A Defense of Infant Baptism, Treatise · Part 3 (2 of 4)

A Defense of Infant Baptism · Treatise · Part 3 (2 of 4)

p. 124Now (God willing) I ſhall try what ſtrength there is in Io Sect. 6. Vindicating Act. 2. 38. 39. as a proofe of Infants of beleevers to belong to the the Covenant of grace.Acts 2:38Acts 2:39your exceptions againſt thoſe Texts I brought to prove that Infants of Beleevers do belong to the Covenant now as well as the Infants of Jewes did under the former adminiſtration. The firſt whereof was taken out of Acts 2. 38. 39. where Peter exhorting his hearers to beleeve and bee baptized, uſed this as an Argument taken from the benefit which ſhould come to their poſteritie, The promiſe is made to you and to your children, &c.

The firſt branch of your anſwer is according to your uſuall method, to throw dirt in the face of an Argument Mr. Tombes his method of anſwering.which pinches you, ſleighting and ſcorning that which you know not how to anſwer; and then to frame ſeverall ſenſes, and raiſe a duſt about it▪ You complaine how irkeſome it is to Readers and Anſwerers, to finde them who alleadge … Text to paraphraſe upon it, but ſhow not how they conclude from it. It is harder for you to finde your enemy then to vanquiſh him; and p. 125you wiſh, that I would firſt diſtinctly expound, and then frame my arguments out of the Text.

I anſwer I hardly can tell whether it were beſt to ſmile at or pity this grievous trouble you are put to, that your patience ſhould bee thus compelled deverare taedium; it ſeemes you expected I ſhould make ſyllogiſmes in moode and figure, in a Sermon ad populum, if you did not, I wonder why you ſhould bee thus troubled, ſince as plainely as I could I expreſſed the meaning of the Text: I firſt ſhewed where the ſtrength of the Argument lay viz. That not onelyonly themſelves upon their faith and Baptiſme ſhould receive ſuch an Invaluable benefit, but their children ſhould alſo (as under the former adminiſtration they were) bee taken into a better adminiſtration, the Covenant being now exhibited in the beſt and fulleſt manner, and all they whether neere or farre off, who would owne this ſhould themſelves and their children with them, bee under this beſt Covenant, as formerly they were when the Covenant was more darke. And in the progreſſe of my diſcourſe I both proved this to bee the meaning, and anſwered the exceptions to the contrary.

Next follows your ſeverall ſenſes: You doubt whether I Mr. Tombes his art in multiplying ſenſes.fetch children in under the firſt part, I will be thy God; or whether under the ſecond, I will be the God of thy ſeed. Or whether I meane is of ſaving graces, or Church-priviledges. One while you doubt whether my ſenſe be, that God will be the God of their children if they obey his call: then you rather gueſſe it, That if the Parents obey his call, bee will be the God of them, and their children, though the children doe not obey his call. Yea further (becauſe here are not yet ſenſes enough) you proceed and ſay, If by the promiſe to them and their children, be meant of outward Church-priviledges; then the ſenſe muſt bee, If you will beleeve, repent and be baptized, then you and your children ſhall be baptized. Yet another ſenſe you make out of that which I ſpake (at the by) of Zacheus, Luke 19. that ſalvation came to his houſe upon his beleeving; that thence may be gathered, That the meaning is, a mans whole houſhold may be ſaved barely by his beleeving: and not content with all theſe ſenſes, you ſtep out of your way to bring in Mr. p. 126Goodwins interpretation of Zacheus, that he meant it of the whole houſhold; and that thence he collected that an houſehold was Eccleſia prima, which you confute, and then you ſet down your own ſenſe of ſalvation comming to Zacheus his houſe; that by Zacheus his houſe is mean… onelyonly Zacheus himſelf.

What multiplicity of imaginary ſenſes, and conſequences of ſenſes are here poured out on an heape? could the …areſt Chymick have extracted any more? The Reader would hardly ſwadlow downe the tediouſneſſe of my diſcourſe, if I ſhould take them all ſingly, and ſhew what I own or reject of each of them: It is better to ſet down the plaine ſenſe together, and make it goods; and then he will diſcern how you have indeavoured to cloud an argument, and wrangle againſt it, when you cannot anſwer it. I plainly expreſſed the Apoſtles argument to be fetched from The p…ame ſenſe & ſcope of this argument opened and vindicated.the benefit, which would not onelyonly come to themſelves, but to their children by their beleeving in Chriſt; and after added, that the cleare ſtrength of the Argument lay thus; God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abraham, in ſending that bleſſed ſeed in whom hee promiſed to be the God of him and of his ſeed; doe not you by your unbeliefe deprive your ſelves and your poſterity of ſo excellent a gift: In which paſſage you acknowledge I have hit the marke, and given that very interpretation which you owne. And whereas you adde as a further illuſtration, that the promiſe is now fulfilled to them and their children, according to Acts 3. 25. Ye are the children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant, which God made with our fathers, &c. I confeſſe that is true, but not all that is meant; and yet even that ſtrengthens my Argument, the Covenant which God made with their Fathers, That hee would bee th… God of them, and of their ſeed, and they were the children or heires of that Covenant▪ that look as God was the God of Abraham and his ſeed, ſo he would be the God of them and of their ſeed, if they did beleeve and were baptized; and therefore he would not have them by their unbelief deprive themſelves and their children of that priviledge: this I then made my argument, p. 127and this you ſaw well enough, and therefore ſay, that this expreſſion, doe not by your unbeliefe deprive your poſterity of ſo excellent a gift, hath a little reliſh of my interpretation of the promiſe concerning the naturall ſeed of beleevers. But Sir, why doe you call it a little reliſh? it is the very ſcope of my Argument, that look as God did when hee made the promiſe of grace in Chriſt to Abraham upon his beleeving, and took alſo his poſterity, thoſe that were borne of him, into Covenant with him, in the ſenſe which I before alledged; and not onelyonly the naturall Jews, but even among all Nations, whoever became followers of Abrahams faith, did inherit Abrahams promiſe, That he would be the God of them and their ſeed, and by vertue of that promiſe, their children were taken into viſible communion: ſo this bleſſed ſeed [in whom this promiſe was founded] being now come, would according as heretofore, make it good to al, whether Jewes or Gentiles, that ſhould beleeve in him.

This clauſe of the Covenant of grace, and the interpretation of it, viz. That it belongs to all believers, and that by vertue of it their children are to be received into viſible communion, you often diſpute againſt, and ſometimes ſay that it was a promiſe peculiar to Abraham at other times, it was at the utmoſt to be extended no further then to Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob, to have their poſterity (as born of them) to belong to the viſible Church, though in this place where it was moſt proper, you ſay little or nothing about it, onelyonly make wrangling exceptions againſt my interpretation; but becauſe it moſt pertinent to the buſineſſe in hand, I ſhall here take it into conſideration, and manifeſt that it was not a perſonall priviledge to Abraham; no nor to Abraham, Iſaac The promiſe given, I will be thy God and the God of thy ſeed, not peculiar to Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, proved by three Arguments.and Jacob, to have their poſte…ty taken into Covenant by vertue of that promiſe, I will be the God of thee and thy ſeed

For firſt, though Abraham was the father of the faithfull, and ſo in ſome ſenſe [the root, as you elſewhere call him:] yet the Covenant was made with him for his faiths ſake, and believers are his children and heires, and partake of thoſe priviledges and promiſes which were made to p. 128him: and therefore look as Abrahams faith juſtified him before God, & gave him intereſt in the ſpirituall graces of the Covenant, and none but himſelf; yet it was ſo beneficiall and advantageous to his children, that for his ſake they ſhould be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and houſhold, and partake of the externall priviledges of it; and thereby be trained up under the diſcipline of it, and ſo bee fitted for ſpirituall priviledges and graces which God doth ordinarily confer upon them who are thus trained up; ſo ſhall it bee with them who become followers of Abrahams faith.

Secondly, had it been a peculiar priviledge to Abrahams naturall ſeed, Proſelytes of other Nations could never by vertue of their becomming followers of Abrahams faith, have brought their children into Covenant with them, ſo as to have a viſible Church-memberſhip, as wee know they did.

