The Grounds and Ends of the Baptism of the Children of the Faithful, Chapter 3 (2 of 3)

The Grounds and Ends of the Baptism of the Children of the Faithful · Chapter 3 (2 of 3)

p. 79The force of this Argument dependeth upon the force of the Covenant of grace, and the continuance thereof from parents to their naturall children, even now in the dayes of the New Teſtament, as well as of the Old. For by the tenor of the Covenant God is a God to holy Fathers, and to their ſeed after them. And if God be a God to their ſeed, it reacheth forth a twofold bleſſing to their ſeed, that all their ſeed are holy by Gods adoption (Rom. 9.4.) and ſo by their appropriation and relation unto God, till themſelves doe reject him.

Secondly, that ſome or other of them God will ever reſerve (to wit, all the elect ſeed) to be called effectually to the fellowſhip of his holineſſe, and to the holineſſe of their holy Anceſtors. And theſe bleſſings being preſuppoſed and granted by Covenant, the Apoſtles argument is plaine and ſtrong: That if the Patriarchs Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob be holy, (who were the firſt fruits, and the root of the houſe of Iſrael) then, as all the houſe of Iſrael were an holy people till they obſtinately rejected the Lord Jeſus. So will God reſerve an elect ſeed of them to be called and received to the fellowſhip of his holineſſe, and the holineſſe of their Anceſtors in his due time. But if you abrogate the continuance of the Covenant of grace from holy Parents to their naturall children now in the dayes of the New Teſtament, it will bee a difficulty (in my weake judgement) paſt all reſolution, how the Apoſtles Argument can be of any force to prove the converſion of the Jews unto holineſſe from the holineſſe of their Anceſtors, ſeeing their Anceſtors are no firſt fruits and root unto them, till they come to bee converted, and being converted, doe believe as well as their Anceſtors. And whether ever they will come to bee converted or no, is as uncertain (for all their relation to their holy Anceſtors, and for all their Anceſtors Covenant with God) as is the converſion of any other Infidels.

The Goſpel holdeth forth Abraham for a root of Jews and Gentiles:Silveſter. and that is onelyonly in reſpect of his faith and faithfulneſſe; and ſo is hee the patterne and Father of the faithfull, that reſemble him in the ſame. So that Jews and Gentiles are Abrahams branches, onelyonly as they ſpring out of the ſame root by faith, which declares them to be his true naturall branches, ſo farre onelyonly as they appeare to bee of the ſame faith as hee was. But now for the Jews, that they were broken off, it was onelyonly for want of their actuall believing the Goſpel, (as Rom. p. 78duplicate page p. 79duplicate page p. 78duplicate page p. 79duplicate page p. 8011.) and oppoſing the ſame, Acts 13.46. And ſo were the Gentiles received in, onelyonly upon their actuall believing and receiving the ſame. For as the Word condemneth none, but with reſpect to actuall ſinne; no more doth the Word juſtifie any, (Jewes or Gentiles) but with reſpect to actuall Faith. And as every ones own faith inrighteth to life; ſo everyones own faith inrighteth to the priviledges of life.

Silvanus.It is true, the Goſpel holdeth forth Abraham for a Father, and ſo for a root both to Jews and Gentiles that believe, Rom. 4.11, 12. But in Rom. 11.16. the Apoſtle holdeth forth Abraham as the root of the Jews who were his naturall branches, not by faith, as you would have it, but by naturall generation through grace borne under his Covenant, in oppoſition to the Gentiles, yea, to the believing Gentiles. For he maketh the rejection of the Jews, a meanes of the converſion of the Gentiles: and the converſion of the Gentiles a meanes of the converſion of the Jewes at laſt: and the converſion of the Jewes a meanes of awakening and reviving of the Gentiles, verſe 15. And this he proveth from the holineſſe of their root Abraham: and thereupon inferreth the calling on of the Jews unto holineſſe, verſe 16. And though for the preſent the Jews be as branches broken off through their infidelity; and the Gentiles by faith received into their place, verſe 17. yet he exhorteth them not to boaſt againſt the Jews, verſe 18. nor to be high minded in themſelves, verſe 20. For if the Gentiles, which had been branches of the olive tree wilde by nature, were contrary to nature graffed into the good olive tree; then much more ſhall the Jewes, which are the naturall branches, be graffed into their owne Olive tree, verſe 24. which argueth evidently, that he ſpeaketh of the Jewes as the naturall branches of Abraham; and that not by faith (for then why were they broken off? as it is ſaid. God ſpared not the naturall branches, verſe 21.) but by naturall generation borne (through grace) both of the Ioynes and Covenant of Abraham; and ſo their converſion is inferred to proceed more kindly and naturally, then did the converſion of the Romans and other Gentiles. For they were not cut off from the wilde olive, as the Gentiles were: but onelyonly broken off from the good olive for a ſeaſon, that they might much more readily and freely bee graffed into their owne olive againe; to wit, with much more liberty and free paſſage of grace, in the channell of the Covenant.

p. 81Again it is not true, that you ſay, that the Jews were broken off onelyonly for their want of actuall believing the Goſpel, and for their oppoſing of the ſame ſimply. For Stephen beareth witneſſe againſt them, they had reſiſted the holy Ghoſt from the days of their Fathers. And that there was none of the Prophets, but whom their Fathers had perſecuted, as themſelves had alſo betrayed and murthered the Lord Jeſus, Acts 7.51, 52. But yet after all this actuall unbeliefe in Chriſt, and their oppoſition againſt Chriſt, the Apoſtles ſtill kept communion with them as the Church and people of God (as hath been ſhewed above) Acts 3.1. & 13.15, 26. untill they did not onelyonly not believe, and actually oppoſe the Goſpel, but wilfully and obſtinately, malignantly and blaſphemouſly reſiſt and perſecute the cleare light of the Goſpel, Act. 13.45, 46. And as upon the Parents actuall malicious perſecution of the Goſpel, not onelyonly themſelves, but their children alſo were caſt out of the Covenant, who had yet no hand in their parents blaſphemy and perſecution; ſo the Gentiles upon their actuall believing and profeſſion of the faith, they were received into Covenant, and by like proportion their children alſo, who did not expreſſe their actuall faith for receiving in, …o more then the children of the Jews did expreſſe their actuall unbeliefe for their caſting off.

Againe, it is not true that you ſay, the Word condemneth none but for actuall ſinne. For by the offence of one (to wit, of the firſt Adam) judgement or guilt came upon all men to condemnation, Rom. 5.18. And by that one man ſinne entred into the world, and death by ſin, and ſo death paſſed upon all men, even upon them that had not ſinned, after the ſimilitude of Adams tranſpreſſion, (to wit, actually, and of their owne accord, as Adam did) Rom. 5.12, 14.

And whereas you ſay, the Word doth not juſtifie any, but with reſpect to actuall faith:

There is an ambiguity in your word, actuall faith; for actuall faith may be meant, either faith actually indwelling in the heart; or faith actually expreſſing it ſelfe in ſome acts or fruits of profeſſion. If you meane actuall faith in the former ſenſe, it is true what you ſay, but nothing to the purpoſe. For though God doth not juſtifie any but with reſpect to actuall faith; yet many are within the Covenant whom God doth not juſtifie; elſe all the houſe of Iſrael, whoſe carkaſſes fell in the wilderneſſe, and with whom p. 82God was not pleaſed, had been all of them juſtified, for they were all in the Covenant. If you mean actuall faith in the latter ſenſe, your ſpeech is untrue. For God doth juſtifie many, whoſe faith doth not actually expreſſe it ſelfe in fruits of profeſſion. For they who are filled with the holy Ghoſt from the wombe (as John Baptiſt, and Jeremy were) they are ſanctified: And they who are ſanctified, are alſo juſtified: And yet their faith did not at that age expreſſe it ſelfe actually in fruits of profeſſion.

Neither is it a commodious or true ſpeech, that as every mans owne faith in Chriſt enrights him to life; ſo every mans owne faith in Chriſt enrights him to the priviledges of life.

For faith it ſelfe is the life of the ſoule (the juſt man liveth by his faith:) and is it a convenient ſpeech, yea, is it not abſurd to ſay, faith enrights to it ſelfe? But what is it that enrights to faith, and and ſo to life by faith? Is it not the Covenant of grace, by which God hath promiſed to write his Law (even the Law of faith, as well as of all holineſſe) in the hearts of the choſen children of his Covenant? Jer. 31.33.

As for the priviledg… of life, if you meane juſtification, glorification, and the ſaving mercies of the Covenant, your ſpeech is true, every mans owne faith enrights him to them; but that is nothing to the purpoſe. For many have had right in the Covenant, who yet have fallen ſhort of the ſure mercies of the Covenant. But if you meane by the priviledges of life, the Covenant, and the ſeale of it; it is not true, that every mans faith, (and none elſe) enrights him to ſuch priviledges of life. For the faith of Abraham enrighted Iſmael, and the ſaith of Iſaac enrighted Eſau to the Covenant, and to the ſeale thereof (Circumciſion) and not their owne faith, which they never had.

Silveſter.The generall ſcope of the Apoſtles diſcourſe in this 11 Chapter to the Romans, is concerning the breaking off of the Jews, and the occaſion thereof, as alſo their calling by the Goſpel. Now the Jews were the people of God in a twofold conſideration.

Firſt, as a Nationall people deſcending from the loynes of Abraham by naturall generation after the fleſh.

Secondly, ſome of them God owned in a more ſpeciall manner, with reference to his gracious Covenant made with Abraham, and eſtabliſhed with Iſaac, and his ſeed after him for an everlaſting Covenant: which cannot bee the eſtate of the p. 83whole Nation; for then all of them had been in a true ſaving eſtate of grace; and ſo all ſaved: or elſe fallen from grace: But in this whole body there was a Church conſiſting of an holy Aſſembly of Worſhip and Worſhippers, a ſpirituall ſtate; all the whole body with theſe held …mmunion together, becauſe God tooke into one body, that whole Nation for his own people. And all theſe ſpringing out of Abrahams loynes, did aſſume to themſelves an equall right and priviledge in Gods gracious Covenant made with Abraham and his ſeed, ſuppoſing God had bound his Covenant generally upon him and his ſeed, in his naturall generation after the fleſh. But God reſpected in the ſame onelyonly his choſen in Chriſt with whom hee confirmed his Covenant with Iſaac in reference to Chriſt, Gen. 17. Gal. 3.

