A Christian, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. Wherein Mr. Tombes his eight Arguments in his Apology againſt Mr. Marſhal, for the ingraffing in, mentioned v. 17. to be of the Gentiles into the inviſible Church by election and ſaving faith, are examined and anſwered.
THE great endeavour of theſe who are of the contrary opinion in opening this Chapter, is, To prove that the ingraffing of the Gentiles into the root is by election and ſaving faith, and ſo into the inviſible Church; for they ſee their caſe is in hazard if it ſhould be meant of the viſible Church: And therefore, though enough be ſpoken before to prove what we affirm; yet becauſe Mr. Tombes hath laid down eight Arguments with ſo much confidence on the other ſide as unanſwerable; I think it not amiſs to beſtow one Chapter in the diſcovery of the unſoundneſs of his reaſons, that the truth may have a fairer paſſage into your underſtanding without clouds or demurs.
His firſt reaſon is, Apologie p. 71. That ingraffing which is by Gods ſole power, it is into the inviſible Church: but ſo is the ingraffing of the Jews, v. 3. Ergo. For God is able to graff them.
Sol. 1. As to argue from Gods power to his will, is alwaies unſound in Divinity and in Reaſon; God is able, therefore he will: So,
2. To argue from power to election, is of the ſame nature; for election is ſeldome or never attributed to Gods power, but to his will or good pleaſure.
3. To argue from Gods power in general, to the putting of it forth abſolutely in ſuch a determinate act, is as ſtrange; God is able to graff them in, Ergo it muſt be into the inviſible Church; as if God ſhewed nothing of his power, but in the workings of ſaving grace; eſpecially if we conſider what a power it is, and only from God: But to take the very prejudice the Jews have even from the letter of the Goſpel to bring them but to confeſs Chriſt, after ſo long a darkneſs, as it was in the beginning of the Goſpell: but to make the Gentiles but outwardly own and profeſs the Goſpel, and yet not members of the inviſible Church; to take away the very groſſneſs of naturall darkneſs and ignorance, is a work of mighty power; And to an outward converſion, where perſons have been long under the power of darkneſs, there needs the ſole power of God.
4. The Apoſtle may well put in rather Gods power then his will, when he ſpeaks of the ingraffing in of the Jews; for it will require an act of power to gather them but viſibly once again, and bring them into one entire body to make a viſible Church, when they are ſo ſcattered up and down all Nations; and at ſuch a diſtance one from another, that it is as the gathering of the bones of dead men; and ſo it's likened to the reſurrection from the dead, v. 15. So that we need go no further to enquire why their ingraffing ſhould be attributed to Gods power, ſeeing there is need enough of a Divine power but to gather them together from the four winds, to make a collective body, and ſo to be a viſible Church.
Beſides, when the Apoſtle ſpeaks of power in working of ſaving faith, he doth put other Epithites to ſet it forth; and not only barely ſpeaks of power which God puts forth in all acts, but exceeding greatneſs of power, Eph. 1.21, 22.
Arg. 2. His ſecond Argument is That ingraffing, which is called reconciliation, oppoſite to caſting away, that is by election and giving faith: but ſo is the ingraffing called v. 15.
Sol. If he means reconciliation in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, as it denotes pardon of ſins, and being made friends with God by Chriſts atonement and mediatorſhip; which muſt be his ſenſe if he ſpeak like himſelf: Then many abſurdities may follow.
1. That the Jews and their rejection was the ground of the Gentiles reconciliation unto God.
2. That no reconciliation was obtained for the Gentiles before the Jews were broken off.
3. That thoſe which are reconciled, and their ſins pardoned, may be caſt off; for ſo were the Jews; and the Gentiles threatned with the ſame miſery on the ſame ground, v. 20.