Thirdly, and we know alſo that this promiſe of being the God of beleevers and their ſeed, was frequently renewed many hundred yeers after Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob were dead and rotten, as Deut. 30. 6. The Lord will circumciſe thy Deut. 30. 6. Eſa. 44. 2, 3.Deut 30:6Isa 44:2Isa 44:3heart, and the heart of thy ſeed, &c. ſo Eſa. 44. 2, 3. Feare not O Jacob my ſervant, and thou Jeſh…run whom I have choſen, I will poure my ſpirit upon thy ſeed, and my bleſſing upon thine off-ſpring, and they ſhall ſpring up as among the graſſe, &c. So likewiſe Eſay 59. 21 As for me this is my Covenant Eſa. 59. 21.Isa 59:21with them, ſaith the Lord, my Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, ſhall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy ſeed, nor out of the mouth of thy ſeeds ſeed, ſaith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever, and this laſt promiſe your ſelfe acknowledge, page 54. to bee intended chiefly of the nation of the Jewes at their laſt calling in: and whereas you uſe to elude theſe Texts by ſaying theſe things belong onelyonly to the elect, when they Theſe places vindicated.come to beleeve, and reach not to any priviledge which is externall; I reply, by the ſame anſwer you might cut off the ſeed of Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, for to beleevers then as well as to beleevers now were theſe promiſes made; and I ſhall deſire you, to thinke how by this Anſwer you will avoyd that which page 42. you call abſurditie and p. 129trifling in Mr. Cotton. For Inſtance; God made this promiſe (ſay you) to Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, to bee the God of them and of their ſeed, in all generations: ſee how you will anſwer your owne objection; if it bee underſtood univerſally to all his ſeed, that is manifeſtly falſe, all his ſeed had not God to be their God; or if it be meant conditionally, if they beleeve, then the meaning muſt bee, that God would bee the God of Abraham and his ſeed if they did beleeve; and then it ſignifies no more then thus, that God will bee the God of every beleever, and then it is but trifling to adde, to bee the God of him and of his ſeed, becauſe nothing is more expreſſed in the laſt words th…n what is ſaid in the former; therefore this promiſe made to Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, muſt bee reſtrained to elect and beleevers onelyonly, not to the naturall ſeed of Abraham, Iſaac, and Iacob, but to beleevers, as they and their ſeed by calling: thus by your owne Argument you cut off all the Jewes but ſuch as were elect and inwardly holy, as much as you doe the Gentiles, from having any viſible communion in externall priviledges. Conſider what you will anſwer to theſe things, I nothing feare but by what diſtinction you will fetch off the Jewes, wee ſhall fetch off the children of beleevers, whether Iewes or Gentiles. This I adde to make it more cleare, that that promiſe, Gen. 17. I will bee the God of thee and of thy ſeed, (to which the Apoſtle here relates) is a Goſpell promiſe, which from age to age holds forth ſome benefits even to the naturall ſeed of beleevers. So that when the Apoſtle preſſeth them to beleeve in Chriſt, and by being baptized to come under this new and beſt adminiſtration of the Covenant, by an Argument reaching to their poſteritie; the ſenſe is no more then thus, you have indeed crucified the Lord of life, and deſerve that his blood ſhould bee required of you and of your children, and that that Vineyard (the heire whereof you have killed) ſhould bee taken away from you, but if yet you will receive him offered to you in his Goſpell, it ſhall not prove ſo, but you ſhall receive the holy Ghoſt, you ſhall bee juſtified, accepted, you ſhall ſtill bee a choſen generation, the Church and people of God, ye… and your poſteritie ſhall be under this p. 130beſt adminiſtration, they ſhall be accounted by vertue of this promiſe ſtill to bee his, and be trained up for him, in his Schoole, in his houſe, as heretofore they have beene, yea and with greater advantage, becauſe a greater abundance of the ſpirit is now poured and to bee poured out. Try what abſurdities you can make to follow from this Argument.

After I had opened the ſcope of the Argument, I proceeded to examine what exceptions are made againſt it. Firſt, Mr. Tombes his exceptions againſt this argument anſwered.ſome ſay the promiſe here mentioned is meant of extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt, this I confuted, in this you concurre with mee, onelyonly (that you might debaſe as much as is poſſible what ever I goe about to prove) you adde, my reaſons are not ſufficient to confute it, for though all who then 1 Exception.beleeved and were baptized did not receive thoſe extraordinary gifts, yet Peter might aſſure them that it ſhould be ſo for the future; This deſerves no reply; is it imaginary that Peter might promiſe what never was to bee performed? was it to be true Anſwer.at any time, that all who beleeve ſhould receive the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt? Your ſelfe ſay elſewhere, you ſhould incurre blaſphemy to challenge a promiſe which God ſhould not make good. And whereas you adde further, that it doth not follow that this promiſe muſt bee true in all ages, that whoever beleeves and is baptized, ſhall receive remiſſion of ſinnes, and the gift of the holy Ghoſt; b…cauſe there is nothing in the Text to prove that this promiſe ſhould be in force in all ages. But Sir is there not in the Text, all that are afarre off, even as many as the Lord our God ſhall call; and doth not that reach to all ages?

The other ſhif… which I ſaid was inſufficient to avoyd the force of this Argument, is their interpretation 2 Exception.who ſay, To you and your children, muſt bee thus limited, viz. as many of them as the Lord ſhall call, that is, when any of your children come to bee called, this promiſe ſhall bee made good unto them; now I ſaid this was but a ſhift, becauſe the Apoſtles Argument is taken from the benefit which ſhould come to their children, which would bee no Argument at all; becauſe with this limitation, it holds forth no p. 131more to the children of beleevers then to Pagans, the promiſe is made to as many as God ſhall call, that is, to you, to your children, and to Pagans, and their children as much as to you and your children; what argument can this afford from a benefit which their children ſhould receive if they beleeved?

But this ſay you is the genuine and neceſſary explication of the Text, for let the promiſe bee what it can bee, whether of ſaving graces, of outward priviledges, of extraordinary gifts, it is no wayes true without that limitation, as many as the Lord ſhall call.

But this is but a deceiving of your Reader with an equivocation in the word call, for if you meane of inward effectnall Anſw.calling, of true faith wrought in the heart, and then ſay, what ever is meant by the promiſe, whether inward graoes or outward priviledges, none partake of any of theſe things, without this inward call: I muſt tell you, this is one of the things you uſe to call dictates, bold aſſertions without proofe, the falſehood whereof is abundantly manifeſted already: Do you not know and grant that outward priviledges are common to elect and reprobate? But if you meane it of outward calling, then I not onelyonly aſſert, but have already proved their Infants injoy this calling with them. But becauſe you cannot deny that the Apoſtle here meant to fetch 3. Exception.an Argument taken from the benefit which ſhould come to their children, you have found out another ſhift, and ſay, the maine matter was concerning themſelves to erect them, becauſe they had ſaid, His blood be upon us and upon our children, and this was a comfortable Argument, becauſe they might hereby underſtand, that notwithſtanding this imprecation or execration, they and their children might yet bee ſaved by this Jeſus whom they had crucified, in caſe they ſhould beleeve in him.

But I reply, firſt, there is nothing in the Text to evince it, Anſw.that all theſe men either uttered that curſe, or were privie to it: for though Peter ſaid they had crucified him, he meant the Scribes and Phariſees had done it, and elſewhere hee ſaies, the Jewes which dwelt. at Ieruſalem had done it: it is moſt probable that many of theſe ſtranger Jewes knew nothing of it. Secondly, let it bee granted that they both knew it p. 132and were parties in it, and ſo conſequently that the application of the promiſe was the more ſeaſonable to them, yet becauſe it was the promiſe of the Covenant, which belonged to every Covenanter, that God in Chriſt would bee a God to them and to their ſeed, and that hee preſſed it to them as to thoſe who were children of the Covenant, Acts, Chap. 3. Verſe 25. this Argument taken from the Covenant had been of uſe, though that ſpeech had never beene uttered.

