Matth. 8. 11. and 21. 42. yet all grant that they were intended, and ſo in this caſe.

3. Looke how the Gentile in caſe of apoſtaſie is cut off from his Church eſtate, and union and communion in the Olive root and fatneſſe, and looke as hee is not ſpared in caſe of his unbeleefe, ſo was the Gentile graffed in, verſ. 20. 21, 22. But in that caſe of unbeleefe and apoſtaſie, the Gentile, both parent and child is cut off from federall grace and Church priviledge; witneſſe the caſe of thoſe which at firſt fell off, when firſt the Aſian and other Churches, as of Rome, &c. were unchurched: Therefore ſo was the Gentile parent and child graffed in.

4. Looke how the better part of the Jewes, which did not thus actually & obſtinately reject the covenant and Goſpel of grace, & Chriſt the foundation thereof, did then, when the Apoſtle wrote this, Rom. 11. 17. remaine ſtill in their roote: in ſuch ſort, are the Gentiles with them, partakers thereof: But thoſe Jewes parents and children abode in that covenant eſtate: Therefore Gentile parents and children ſo partake with them. Of thoſe Jew parents none will make queſtion, and of their children, is no ground to doubt: which being once in covenant in their anceſtors, yea and parents right alſo, and not being then of yeares to reject Chriſt, how come they at preſent to bee cut out? ſurely not for their parents unbeleefe, for they receive Chriſt, not for others rejecting Chriſt, for what's that to them? not for their owne actuall rejecting of Chriſt, for they were not then of yeares to doe ſo.

5. Looke how the Jew ſhall againe bee graffed in, in ſuch ſort were the Gentiles at firſt graffed in, but they parents and children with them ſhall be graffed in; therefore ſo were the Gentile parents and children graffed in or inchurched. The major is evident by verſ. 17. 19. 23, 24, 25, 26. compared: The minor is as evident by the ſame verſes compared. For as they were broken off by unbeleefe, p. 159ſo are they re-inſerted by faith: now the former was by the parents unbeleefe, that young and old were caſt off, as was proved; therefore by faith in the parents, young and old are reinſerted, elſe, as was ſaid, parents and children loſt this which was a ſpeciall and comfortable bleſſing by parentall unbeleefe, which they never recover through the like parentall faith. Beſides, it hath been proved, that the Apoſtles diſcourſe, both of the Jewes caſting off, and of their receiving in, is ſtill of them in a collective ſenſe, and not barely perſonall, and ſo their children cannot bee excluded, but muſt be included. Little ones are not indeed named in their re-ingraffing, no more then in their cutting off, yet as in the one, they are neceſſarily underſtood, ſo in the other. Beſides wee have before proved that the Jewes children are intereſted in theſe promiſes of grace, yet to bee fulfilled, Eſay 61. 9. and 65. 20. and 23. Their off-ſpring are the ſeed of the bleſſed of the Lord, with them, or as well as themſelves: So Ezek. 37. 20. to the end, and Jer. 13. 19, 20. Their children ſhall bee as aforetime: how? in a common wealth, and civill way meerely? nay rather in a Church way, as aforetime: now aforetime, who dare deny, but their children were eyed as in covenant, Acts 2. 38, 39. And as parts and members of the Church, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. 36. and therefore were they ſealed with that ſeale of the covenant, Gen. 17. Hence ſome godly learned Divines in their Commentaries upon the Canticles, expounding that Cant. 6. 11. 13. and Chap. 7. and 8. of the Jewiſh Church yet to come; they expound that Cant. 7. 2. mentioned of the Churches navell, that wants not liquor, to be underſtood of Baptiſme, as that heape of Wheate, to bee meant of the Lords Supper to bee adminiſtred amongſt them. Now …s the navell is of ſpeciall need and uſe, to ſuch as cannot receive nouriſhment, as growne ones doe, at the mouth, to convey ſecretly corporall furtherance to the Babes bodily life and welfare; ſo this Church navell, not wanting ſuch an inlivening ſupply, it will bee amongſt them accounted and improved as of need and uſe to bee a divine meanes, as well as ſeale, of conveying ſecretly gratious influences tending to the Churches Babes ſpirituall welfare.