Whom in Gods owne time he calleth to the faith; and theſe the Apoſtle ever defends againſt the generall rejection of that Nation. For though ſuch were rejected as were not elected, yet this made not the promiſe of God of none effect to thoſe who ſtood firme in the Covenant by grace in Chriſt Jeſus, as branches in their root, which grace the …ſt oppoſed, and were caſt off for their unbeliefe. And when the fu…neſſe of Gods time is come to call them to beliefe, they ſhall be received againe into their former eſtate, as alive from the dead, as Rom. 11.23, 24. Luke 15.24. Therefore the Apoſtle after hee hath proved the rejection of the Jews, hee labours to make good the faithfulneſſe of God in his promiſe of grace, and the effectuall power of the Goſpel in the ſaving effects thereof, in ſuch as believe through grace, though the Jewes in their Nationall reſpect were rejected, and few of them gained to the truth. And hee giveth a reaſon of it thus: Though the Jewes were all of them under an outward forme of profeſſion of Gods name and truth, yet there was but a remnant whom hee approved of in the Covenant according to his election of grace, unto whom the promiſe of life did belong, Rom. 11.5, 7. Now to theſe Gods ſpeciall care is to performe his Covenant, and all that he promiſed to them in their father Abraham, with reference to Chriſt, in whom, as the root, God eſtabliſhed his Covenant for theſe his holy branches, Rom, 11.12. & verſe. 26.

Now the lump generally conſidered comprehends all, both the firſt fruits and the latter: For except the firſt fruits were part of p. 84the lumpe, it could not give teſtimony that the lumpe was holy; which lumpe is Gods elect in Chriſt, with reference to their believing in him, and ſo the approved ſubjects of Gods gracious Covenant, and heires aprarent to the Kingdome of Chriſt, as were Abraham, Iſaac, and J…cob, believing, the firſt fruits of that lumpe. They firſt appearing in the Covenant of grace in a viſible way by faith, they were holy. And ſo that remnant which God had ſtill among them, was holy, with reference to the ſame eſtate the firſt fruits were in. The ſame conſideration is to bee had of the lumpe, with reference to that eſtate which God in his time ſhall call them unto by his Goſpel, and ſo are holy alſo: for this muſt reſpect a viſible holineſſe ſuitable to that in the firſt fruits, otherwiſe it maketh nothing to the thing in hand.

Now a word or two alſo of the root and branches; the root here, is that from which the Jewes were cut off, and the Gentiles graffed in. And that is not onelyonly believing Parents, (and ſo the ſame with the firſt fruits) but Chriſt myſtically conſidered, with reference to the rules of Order, Ordinances, and Government laid downe in the New Teſtament, for all ſuch to believe and ſubmit unto, whom God approveth true ſubjects of the ſame. In which reſpect Chriſt is called a vine, a root, and the foundation, Joh. 15.1, Rom. 15.12. Rev. 5.5, 22, 16. Iſa. 28.16. 1 Cor. 3.11. Epheſ. 2.20.

That the root is meant Chriſt as aforeſaid, appeareth,

Firſt, in that he is the root or olive tree out of which the Jewes are caſt, and the Gentiles graffed in, Rom. 11.17, 19, 23, 24.

Secondly, in that the Apoſtle chargeth the Gentiles, that if they boaſt themſelves againſt the Jewes, they beare not the root, but the root them, verſ. 18. That is, thou appeareſt not to have the truth of grace, and ſo not the true nature of the truth and life of Chriſt in thy heart, but onelyonly an outward forme of the profeſſion of him, as John 15.2.

Thirdly, from the conſideration of that which the Jewes refuſed, and the Gentiles received, which was Chriſt aforeſaid. Therefore it is Chriſt in his myſticall Order and Government amongſt his Saints, that is here the root and olive tree with his Spirit in his Ordinances iſſuing forth ſap, and fatneſſe of life p. 85and comfort into every believing heart, as a branch of the ſame.

This will yet more clearly appeare, if we conſider what was the Jews owne naturall root and olive tree, whereof they were naturall branches onelyonly by faith, as the Apoſtle ſo declares them. Verſ. 20, 21, 24. which was union and communion onelyonly with God in all his Divine Ordinances and Worſhip, which in the Old Teſtament was Moſaicall and typicall, in which reſpect the Jewes were the firſt that ever God tooke in communion with himſelfe in ſuch an holy way of Worſhip, and therefore called the firſt fruits of his love, and naturall branches, which order and manner of Worſhip (but not the matter) was changed at the comming of Chriſt in the fleſh, and a new forme and order ſet up by him, called the Goſpel or New Teſtament; which order the Jews oppoſed, and were rejected: Chriſt the ſure foundation laid in Zion, becomming a ſtumbling ſtone, and rock of offence to the Jews, the Kingdome of God was taken from them; that is, they were caſt out of fellowſhip and communion with God, in reſpect of his Worſhip, for their unbeliefe: and the Gentiles that did ſubmit to the Goſpel, were taken in by faith in Chriſt, to bee his worſhippers and heires both of grace …d glory. And when God pleaſeth to call the Jews by the Goſpel to beleeve in his Son, and to ſubmit to him, as he is the Mediator of the New Teſtament, then ſhall they be received in againe into their old fellowſhip and communion with God according to the order of Moſes. And thus the Apoſtle proves their firſt eſtate to be holy, as the firſt fruits of th…t holy and bleſſed relation wherein they ſtood towards God by faith. From which they for their unbelief are cut off; and the Gentiles by faith admitted in, of meere grace, and not to boaſt. And yet there is a remnant of them to be called as the Lumpe, and a ſecond fruit, which are alſo holy in reference to the ſame holy root as aforeſaid. And as the root is holy, ſo ſhall theſe branches be when they come to bee graffed in againe to their own root and olive tree, as at the firſt, which is union and communion with God in his holy way of Worſhip. And ſo much of the root or olive tree, which muſt bee underſtood of Chriſt myſtically conſidered; and not of beleeving Parents, as aforeſaid. Now a word of the branches, which being holy, are believers onelyonly in the Apoſtles ſenſe.

p. 86Firſt, they are branches onelyonly, as they ſubſiſt and grow in the root or vine, and ſo beare the true nature of the ſame, by which they appear to be holy by the fruits therof. Chriſt being the root or vine as aforeſaid, the branches can no way be ſaid to ſubſiſt and grow in him as their root but onelyonly by faith, and hee in them by his Spirit, without which there is no holineſſe in the Apoſtles ſenſe, who ſpeaketh of ſuch an holineſſe as is produced in the branch by the holy root, in which it ingrows, and ſo partakes of the nature of the root, by vertue of union and communion which it hath with the ſame. All which is by faith, as the word revealeth.

Secondly, there is no branch that is alive in the vine, but partakes of the ſap and life of the ſame: by vertue of which the branch, though never ſo young and ſmall, is diſcovered to be alive, and inabled to bring forth (in its ſeaſon) ſuch fruit, as whereby the ſame may be diſcerned. So it is hereby the ſpirituall branches, they cannot properly bee called branches in the Apoſtles ſenſe, but as they partake of the life and grace of Chriſt, (their true vine and olive tree) by which they appeare (at the leaſt) to bee alive in him by faith, and enabled by the ſame to bring forth ſuch fruits as may diſcover them to bee in Covenant of grace, and ſo to be admitted …to the priviledges thereof; as, John 15.1, 7. Nature it ſelf teacheth as much; for no man will admit of dead plants to be ſet in his vineyard, or graffed into a ſtock, but onelyonly ſuch as are capable to comply with the ſame in the ſap, and nouriſhment thereof, to the end it may grow and bring forth fruit; and ſo it is with Chriſt, who commeth not ſhort of nature. And therefore hee admits not of any dead plants to be ſet in his ſpirituall vineyard, nor dead members to bee joyned in his myſticall body, but onelyonly ſuch as are capable by faith to comply with the head. Neither tooke he for himſelf a compound body, conſiſting both of living and dead members, which all are that have not a living principle of grace and faith in him, which unbelievers have not, no nor all the Infants of believers, nor any at all, untill they are born again of the Spirit, Joh. 3.5, 6. The Church of God, which is the myſticall body of Chriſt, is not a mixt company, but onelyonly one ſubſtantiall and royall ſubſtance ſuitable to her head and matter, by which ſhe was produced, being the immortall ſeed of the Word. And therefore one holy, ſpirituall, uniforme, compacted body, both for nature and p. 87forme, Cant. 6.9. Mal. 2.15. Epheſ. 2.14. to 22. Job. 4.23. All which conſidered, proves the body of Chriſt, or Church of God under the New Teſtament not to conſiſt of unbelievers, nor of Infants, neither in whole nor in part: and ſo the branches aforeſaid, not to be underſtood of unbelievers, or infants, but of believers onelyonly.

That which you ſay,Silvanus. that the Jewes were the people of God in a twofold conſideration. Firſt, as a nationall people deſcended from the loynes of Abraham by naturall generation according to the fleſh. Secondly, ſome of them owned in a more ſpeciall manner with reference to his gracious Covenant, made with Abraham and eſtabliſhed with Iſaac, &c. This is not rightly ſpoken according to the tenor of Scripture language. For none of the Jews (much leſſe the whole Nation) was the people of God as they deſcended from the loynes of Abraham by Naturall generation according to the fleſh, but onelyonly with reference to his gracious Covenant made with Abraham, and with his ſeed after him. If you ſet aſide the conſideration of the Covenant, the ſeed of the moſt holy of Gods Saints are children of wrath, and not a people of God.

Neither let this ſeem to you of dangerous conſequence, that if God accounted the whole Nation of the Jewes to bee his people with reference to his gracious Covenant, then all the whole Nation muſt have been in a true and ſaving eſtate of grace, and ſo all of them either ſaved, or fallen from a ſtate of grace. For this conſequence will not follow, as hath been ſhewed above. But it is true that you ſay, that God did in a ſpeciall manner owne Iſaac and ſo all the elect ſeed, with whom he eſtabliſhed his Covenant, not ſo with Iſmael. And yet it may not be denyed, that God did eſtabliſh his Covenant to all the ſeed of Iſaac by Jacob, and that not onelyonly to the elect ſeed, but to the whole Nation, till the ten Tribes rejected not onelyonly the houſe of David, and the Worſhip of God in the Temple, (where God had put his name:) but alſo the Miniſtery of the Prophets whom God ſent to reclaime them, as afterwards the two Tribes of Judah and Benjamin (commonly called the Jewes) rejected Davids Lord, the Lord Jeſus and his righteouſneſſe, and the Miniſtry of the Apoſtles. But before that rejection evident it is, that in the wilderneſſe God did by his gracious Covenant even eſtabliſh the whole Nationall poſterity of Jacob to be a people to himſelfe, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13. And p. 88the Word uſed in the originall for the eſtabliſhing of the whole Nation to become Gods people (ver. 13.) is the very ſame which God uſed when he promiſed to eſtabliſh his Covenant with Iſaac, Gen. 17.19. And therefore it is not true which you ſay, That in the naturall children of Abraham, God onelyonly reſpected his choſen in Chriſt, with whom he confirmed his Covenant with Iſaac in reference to Chriſt. For the words of the Text doe plainly expreſſe; that God by Covenant did confirme or eſtabliſh the whole houſe of Iacob to be a people to himſelfe, according to the Covenant which he had ſworn to Abraham, Iſaac, and Iacob, Deut. 29.13. whence it was that (as the Apoſtle ſaith) to the Iſraelites (one and other) pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the Covenants, and the law, and the ſervice of God, and the promiſes, &c. Rom. 9.4. where he ſpeaketh of ſuch Iſraelites, as for whom he had great heavineſſe, and continuall ſorrow in his heart in reſpect of their unbelief, verſ. 2.