As for that which you call the witleſſe deſcant I put upon my adverſaries, while I ſay the Argument muſt run thus, that if the Apoſtle muſt be interpreted, (as theſe men would have him) to you and your children, ſo many of them as the Lord ſhall call, viz. you and your children have hitherto been an holy ſeed. But now if you beleeve in Chriſt your ſelves, your children ſhall bee in no better condition then the reſt of the Pagan world, but if afterward any of them or any of the heathen ſhall beleeve and be baptized, their particular perſons ſhall be taken into Covenant, but their Children ſtill left out, this (ſaid I) would not have been a very comfortable Argument to perſwade them to come in, in relation to the good of their children. To this your anſwer is, that this witleſſe deſcant followes not on the applying the reſtriction in the end of the verſe, to them, their children, and all that are afarre off; and that which I burden my adverſaries Tenet with, of putting beleevers Infants out of the Covenant into the condition of Pagans children is a Co…cyſme anſwered before. But Sir, bee it witleſſe or witty, they muſt owne it whoſe it is, and I perceive you can more eaſily put it off with a ſcoffe then give it a ſolid anſwer, and it is a thorne which will not ſo eaſily bee plucked out of your ſide▪ the ſtrength of it is, Peter could not have uſed this as an Argument to perſwade them to come under this adminiſtration of the Covenant, whereof Baptiſme was a ſeale, from the benefit which ſhould come to their children if your interpretation bee true, becauſe by this their children ſhould be in a worſe condition, in relation to the Covenant, then they were before: all grant in the former they were included; you ſay in this latter, you know no more promiſe for them then for the children of …: p. 133How then could this argument be fit to be uſed? tel me I pray you, ſuppoſe a man held ſome Farm or Office under ſome great man, and that in his Grant or Patent, there were ſome apparent priviledges or benefits included concerning his poſterity; If now the Lord of whom hee held it, ſhould offer him a new Grant in which his children ſhould be expreſſely left out, and no more priviledges for them then for meere ſtrangers, could an Argument bee taken from the benefit that ſhould come to his Children, to perſwade him to give up his former, and accept this latter Grant? I thinke not. And whereas you call that expreſſion of putting of the children of beleevers into the ſame ſtate with the children of Turks, a Coccyſme which you have anſwered before. I pardon your ſcornfull expreſſion, you doe but kick at that which bites you, it is a truth which you have no cauſe to delight to heare of; you have anſwered it indeed, by granting the truth of it, as the Reader may plainly ſee in my Anſwer to your 10 Section of the ſecond Part; and to Sect. 3. of this part.

Whereas I further ſaid in my Sermon, except in relation to the Covenant, there was no occaſion to name their children, it bad been ſufficient to have ſaid a promiſe is made to as many as the Lord ſhall call. You anſwer, Their children indeed are named in relation to the Covenant: But there was another reaſon then that which I alledge; not onelyonly their imprecation, Matth. 27. 25. but eſpecially becauſe Chriſt was firſt ſent to the Jews and their children, Acts 3. 26. I Reply, but this reaſon which you alledge affords no Argument for them now, to beleeve and repent from any benefit ſhould come to their poſterity by vertue of that promiſe, I will bee thy God, and the God of thy ſeed.

To cloſe this Section, you ſay, The Antipadobaptiſts have hence a good Argument againſt baptizing of Infants, becauſe Poter required of ſuch as were in Covenant repentance before baptiſms. I anſwer, juſt as good an one, as becauſe Abraham was in Covenant, and an actuall beleever, and juſtified by the faith he had in uncircumciſion, and received it as a ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of faith; therefore all theſe muſt go p. 134before Circumciſion; and becauſe all who turned Proſelytes to the Jews, muſt firſt make profeſſion of their faith; therefore none may bee circumciſed but ſuch as they are. But more of this when we conſider this Argument in your Exercitation.

Next, let us try whether your ſucceſſe bee any better againſt the next Text of Scripture which I brought to prove To Sect. 7.this Concluſion; viz. Rom. 11. 16. &c. where I ſaid, The Apoſtles ſcope was to ſhew that we Gentiles have now the ſame Rom. 11. 6. &c. vindicated.Rom 11:6graffing into the true Olive which the Jewes formerly had; and our preſent graffing in is anſwerable to their preſent caſting out; and their taking in at the latter end of the World, ſhall bee the ſame graffing in [though more gloriouſly] as ours is now; and it is apparent that at their firſt graffing in, they and their chi…dren were taken in; at their caſting out they and their children were broken off; and when they ſhall be taken in again at the end of the world, they and their children ſhall be taken in together; and all this by vertue of the Covenant, Ero Deus tuus, &c. Which is the ſame to us and to them, we and they making up the Church of God.

In your Examen of this Argument you ſtill proceed in your old method; firſt to caſt ſcorne upon it, as ſuch an obſcure Argument, That none but a Diver of Delos can fetch up the meaning of it: and indeed, ſhould you not pretend difficulties, you could have no colour to bring in ſo many imaginary ſenſes; thereby to darken an Argument, which is the ſecond branch of your Artifice: As whether this ingraffing be meant of the viſible, or inviſible Church, by faith, or profeſſion of ſaith certain, by reaſon of election, or Covenant of grace made to them, or probable and likely, becauſe for the moſt part it happens ſo, &c. Alas Sir, why doe you thus ſtrip your ſelfe to dive under the water, when the ſenſe ſwims upon the top: Look how the Jewes were Gods people, ſo are the Churches of the Gentiles; looke how the Jewes children were graffed in, ſo are our children, we are taken in, in ſtead of them who were caſt out, and become one viſible kingdom of Chriſt with the reſt of, them who kept their ſtation; p. 135this is the plaine ſenſe of my Argument. Now if you pleaſe but to apply all your imaginary ſenſes to the Jews and their children, and ſay, if they and their children were graffed in together, was it into the viſible, or inviſible Church? was it by faith, or the profeſſion of faith? was it certain or probable? Doe you not thinke your Reader would ſmile at the vanity of theſe queſtions?

When you have ſet downe your ſenſes, next you thus proceed, the thing that is to be proved is, That all the infants of every beleever are in the Covenant of Free grace in Chriſt, and by vertue thereof to bee baptized into the Communi- of the viſible Church. No Sir, the thing to bee proved from this Text, is, That our infants have the ſame right which the infants of the Jews had, and your Arguments fight againſt the Infants of the Jews, as much as againſt the Infants of the Gentiles; for [to apply your own words ſpoken of beleevers now, to the Jewes then,] Though it may bee granted that the infants of the Jews were for the moſt part under the election and Covenant of grace, and ſo in the viſible Church; yet it will not follow that every infant of a Jew, in as much as hee is the child of a Jew, or a beleever, is under the Covenant of grace, becauſe we have Gods expreſſe declaration to the contrary, Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. and all experience proves the contrary; is not this as much againſt the one as the other?

To what I ſaid, the Jewes Infants were graffed in by Circumciſion; therefore ours are to be ingraffed in by Baptiſme. You anſwer, by demanding whether in good ſadneſſe I doe thinke the Apoſtle here meanes by graffing in, baptizing or Circumciſion, or inciſion by outward Ordinances; for if that were the meaning, then breaking off muſt be meant of uncircumciſing or unbaptizing. To which I reply, that in good ſober ſadneſſe I do think that graffing in is admiſſion into viſible memberſhip, or viſible communion with the Church of Chriſt; and that the externall ſeale of their viſible graffing in was Circumciſion, and of ours Baptiſme; and yet it follows not, that breaking off is onelyonly uncircumciſing, or unbaptizing▪ but breaking off… a caſting out from that viſible memberſhip whereof this Sacrament is a Symbole. p. 136But to you it ſeems that ingraffing here, is meant of the inviſible Church by election and faith: I Reply, if it be meant of the inviſible Church onelyonly; and that all who are graffed in, in the Apoſtles ſenſe, whether Jews or Gentiles, are onelyonly electones, I will ſolemnly promiſe you never to plead this Scripture more, for any Infants, either of Jews or Gentiles; no nor for viſible Profeſſors of either of them; provided onelyonly if you cannot make that good, you will [as indeed you muſt] yeeld that ſome are to be reputed viſible Church-members, though not elect, whether Jews or Gentiles, and that our graffing in, is as theirs was; they and their children, we and our children; and if you pleaſe, let us a little try it out. The Text is plaine, ſome of the branches were broken off, ſuch branches whoſe naturall growing in the Olive yeelded them that priviledge which they now partake of who are graffed in in their ſtead; were theſe broken off from the inviſible Church? you dare not ſay ſo: if then the Olive from which they were broken off, bee the viſible Church, I have enough: and I wonder that any but an Arminian, ſhould make any queſtion that the Apoſtle ſpeaks onelyonly of rejecting the Nation of the Jewes from being the viſible Church, and taking the body of the Gentiles in their ſtead, to be Gods viſible Kingdom; in that it is meant of ſuch an ingraffing as may be broken off, which cannot bee from the inviſible Church. But let us ſee how you ſeek to evade this, and how you prove that it muſt bee meant of the inviſible Church: Abraham (ſay you) bad a a double capacity, one of a naturall Father, and another the father of the faithfull; in reſpect of the former capacity, ſome are called branches according to nature; others wilde Olives by nature, yet graffed in by faith: and when it is ſaid that ſome of the naturall branches were brokin off, the meaning is not that ſome of the branches of the inviſible Church may be broken off; but onelyonly ſuch as were ſo in appearance, according as our Saviour expreſſes it Joh. 15. 2. But I Reply, I profeſſe I underſtand not how this diſtinction gives you the leaſt helpe, for tell me I pray you, were not theſe whom you cal naturall branches is truly in the Olive as they who being wilde by nature were yet p. 137graffed in, in the ſtead of them who were broke off? If they were, how doth this diſtinction help you? You ſay indeed, That the Infants of beleeving Jewes were not in the Covenant of grace, becauſe they were their children: if by this you meane they were not members of the inviſible Church, you ſay the truth, but nothing to the purpoſe. But if your meaning be, that they had not a viſible memberſhip, ſuch an ingraffing as gave them a right to outward Ordinances; you not onelyonly contradict the Scripture, but your ſelfe, who plead this, That it was a peculiar priviledge to Abraham, that his children ſhould have ſuch a viſible ſtanding as ours have not: plainly, the Jewes were the naturall branches, ſome of them were elect, ſome not, the body of them were the branches ſpoke of in this place; many of theſe were broke off, others of them kept their ſtation; yet Gods election failes not; even ſo is it now, the Gentiles were graffed in, that is, their viſible faith gave them a viſible ingraffing, their inviſible faith gave them (who have it) an inviſible memberſhip: yea, to me your ſelfe ſeem to ſay as much, when pag. 63. you affirme, inciſion may be either into the viſible or inviſible Church; graffing in, may be either by faith, or profeſſion of faith. And pag. 65. It is true that our preſent graffing in, is anſwerable to [or rather for their] caſting out; that is, God would ſupply in his Olive tree the Church, the caſting away of the Iews by the calling of the Gentiles, ſo much the Apoſtle ſaith, ver. 17. thou being a wilde Olive, wer't graffed in, in ramorum defractorum locum, into the place of the branches broken off; if you mean it in this ſenſe (ſay you) I grant it. And truly Sir, in theſe words, to my underſtanding, you grant not onelyonly my interpretation of this place, but even the queſtion controverted betwixt us. Firſt, you grant my interpretation, that it is not meant of the inviſible, but the viſible Church: for I know you will not ſay that any of the elect Jewes were broken off, and the Gentiles elected and put into their place. It muſt therefore be meant of the viſible, and of the viſible Church of the New Teſtament; and that thoſe Jewes who kept their ſtation, and we who are in the roome of thoſe that were broke off, doe make that Olive which the Jewes p. 138made before. Yea ſecondly, you by neceſſary confequence grant, that our children are taken in as theirs were, we are graffed in, in ramorum defractorum loeum; we ſupply in the Olive tree the Church, the caſting away of the Jews. Now if we thus ſupply, our children ſupply the place of their children which were broken off; and beſide, we are one with the reſt of the Jews who remained in this Olive; and their remaining in the Olive, did not (I hope) deprive them of that priviledge which before-times they had for their children, and therefore we muſt have the ſame with them, and a greater then they had for their children, none of us ever pleaded, though ours be clearer, and a greater meaſure of grace accompanying it.