6. Looke of what Olive fatneſſe in the ſubſtantialls thereof, and in what ſort thoſe branches did partake of the ſame, and in the ſame ſort doe the branches taken out of the wilde Olive partake. But thoſe branches did partake of the fruit cauſing fatneſſe of Olive, and Church ordinances and priviledges, not as ſhut up, or p. 160reſiding in the greater boughes, parents, but thorow them and by them paſſing to their leſſer ſprigs or children ſpringing from them. Therefore of ſuch fatneſſe doe and muſt Gentiles partake. And this way was their fall an inriching of the Gentile in-churched world, Rom. 11. 12. ſcil. as this was to bee conveyed, as a covenant heritage, from beleeving parents to children. Elſe were it poore and ſad with beleevers. As with other parents in other heritages, if what they have in ſuch ſort, they cannot leave with, or inſtrumentally convey unto their children; as godly Joſeph is a fruitfull bough in reference to his flouriſhing branches, not in a meere civill and naturall, but in a covenant and Church reſpect, Gen. 49. 22, 23. ſo is it with other ſuch parents as hee. It's contrary to natures Law, that any communicable ſappe ſhould be ingroſſed to, or ſhut up within the greater boughes, and not to bee withall conveyed inſtrumentally to thoſe ſprigs that are upon them; ſo is it here, in reſpect of this communicable ſappe of federall and Church right in Church Olive boughes; It is contrary to the Law of the tenure of the covenant of grace made to parents with reſpect to their children in and with them, that this Church fatneſſe ſhould not bee conveyed to them. So farre as the greater boughes are ingraffed into this viſible Olive Church eſtate, their ſprigs alſo which are on and in them, are ſet in with them, by the ſame Church act of ingraffing. If Olive roots as ſuch, ſhould not convey inſtrumentally their ſap and fatneſſe to the Olive boughes, as ſuch, and thoſe boughes in like ſort to their ſprigs, Olive trees would faile in an ordinary way: ſo in an ordinary way muſt Churches faile: if this eccleſiaſticall conveyance inſtrumentally of Church and covenant ſap from parent to child be denied.

SECT. V.

Object. 1. THe Jewes being federally holy, as Rom. 11. 16. ſheweth, and yet not having right to Church priviledges, baptiſme, &c. as is evident in theſe refuſe Jewes at this day; it ſhaketh your foundation, that perſons becauſe federally holy muſt have a right to Church priviledges.

Anſw. Federall holineſſe is aſcribed to perſons two wayes, either as they are collectively or diſtributively taken. Collectively, and ſo it is here aſcribed to the body of the Jewes, as one whole nation, which if conſidered diſtributively of all the parts, and of each perſon in that nation, ſo it is not intended of them. That we p. 161may a little illuſtrate this, from what is here ſaid in this Chapter, they bee ſaid to bee broken off, ſcil. from the reſt, verſ. 20. caſt away, and ſo uncleane, prophane, and not holy, verſ. 15. yet are they ſaid to be holy by vertue of the roote, in and of which they bee branches: ſo are they ſaid to bee caſt away, and yet ſuch as ſhall bee received in, verſ. 15. they are ſaid to bee enemies concerning the Goſpell, and yet beloved of God, verſ. 28. What? are the ſelfe ſame perſons ſaid to bee holy, and not holy? rejected, yet to be received? enemies, and yet beloved? no verily: But when they are ſaid to bee holy, and beloved of God, &c. it is true of the whole body of the Jewes collectively taken, in reſpect of the choycer part which is federally holy, properly ſo called, and beloved of God, by vertue of the covenant made with their fathers; as on the other ſide, when it is ſaid of the whole body, that they are cut off, caſt away, and that they are enemies, it is meant of the whole collectively in reſpect of the refuſe part, for not all wholly were cut off in the Apoſtles time, but ſome of the branches were broken off, verſ. 17. And blindneſſe did happen to collective Iſrael, but not wholly, but in part, verſ. 25. In both which, that which is proper to the parts, is applyed to the whole of which they are parts, by a ſynecdoche. To come then to argument, it is true, that the Jewes, collectively taken for the whole nation, containing the choicer part intended, they are federally holy, ſcil. in reſpect of that choyce part, and yet it followes not that the Jewes diſtributively taken, for thoſe Jewes living at this day, ſuppoſed to bee a refuſe part of that whole, ſhould bee properly ſaid to bee federally holy, and ſo neither to have right to Church priviledges; ſo that the inſtance croſſeth not us, who ſpeake of perſons federally holy, as well diſtributively, and not meerely collectively conſidered. There is therefore a fallacy, a dicto ſecundum quid, ad dictum ſimpliciter.