Nevertheleſſe, this I willingly grant you; that God had a ſpeciall reſpect to the elect and faithfull ſeed, as to whom hee reſerved the effectuall application of the ſpirituall and ſure mercies of the Covenant, though the externall diſpenſation of the Covenant, and of the ſeales of the Covenant, and of all the Ordinances of Gods worſhip was generally granted to all the ſeed, whether elect or non-elect, faithfull or hypocrites. But to paſſe by your generall diſcourſe of the ſtate of the people of the Jews in the Old Teſtament, let us attend to that which commeth nearer to the argument in hand, to wit, to the generall ſcope of the Apoſtles diſcourſe in the 11. Chapter of the Epiſtle to the Romans; which you ſay is, concerning the breaking off of the Jewes, and the occaſion thereof, as alſo their calling by the Goſpel; wherein you tell me, the Apoſtle ever defends the faithfull ſeed of the Jews againſt the generall rejection of that Nation.

And it is true, he doth ſo in the former part of the chapter from ver. 1. to 10. but that is not his generall ſcope throughout the whole Chapter. For his general ſcope is to declare three things touching the rejection of the Jews.

Firſt, that it is not univerſall, ver. 1. to 10. Secondly, that it is not unprofitable, ver. 11. Thirdly, that it is not irrecoverable, which he prophecyeth, proveth, and amplifyeth, v. 12. to the end of the Chapter. For the 1. That their rejection was not univerſall, he proveth, firſt from his owne example, who was an Iſraelite, p. 89ver. 1. 2. From Gods fore knowledge which is immutable, ver. 2. 3. From the like reſervation, which God made of a remnant, in the dayes of Elijah, ver. 3, 4, 5, 6. And this reſerving of a remnant he amplifieth by the cauſe, the election of grace, ver. 5, 6. And by the contrary, the rejection of the reſt, which he proveth by the teſtimony of Iſay 7.8. alſo of David, ver. 9, 10. And thus farre he defendeth the faithfull ſeed of the Jewes againſt the generall rejection of that Nation.

2. He proveth that their rejection is not unprofitable, by giving an inſtance, in an unſpeakable bleſſing, which thereby redounded unto the Gentiles, to wit, the ſalvation of the Gentiles, ver. 11.

3. That their rejection is not irrecoverable or finall, but on the contrary, that their reſtoring and converſion is to be expected,

He proveth firſt, from the great benefit which hee prophecyeth ſhall thereby redound to the Gentile-churches, which will be our riches and fulneſſe, and as it were our life from the dead. And that he proveth by an argument from the leſſe, ver. 12, 15.

Secondly, he proveth their converſion is to bee expected by the end of his owne Miniſtery, which he profeſſeth to bee to ſave the Gentiles, for this end, that ſo hee may provoke the Jewes to the emulation of the Gentiles in receiving of the Goſpel, and by that meanes ſave ſome of them, ver. 13, 14. and thereby alſo bring on a greater increaſe of light and life to the Gentiles, ver. 15.

Thirdly, he proveth their rejection is not irrecoverable, but rather that there is certain ground of their converſion from the holineſſe of their Anceſtors, which deriveth in like ſort holineſſe to them, as the firſt fruits being holy, derive holineſſe (by Gods inſtitution) to the whole lump; and the root being holy, deriveth holineſſe (by Gods Covenant) to the branches, ver. 16.

Whereupon, by the way he inſerteth a grave admonition to the Church of Rome, to beware of boaſting, either againſt the Jewes for their Apoſtaſie, or within themſelves for their owne ſtability in the ſaith. For the Holy Ghoſt did foreſee that the Church of Rome, (above all the Churches of the Gentiles) would bee moſt forward to boaſt of their infallibility and ſtability in the faith, by reaſon of the promiſe pretended to be made to Peters Chaire, above all the promiſes made to Hieruſalem of old; which boaſting, the Apoſtle repreſſeth, 1. By calling them to conſider their former ſtate, they were branches of the olive tree wilde by nature, verſ. 17. 2. By putting them in minde they received the Goſpel p. 90from the Iewes, not the Iewes from them, thou beareſt not the root, but the root thee, v. 18.3. By the greater danger or poſſibility of apoſtaſie and rejection of the Romans, then of the Iewes: for if God ſpared not the naturall branches (to wit, the Iewes) take heed leſt he alſo ſpare not thee, v. 19. to 22. 4. He both together repreſſeth the Arrogancy of the Romans, and withall proveth that the Rejection of the Iewes is not irrecoverable, but their converſion more hopefull, then the converſion of the Romans was, by an Argument taken both from Gods power, v. 23. and alſo from the naturall eſtate of the branches, v. 24. which maketh their converſion more eaſy, If thou Roman wert cut off the Olive Tree, which is wild by nature, and wert (by a power above nature) graffed contrary to nature into a good Olive Tree: how much more ſhall theſe which be naturall Branches, bee graffed into their owne Olive Tree? 5. He Repreſſeth the ſame Arrogancy of the Romans, and with all proveth the converſion of the Iewes, by a word of prophecy both by his owne Teſtimony, v. 25. and by the Teſtimony of the Prophet Iſay, v. 26, 27.

6 Hee proſecuteth the ſame concluſion of the converſion of the Jewes, and demonſtration, that their rejection is not ſmall, and irrecoverable, by an argument taken from the immutability of Gods electing love to the children of ſuch, whoſe fathers he hath given an effectuall calling unto, in the fellowſhip of his Covenant of grace, v. 28, 29.

7 He proveth and amplifieth the ſame by an argument à Pari, from equalls, thus, As you when you were unbeleivers have now obtained mercy through their unbeleife: ſo they now not beleiving ſhall obtaine mercy through your mercy, v. 30, 31, 32. Finally he concludeth all with an holy and Affectionate Admiration of the depth of the riches of the knowledge and wiſedome of God in theſe his unſearchable Iudgements and wayes, v. 33. to 36.

I have the more fully opened to you the Analyſis of this whole chapter, that you may the better diſcern both the true ſcope of the Apoſtle, and withall your owne fallacy in perverting the Apoſtes ſcope to ſuch a meaning as will not ſuite with his words. For you ſo carry the Apoſtles ſcope, as if he wholly intended throughout all this diſcourſe to defend a remnant of faithfull Iewes againſt the generall Apoſtaſie and rejection of p. 91that Nation. And leſt it might appeare that the Apoſtle had a principall ayme in the latter halfe of the chapter, to prove (as he evidently doth) the converſion and reſtoring of the Nation from the ſtate of Apoſtaſie and infidelity unto the Faith of Chriſt, and his Goſpell, you would have the Apoſtle underſtood to ſpeake of the Iewes in a ſtate of faith and holineſſe, and the whole lumpe of them to be holy by faith, as their firſt fruits Abraham, Iſaac, and Iacob. And leſt it ſhould be thought that God will convert and reſtore the Iewes (as ſome of the Apoſtles Arguments carry it) out of reſpect to his Covenant with their holy Anceſtors Abraham, Iſaaoc, and Iacob, (out of whom they deſcended as branches out of a root) you would have the root not to be meant, their holy Anceſtors, but Chriſt: and themſelves to be holy not by vertue of any Covenant of God with their Anceſtors, (for that you ſee would fetch in Infants, and others of their Naturall ſeede within the bounds and benefit of the Covenant) but by vertue of their actuall Union and Communion with Chriſt through faith in his Name. And leſt it ſhould be humbled at (as juſtly it might) why the Apoſtle ſhould ſpend ſo many Arguments to prove the reſtoring and ingraffing of the Iewes into Chriſt after …y have come to injoy Union and Communion with Chriſt, you would have Chriſt to be underſtood not perſonally (as a Redeemer and (Saviour but myſtically as he is the head of the Church and one body with it, and ſo their reſtoring to be nothing elſe but receiving into Church-fellowſhip in the Order, and Worſhip and Government thereof. Such hard ſhifts the wits of men will make to ſeek any evaſions to avoid the light and power of the truth of the word, when it will not ſtand with their owne foreſtalled imaginations. But let us conſider how you goe about to make theſe imaginations of your owne, to ſtand with the Apoſtles words. The lumpe (ſay you) generally conſidered comprehendeth all both the firſt fruits and the latter: for except the firſt fruits were part of the lump, it could not give Teſtimony that the whole lump was holy, which lump ſo conſidered is Gods elect in Chriſt with reference to their beleivin… on him, and ſo the apparent Subjects of Gods gracious Covenant, a remnant according to Gods election with reference to Faith, appearing in Abrahams, Iſaacks, and Iacobs beleeving, as the firſt fruits of the ſame.

Where 1. It may be marvelled why you ſhould make the holy p. 92Anceſtors of the Jewes, Abraham, Iſaac, and Iacob, the firſt fruits of the Jewes: and yet not make them in like ſort, the roote alſo. For the Apoſtle putteth no difference between the firſt fruits and the Roote, but ſpeaketh of them as two ſimilies to expreſſe one and the ſame thing: If the firſt fruits be holy, ſo is the whole lumpe; If the roote be holy, ſo are the branches, v. 16. And as Chriſt is in ſome other places of Scripture called a Roote, ſo is he alſo called the firſt fruits, 1 Cor. 15.20, 23. And ſure hee hath the firſt preheminence in all relations of holineſſe and grace unto his people. But let your interpretation ſtand ſo farre; let the firſt fruits of the lumpe of the Jewes be the holy Anceſtors of the Jewes, that is indeed the true meaning of the Apoſtle here; onelyonly conſider if you can ſee any cauſe why you ſhould not as well take them in like ſort for the root alſo.

2. Why ſhould you make the firſt fruits part of the lump, more then the root part of the branches? As the firſt fruits bee to the lumpe; ſo is the root to the branches. The root is not part of the branches, though they be both part of the tree: No more are the firſt fruits part of the lumpe, though they bee both parts of the fruits of the field: The firſt fruits are ripe before the reſt of the fruits of the field: and being firſt reaped and preſenced … the Lord, and accepted as holy unto him, they make the whole lumpe left in the field holy alſo.