You goe on, and ſay, when ſome of the naturall branches were cut off, it is not meant any otherwiſe then our Saviour Chriſt meanes, Joh. 15. 2. Every branch in me not bearing fruit hee Joh. 15. 2. proves the interpretation to be true.John 15:2takes away; that is, not that any branch truly in him could bee fruitleſſe, or taken away, but onelyonly thoſe branches which were ſo in appearance. I reply, that this is my very meaning, that this ſtanding as branches of the Olive, is not to be limited to the inviſible, but takes in the viſible alſo, not reſtrained to ſuch as have a ſpirituall union with Chriſt by faith, but takes in alſo the externall profeſſion of faith, which oft times is not in truth, that which it appears to be.

Whereas you ſay, the Apoſtles ſcope in the whole chapter is to anſwer that queſtion; Hath God caſt away his people, &c. and not to ſhew that wee have now the ſame graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had. I anſwer, I undertook not to Analize the whole Chapter, but to open the ſcope of that matter or argument which begins at the 16 ver. and that you cannot gainſay, but that there the Apoſtle makes an Argument from our graffing in in their ſtead. And you minde me alſo of my owne diſtinction of the ſubſtance of the Covenant, and the adminiſtration of it. Sir, I thank you for remembring me of it, it is of very good uſe in this place, though not of that uſe which you bring it for, we have the ſame Covenant with them for the ſubſtance; which Covenant conſiſts of the ſame bleſſings, and is applyable upon the p. 139ſame conditions, belongs to the ſame ſorts of perſons, but the adminiſtration of it, is clean differing from theirs. You grant, That by faith wee partake of the ſubſtance of the Covenant, in reſpect of which, all beleeving Gentiles are Abrahams ſeed. Yea, and you may adde, viſible beleevers are his viſible ſeed: But if you mean it (ſay you) of the outward adminiſtration of this ingraffing by Circumciſion, Baptiſme, &c. nothing is more falſe, the outward adminiſtration is utterly taken away; and to affirme that it is not, were to …vacuate the blood of Chriſt in this particular. But Sir, this is at the beſt but cunning dealing, and in part, a confident falſe aſſertion; it is cunning to ſay by Circumciſion, Baptiſme, &c. as if both theſe belonged to one adminiſtration. Indeed to affirme that ingraffing into the viſible Church, ſhould now bee by Circumciſion, were to evacuate the death of Chriſt in that particular; but to ſay [as you ought, if you would ſpeake plainly] that to have our initiation now by Baptiſme into the viſible Church, as formerly by Circumciſion; or to ſay that all outward adminiſtrations of the Covenant are now utterly taken away, [though the old one is vaniſhed] is not onelyonly a co…fident, but a falſe aſſertion, and if you ſay not this, you apply my diſtinction to no purpoſe.

You goe on, whereas I ſaid their taking in in the end of the world wil be as ours, they and their children; you grant this is true. If it be true, that their children by being the children of beleevers ſhal be accounted to belong to the Church, you grant my Argument, if you meane not ſo, but think that at their laſt and beſt reſtauration, their children ſhal not enjoy that priviledge which they had when they were Gods people before, why doe you not ſay ſo, that all the world may ſee that you think in their beſt condition they ſhall bee deprived of that glorious priviledge which they enjoyed in their non-age? and yet you grant, That they and their children ſhall bee taken in, yea and a more full taking in of the children of the Jews, then is now of the Gentiles, according to that, Rom. 11. 26. And ſo all Iſrael ſhall be ſaved. But (ſay you) all this proves not, that God would have either all Infants of beleevers, counted his as elect perſons, or in the Covenant of grace in p. 140Chriſt, or in the face of the viſible Church admitted to Baptiſme. I anſwer, the thing to be proved was, our Infants have the ſame priviledge with theirs▪ and that it proves abundantly; as for election, wee are not to eſteem all viſible members, whether Infants or grown men, to bee elected, God having declared the contrary, this being true in all ages of the Church, Many are called, and but few choſen. Notwithſtanding, when we ſpeak of particulars, wee have the ſame ground of charitable hope for one as for another. As for your other expreſſion, That this proves not that they are to bee looked upon as viſible members of the Church, and to be admitted to outward Ordinances; this is onelyonly to deny the Concluſion, whether this being proved, that our Infants have the ſame right to bee reckoned to the Church of God, as well as the Infants of the Jews, be not a juſt ground, and as good a foundation to prove, that therefore they muſt bee admitted to that Ordinance which is the initiall ſeale, ſhall in due time appeare, when I have made good the next concluſion, That Baptiſme ſucceeds in the roome of circumciſion to that uſe; in the meane time let the Reader judge.

I further ſaid of the Jews, they ſhall by vertue of Gods Covenant bee taken in againe in the end of the world, becauſe the root is holy, becauſe Gods covenant with Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob extends yet to them, and ſhall againe bloſſome, and will take place, when the Nations unbeleefe ſhall bee taken away, and their preſent nationall condition I ſhadowed out in the compariſon of Nebuchadnezzars dreame, Dan. 4. 14. of a tree that was cut downe, and the root bound with an iron chaine, and yet afterward did grow again. The thing it ſelf you deny not, nor go about to anſwer my argument drawn from the Jewes, viz. we, as they, were taken in; they, and their children ſhall be at the laſt taken in againe, as they were at the firſt: and therefore we and they making up the ſame body, are taken in upon the ſame ground, our children with us, as well as theirs with them; this Argument (I ſay) you go not about to anſwer, but in ſtead of anſwering, you pick quarrels againſt my compariſon taken from Nebuehadnezzars dreame. Why Sir, I never thought a Scholar would have expected a compariſon p. 141ſhould runne upon foure feet; nor have wreſted it beyond what was intended by it, I never intended to make Nebuchadnezzars dreame an argument to prove, but onelyonly to illuſtrate, that as that tree for a while was cut downe, and the root bound with an Iron chaine, was kept from growing, yet in the end the chaine was removed, and the tree grew againe; ſo the nation of the Jewes was for a while caſt off, from being the people of God, during the time of their blindneſſe and unbeleefe, but in the end the vaile ſhould be removed, and their nation taken into their former Church-ſtanding, yea and more gloriouſly, and that by reaſon of the Covenant; But from this you ſeeke to draw many abſurdities, and to ſhew wherein my compariſon holds not; as this tree is not cut downe as that was, onelyonly ſome branches broken off, and that to make Abraham the root; to bee bound with a chaine is unhandſome; and that in this allufion, I ſometimes make Abraham the roote, ſometimes the Covenant the root, &c. all which are worthy of no anſwer; nothing being held out in the alluſion but what I now ſaid; nevertheleſſe, were it pertinent to our controverſie it might eaſily enough be ſhewed, how in a ſound ſenſe the Covenant is the root upon which Abraham and all the reſt of the branches grow, and alſo how by vertue of the Covenant, Abraham is alſo a root from which his ſeed grow, yea, and ſeverall beleevers are roots from which their poſteritie ſprings, and how in one ſound ſenſe Abraham, Iſaac and Iacob, and all viſible beleevers make up this one tree this Olive, and yet in another ſenſe they are all but branches of this Olive.