Rep. Suppoſe we take this of the whole in reſpect of the choycer part of the Jewiſh nation, this choyce part then, at leaſt, is federally holy, yet they have not right to Church priviledges, as being not yet ingraffed into the olive, nor poſſibly, in actuall being in the world.

Therefore perſons may bee federally holy, which yet have not right to Church priviledges.

Anſw. Wee againe diſtinguiſh, perſons may bee ſaid to be federally holy, either ſeminally, & preparatively, or actually: in the former ſenſe, perſons not yet exiſting, may bee ſaid to bee in covenant with God, or ſuch as God makes a covenant with, and conſequently p. 162to bee federally holy, Deut. 29. 14, 15. neither with you onelyonly doe I make this covenant, but with him that ſtandeth here with us before the Lord our God, and alſo with him that is not with us, this day. Marke it, God ſaith not, I [will] make this covenant in the future, but in the preſent tenſe, I [doe] make this covenant with him that is not here this day, that is, with perſons unborne; theſe being expreſly taken into covenant with God, and their covenant right laid up and included therein, in ſuch ſort, as that which in its ſeaſon ſhould actually bee exerted, theſe perſons albeit unborne, and not actually exiſting, yet in this ſeminall and preparatory reſpect of the covenant, they have thus far a covenant right, and ſo farre alſo a Church right together with it: ſo here in theſe unborne Jewes as they are federally holy in that ſeminall reſpect. Hence, the Olive or Church here, is called their owne Olive, Rom. 11. 24. How is the Church now their owne, but in reſpect of this ſeminall Church right?

Federall holineſſe actually taken is that which is actually ſubjected and exerted in a perſon exiſting, whether parent or child in which ſenſe God made his covenant with thoſe Jewes, and with their children that were before him that day. Deut. 29. 14, 15. And in this ſenſe, the Apoſtle ſpeaking of the federall holineſſe, eſpecially of children actually borne of covenant in-churched parents, ſaith they are holy, ſcil. actually, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Now therefore to apply the Argument, it is defective in the conſequence of it, thus, Perſons not in being which are federally holy, onelyonly ſeminally and intentionally, they have not actuall Church right, nor can actually bee baptized; therefore perſons exiſting and living which are federally holy, actually, they may not bee baptized; this followeth not: one may as well reaſon thus. Thoſe with whom God made a covenant, Deut. 29. 14, 15. who were not borne, not there that day, had not actuall right to circumciſion, could not be uncircumciſed: Therefore thoſe children which were there that day with whom alſo God made his covenant, Ibid. they had not actuall right to circumciſion, might not, could not bee circumciſed: this every rationall man will ſay is a non ſequitur.

Object. 2. This Rom. 11. 16. is ſpoken of the naturall branches, which have an hereditary covenant right, as naturall branches of that roote, Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob. And therefore not pertinent to the Gentiles, and their children which are not branches of that root.

p. 163Anſw. Albeit the beleeving Gentiles, and their children are not of that root by nature and propagation, yet they are in that root by grace and by proportion. The Jew-branches were broken off that the Chriſtian collective Gentile might by grace be graffed in, ſcil. in their ſtead, Rom. 11. 19. Looke then what covenant and Church right the Jewiſh parents had for their children in an hereditary way, the ſame hath the inchurched Gentile for his children through grace.

Repl. This were to make way for all children of Chriſtian Gentile nations to have right to Church priviledges.

Anſw. It ſufficeth that thus farre it holds, that as all and onelyonly Church-members children were eccleſiaſtically priviledged among the Jewes, ſo all and onelyonly Church-members children are eccleſiaſtically priviledged among the Gentiles.

Object. 3. The Gentiles are ſaid to bee ingraffed, not by a naturall way, as being of ſuch parents, but by a way contrary to nature, and therefore what is this to the federall eſtate of Gentile Infants, as comming of beleeving parents? and ſo in a way of nature?