Obj…ct. But (ſay you) except the firſt fruits were par… of the lumpe, they could not give teſtimony that the lumpe was holy.

Anſw. Both parts of this reaſon are unſound; for neither doe the firſt fruits give teſtimony that the lumpe is holy; nor is it neceſſary, that that which giveth teſtimony of the holineſſe of another, ſhould be part of the ſame. Paul gave teſtimony of the holineſſe of ſuch children, of whom either Parent was holy, yet he was no part of them himſelf.

Beſides, the firſt fruits did not give teſtimony that the lumpe was holy, (their hallowing of the lumpe was not by way of teſtimony, or as one part of an Homogeneall body giveth teſtimony of the whole, as one cup of good wine out of a veſſell giveth teſtimony, that all the wine in that veſſell is good) but by way of a morall inſtrumentall efficient cauſe: God accepting the firſt fruits of the field, given to himſelfe as holy; he therefore alloweth to the owner an holy uſe of the whole lumpe of the fruits of his field.

p. 933. Take that for granted (which is in it ſelfe not much materiall) that the firſt fruits were part of the lumpe: what will follow thereupon? Why then (ſaith the Author) as thoſe firſt fruits of that bleſſed crop in Gods holy Covenant were holy by faith, and ſo appeared: ſo is the lumpe out of which theſe firſt fruits appeared by faith, as part of the ſame, holy alſo in the ſame conſideration. For this muſt reſpect a viſible holineſſe ſuitable to that of the firſt fruits: otherwiſe it maketh nothing to the thing in hand.

But how can this collection ariſe out of this compariſon of the firſt fruits? The firſt fruits of the field were viſibly preſented to the Lord in his Sanctuary, and being viſibly accepted, appeared viſibly to be holy. But as for the lumpe of the fruits of the field, there was no viſible appearance, either of their preſentation in the Sanctuary before the Lord, or of the Lords viſible acceptance of them, but onelyonly in their firſt fruits. And ſo indeed it is here, the firſt fruits of Gods holy Covenant, Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob, being holy by faith, and accepted of God as holy to himſelfe, they viſibly appeared ſo to be. And through their holineſſe, and Gods acceptance of them, and of their ſeed in his holy Covenant, the lumpe of their poſterity from their infancy upward, were holy alſo, though they did not appeare in viſible holineſſe, till in fulneſſe of time they came to be preſented before the Lord in his Temple. And neither then did they appeare viſibly holy by their owne faith, but by the faith of their Parents preſenting them to the Lord.

But (ſay you) if there be not a viſible holineſſe in the lumpe ſuitable to that in the firſt fruits, it maketh nothing for the thing in hand.

I willingly grant you that the Apoſtles intendment here, is to prove the converſion of the Jewes not onelyonly to a relative holineſs ſuitable to the holineſſe that was in the firſt fruits their Anceſtors of old, which was viſible in their Fathers, and credible in their Infants by vertue of the Covenant, and viſible ſeale of it. But herein you commit a double prevarication in your plea: 1. That you will not allow ſuch an holineſſe to be found in the Jewes after they ſhall come to be converted, as is ſuitable unto the holineſſe of their Anceſtors. For their holineſſe reached from parents to their infant ſeed. But you would wholly exclude their infants in the New Teſtament. Againe, whereas the Apoſtle a…gueth the p. 94converſion of the Jewes unto holineſſe from the holy Covenant of their Anceſtors, and ſo would make the holineſſe of their Anceſtors a meanes to derive holineſſe to them, you would utterly make void the force of that argument. For the Apoſtles argument proceedeth from the vertue of the firſt fruits by Gods inſtitution to ſanctifie the whole lumpe; but you will admit no ſuch vertue or efficacy by Gods inſtitution in the holy Covenant of their Anceſtors, as to derive holineſſe to their poſterity, which is to make the Apoſtles argument and compariſon of none effect.

4. This let me further adde, that whereas you in this diſcourſe of the firſt fruits and lump ſpeake of the Jewes to bee converted, as but a remnant: The Apoſtle declareth himſelfe to the contrary, that then all Iſrael ſhall be ſaved, Rom. 11.26. Yea, not onelyonly a body of the Jewes, but of the ten Tribes alſo, all Iſrael, according to what Ezekiel had prophecyed of old, Ezek. 37.16. to 22. And indeed, when the Apoſtle calleth the converſion of Iſrael a myſtery, (Rom. 11.25.) he giveth us to expect a more generall converſion of them, then of a remnant. The Apoſtle in like ſort called the converſion of the Gentiles a myſtery, Epheſ. 3.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. And a myſtery (and hidden ſecret) indeed it was to the Jews of old; and yet it was never a myſtery to them the converſion of a remnant, or of a ſprinkling of the Gentiles, but the comming in of ſuch a great body and multitude of the Gentiles, that was indeed a myſtery to them. And ſo is the converſion of the Jewes a myſtery now unto the Gentiles, not the converſion of a remnant, but of ſo great a multitude and body of the houſe of Iſrael, as have been ſcattered like dry dead bones (Ezek. 37.) that indeed ſeemeth to be a myſtery like the reſurrection from the dead, whereto the Apoſtle reſembleth it.

To proceed to the other compariſon of the Apoſtle which was taken from the holineſſe of the root conveying holineſſe to the branches, to prove the converſion of the Jewes to holineſſe from the holineſſe of their Anceſtors.

Whereto your Author anſwereth. By root is meant not onelyonly believing Parents, and ſo the ſame with firſt fruits, but Chriſt myſtically conſidered with reference to rules of Order, Ordinances, and Government of his Church laid downe in the New Teſtament. In which reſpect he is called a vine, a root, and foundation.

p. 95Anſw. I know no reaſon why the root in this Text ſhould bee meant not onelyonly their believing parents (their holy Anceſtors) but Chriſt alſo, as hath been touched afore. OnelyOnly it ſeemeth you were afraid, that if believing Parents, or holy Anceſtors were brought in, as any means of the converſion of their poſterity unto faith and holineſſe, it would eſtabliſh the vertue and continuance of the Covenant of grace from Parents to children, now in the dayes of the New Teſtament; the which you carefully ſhun. And therefore though you cannot but ſee, that the firſt fruits, and the root are uſed and applyed in one and the ſame ſenſe, and to the ſame purpoſe, and ſo are forced to confeſs, that as by the firſt fruits, ſo by the root is meant believing Parents; yet you will have the root to be meant, not onelyonly believing Parents, but Chriſt: and indeed you bring ſuch arguments for Chriſt, as doe ſeeme to reſtrain it wholly to Chriſt, and (in a manner) to exclude believing Parents. But all in vaine; for neither will your Arguments evince, Chriſt to be here expreſly intended by the Apoſtle, (but onelyonly by conſequence) neither will we deny that Chriſt, and fellowſhip with Chriſt is intended in their fellowſhip with the root, though by the root bee here expreſly meant their holy Anceſtors.

It is true, Chriſt is called in Scripture phraſe, the vine, the root, the foundation, and ſo indeed he is primarily and eminently. But nevertheleſſe, the Church alſo is called a vine, Eſa. 5.1. Pſal. 80, 8. And Abraham called a root, Mat. 3.10. and the rock out of which the houſe of Iſrael was hewed, Eſa. 51.1. And the Apoſtles are called foundations, Epheſ. 2.20. Rev. 21.14. yea, every righteous man is called an everlaſting foundation, Prov. 10.25. And therefore it is not the name of a root, that will caſt the root to be here meant of Chriſt, and not of Abraham.

"Yes, (ſay you) for firſt, Chriſt is here the root or olive tree, ou… of which the Jews are caſt, and the Gentiles graffed in, Rom. 11.17, 19, 23, 24.

Anſw. The Church is called an olive tree (as well as a vine) yea and the branches of it are ſaid to be broken off, Jer. 11.16. And when the Axe is ſaid by John Baptist to bee laid to the root of the tree…, Mat. 3.10. It is his meaning to threaten the Jewes, that God is about to cut them off from the Covenant of their father Abraham, of whom they were the off-ſpring and the branches. And thereby he confirmeth his admonition to them in the former verſe, p. 96(verſ. 9.) thinke not (ſaith hee) to ſay with your ſelves, wee have Abraham to our Father, for God is able even of theſe ſtones (and ſo of ſtony hearted Gentiles) to raiſe up children unto Abraham. And leſt they might object, that themſelves were the children of Abraham, rooted in him not onelyonly by naturall generation, but by an everlaſting Covenant, he ſtrengtheneth his admonition with this threatening, verſe 10. Now is the Axe laid to the root of the trees, (to wit, to cut off barren branches from the Covenant of Abraham:) every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewen downe, and caſt into the fire. And therefore it is proper enough (according to Scripture phraſe) to interpret the root to be meant of Abraham; and ſurely as fitly in this place of Paul, as in that of Matthew; but whether more proper, wee ſhall ſee anon.

Secondly, ſay you, it appeareth, Chriſt here to bee meant the root, in that the Apoſtle chargeth the Gentiles, that if they boaſt in themſelves againſt the Jewes; Thou beareſt not the root, but the root thee, v. 18. that is, ſay you, thou appeareſt not to have the truth of grace, and ſo not to have the true nature of the root and life of Chriſt in thy heart, but onelyonly an outward form of th… …ofeſſion of him, Job. 15.2.

Anſw. This interpretation the words of the Text will not bear; for if this were the meaning of the Apoſtles words, Thou beareſt not the root, but the root thee; that is, thou appeareſt not to have the truth of grace, and ſo not the true nature of the root, and life of Chriſt in thine heart: Then it will follow, that if the Gentiles did not boaſt, but had indeed the truth of grace, and life of Chriſt in their hearts, then it might be ſaid to the Gentile, the root beareth not thee, but thou beareſt the root: which is indeed contrary to the truth of Religion, yea, to the principles of grace. The abſurdity of this interpretation may give good light to ſhew, that indeed Chriſt is not properly meant to bee the root here ſpoken of. For if Chriſt were here intended to bee the Root, the Apoſtle would not apply this as a check to the arrogancy of the boaſting Gentile, the root beareth thee. For it is no check, but a comfort, yea, the greateſt comfort and ſafety of a true and humble believer, not ſo much that he beareth Chriſt, as that Chriſt beareth him. But take the Apoſtle to meane Abraham to be the root of the Jewes (as the context carryeth it) and then his admonition is grave and weighty againſt the arrogancy of the p. 97boaſting Gentile. If ſome of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wilde olive tree, wer't graffed in among them (that is, among the Jewes) boaſt not thy ſelf againſt the branches. But if thou boaſt, (take this for a check) thou beareſt not the root. Thou art not the ſtock or root into which they were engraffed, but theirs is the root, into which thou art engraffed. For ſalvation is of the Jews (John 4.22.) thou receivedſt it from them, not they from thee: Hieruſalem as a mother bare Rome, not Rome, Hieruſalem. Abraham as a father by his faith, begot thee; as a root by his Covenant, he beareth thee, not thou him, nor the Church of his Covenant.