Whereas I ſaid in all this diſcourſe, the holineſſe of the branches there ſpoke of, is not meant of a perſonall inherent holineſſe, but an holineſſe derived to them from their Anceſtors, a faederall holineſſe. Againſt this you except many things. Firſt, Mr. Goodwin expounds it otherwiſe: if Mr. Goodwin meane that there is no other holines which may make men eſteemed ſo in facie dei according to Rom. 2. ult. I concur with him, but if he ſay there is no other holineſſe, or that the profeſſion of holineſſe may not make him paſſe as holy in facie viſibilis Eccleſiae, p. 142when I heare him ſay ſo (as yet I never did) I ſhall diſſent from him though hee be my loving friend. Secondly, ſay you, bere are divers things to be marked indeed, but with an obeliske: indeed Sir that brand is alwayes ready at your hand, let us ſee whether you have ſet it juſtly or no in this place, and whether your impartiall Reader will not take Derivative and inherent holineſſe not opſed.it off and ſet it upon your ſelfe. I oppoſe (ſay you) perſonall inherent holineſſe, to derivative holineſſe as inconſiſtent: but Reader looke into my Sermon, and ſee whether I did ſo or no; I confidently deny this charge, I onelyonly ſhewed the meaning of the word in this place to bee of derivative holineſſe common to the whole nation, not excluding perſonall inherent holineſſe in true beleevers among them; and I ſay again, the whole nation was called holy, not perſonally inherent, but federally; and you acknowledge here a derivative holineſſe from Abraham as a ſpirituall father, yet I ſuppoſe you will not undertake to juſtifie that true inherent holineſſe is derived from any, but from our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and his holy ſpirit. Next ſay you, this holineſſe is derived not from any Anceſters, but onelyonly from Abraham. But I beſeech you in your next not onelyonly to dictate this, as in this booke you doe very often; but cleare and prove it by ſome good arguments, why it does not deſcend from other immediate parents, who are beleevers, as well as originally from Abraham: for parents who are branches from Abraham their father, are yet rootes to their children who ſpring from them; Doe wee not read of the root of Ieſſe, Eſay 11? though hee was but a branch from Abraham, might not every parent among the Jewes, at leaſt every beleeving parent apply that promiſe made to Abraham, I will bee the God of thee, and thy ſeed? if you thinke hee may not, diſprove the Arguments which I have brought for it, in anſwer to your ſixt Section. I demand further, was not ſuch a holineſſe derived from Abraham to his naturall ſeed, or poſteritie, where all Abrahams poſteritie, who are called the holy ſeed, true beleevers, and inwardly holy? No (ſay you) other parents are not Beleeving parents are roots to their children.roots, Abraham onelyonly is an holy roote, or at the moſt, Abraham, Iſ…ac, and Jacob, in whoſe names the Covenant runs. To which p. 143I reply, firſt, this is to ſay and unſay; Abraham onelyonly is an holy roote, yet Iſaac and Iacob are holy roots too. Secondly, the Apoſtle names none of them at all, but ſpeakes of the fathers, which includes all their Anceſtors, at leaſt more then Abraham onelyonly. Thirdly, how often did God (as I ſhewed before) renew that promiſe, I will bee the God of thee and of thy ſeed, after Abraham, Iſaac and Iacob were all dead? Fourthly, your ſelf ſay, the body of beleevers is compared to the Olive tree, and each beleever to a branch, and then, ſure Abraham, Iſaac and Iacob onelyonly, are not the root or tree which bare the branches, but the body of beleevers is the tree, and ſo (by your owne grant) it followes, beleevers in one ſenſe are the tree, in another the branches. Fiftly, I adde, that the body of beleevers, who make this Olive tree and branches, muſt neceſſarily be underſtood of viſible profeſſors, and not reſtrained or limited to true beleevers onelyonly, otherwiſe the branches could not have been broken off, as is aforeſaid.

Next you ſtep out of your way, to reproach Mr. Thomas Mr. Goodwin Vindicated.Goodwin, who (ſay you) indeavored to inſerre a kind of promiſe of deriving holineſſe from beleevers to their poſteritie out of the ſimilitude of an Olive, and its branches, compared with Pſal. 128. 3. &c. And then you vilifie him, as a man who by ſpinning out ſimilitudes and conjectures, deludes his Auditory with ſuch things, rather then ſatisfie them with arguments: what his diſcourſe was, you ſet not downe, nor in what ſenſe he alledged holineſſe to be derived from beleeving parents to their poſterity, but why like Iſhmael your ſword ſhould bee thus againſt every man, I cannot tell? as for Mr. Goodwin (notwithſtanding his difference from me in ſome points of Church-government) I can doe no leſſe then teſtifie that I know him to be a Learned godly Divine, and an eminent Preacher of the Goſpel of Chriſt, and his worth not to be blaſted by your ſcornfull ſpeech; and for the things you alledge againſt him, he aſſures mee, You have ſet downe his notions in your Booke otherwiſe then he preached them; and that in due time hee intends to publiſh his Sermons, and then the world ſhall ſee whether you have done him right or not.

p. 144Laſtly, to that which I aſſerted, That the Infants both of Children follow the Covenant condition of their parents.Jewes and Gentiles, for theſe outward diſpenſations are comprehended in their Parents; the Infants of godly Parents, according to the tenor of his mercy; the Infants of the wicked, according to the tenor of his juſtice: you upon this demand whether I do not in this ſymbolize with Arminius, who makes this the cauſe why the poſterity of ſome people have not the goſpel, becauſe their forefathers refuſed it; and you bring in the learned Doctor Twiſſe, and Moulin diſputing againſt him in that point. How faine would you Mr Tombes ſymbolizing with Arminius his expounding Rom. 11.Rom 11ſay ſomewhat which might reproach this Argument? But may not both theſe things be true, that God ſhews mercy to whom he pleaſes, and hardens whom he pleaſes, and yet ſhews mercies to thouſands of generations that feare him, and viſit the ſins of parents upon their children? may wee not ſay truly when God caſt out the nation of the Jewes from being his people, that for their ſins he gave the Bill of Divorce to them and to their children, that they ſhould no longer be his people in Covenant, as they were in time paſt, and yet his grace remain free? I ſpake expreſſely of outward adminiſtration of the Covenant, That when Parents are taken into Covenant, their children alſo with them have a viſible right, and when God gives a bill of divorce from a viſible Church ſtanding, (for to true beleevers hee never gives any) their children are caſt out with them, as appeares in the Jewes at this day; is this to ſymboliſe with Arminius; or doth Doctor Twiſſe or Moulin, or any other of our Orthodox writers gaineſay this? I appeale to every learned Reader to judge; But é regione, I deſire you to ſhew how you will avoyd ſymholizing with the Arminians, who indeavor to prove falling away from true grace and holineſſe, from this 11. of the Romans, becauſe the branches were broken off, when you with them ſay, the graffing into the Olive here is meant of true beleevers graffed into the inviſible Church, yet of the branches growing in, or graffed into this Olive, it is expreſly ſaid ſome were broken off, and others will fare no better if they beleeve not. Bert us in his relation of the conference at the Hague, urges this very place, to prove that it is poſſ…ble for the Saints to fall away from grace, becauſe p. 145we are adviſed to take warning by the Jewes Example, who were broken off for their unbeleefe; I know that you thinke not that true beleevers may fall away, but how you will avoid the Argument, interpreting this place as you doe, I profeſſe I cannot tell.