Anſw. It is moſt true, if applied to the firſt parties amongſt any Gentile people, which in the Apoſtles time or ſince, enter into Church eſtate, living formerly in a Pagan eſtate, and not having any of their anceſtors other then Pagans, or ſuch as were cut out of the wilde Olive tree, ſcil. Anceſtors pagan or outlawry from all covenant and Church eſtate. Rom. 11. 24. Epheſ. 2. 12. But if it bee applyed to other, which come of ſuch perſons, ſo tranſplanted from that wilde Olive, to this good Olive eſtate, as branches or ſprigs of ſuch Olive boughs, or gratious anceſtors, then is it not fully verified, that theſe are onelyonly in a way contrary to nature, partakers of the fatneſſe of the Olive. As they are conſidered together with their gratious anceſtors, as all of them of other pagan anceſtors, ſo they are all ingraffed in a way contrary to nature, even meerely by divine Grace, but as they and their gratious fathers are conſidered apart, their fathers as nextly deſcended of pagan anceſtors, theſe their children as nextly ſpringing from fathers viſibly beleeving, and inchurched, ſo their covenant and Church eſtate, comes to them principally by a way of divine grace, and inſtrumentall by birth deſcent from inchurched anceſtors: and in this latter reſpect therefore ſuch children may bee ſaid, to bee inſerted by a way of nature: for looke as the Iſraelites of old, before p. 164their cutting off were, and others of them hereafter will bee, by virtue of their holy root or covenant fathers, holy branches as naturall branches: ſcil. branches ſpringing naturally from them, or borne of them, Rom. 11. 16. 24. compared: or as thoſe Iſraelites, were not ſinners, or outlawries from covenant or Church, as were thoſe of the Pagan Gentiles, but Jewes, or eccleſiaſtically priviledged, even by nature, or naturall deſcent of ſuch anceſtors inchurched, Gal. 2. 15. ſo muſt the proportion hold in the children of Gentile in-churched parents. Though even this alſo is of grace, that they ſhould naturally deſcend from ſuch parents, Gen. 49. 26.

Object. 4. The Gentiles come into and abide in Church-eſtate by faith, Rom. 11. 20. But children have not faith. Therefore this Scripture concernes not them.

Anſw. 1. The Gentiles that ſo ſtand by faith, are collectively taken as including alſo their children with them ſo abiding, untill that theſe their children come to reject, as did the children of thoſe godly Jewiſh anceſtors, their covenant right: And obſerve it by the way, how tender God was of covenant children: They were never excluded, untill they came, after many generations, ſo wholly to degenerate, as Rom. 11. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 28. ſheweth, and then, but not till then, they are rejected, ſo is it ſtill. God is tender of unchurching and diſcovenanting any that come of godly anceſtors, till they groſly and obſtinately reject their owne mercy. But if they grow up to that obſtinacy, then they cut off the gratious covenant, entailed as from themſelves perſonally, ſo to their children parentally, as did thoſe of old, Rom. 11. 20. and as thoſe of Rome, Corinth and Epheſus, &c. have done ſince.