But thirdly, you argue from the conſideration of that which the Jewes refuſed, and the Gentiles received, that it is Chriſt in his myſticall Order and Government amongſt his Saints, that is here the root and olive tree, who by h… Spirit in his Ordinances iſſueth forth ſap and fatneſſe of life and comfort into every very believing heart, as a branch of the ſame.

Anſw. The weakneſſe and fallacy of this Argument will eaſily appeare, if you caſt it into the forme of an argument, thus it proceedeth.

That which the Jews refuſed, and the Gentiles received, that is the root here ſpoken of, to wit, that root which being holy, the branches alſo are ſo too.

But Chriſt myſtically conſidered, is that which the Jewes refuſed, and the Gentiles received.

And therefore Chriſt myſtically conſidered, is the root here ſpoken of, which being holy, the branches are alſo ſo too.

But here the Major or former Propoſition is juſtly denyed. For though Chriſt himſelfe be a root which the Jewes refuſed, and the Gentiles received, yet hee is not that root here intended, whoſe holineſſe inferreth and concludeth the converſion of the Jewes to holineſſe. But the Apoſtle here ſpeaketh of ſuch a root, who being holy, argueth that his branches, (though now broken off) will come on againe to holineſſe; which cannot bee argned from the holineſſe of Chriſt. For take Chriſt for the root, and will the Apoſtles Argument then follow; If Chriſt be holy, then the Jews (though now broken off) are, or ſhall be holy alſo? Is there any ſoundneſſe in ſuch an inference? If you ſay, Nay, but all that you would infer from thence, is this, that if Chriſt the root bee holy, then the Jewes, when they ſhall come to bee graffed into p. 98him againe, they will be alſo holy: That is true indeed, and needs no proof. But that is not the Apoſtles ſcope, to ſhew that they ſhall be holy, when they are engraffed into Chriſt, but to prove that they ſhall be engraffed into Chriſt, and become holy becauſe their root is holy▪ which will indeed ſtrongly follow, by vertue of the Covenant with Abraham and his ſeed, if Abraham bee here taken for the root, but not ſo, if Chriſt: What then will you ſay? is Abraham better then Chriſt? Not ſo neither; but Christ doth more delight to communicate his grace, rather in the way of the Covenant of his grace, then out of it.

Neither will it appeare (though you ſay it will) that Chriſt is here meant by the Apoſtle to be the root of the Jews, if we conſider what was the Jews own naturall root and olive tree, whereof they were naturall branches onelyonly by faith; as the Apoſtle ſo declareth them, … 20, 21, 24. which was union and communion with God in all his Divine Ordinances of Worſhip, the manner and forme whereof was Moſaicall and typicall in the Old Teſtament, which is now changed in the New, but not the matter, &c. as above.

Anſw. It is utterly untrue which you ſay, that the Jews were the naturall branches of their owne naturall root, onelyonly by faith, and that the Apoſtle ſo declareth them, v. 20, 21, 22. For it is evident the Apoſtle expreſſely declareth the naturall branches not to be ſpared of God, but to be broken off for their unbeliefe, v. 19, 20, 21. And therefore unbeliefe was found in the naturall branches; and then they were not naturall branches onelyonly by faith; for then no naturall branches could have been broken off. Neither could the naturall branches bee ſaid to bee graffed in againe, much more readily then the Romans, v. 24. for the Romans ſtanding by faith, had equally as ready acceſſe unto union and communion with Chriſt in his Ordinances, which you take to bee the root, as the Jewes when they ſhall bee converted to the faith.

It is readily granted, and needed no proofe, that the Jewes of old enjoyed union and communion with Chriſt in the Moſaicall Ordinances of the Old Teſtament (whereof ſome were typicall, and ſome morall.) And it is a confeſſed truth alſo, that God changed the Order and manner of that Worſhip (but not the matter) in the New Teſtament. But that the Jewes were broken off for their oppoſing and rejecting that new order, p. 99is not ſafely ſpoken. For they were broken off for reſiſting and oppoſing the righteouſneſſe of Faith in Chriſt Ieſus. Rom. 10.3. which was no new order brought in by Chriſt in the New Teſtament, but was the principall matter of all their Typicall and Moſaicall Worſhip, which your ſelfe confeſſe was not changed. Beſides it cannot be denyed, That the faithfull and their ſeede was the ſubject matter of the Church, and ſo part of the Order of the Worſhip in the Old Teſtament. And this was neither Moſaicall nor Typicall, but before both. And if the matter of the worſhip bee not changed (though the manner be) then as the faithfull and their (ſeede whether Iews or proſelyte Gentiles) were the ſubject matter of the Church, and a Morall part of church order of old, then are they ſo ſtill, and neither of them to be excluded.

It was wholly needleſſe and impertinent to prove that the Iews were caſt off from Communion with God in his worſhip for their unbeleife, and that the Gentiles who ſubmitted to the Goſpell of Ieſus Chriſt are taken in, and doe ſtand in relation to God by Faith in him: And that the Iews when God ſhall pleaſe to call them by the Goſpell to beleive in his Son, they ſhall be received in againe to fellowſhip and Communion, with God in his ſervice as worſhip, as of old.

But take all this for granted, and yet it reacheth not neare the Apoſtles Words and diſcourſe in this chapter who proveth that the Iews ſhall be called in againe to Faith and Holineſſe, by reaſon of their relation as branches to their root. Which though they be broken off from it by their enmity againſt the the Goſpell; yet they ſtill belong to it, according to the Election of God, and according to his love which by his everlaſting Covenant he bare and promiſed to beare to their Fathers and to their ſeed after them throughout all Generations.

To proceede then. As your diſcourſe of the roote hath not hitherto proved Chriſt to be the roote: So neither will your diſcourſe of the Branches prove either Chriſt to be the root, or the Branches, to be ſuch, and can be no other then ſuch as doe ſubſiſt and grow in Chriſt onelyonly by Faith. For 1. It hath beene (as I conceive) cleared already, that Chriſt is not the roote here meant by the Apoſtle: 2. If the branches be ſuch, and can be no other but ſuch, as doe ſubſiſt and grow in Chriſt onelyonly by Faith, how then came it to paſſe, that the branches were p. 100broken off? can ſuch as doe ſubſiſt in Chriſt (as in a roote) onelyonly by Faith, can they be broken off? What is then become of Chriſts prayer for all that doe, or ſhall beleive on him? Joh. 17.20, 21, 22, 23, 24.

But (ſay you) the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of ſuch branches as are in him by faith and he in them by his ſpirit, without which (Faith and Spirit) there is no holineſſe in the Apoſtles ſenſe.

Anſwer. It is true, the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of ſuch an Holineſſe in the branches (v. 16.) as proceedeth from the Spirit and Faith: But that is an holyneſſe which is not found in all Branches (for then no branches ſhould be cut off, but which ſhall be found in the Iews at their converſion, as the Apoſtle proveth by reaſon of their relation to Abraham as their root, through the grace of his Covenant. But will not prove, that there is no way for the branches to ſubſiſt in the root, but onelyonly by Faith and Spirit. For, theſe branches who ſhall be converted to holineſſe, were in Abraham before by Naturall Generation, and did pertaine to Abrahams Covenant by the grace of Election: by vertue of both which (both of the Election of grace, and of the Covenant of grace) they ſhall come at laſt to be converted to the fellowſhip of the Spirit, and of the faith of Abraham.

But 2. Say you, There is no branch that is alive in Chriſt, but partaketh of the ſap and life of Chriſt, and bringeth forth ſuch fruit, be they never ſo young and ſmall, whereby the ſame may bee diſcerned. So it is here by theſe ſpirituall branches, they cannot properly bee called branches in the Apoſtles ſenſe but as they partake of the life and Grace of Chriſt.

Anſwer. It is true, There is no branch alive in Chriſt, but partakes of the Sap and Life of Chriſt. But it is not true, that every ſuch living branch in Chriſt (bee it never ſo young and ſmall) bringeth forth ſuch fruits whereby the ſame may be diſcerned.

For what diſcernible fruit of the life of Chriſt, did Jeremy ſhew forth, when he was ſanctified from his mothers wombe? Jer. 1.5. Yea, Chriſt himſelfe who was full of the ſpirit of life from his Mothers wombe, what diſcernible fruits thereof did hee bring forth? Doth the Goſpell and ſtory of his life expreſſe any? or can your ſelfe imagine any?

Neither is it true that you ſay, that the ſpirituall branches cannot p. 101properly be called branches in the Apoſtles ſenſe, but as they partake of the life and grace of Chriſt.

For the Apoſtle doth not call them ſpirituall Branches, nor are they all ſuch, unleſſe by ſpirituall, you mean Metaphoricall. But he expreſly calleth them naturall branches, and ſuch as God did not ſpare, but cut them off, v. 21. And therefore they did not all of them partake of the grace and life of Chriſt, but ſome of them were indeed dead and fruitleſſe.

But (ſay you) nature it ſelfe teacheth, no man will admit of dead plants to be ſet in his vineyard, or Graffed into a ſtocke, &c. And ſo it is with Chriſt, who cometh not ſhort of Nature: And th refore he admits not of any dead plants to be ſet in his Vineyard, nor dead members to joyned in his myſticall Body. Neither took he to himſelf a compounded body, conſiſting of living and dead members: And all unbeleivers be dead, and all the infants of beleevers, till they be borne again of the Spirit, Iohn. 3.5.6. Neither is the Church of God (which is the myſticall body of Chriſt) a mixt company, but ſuitable to her head, & to the matter of which he was produced, the immortall ſeed of the word, one holy ſpirituall body. Cant. 6.9. Mal. 2.15.22. Epheſ. 2.14. to Ioh. 4.23. All which proveth the Church of God under the New Teſtament, not to conſiſt of unbeleevers neither in whole, nor in part.