And now I leave it to every judicious Reader, whether you or I have darkned this Scripture, whether you in ſaying this Text, is meant of the inviſible Church onelyonly, and the graffing in is by election and faith, or I who ſay the rejecting is of the Jewes from being of the viſible Church, and ingraffing is meant of the taking in of the Churches of the Gentiles to bee the viſible Church, kingdome, and people of God in their roomes; whether (in a word) I who interpret it of ſuch a growing in the Olive, or ingraffing into it, as may endure a breaking off, and yet none fall from ſaving grace who once had it, or you who make ſuch a graffing in, as that if any branches bee broken off, it muſt neceſſarily follow, that branches may bee rent off from the inviſible Church, and fall away from inward holineſſe, have interpreted this Text, moſt agreeable to the Analogy of faith, and the Apoſtles ſcope: and to conclude, let the Reader alſo judge, whether this Text (notwithſtanding all your indeavors) remaine not ſtill in my hands, as one of my ſtrong holds, to defend this concluſion, That the obildron of beleevers new, have the ſame right to the Covenant with their Parents, as the children of the Jewes had with their Parents.

Now (ſay you) you are come to my principall hold, 1 Cor. 7. 14. I perceive at firſt you thinke there is ſome To Sect. 8. 1 Cor. 7. vindicated.1 Cor 7ſtrength in it, for you have brought a huge army againſt it, and drawne a long line about it, raiſed abundance of batteries, and in a very long diſcourſe ſay ſomething almoſt to every ſentence of mine concerning this Scripture, and after all your ſhot is ſpent, you cry Io triumphus, I have got your chiefe hold which you had beſt manned. Truely Sir you ſpeake like …, qui diff…avi… omnes … Gurgu …. But the beſt is, all the ground is not yours that you walke over, nor every man killed that you p. 146ſhoot at. I have no feare that your great ſwelling words will give any ſatisfaction to your judicious Readers; wee will come to what you have done, and try what ſtrength there is in this long Section, and that I may make my anſwer to it as briefe as is poſſible, I ſhall bring all the matter of your diſcourſe to three heads. Firſt, ſuch things as wherein you and I doe agree, and muſt neceſſarily agree. Secondly ſuch things as wherein whether wee agree or diſagree it matters not much to the point in controverſie; theſe two I ſhall but touch upon. Thirdly, ſuch things wherein wee differ, and which really concerne the controverſie betwixt us. And theſe things (God willing) wee will try out hand to hand.

Firſt, wee agree, that ſanctified may have many ſenſes, and that of thoſe many, two onelyonly are applicable in this place, either the matrimoniall ſanctification, which you inſiſt upon, viz. Chaſtitie in the wife and husband, or lawfull matrimony between them, and legitimation of the children. Or elſe Inſtrumentall ſanctification, in the husband and wife, and federall holineſſe in the children, which I inſiſt upon. Wee agree alſo, ſecondly, that i… may ſignifie by as well as in. Wee further agree thirdly, that the ſeepe and meaning of the Text is, that the Corinthians having writ for the Apoſtles reſolution whether it were lawfull for them who were converted, ſtill to retaine their Infidell wives or husbands; the Apoſtle here reſolves that caſe upon the affirmative. And I will further agree with you fourthly, that theſe words elſe were your Children uncleane, &c. are a medium or argument whereby the Apoſtle proves the former ſentence, the unbeleeving husband is ſanctified in the wife, &c. I yet further agree, fiftly, that all the places which you cite out of the learned Chamier often cited to no purpoſe.Chamier are Orthodox, and clearely prove that for which hee brings them, viz. That ſanctification cannot bee underſtood of the converſion of the unbeleever, through the diligence of the beleever, page 73. And that the Argument is not fetched from a contingent thing, pag. 74. And that holineſſe is not meant of ceremoniall holineſſe (which ſenſe was aſcribed to Auguſtine) pag. 76. And that the holineſſe of Children here, is not that p. 147which they receive from their education, pag. 75. And I am ſure you muſt agree with mee, ſixtly, that in all theſe teſtimonies you have cited out of Chamier, there is not one word againſt my Interpretation, or for the Juſtification of yours; And againſt his owne judgment.yea and I know alſo that you will agree with mee ſeventhly, that the learned Chamier in a large diſpute doth confute your interpretation, and vindicate my interpretation, as the onelyonly true and proper meaning of this Text, even in that very place where you quote him. And therefore I know the Reader will agree with mee (whether you doe or no) Cham. Panſtrat. Cathol. Tom. 4. lib. 3. ca. 10.that you doe but abuſe your Author and Reader, both in making a flouriſh with Chamiers name nothing to the purpoſe, and thereby would make the Reader conceive Chamier to bee of your ſide when hee is point-blanke againſt you. I yet further agree with you, eighthly, that ſome Interpreters both antient and moderne doe interpret this Text as you doe, and I am ſure you will alſo agree that it were eaſie for mee to bring ten for one, who interpret this Text as I doe; though I forbeare to bumbaſt my booke with them, no wayes deſiring that this cauſe ſhould bee carryed by number of ſuffrages.

Secondly, there are many things in this Section wherein wee differ, but the cauſe depends nothing at all upon them; Beza cited by Mr. Tombes contrary to his owne judgement.firſt, you ſeverall times cite the learned Beza as if hee were of your mind in the interpretation of this Text, to conſtrue it of matrimoniall holin…ſſ…. I confeſſe the cauſe depends not upon Beza's judgement, but your reputation depends much upon making this good: That you ſhould dare to cite an author as interpreting it for you who exprofeſſo interprets it againſt you; Beza indeed acknowledgeth this Text warrants a lawfull uſe, but withall ſets himſelfe to prove that that's not all, but ſaith it's ſuch a ſanctification as I contend for, and ſaith, no man may interpret it otherwiſe then I doe of federall holineſſe: according to the Covenant, Ero Deus tuu…, &c. And out of that very Text, doth (in his annotations upon that place) aſſert Infant-Baptiſme. Secondiy, you thinke this Text was never interpreted of federall holineſſe untill the dayes of Luther: the cauſe I confeſſe depends p. 148not upon this, but it diſcovers ſome defect in your reading, ſince it is apparent that Athanaſius, one of the moſt ancient of the Greek Fathers, and Tertullian one of Tertullian and Athanaſius expound this Text for ſederall holineſſe.the moſt antient of the Latine Fathers bring this Text to prove the prerogative of the Infants of beleevers, which certainly they could not have done if they had interpreted as you doe, that their children were legitimate, nor have given them any title to the kingdome of heaven, if to their underſtanding it had not related to the Covenant of Grace. Thirdly, whether Mr. Blakes paralleling this place with Gal. 2. 15. (upon which you ſpend almoſt two whole pages) bee good or no, or whether theſe places doe interpret one another, is not much materiall to the preſent controverſie about this Text, although it be plaine, that by Jewes by n… ture the Apoſtle intends the Church-priviledge of the Iewes in oppoſition to the Gentiles, as I have elſwhere ſhewed. Fourthly, whether Bellarmine was the firſt who expounded holy for Iegitimate, in confuting whereof you ſpend another page, and alledge ſundry Authors before him who ſo underſtood it; this is not to our buſineſſe though you take occaſion to ſhew your reading in it.

Thirdly, this therefore onelyonly remaines to bee tryed out between us, whether this bee meant of lawfulneſſe of wedlock between man and wife, and legitimation of children, as you affirme; or of Inſtrumentall ſanctification, betweene husband and wife quoad hoc, and federall holineſſe of children, as I affirme; wherein I ſhall, firſt, make it plaine that your Interpretation cannot hold; ſecondly, that mine muſt ſtand.

The ſenſe which you undertake to juſtifie is, that it is a Matrimoniall ſanctification, when the Apoſtle ſaith the unbeleeving husband is ſanctified by the wife, &c. the meaning i…, their marriage is lawfull, and their children are not unclean, but holy; the meaning is, they are not baſtards, but lawfully begotten. Againſt this I diſpute. Firſt, in making good Mr. Tombes his interpretation of this Text overthrowne by eight Arguments.the foure Arguments uſed in my Sermon againſt this interpretation; the firſt whereof was this, uncleanneſſe and holineſſe when oppoſed one to another, are never meant of civilly lawfull or unlawfull, but are alwayes uſed in a p. 149ſacred ſenſe, alluding to a right of admiſſion into or uſe in the tabernatle 1 Argument vindicated.or Temple, which were types of the viſible Church, & holineſſe is always taken for a ſeparation of Perſons or things from common to ſacred uſe. To this you except many things.

Firſt, you like not the term civill holineſſe, you rather would call it matrimoniall holineſſe, becauſe its inſtitution is of God, not from the laws of Man. I Reply, this is a poor ſhift; by holy and civill wee diſtinguiſh things belonging to the firſt and ſecond Table. All ſecond Table duties are civill things, though their inſtitution be of God; civill Magiſtracy though inſtituted of God; obedience of children to their Parents, though inſtituted of God; and all the judiciall lawes given to the Jews about meum and tuum; were they not therefore civill, becauſe they were Gods inſtitutions? Or is marriage a buſineſſe more concerning Religion, then theſe are? is it a Sacrament? or how elſe, is it more holy then theſe other civill things?