2. This faith mentioned is not a bare perſonall faith reſpecting this or that particular Gentile, but ſuch as is in direct oppoſition to that unbeleefe of the Jewes, by which they were broken off, as that oppoſition, Rom. 11. 20. ſheweth; now it is evident that their unbeleefe was the obſtinate rejecting of the covenant of grace, as it was held out in Chriſt to them, and theirs joyntly, and not as barely made to themſelves perſonally, Acts 3. 25, 26. and 13. 46, 47. Matth. 21. 41. 42, 43, 44. Rom. 9. 31, 32, 33. and 10. to the end: ſee Rom. 10. 21. with 11. 1. &c. and verſ. 20. So verily is it in the faith of the Gentile oppoſed thereunto. It is a faith that lookes to Gods covenant, as in reference to families and kindreds of the earth ſo imbracing it, and ſo being quickned, and comforted p. 165by it. That pretious fruit of faith muſt hold proportion to the nature of the ſeed thereof, ſcil. the words of promiſe, 1 Pet. 1. 23. now the words of promiſe run not barely in a perſonall way, but in a parentall, oeconomicall and plurall way, as well, Jer. 31. 1. Acts 3. 25, &c. our faith is, or de jure ſhould bee inlarged according to the latitude of covenant, as was before proved, Rom. 10. 8 &c. By what hath been ſaid, their groſſe miſtakes appeare, which ſay, that none are the ſubjects of this lumpe but elect ones: That the branches were ſuch onelyonly which were in Chriſt by faith, and hee in them by his ſpirit; for neither Jew nor Gentile branches, many of them were ſuch, as appeares by their being broken off: nor is that aſſertion ſound, but abſurd, and croſſe to the very text: that the Jewes owne naturall root and Olive tree whereof they were naturall branches, onelyonly by faith was union with God, &c. ſince that way of being branches onelyonly by faith, is no where called naturall; nay in the ſame verſe, Rom. 11. 24. ſpeaking of the firſt growne Gentiles inſerting by faith▪ it is ſaid to bee contrary to nature, nor is inſerting which is onelyonly by faith, more naturall to Jewes, then it is to Gentiles. Neither is that true and ſound, that no other holineſſe inrighteth any in any priviledges of grace, if underſtood of Church priviledges now in queſtion, then holineſſe of juſtification or ſanctification: ſince many of thoſe naturall branches, which as naturall branches of that holy root, were holy federally, and did partake of the root, and fatneſſe of the olive before their rejection, as well as ſome better Jewes did afterward, yet they were not juſtified; for which compare, Rom. 11. 16. 24. 17, 18, 19. ſo likewiſe the Gentiles, which came to partake of that Olive fatneſſe in their ſtead, ibid. yet were fatally cut off many of them, which had never bin, if they had been juſtified and ſanctified.

Object. 5. Doth not the Apoſtle only ſpeake here of the inviſible Church, under the notion of the Olive, which ſometimes was amongſt the Jewes, and therefore called their Olive; the Apoſtle reaſoning about the elect remnant, Rom. 11. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. and making the tree to bee the Church of beleevers, ſtill ſtanding, and ſome branches broken off, and others graffed in, and ſo it might ſeeme the graffing in to bee inſerting into the inviſible Church, by election and faith?

Anſw. I deny not but that the Apoſtle diſcourſeth about the elect and inviſible members of the inviſible Church, verſ. 1, 2, 3. &c. and therefore proveth fully enough one principall thing propounded, p. 166ſcil. that the inviſible elect membes of it, or the elect ſeed, and branches of Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, did not, could not fall away finally: but it will not therefore follow, that hee ſpeaketh onelyonly of the inviſible Church in the whole chapter; or that he diſcourſeth not, as well of the viſible Church, & of the Church ſeed of Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob. Yea it wil appeare by good reaſon, that in that part of the Chapter, where hee diſcourſeth of the Church, as an Olive, communicating its fatneſſe to all the branches of it, hee principally intendeth the viſible Church, as viſible.

For 1. The objection acknowledgeth, that it is the Church of beleevers ſtill ſtanding and ſome branches broken off, and others graffed in: now none that were in the inviſible Church, by election and faith could ever bee broken off: Yea but they might bee in the Church in appearance, or viſibly, as branches may bee ſaid to bee in Chriſt, and after broken off, John 15. 2. Not to anſwer this with an expoſition of that according to ſome to bee meant of Chriſt conſidered with his body the viſible Church, as 1 Cor. 12. 12, 13. here is more ſaid of theſe, ſcil. that others came in their roome, and place, Rom. 11. 17. foreign in ramorum defractorum locum, as Beza noteth on that particle, they had then a reall place there, and a reall breach was made: neither did the Gentiles come into an imaginary place in the Church but a reall: and yet they came into no other place, then into the place of the broken branches; therefore theirs was a reall, not a ſeeming place in the Olive: the Olive then muſt bee the viſible Church, where hypocrites may have place, and not the inviſible Church, where they can have none. Beſides, they were ſuch branches of the Olive, as did partake of the fatneſſe of the Olive; not like withered branches, ſeemingly in Chriſt, which are ſapleſſe, nor did ever partake of the ſap of Chriſts ſaving grace, as theſe did of Church ſap, hence the Gentile is ſaid to partake in common with them, Rom. 11. 17. Greeke foreign, &c. and thou partakeſt in common with them in the fatneſſe of the Olive: What did the collective Chriſtian Gentile partake in common with them, in ſhewes and ſemblances? nay in realities, in the very fatneſſe of the Olive, of which they partooke, elſe it was not a partaking in common: as both partooke alſo in common in the root, Ibid. ſcil. Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob: not as naturall fathers: for ſo Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, albeit they were naturall fathers unto the Jewes, yet not in any reſpect naturall fathers unto the Gentiles; but rather as they were Church fathers: if they had not p. 167beene Church fathers to the Jewes as well as to the Gentiles, how did Jew and Gentile partake in common in them as a root; and what common Church fathers were Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob▪ thoſe fathers, verſ. 28. of the inviſible Church? nay verily but of the viſible, of which even the the refuſe Jewes ſometimes were.