Anſwer. Nature it ſelf ſheweth that in a Vine many dead branches are found: and many that have ſome kinde of life, and yet are not fruitfull: And therefore the husbandman in time cutteth them off: and ſo is it in the ſpirituall Vine; and therefore ſuch dead and fruitleſſe branches, the Father (who is the Husbandman) cutteth them off, Ioh. 15.1, 2. though for a time he may ſpare them, as he did the Barren Figge-tree, foure yeares, Luke, 13. 7, 8, 9. And though no man will admit of dead plants to be ſe… in his Vineyard, or graffed into a ſtock: yet many plants ſet and graffed may prove dead; Men indeed would not willingly admit dead plants to be ſet, or graffed, becauſe they know not what to do with them when they are dead. But if dead plants being ſet or graffed would grow either to be fruitfull, and if not fruitfull, yet to be good fire-wood, it would be no bad husbndry to ſet or graff dead plants. And ſo is it here, God thinks it no bad husbandry in him, to admit dead plants to bee ſet and grow in his Vineyard, and if they grow fruitfull, well, if not, to tolerate them there, till they grow up to fulfill their iniquity (as hee did the Iews, p. 102Mat. 23.32.) becauſe then he knows how to illuſtrate the glory of his juſtice in caſting them into the fire of Hell, John 15.6. Mat. 3.10.

It is true, which you ſay, Chriſt cometh not ſhort of Nature: but in this, he exceedeth Nature. Nature cannot make a dead plant ſet in a Vineyard, or graffed in a ſtock, to grow: But Chriſt can make a dead plant ſet in his Church to grow living and fruitful. For elſe how came John Baptiſts Miniſtry to turn the hearts of ſo many Publicans, ſouldiers, and other people to bring forth fruits meete for repentance? Luke 3.10. to 14. But otherwiſe, if Chriſt make not dead plants ſet in his Church to grow living and fruitfull, he can make them grow up to yeeld more fewell to the fire of his wrath, and to grow ripe for greater damnation. Mat. 23 14. It is utterly therefore untrue which you ſay, that Chriſt admits not of any dead plants to be ſet in his Vineyard: or that he taketh not to himſelf a compounded body of living and dead members: or that the Church of God is not a mixt company &c. For who called Iudas to the Apoſtleſhip? did not the Lord Jeſus himſelfe? Did not hee plant him in his Vineyard? And doth hee not hyre and ſend forth many labourers into his Vineyard, who yet afterwards many of them prove murmurers? Mat. 20.1. to 16. The Church of Chriſt is often in the Goſpell called the Kingdome of Heaven, and in Mat. 25.1. The Kingdome of heaven is given for the ſtile of ſuch Churches, as are moſt pure, ſuch as they will bee after the deſtruction of Antichriſt, and the calling of the Jews prophecyed of in chapter 24. wherein all the members are virgins (none defiled with Antich…iſtian Whoredome:) All ſervants, none enemies: all as clean beaſts, whether ſheep or goats, the goates themſelves being cleane for meate (as chewing the Cud, and dividing the hoofe,) and cleane alſo for ſacrifice. And yet are there not to be found amongſt theſe Virgin-members of the Church, ſome wiſe, ſome fooliſh? amongſt theſe ſervants, ſome thriving, ſome unprofitable? amongſts theſe clean beaſts, ſome ſheep, ſome goates, who ſhall ſtand accurſed at the left hand of Chriſt? It is true, the Church which is the myſticall body of Chriſt, ought to be ſuitable unto Chriſt her head, and to the immortall ſeed of the word, of which ſhee is begotten, and many times ſo ſhee is: but not alwayes every member: yea very ſeldome, every member, if at any time. I cannot tell if at any time, the King that made a Marriage for his ſonne ſhall come in, and not finde one gueſt at p. 103leaſt, that hath not on a Wedding garment, Mat. 22.11. The pl…c… which you alledge to the contrary will not prove it, as that in Cant. 6.9. proveth indeed that whereas Chriſt hath manay Queenes (Churches marryed to him by Covenant, and inveſted with Royall Authority, and more concubines (that enter not by Covenant, nor are indued with authority in the houſe of God) yet one, or ſome few are chaſt and harmeleſſe and undefiled, but ſo a Church may bee when the Doctrine, and Worſhip, and Government thereof is received and adminiſtred according to the pattern, although ſome members have a name to live, but are dead, and have not (as you ſpeake) a living Principle of grace and faith in them. Chriſt himſelfe acknowledgeth one Churth to bee all Faire, and to have no ſpot in her, Cant. 4.7. and that is interpreted by ſome Expoſitors, and (as I take it) moſt fitly of the Primitive Apoſtolick Church at Hieruſalem deſcribed, Acts 2. and Acts 4. towards the end of both chapters. And yet even in that Church were found Ananias and Saphira, who were but dead members, and neither ſuitable to their head Chriſt, nor to the immortall ſeed of the word, of which that Chuch was begotten. The place in Mal. 2.15. ſpeaketh leſſe to the purpoſe: for what though God ſought a godly ſeed: doth hee alwayes finde what hee is ſaid to ſeeke? God ſought for one to ſtand in the gap, but hee found none, Ezek. 20.30. Beſides the godly ſeede there ſpoken of, is in the Originall the ſeed of God: which is not meant of every Church-member (for what is the marryage of one man with one woman) in our firſt Parentes unto that, Seeing it is a patterne that bindeth Pagans as well as Chriſtians) but it is meant of Chriſt Jeſus.

The place in Epheſ. 2.14. to 20. ſheweth what the Church of Gods Redeemed bee, and all the ſpirituall members thereof: but neither proveth that all the members of the Church are ſuch, or that the Infants of beleevers are not ſuch. The Church of God in Zion was built upon the foundation of the Prophets: and it was an habitation to the Lord. Pſal. 102.13. yet infants were members of it. The place in John 4.23. ſheweth (as I ſaid before) what God ſeeketh: not that hee findeth all ſuch in every Church: much leſſe that hee excludeth Infants out of the Church, till they can make it appeare by open profeſſion of their faith, that they doe worſhip him in Spirit and truth. It hath bin proved above, that of Infants is the Kingdome of God (Mar. 10.14.) p. 104that is, the Church: and yet they cannot profeſſe and declare any ſuch worſhip in their owne Perſons: though indeed the Acts of their godly parents in that caſe are there accepted of Chriſt, as the Acts of the Infants. For Chriſt accepted their Parents bringing of them to him, as if they had come to him in their owne perſons. Suffer (ſaith hee) little children to come unto mee: and yet they came not, but as they were brought.

Silveſter.There is a large difference betweene the Iews and Gentiles in reſpect of outward Priviledges. The Infants of the Iews had a ſpeciall reaſon for their admittance into the fellowſhip of the Iewiſh Church, which doth not now continue in Chriſtian Churches. Of the Iews came Chriſt, the Saviour of man; and therefore ſalvation is ſaid to bee of the Iews, Rom. 9.5. Iohn 4.22. In reſpect of which there was a bleſſed promiſe paſſed upon the Iews for the bringing forth of the Meſſiah, and the promiſed ſeede, in whom all Nations ſhould be bleſſed. And therefore all of that Nation were admitted to the outward Priviledges, as figures of him whom that Nation was to bring forth. So that a fruitfull wombe was counted a great bleſſing among the Iews, as not knowing who might be ſo honourable, as to bring forth that bleſſed, and all bleſſing ſeede. And therefore God honoured the Naturall birth with ſuch outward bleſſings and priviledges, which belong not to the Gentiles at all.

The Gentiles now are to looke for their bringing forth Chriſt according to the Spirit, as the Iews did then according to the fleſh: and likewiſe their birth: and their ſeed and all things ſuitable to the ſame, as Joh. 3.3.5, 6. Ioh. 1.12, 13. And therefore wee are ſaid now to know no man after the fleſh. 2. Cor. 5.16. And Circumciſion was one Priviledge of the fleſh, Phil. 3.4, 5. Therefore though the Iews Infants were admitted to all thoſe outward Priviledges being a Nationall people, and ſo a Nationall body, with a naturall birth, and the like ſeede in generall: yet the Gentiles Infants cannot bee admitted to their ſpirituall priviledges, they being a perſonall People called by the word of Grace, and ſo a ſpirituall body with a ſpirituall birth, and the like ſeed.

It is true, there is ſome difference between the Iews and the Gentiles,Silvanus. in reſpect of outward Priviledges, for (not to …over in generalities wherein lyeth deceit) the Iews, or rather p. 105the houſe of Iſrael, being Gods firſt borne (Exod. 4.24.) and ſo our elder brother, they were the excellency of Dignity, and the excellency of power; glorious and mighty wonders, the Lord often wrought for them, they had the preheminence: of them was Chriſt, of them were the Fathers, (the Patriarchs and the Prophets) and to them were committed the Oracles of God. And if you will ſo account it, a double portion to injoy, both a Congregationall Church, and a Nationall, they injoyed both a Congregationall Church in their Synagogues, and a National Church at Hieruſalem in their ſolemne feaſts.

But two things let mee here put you in minde of: firſt, that when the Elder brother, for his demerit is diſinherited of his Birth-right (as Reuben ſometime was) his preheminence of honour and double portion is divided amongſt his younger brethren: no part of it is loſt. So is it here. The Church of Iſrael being diſinherited, all the ſpirituall priviledges, all the honour and power which they injoyed either in their Synagogue, or in their Nationall Aſſemblies, is now ſet over to our Congregationall Churches; and as for the outward Priviledges, which the houſe of Iſrael injoyed (as a wordly Kingdome and the power and glory thereof) they were no part of the priviledges of their Church eſtate, but acceſſories and additaments thereunto. For in the Covenant of Abraham God ſpake nothing of a worldly kingdome, but of affliction for 400. yeares, Gen. 15.13. as therefore worldly power and glory, were caſt in as acceſſorie to the Church of the Old Teſtament, ſo they may be alſo in the New. If the Churches of the New Teſtament ſhall bind Kings in chaines, as is prophecyed Pſal. 140.8. and execute upon them the judgement written, then ſurely Chriſtian Churches ſhall have ſome Kings to bee members of their body, elſe what have they to doe to judge them that are without? the Apoſtle ſaith, Godlineſſe hath the promiſes of this life as well as of that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4.8. What though Church power bee not adminiſtred with worldly pompe? and what though all the children of the Church bee equall in Church-Priviledges? yet ſome or other of the children of the Church ate capable of great preheminence even in outward Priviledges: They may be Princes in all Lands, Pſal. 45.16. which though ſome underſtand of ſpirituall power, yet not ſo properly: for ſpiritual power is not princely in the earth. Beſides, if civil Magiſtracy be lawful amongſt men (which you deny not) ſome of the p. 106children of the Church may bee as fitly employed in ſuch a principality, as Pagans. And ſurely the time ſhall come when according to the prophecy of Daniel (chapt. 7.27.) the Kingdome and the Dominion and the greatneſſe of the Kingdome under the whole heaven ſhall bee given to the people of the Saints of the moſt High.