You except ſecondly, uncleanneſſe may bee taken for baſtardy, in an alluſion to a Tabernacle uſe: Baſtards being numbered among the uncleane. I Reply, this is ſpoken without any proof, for although the Lord ſaith, Deuteronom. 23. 2. Deut. 23. 2. vindicated.Deut 23:2That a baſtard ſhall not come into the congregation of the Lord, it cannot be meant that baſtards ſhall bee numbered among the uncleane, or having nothing to doe about Tabernacle or Temple ſervices; for there was the ſame law for Eunuchs who were not excluded as unclean: no unclean perſon might eate the Paſſeover, might no Eunuch or Baſtard eate the Paſſeover? Beſide, when you thus conſtrue, elſe were your children unclean, you make there a Baſtard and unclean, to be termini convertibiles, conſequently every unclean child muſt bee a baſtard. Now if any man would ſuppoſe that baſtards might bee reckoned amongſt unclean, yet all unclean children muſt not bee reckoned amongſt baſtards; all the children of the Gentiles were unclean, but they were not baſtards. It is needleſſe to enter into a further diſcourſe about that place, Deut. 23. how or in what ſenſe a baſtard might not come into the Congregation; whether by the Congregation be meant the Sanhedrin, as ſome; or whether his not entring, bee of bearing p. 150Office, as others; or of not marrying a wife an Iſraeliteſſe, as others, it matters not, it's ſufficient they were not numbred among the unclean.

Thirdly, you refer me to the 1 Theſſ. 4. 7. God hath not called us to uncleanneſſ, but unto holineſſe; and deſire me to tell you, whether uncleanneſſe be not there meant of fornication, and by holineſſe, chaſtity. I anſwer, I prevented this in my Sermon: and ſhewed that chaſtity among the Heathens, is never called ſanctification; the holy Spirit onelyonly is the Spirit of ſanctification, and the bodies of the Heathens are not the temples of the holy Ghoſt: but among beleevers it may be called ſo, becauſe it is a part of the new creation, a part of the inward adorning of the Temples of the holy Ghoſt; and though the chaſtity of beleevers is onelyonly a morall vertue in reſpect of the object, yet in reſpect of the root, principle, end, it's a Chriſtian vertue, and it's an act of pure Religion, to keep a mans ſelf unſpotted from the fleſh, as well as from the world, Iam. 1. 27. Beſides, I now adde, there is no reaſon that that place, 1 Theſſ. 4. ſhould be reſtrained to fornication, 1. Theſſ. 4. vindicated. Beza not interprets this Text as Mr. Tombes would ſeem to make him.1 Thess 4becauſe many other ſins are named in that place, beſides fornication. Mark the words in the 3 ver. the Apoſtle tels them, That the will of God is their ſanctification, that every one ſhould abſtaine from fornication; that no man goe beyond and defraud his brother in any matter. And then he gives this as a reaſon common to all the particulars, becauſe God ha…h not called us to uncleanneſſe, but to holineſſe. So that by holineſſe there, is meant not onelyonly chaſtity but juſtice alſo; and what kind of conſequence were there in ſuch an Argument; let no man goe beyond his brother in bargaining, becauſe God hath not called us to fornication, but to chaſtity? Whereas you alledge Beza thus interpreting this Text, verſ. 3. This is the will of God, even your ſanctification, i. e. ſaith Beza, that you abſtain from fornication; and upon this id eſt, you build much; therefore I ſhall conſider it. Sir, id eſt put in by Beza, hath reference not onelyonly to that which doth immediately follow, namely, that you abſtaine from fornication; but to the 6 verſe alſo, that no man go… beyond and defraud his brother: Beza ſaith, id eſt, ut abſtineatis, ut ne quis opprimat & habeat p. 151quaeſtui, It being ordinary to have inſtances given in the ſecond Table, when the duties of the firſt Table are included, if not principally intended; that the holy Ghoſt might meet with Hypocrites, who are apt to put all their holineſſe in outward performances. Yea, Beza in the ſame place in his Annotations upon the word foreign, referres him to Iob. 17. 17. and his note upon Iob. 17. 17. is this, Sanctum autem dicitur, quod Deo peculiariter devotum ac conſecratum eſt; an expreſſion agreeable to the Hebrew notion, and therefore Beza addeth, eſt autem hoc vocabulum profectum ab Hebraeis: ſo that by Beza we are brought back to the notion of conſecrating and devoting things to God. But you yet endeavour further, and turne and winde the words every way, and run over all words that are of the ſame Tribe or kindred, foreign, becauſe you cannot find foreign among the heathen; and in the end you have Hen. Steph. miſrecited.found an inſtance in Stephanus's Theſaurus, where foreign ſignifies caſtim…niam ſervo, [I am chaſte.] But firſt, Stephanus ſpeakes but doubtingly, he puts in videtur, which you leave out. Beſides, foreign is uſually meant, foreign, ſo Suidas; and the very inſtance which you from Stephanus have brought out of Demoſthenes, makes directly againſt you: for the Prieſt ſaith, I offer ſacrifice, and I am in caſe to doe it, for I am pure from the company of man, foreign, and all other things which might pollute me. That is, I am holy according to my order, and therefore fit to doe my office. Theſe laſt words which give the full ſenſe of the place, you have (not very fairly) left out of your Quotation. Yet you make another ſupplement out of Corinth. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 34. miſ-interpreted by Mr. Tombes.1 Cor 7:3434. That ſhe may be holy in body and ſpirit; and demand whether the meaning be not that ſhee may be chaſte. I anſwer, the plaine meaning is, that ſhe being free from worldly diſtractions, is at more liberty to give her ſelf wholly to godlineſſe, then others can, who have theſe worldly avocations; and in truth it is a pretty odd ſenſe which you have invented of this place, the unmarried cares for the things of God, that ſhe may be chaſte; but ſhe that is married cares for the things of the p. 152world how ſhee may pleaſe her husband. I wonder what learned man concurs with you in this: I doubt in this rare interpretation you are all alone. When I added, That even 1 Tim. 4 5. vindicated.1 Tim 4:5the meat and drink of beleevers, ſanctified to them, ſerves for a religious end and uſe, to refreſh them who are the Temples of the holy Ghoſt. You anſwer, then is ſeems in eating and drinking they do an act of religion; to which I need no other reply then your next words, that they are ſanctified to them by the word and prayer, they receiving them after an holy manner, with faith, ſupplication, and thankeſgiving, &c. And that this place of Timothy doth hold out more then a lawfull uſe, is moſt apparent; becauſe it is ſuch a uſe of the creatures as the heathen had not, who yet had a lawfull uſe of the creatures; and it is ſuch a uſe as is appliable onelyonly to beleevers; and ſuch a uſe as is procured by the Word and prayer: and although wicked men doe not doe an act of Religion in feeding the bodies of the Saints, becauſe all their actions are uncleane; yet beleevers have an holy uſe of thoſe creatures which heathens feed them with having the Word not onelyonly to warrant the uſe of them, but prayer to procure Gods bleſſing, to that end for which they eate and drink, which is to live unto God.

My ſecond Argument was, had this been the meaning, Elſe were your children unclean, but now are they holy; elſe had 2 Arg. vindicated.your children bin baſtards, but now they are legitimate; the Apoſtles anſwer had not been true; becauſe then if one of the parents had not been a beleever, and ſo by being a beleever, had ſanctified the unbeleever, their children muſt have been baſtards, whereas wee know children born in lawfull wedlock are legitimate, though both the Parents were unbeleevers. To which you anſwer, this priviledge comes not from the faith of the beleever, but from the relation of marriage; and your reaſon is, becauſe the Apoſtle ſaith not, the unbeleever is ſanctified by the beleever; but from the husband or the wife, although one or two old Copies have the word beleever, yet the reſt have it not▪ and the reaſon cannot be conceived rightly to be any other, but that although the perſon meant were a beleever is well as an husband or wife; yet in this paſſage they were conſidered onelyonly as husband and wife, and not as beleevers, to p. 153intimate that the ſanctification did not come from the faith of the party, but from conjugall relation.