Which may bee a ſecond argument that the Olive tree of which Abraham, as ſome ſay and yeeld, or Abraham, Iſaac and Iacob, as others: where the roote is conſidered here under the adjunct of the viſible, and not of that of the inviſible Church, and ſo it's plainely ly verified that Jewes and Gentiles were foreign, partakers in common in the root and fatneſſe of the Olive, Rom. 11. 17.

A third reaſon thereof is in that the Olive here intended is that whoſe fatneſſe it is that is communicated to the branches: yea to ſuch branches as were broken off, as were many refuſe Jewes, or might bee broken off: as ſundry of the Gentiles which came in their ſtead might bee: whence that, verſ. 21. yea ver. 22. otherwiſe thou ſhalt bee cut off; and ſo many have beene witneſſes that Apoſtate Churches of Aſia and other Churches. Now ſaving graces peculiar to the elect, flow not from any company of men, no not from the inviſible Church, nor is it theirs but Chriſts to convey, and communicate, they cannot ſpare that oyle for others, Matth. 25. 9. but the ordinances, and they are the Churches properly: and ſuch as from the Church are derived, and communicated to others whether elect, or reprobate that are members of her. Yea but what Church is that which holdeth forth, and diſpenſeth Church ordinances to others: not the inviſible Church: all the members being homogeneall, the inviſible Church properly hath not officers, if you ſuppoſe officers, you muſt ſuppoſe ſome calling, others called, and then they ceaſe to bee meerely inviſible, for in this act they become viſible: now a Church without officers cannot adminiſter all Church ordinances; not communicate that Church fatneſſe of the ſeales: ſo then the Olive Church communicating all Church fatneſſe indefinitely, and ſo the ſeales too, muſt bee the viſible, not the inviſible Church. Beſides ſince no Olive or Church fatneſſe is to bee had, but in, and from the Church: no Church ordinances ordinarily to be diſpenſed, but in, and from the Church: if the Olive here bee ſuppoſed to bee the inviſible, not the viſible Church, no ordinary communication of Church ordinances to any is poſſibly to bee had ſince the inviſible Church, being a p. 168Church onelyonly of elect and ſavingly called perſons, and no hypocrites or reprobates being in, or of that Church: whither ſhall any repaire for Church ordinances? there being no Church in the world, diſpenſing ordinances by ordinary officers, which alone can now diſpenſe them in a Church way; that conſiſts onelyonly of elect ones: but there are ſome chaffe, and tares and traſh and veſſels of diſhonour in it, Matth. 3. and 13. 2 Tim. 2. yea that Church being inviſible as ſuch is not obvious to the ſenſe of any, which being brought to the faith would deſire to bee joyned to this Olive thereby to partake of it's fatneſſe: hee cannot ſee where, nor what that Church is, for it is inviſible, this will drive us all to become Seekers, not till new Apoſtles come, as ſome fondly imagine, but perpetually, yea hopeleſly.

Fourthly, it's not denied by ſuch as oppoſe us herein, that the Jewes had this priviledge, to bee reckoned in the outward adminiſtration of the covenant of grace, as branches of the Olive by birth, by virtue of Gods appointment, which cannot bee true but in reference to the viſible Church.

C.B. Object. 6. You will hereby ſet up a Catholique viſible Church.

Anſw. If that ſhould follow hence touching a Catholique Church, as noting Aliquid integraliter univerſale, as eum dicimus orbis univerſus; which is not really diſtinct from all the particular Churches in the world conſidered in one: this univerſall integrum, the Church albeit not viſible at once to any ones eyes, yet in its parts it is viſible, both diviſim in its particular viſible members, as alſo conjunctim in viſible congregations, Ames medul. Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 31, 32.