A ſecond thing which I would put you in minde of (which alſo hath been mentioned above) is that wee doe not ſtand upon Nationall Iewiſh priviledges, but upon the Covenant of Abraham, which was given with the Seale thereof to him and his ſeed before any of the Jewes and Iſraelites were borne, when Abraham and his ſeed were confidered rather as a Domeſticall Church, then a as national. And then the Covenant was given to him as walking before God in uprightneſſe of heart, Gen. 17.1.7. which cannot bee without faith; and the ſigne of the Covenant was given him as a ſigne and ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of Faith, Rom. 4.11. and both Covenant and ſeale were given to his infant ſeed for his faith ſake, Gen. 17.7. And in caſe his infant ſeede ſhould grow up to riper yeares, and then not take hold of the Covenant of Abraham, but prophanely reject, they were caſt out of their Church Eſtate, as was Iſmael, and Eſau. And ſo the ſeed of Abraham could never grow up to a Nationall Church, unleſſe when they grew up to yeares, they ſhould continue in a viſible Profeſſion of the Faith of Abraham: or unleſſe god ſhould afterwards enlarge the wings of his Covenant to reach over the whole Nation, as hee began to doe in the Teſtament of Iacob, Gen. 49.26. and more fully and ſolemnely declared the ſame, Exod. 19.3. to 8. and Deut. 29.10. to 13. But it is not the Covenant of Jacob to him, and to all his Poſterity, during their lives, that wee plead for: But the Covenant and bleſſing of Abraham: which the Apoſtle ſaith is co ue upon us Gentiles, Gal. 3.14. which onelyonly admitteth the faithfull and their infant ſeed, not during their lives, in caſe their lives ſhould grow up to Apoſtaſie, or open ſcandall: but during their infancy, and ſo long after as they ſhall continue in a viſible profeſſion of the Covenant, and faith, and the religion of their fathers; Otherwiſe if the children of the faithfull grow up to Apoſtaſie or to any open ſcandall, (as Iſmael and Eſau did) as they were then, ſo ſuch like now, are to be caſt out of the fellowſhip of the Covenant, and of the ſeales thereof. But you willingly take no notice here of the Covenant of Abraham to him and to his ſeed. And p. 710becauſe ſay you, the Jews had a promiſe for the bringing forth the Meſſias the promiſed ſeed in whom all Nations ſhould bee bleſſed, therefore all of that Nation were admitted to the outward Priviledges, as figures of him whom that Nation was to bring forth: which made a fruitfull wombe accounted ſo great a bleſſing among the Jewes, as not knowing who might bee ſo far honoured as to bring forth that bleſſed ſeed.

But Chriſt came of Abraham, and of Iſaae, as well as of Judah (the father of the Jews:) and yet that did not admit all the Nations which ſprang of them to the outward Priviledges, as you call them (though very abſurdly (if you meane (as you ſeeme to doe) the Covenant, and the ſeale thereof. For the Covenant whereby wee and our ſeed have God for our God is not a meere outward Priviledge, but a ſpirituall and heavenly Priviledge to ſuch as know the worth of it.

Beſides, many Tribes of Iſrael were admitted (they and their ſeed) to the Priviledge of the Covenant, and to the ſeale thereof, of whom yet it was evident, that Chriſt was not to ſpring of any of of them. The Iewes who deſcended all of them of Iudah, they were but one tribe of twelve. And why ſhould all the other eleven Tribes bee circumciſed as well as the Jews, in reſpect of their bringing forth their promiſed ſeed, when yet old Jacob had limited the bringing forth of the Meſſi…h to the Tribe of Judah? Gen. 49.10. Were all the children of the eleven Tribes figures of the Meſſiah as well as the children of the Jews? Beſides, in Davids time, there was a promiſe given to him, that the Meſſiah ſhould come out of his loynes, 2 Sam. 7. Why then ſhould any other families of the Jews injoy ſuch a Priviledge that all their infants ſhuold bee circumciſed with the Seale of the Covenant? Doth any word of Scripture make all the Infants of all the Jews, yea of all Iſrael, figures of the Meſſiah? And if no word of Scripture ſo doe, ſhall any man forge ſuch an imagination of his owne braine, and be guiltleſſe? what though a fruitfull wombe was counted a great bleſſing among the Jews? So it was alſo among the other Tribes, who yet could not expect the Meſſiah to ſpring from them. It was a cauſe juſt enough to account a fruitfull wombe a great bleſſing, not onelyonly becauſe it was a bleſſing to the family, but alſo becauſe it was an inlargement of the Church. In which reſpect the Elders and Peoples of Bethlehem bleſſed Ruth (Chap. 4.11.) and Boaz with her, The Lord make this young Woman, p. 108which commeth into thine houſe, like Raechel and like Leah, which two did build the houſe Iſrael.

How will you make it appeare, That God honoured the Nationall birth among the Jews, with ſuch outward bleſſings and Priviledges that belongs not to the Gentiles at all?

You ſhould have done well to have told us, what thoſe outward bleſſings and Priviledges were: and to have cleared it, that they belonged to the Jews and not to the Gentiles at all. Otherwiſe it will not bee ſafe for you to take up doctrines of Religion upon truſt of mans word.

The Gentiles (ſay you) are now to looke for our bringing forth of Chriſt according to the Spirit, as the Jews did then according to the fleſh; and likewiſe their birth and ſeed, and all things ſuitable to the ſame, as John 3.3.5.6. Iohn 1.12, 13. And therefore wee are ſaid to know no man now, no not Chriſt himſelfe after the fleſh, 2 Cor. 5.16. And Circumciſion was one Priviledge of the fleſh, Phil. 3.4, 5.

Anſwer. It is not true, that all the Jewes did looke to bring forth Chriſt according to the fleſh. For in Davids time, they knew, that Priviledge was peculiar to his family, neither is it true, that the Gentiles are now to look for the bringing forth of Chriſt according to the Spirit, any more then the Jews were to looke then. The Apoſtle Peter maketh us equall with the Jews, and them with us in this Priviledge: Wee looke (ſaith hee) to bee ſaved through the grace of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, even as they, Act. 15.11. It behoved them as well as us, to attaine a ſpirituall birth and to bee borne of an immortall ſeed ſuitable to the ſame, as well as us; for it was not to a Gentile, but to Nicodemus a Jew, that Chriſt ſpake unto, Ioh. 3.3.5, 6. Except a man be borne againe of water, and the Holy Ghoſt, he cannot ſee the Kingdom of God. That which is borne of the fleſh is fleſh: that which is borne of the Spirit is Spirit; Where it doth not appeare that Chriſt ſpake to Nicodemus of entring into the viſible Church, for Chriſt did not ſeek to gather a viſible church ſeparate from the Church of the Jews till after his aſcenſion. But he ſpake to him of entrance into the Kingdome of Glory, and ſuch a ſtate of ſalvation in the Kingdome of Grace, as onelyonly regenerate perſons did attaine unto, whether Jews or Chriſtians. Chriſt would never have called Iudas to Office in his Church (which is the place of an emiment member) if none could enter into the viſible Church, but regenerate perſons. Your other place p. 109in John 1.1…, 13. doth not ſpeake of the eſtate of the members of the viſible Church in the dayes of the New Teſtament, but of the Adoption and Regeneration of the Elect members of the viſible Church of the Old Teſtament. For all the words of the Evangeliſt Iohn, from v. 1. to 14 are a deſcription of Chriſt. 1. What hee was from eternity, v. 1, 2. 2. What hee was in the Creation, v. 3, 4. 3. What hee did to men after the fall, v. 5. &c. 4. What hee did to the world of Pagans by his workes of Creaation and Providence. v. 9, 10. 5. How hee came to his owne people of Iſrael in his Ordinances, v. 11. And yet many of them received him not, to wit, by faith in ſincerity and truth. v. 11. But thoſe that did receive him; that is, beleeve in him; to them hee gave power or priviledge, not to bee called, but to become his ſons, v. 12. And theſe were borne, to wit, borne againe, not by power of Nature, but by the grace of God, v. 13. Then it followeth, the Word became fleſh, v. 14. So that it may appeare plainly by the Context, that Iohn ſpeaketh not of the eſtate of the people of the New Teſtament, before they can enter into the viſible Church, but of the ſpirituall eſtate of all the beleeving Saints of the Old Teſtament. The other place in 2 Cor. 5.16. wee have opened it above. Wee now know no man after the fleſh, no not Chriſt himſelfe now. In which words it is no part of the Apoſtles ſcope or meaning to ſet forth what qualifications are to bee attended to in addmitting members into the viſible Church, but to direct Church-members and all Chriſtians, not to eſteeme of themſelves & others according to common gifts and carnall excellencies, and outward Priviledges (wherein the falſe Apoſtles gloryed, v. 12.) but to live as thoſe who have fellowſhip with Chriſt in his death and reſurrection, and therefore not to live unto our ſelves, or to this world, but unto Chriſt, v. 14, 15. And leſt it ſhould bee objected, Why, time hath beene when you (Paul) your ſelfe have gloryed in carnall excellencies and Jewiſh Priviledges, yea and have eſteemed meanly of Chriſt himſelfe for his poverty ſake, and becauſe hee was rejected of the high Prieſts and Elders: Paul anſwereth, though we have known Chriſt after the fleſh, that is, though wee have eſteemed meanly of him, according to his meane outſide; yet now henceforth wee neither know or acknowledge him, or any man elſe according to the fleſh. Where by knowing no man after the fleſh, he doth not meane that bee now knoweth no ſeed of the faithfull to have any Priviledge p. 110or right unto Church-eſtate by their naturall birth through the the Covenant of their Parents: but that whatſoever priviledge themſelves or their Parents, or any others have by their Church-eſtate, or Covenant, or ſeales of the Covenant, or gifts of knowledge and utterance, or the like, they ſhould not acknowledge them, as things to bee reſted till they come to bee new creatures in Chriſt Jeſus.

And to the ſame purpoſe tendeth the other place which you quote, Phil. 3.4, 5. where Paul calleth all theſe outward Priviledges, fleſh: and profeſſeth though hee might as well truſt in them, and boaſt of them as any other man: yet hee counted them all (if they bee truſted in without Chriſt) as loſſe, and droſſe, and dung, in comparriſon of Chriſt. But if by this argument, you would exclude the Infa…s of beleeving Parents from Church-fellowſhip, and the ſeale thereof, you might as well reject Church-fellowſhip, and Church-Covenant, and the ſeales of the Covenant and all confeſſions of Faith, and ſubjection to the Ordinances, and fruitfulneſſe in good workes: for all theſe truſted in, are loſſe, and droſſe, and dung in compariſon of Chriſt, nor doth our righteouſneſſe before God ſtand in them. And thus it was alſo in the Old Teſtament, as well as now. So that all this which you have alledged, proveth no difference at all between the Infants of the Jews and the Infants of the Gentiles in reſpect of ſpirituall Priviledges; For all theſe places doe as well concerne men of yeares, as Infants, and Iews as well as Gentiles. And though you call us a perſonall people, and the Jews a Nationall people: yet neither were they at firſt Nationall, but Domeſticall, as hath been ſaid: And for us, if you meane that every beleever receiveth the Covenant of grace to his owne Perſon, but not to his ſeede; It is utterly untrue, for the contrary hath been proved at large above, and your exceptions anſwered; that one promiſe of grace might ſtand for many, which Paul gave to the Jailor, Beleeve in the Lord Jeſus, and thou ſhalt bee ſaved and thy houſe, Act. 16.31. As alſo that other teſtimony of his to the Corinthians, that the children of beleeving Parents (yea of either Parent beleeving) are holy 1 Cor. 7.14.