I reply, this expreſſely croſſes the Apoſtles confeſſed ſcope, for the queſtion was not, whether an husband might leave his wife, or a wife her husband, the Apoſtle had reſolved that caſe before, ver. 10. but whether a beleeving huſband might leave or ſeparate from an unbeleever; no (ſaith the Apoſtle) if the unbeleever be content to dwell together, (if not, let them go, a brother or a ſiſter is not in bondage in ſuch a caſe) Why? for the unbeleever is ſanctified in or by the wife; but now in your ſenſe, the Argument had been as good, to ſay, the unbeleever is ſanctified in or by the unbeleever; or the beleever is ſanctified in or by the unbeleever, which had beene nothing to the queſtion in hand. Againe, the Apoſtle expreſſely names the unbeleever in oppoſition to the wife or husband who is a beleever; of which there had been no uſe, if he had intended onelyonly matrimoniall ſanctification, he might have ſaid the husband is ſanctified by the wife, and the wife by the husband, let them bee what they will, which cannot be ſpoken truly, when the Scripture plainely ſayes, Nothing is pure or holy to the unbeleever, as Beza well obſerves upon this place: and though the word beleever be not in the Text, [yet it is neceſſarily implyed, and therefore ſome Copies have it in the Margin, not onelyonly one old Copy, and a Copy of Clermont, and the Vulgar Latine ſo reade it, but Auguſtine alſo in his book, wherein hee expounds the Sermon on the Mount; and Tertullian in libro ſecundo ad ux…rem,] for as Beza rightly obſerves, the queſtion is concerning a beleever, what he is to doe with an unbeleever; and when he ſayes the unbeleeving party is ſanctified in or by the other party, it plainly implyes the one party ſanctifies the other, viz. the beleever ſanctifies the unbeleever, (not retro) which needed not be ſaid of matrimoniall ſanctification, as you call it, for in that ſenſe both parties were ſanctified in themſelves, not in or by one another, marriage being honourable among all, and the bed (the coitus) undefiled. Beſides, there are words which plainly denotate it a little before, a brother or ſiſter, which are taken p. 154for beleevers, ver. 12. if a brother have an unbeleeving or infidel wife, ver. 15. a brother or a ſiſter is not in bondage in ſuch a caſe: And if you ſhould ſay the beleeving party ſanctifies the unbeleever, not qua beleever, but by the Word and prayer I anſwer, this would make the Argument ſtronger; for it is therefore ſuch a ſanctification as heathens are not capable of.

My Third Argument was, the Apoſtles argument had had no ſtrength in it, ſuppoſing the text were to be interpreted as theſe Argument 3. vindicated.men would have it: their doubt (ſay they) was, their marriage was an unlawfull wedlock; and ſo conſequently their children baſtards; and they make the Apoſtles anſwer to be, were you not lawfull man and wife, your children were baſtards: which kinde of Argument (ſaid I) were but idem per idem. Your anſwer to this is ſuch a one as I know not what to make of it; you ſay I doe not rightly ſet downe my Adverſaries explication of the Apoſtle, the doubt (ſay you) was onelyonly, whether they might live in conjugall uſe; but there was no queſtion of their children, whether they were legitimate or not; they were aſſured their children were not baſtards, but legitimate, and this the Apoſtle uſes as his medium, to prove they might lawfully live together. To which I Reply, take this for granted which you ſay, and (if I want not common ſenſe) you plainely and fully anſwer your ſelfe, for if they were out of all doubt, that their children were not baſtards, then it was not poſſible for them to doubt whether their owne marriage were lawfull; take this to be his Argument, your children are legitimate, this you all grant: Ergo, your marriage is lawfull, of which you doubt: Riſum teneatis amici? they received the one as a ſuppoſed principle, that their children were lawfully begotten, which could not be but in a lawfull wedlock, yet had not light enough to know, that their wedlock was a lawfull wedlock; if they doubted not of the latter, how could they of the former?

My Fourth Argument was according to this interpretation, the Apoſtles anſwer could no way have reached to the qui…ting of Argumen… 4their conſciences; their doubt was, whether they were not to put away their wives and children as not belonging to God, as being a p. 155ſeed whom God would not owne among his people, and this anſwer could never have quieted their conſciences, to tell them their marriage was lawfull, and their children legitimate.

To which you anſwer, this Argument is grounded on a miſtake, the queſtion was not (ſay you) about putting away of their Wives and children as not belonging to God, but ſomething elſe.

I Reply, but if it be not grounded upon a miſtake, and that (as Beza ſayes,) Paut is not here arguing about civill policy, but arguing a caſe of conſcience. Whether becauſe of the idolatry of the wife or husband, Religion did not require they ſhould be put away, becauſe God would not have his holy ſeed mingled with them, then by your owne confeſſion the Argument ſtands good; which whether it will not be made out, ſhall (God willing) by and by appeare.

Theſe foure Arguments I uſed before; and whether the firſt three be not already vindicated, let the Reader judge; the fourth comes to be made good afterward, when I come to confirme the interpretation which I made of it. I ſhall briefly adde foure other Arguments, to ſhew that this Text cannot be interpreted as you would have it.

Firſt, you ſay, The unbeleeving husband is ſanctified by the wife, and ſanctification you here take for chaſtity: which is 5 Arg. againſt Mr. Tombes interpretation.a moſt incongruous ſpeech, to ſay that the one party makes the other chaſte; if he or ſhe were not unchaſt, how are they made chaſte by the husband or wife? and if they bee unchaſte, how doth this make them chaſte? marriage is then honourable or chaſte when the bed is undefiled: this Argument is onelyonly from the unſeemlineſſe of the expreſſion.

Secondly, my ſecond I take from your own words, pag. 73. Where you ſay, The ſanctification of the unbeleever here, 6 Argument.is ſuch a ſanctification as is parallel with that, 1 Tim. 4. 5. where the creatures are ſanctified to the pure by the word and prayer; therefore there muſt be more meant then the Heathens are capable of; therefore another ſanctification then matrimoniall ſanctification, for that the heathens had: if therefore this muſt be ſuch a ſanctification as that place in Timothy meanes, it muſt be a ſanctification peculiar onelyonly to beleevers.

p. 156Thirdly, yet a third Argument I take from your owne words: you have endeavoured (though in vaine) to ſhew 7 Argument.that baſtards may be called uncleane, and holy may be called chaſte; but you doe not, and I beleeve you cannot produce out of the Scripture the leaſt ſhew of a proofe, that holineſſe ſignifies legitimation; you are holy, id eſt, you are lawfully begotten; if you can, pray let us have it in the next: ſure I am, that place, Mal. 2. 15. That man might ſeeke a holy ſeed, or rather, a ſeed of God, will give you no help; for though Mal. 2. 15. expounded and vindicated.Mal 2:15a ſeed of God in that place, might be interpreted (as M. Calvin would have it) for legitimate, becauſe (as he ſayes) that uſes to be called Divine, which is excellent, a legitimate ſeed is in compariſon of ſpurious, yet this is nothing to holineſſe. The word in the Hebrew there uſed, is not a holy ſeed, but a ſeed of God, an eminent or an excellent ſeed, as all eminent or notable things uſe to be called; great Armies are called the Armies of God; great and high hills, are called the hills of God; great and tall trees, are called the trees of God: ſo that take a ſeed of God in that place for a legitimate ſeed, yet there is nothing to prove that holineſſe may ſignifie legitimation; though for my owne part (Pace tanti viri) I humbly conceive the Prophet intended, not a legitimate ſeed onelyonly, (as Mr. Calvin would have it) but to ſhew what was Gods chiefe end in the inſtitution of marriage, viz. The continuance of a ſeed of God, wherein the Church is to be propagated to the end of the world; now according to your interpretation of holineſſe for chaſtity, the Apoſtles Argument muſt run thus, If your marriage were not lawfull, your children would be baſtards, but now they are chaſt; which ſenſe were too ridiculous which to avoid you are compelled in ſtead of chaſte to ſay legitimate, without any example of ſuch a uſe of the word holy.

Laſtly, yet one Argument more I propound, your ſenſe … Argument.makes the Apoſtles Argument wholly inconſequent, if the unbeleeving party were not ſanctified by the beleever, (viz. matrimonially) then were your children unclean, that is, (in your ſenſe) Baſtards, which follows not; for if they were both unbeleevers, yet their children were not baſtards; p. 157and if they were both chaſt, (yet being Infidells) their children were uncleane, id eſt, Infidells and Pagans, ſo that to cloſe this I retort your owne words, page the 75. That let this be granted (that it is meant of matrimoniall ſanctification, … of neceſſitie it muſt) then the uncleaneneſſe muſt bee meant of Baſtardy, and holineſſe of Legitimation; but I ſay, é centra, let this bee granted, (as of neceſſitie it muſt) that it is not meant of matrimoniall ſanctification, or lawfulneſſe of wedlock, then uncleanneſſe muſt not bee meant of Baſtardy, nor holineſſe of Legitimation, but of ſome other holineſſe, which what it is, is next to be enquired.