Silveſter.The holineſſe which the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of in that place to the Corinthians, is not the holineſſe, which proceedeth from Gods holy Covenant of grace, but from Gods holy Ordinance of Marriage. For under the Goſpell there is no holineſſe, p. 111that can inright to any Priviledge of grace but, either the holineſſe of Chriſt; in whom God looketh upon his children as holy in him, and through him giveth them right to all things both in grace and glory. Epheſ. 1.4, 5, 6. Or that holy frame of Gods workmanſhip by the holy ſpirit of regeneration, appearing in the holy effects and fruits thereof, by which the perſons appeare before men to have right to the aforeſaid Priviledges.

There is great difference in point of Holineſſe betweene the holy Covenant of grace; and the holy Ordinance of Marriage:Silvanus. The Covenant of grace is holy not onelyonly in regard of the efficient cauſe, becauſe it was inſtituted by the holy God: but alſo becauſe it giveth right to holy Priviledges, and denominateth them to bee holy (whether perſons, families, or nations) whom God calleth into ſuch Covenant with himſelfe. For it ſeparateth them from other people, and ſetteth them apart to the Lord, and his holy worſhip, Deut. 7.6, 7, 8, 9. But the Ordinance of Marriage is holy, onelyonly in regard of the efficient cauſe, becauſe it was inſtituted by the holy God: but it neither giveth right to holy Priviledges, nor denominateth them to be holy, whom God calleth unto that eſtate. God never called perſons, or families, or Nations, an holy people, becauſe they were married: nor their children holy, becauſe they were bred of married Parents. Turkes and Pagans, and all Infidell people are married as well as Chriſtians: yet neither they nor their children are counted, or called holy in ſcripture language.

Yes, in ſcripture language,Silveſter. as there is an uncleanneſſe of the fleſh, ſo there is oppoſite to the ſame an holineſſe of the fleſh, which is produced by lawfull Marriage. Compare theſe Scriptures together Ezra, 10.2, 3. 1 Sam. 21.4, 5. 1 Cor. 6.18. and 7.1, 2. 1 Theſ. 4.3, 4.

There is indeed an holineſſe of the fleſh, that is oppoſite to the uncleanneſſe of the fleſh: but there is no holineſſe of the fleſh,Silvanus. that proceedeth from marriage; For though an unlawfull marriage may pollute both fleſh and Spirit, yet a lawfull marriage doth not make either of them holy: In that place of Ezra the marriage of the Jews with ſtrangers was an uncleane and an unholy marriage, as polluting the Covenant of their God, Mal. 2.11. Yet that marriage of the Jews with their owne Nation did not make them holy: much leſſe did the marriage of ſtrangers with ſtrangers p. 112make them holy, though their marriage was lawfull. Though nothing that is holy is uncleane: yet all things that are not uncleane, are not forthwith holy. For not onelyonly that which is unholy is uncleane, but alſo that which is unrighteous, or any way unlawfull, is uncleane alſo. Stollen goods are uncleane: but yet goods well gotten, are not holy. The oppoſition therefore that is betweene uncleanneſſe and holineſſe, is not that oppoſition which is betweene immediate contraries, that whatſoever is not uncleane, the ſame ſhould bee holy: or as if it were enough to make a thing holy, becauſe it is not uncleane; Or as if becauſe the marriage of the Jews with the ſtrangers was uncleane, and their ſeed uncleane and accurſed, therefore their marriage among themſelves was holy. It is true, marriage is honourable amongſt all, and in regard of Gods inſtitution, holy: It is true alſo, that the ſeed which the Iews had in a way of lawful marriage were called an holy ſeed. Ezra 9.2. But yet that holineſſe of their ſeed, did not proceed from the holineſſe of their marriage: (for then to this day the children of married Iews were an holy ſeed ſtil) but from the holineſſe of the Covenant between God, & them.

The next place you referre mee to is in 1 Sam. 21.4, 5. where it is ſaid that Davids young men having beene kept from women three dayes, their veſſels were holy. But what would you inferre from hence? that there is an holineſſe of the fleſh opoſite to the uncleanneſſe of the fleſh? who doubteth of that? but whence did this holines flow? or wherein did it conſiſt? did it flow from the lawfull marriage of themſelves, or their Parents? Or did it conſiſt in their Legitimation? No verily; it rather ſprung from their want of uſe of lawfull marriage: in that they had not kept company with their wives of three dayes. For it is not to be thought that David would keepe his men to keepe company with Harlots. The holineſſe therefore which David here ſpeak…h of is a Ceremoniall holineſſe, whereby hee and his men being kept from women, and likewiſe from effuſion of ſeed (which did Ceremonially pollute) they were therefore holy in their veſſells, and ſo meete to partake of holy bread; No holineſſe therefore here, but ſuch as maketh capable of holy things. The next place which you referre mee to in 1 Cor. 6.18. doth hold forth, that fornication is a ſinne againſt the body: which is out of queſtion; if your meaning be… that that ſinne brings uncleanneſſe upon the fleſh: which if it bee compared with 1 Theſ. 4.3, 4. will argue p. 113that there is a contrary holineſſe of the fleſh, when a man poſſeſſeth his Veſſell in Sanctification and Honour, both theſe are truths, but nothing to your purpoſe. For this holineſſe of the fleſh, is alſo an holineſſe of the ſpirit. Where by a man out of obedience to the will of God, v, 3. doth mortifie the luſt of concupiſence v. 5. and poſſeſſe his veſſell in ſanctification and honour, v. 4. And this holineſſe is a part of that latter holines; (whereof you ſpake before) to wit, that holy frame of Gods workmanſhip in the heart by the holy ſpirit of regeneration, which giveth right to the Priviledges. And therefore you will not allow this kinde holineſſe to be meant in 1 Cor. 7.14. for then by the lawfulneſſe of the Parents marriage, children ſhould be freed from the luſt of Concupiſcence, and inabled to poſſeſſe their veſſels in ſanctification and honour.

That other place which you put in (1 Cor. 7.1, 2.) I know not to what end you alledge it, unleſſe it bee to prove, that marriage in times of perſecution, is not expedient, (which is the meaning of the firſt verſe:) or that fornication is to bee avoided by lawfull marriage, which is the intent of the ſecond verſe: But what is either of theſe to the point in hand?

To returne therefore to the point, from whence your objection diverted mee, it ſtill remaineth good, that the holineſſe of children ſpoken of 1 Cor. 7.14. doth not proceed from the holy Ordinance of marriage, but from the holy Covenant of grace.

Which may further bee confirmed from the very word of the Text. For the Apoſtle deriveth that holineſſe of Infants, not from the holy Ordinance of marriage, but from the faith of the beleeving Parent whereby both the unbeleeving yoak-follow is ſanctified to the beleever, and the children alſo of the beleever are holy.

I thinke both alike, the children are no otherwiſe holy by the ſaith of the beleeving Parent,Silveſter. then the unbeleeving yoake-fellow is ſanctified to the beleever. That is to ſay, the beleever hath a ſanctified uſe of Cohabitation and Communion with them both. For to the pure all things are pure, but to the unbeleever nothing is pure. Tit. 1.15. So that whereas before both the yoake-fellows were uncleane by Idolatry, and their children alſo: now by the converſion of one of the yoak-fellows to the faith, though hee might ſcruple the lawfulneſſe of his cohabitation and Communion, either with his yoak-fellow, or with his children: Yet the Apoſtle telleth him, hee needeth not ſo to doe. For by his p. 114faith, both his yoak-fellow and children alſo are ſanctified to him, hee hath an holy uſe to them both. In the ſame ſenſe are the children ſaid to bee holy, and the unbeleeving yoak-fellow ſanctified. For I have learned it from ſome men skilful in the tongues, that it is the ſame word, or at leaſt derived from the ſame root and theame, whereby the unbeleever is ſaid to bee ſanctified, and the children ſaid to be holy.

Silvanus.It is true indeed, the one of the words is derived from the other: But yet the Apoſtle uſeth them here in ſuch a different phraſe, or manner of ſpeach, as putteth a manifeſt difference in the ſenſe, and ſignification of them. For when hee ſaith, the unbeleeving yoak-fellow is ſanctified, hee doth not leave it ſo without a limitation or reſtriction, but ſaith, hee or ſhee is ſanctified in the beleever, or to the beleever, and that limiteth the ſenſe, to the beleevers uſe. But when hee ſpeaketh of children, hee doth not ſpeake with ſuch limitation, they are holy to the beleever, but poſitively, they are holy. Now the difference is manifeſt and great betwene theſe two, to bee ſanctified to a beleever and to bee holy: for example. It may truely bee ſaid, all afflictions and Perſecution it ſelfe, are ſanctified to a beleever: but it cannot therefore bee ſaid, that affliction, yea perſecution is holy, yea, wee may bee bold to ſay, that even the falls of Gods children are ſanctified unto them, I meane their falls into ſinne: yet wee may not ſay, that their falls into ſinne, are holy. No ſcripture language alloweth any thing to bee called holy, but that which is holy, either by imputation from Chriſt, or regeneration from the Spirit, or ſeparation unto God, from uncleanneſſe to his holy worſhip. Search the Scripture, you will not finde it otherwiſe, neither is it otherwiſe in this place. For elſe the Apoſtle might as well have ſaid thus; The children by the unbeleeving wife, are ſanctified in the beleeving husband: and the children by the unbeleeving husband, are ſanctified in the beleeving wife, elſe were your unbeleeving yoak-fellows uncleane: but now they are holy. But do you thinke the holy Spirit of God would ever call infidells & Idolaters holy? But ſuppoſe, (as ſome of your books would have it) that the Apoſtle did acknowledge unbeleeving yoak-fellowes to bee holy, is there not then a two-fold holineſſe mentioned in the Text: the one, not in the thing it ſelf, but to anothers uſe: the other of the thing in it ſelfe: Is it not then ſinne to confound theſe two for all one which God hath diſtinguiſhed?