4. As there is external and eternal ſalvation ſpoken of, 1 Tim. 4.10. ſo there may be an outward and inward reconciliation; the Gentiles were caſt out from the viſible Church for ſo many hundreds of years, without any hope or promiſe, And ſtrangers to the Commonwealth of Iſrael, Eph. 2.11, 12. and ſo viſibly caſt off; and it was a great reconciliation but to break down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, as to viſible priviledges and Ordinances: And ſo by the reconciling the world may be more properly meant the bringing them in under the means of the Goſpel, and the outward diſpenſations of the Church; which is Gods common way and method of ſalvation; and which to ſome is real and effectual unto inward grace, unto others only to outward priviledges.
And the very phraſe, the reconciliation of the world, to Orthodox ears, deafens and daſheth the other interpretation; for the body of the Gentile-world (which he means) are not ſo reconciled as by election and ſaving grace, though the ſound of the Goſpel hath gone through all the world.
Ob. 3. Thirdly, ſaith he, the ingraffing muſt be meant of that act whereby the branch ſtands in the tree as a branch: but that is by giving of faith. The minor is proved alſo, v. 20. they were broken off by unbelief, and we ſtand by faith, &c.
Sol. It's true, the ingraffing is by faith, as their breaking off was by unbelief: but as their unbelief was ſhewn in a publique rejection of the Goſpel, and by it they and their Children were broken off; ſo the Gentiles are ingraffed in by publique profeſſion of faith, and acceptation of the Goſpel for themſelves and their Children; and this muſt needs be the Apoſtles meaning: For,
1. Ver. 18. He bids the Gentiles not to boaſt againſt the branches that were broken off. Now how could they boaſt againſt them but for viſible priviledges? inviſible, are out of cognizance to others: Do Saints boaſt againſt one another for election and reprobation? theſe ſecrets of the Almighty: This Argument Mr. Baxter urgeth with much advantage, in his Book.
2. In v. 19. he explains further what the nature of their boaſting might be; thou wilt ſay, The branches were broken off, that I might be ingraffed: now can any man conceive they ſhould boaſt becauſe the branches the Jews were broken from election and true faith, that they might be graffed in by a new act of Gods election, and by true and ſaving faith? So in ver. 20, 21, 22, 23. he exhorts the Gentiles to look to their ſtanding, and to take heed leſt they be broken off alſo; For if God ſpared not the natural branches, &c. much leſs will he ſpare thee: What, are they exhorted to look leaſt they be cut off from Gods election, &c? Will Mr. Tombes turn a downright Arminian, that he may have any plea againſt the baptizing of poor Infants?
There is a twofold way of ingraffing, either by ſpiritual implantation into Chriſt, or by viſible profeſſion of faith; and both theſe ſhould meet in one perſon, though they may alſo be ſeparated; a viſible Profeſſor may not have ſaving faith within, yet may have: So here, the ingraffing in is into the viſible Church by viſible profeſſion; among which ſome are, ſome are not inviſible members: but the very terminus of ingraffing is not into the inviſible, but the viſible Church; for neither the Apoſtle, nor an Angel could tell who were ingraffed into the inviſible Church, nor who broken off, but only from the viſible Church, firſt as the proper term, and then by conſequence from the inviſible; for from this Church none were abſolutely broken off that ever were in, and into it few ingraffed.
So that if the ingraffing be viſible, the term muſt be viſible alſo: but the ingraffing is viſible, Ergo the term is ſo: This is according to Mr. Tombes his own form of argumentation, from the term to the ingaffing; the major is proved before.
Ob. Fourthly, That ingraffing is meant v. 17. whereby the wild Olive is co-partaker of the root and fatneſs of the Olive; but ſuch is only election and ſaving faith; be proves the minor, by diſtinguiſhing who the root is, which he well affirms to be Abraham.
Sol. To which there needs no other Anſwer then what Mr. Blake hath given him; If the root be Abraham, and the ingraffing in be only by election, and derivation of ſaving graces (which he means by the fatneſs of the Olive) then it muſt be that we are all elect in Abraham as a common root; Abraham may ſay, Without me you can do nothing.
To which Mr. Tombes only anſwers by confeſſion, That it would follow if he made Abraham a root as Chriſt, communicating ſaving faith: But I make Abraham a root as the Father of Believers, not by begetting faith, but as an exemplary cauſe. How poor an evaſion is this of ſo confident a man in his opinion, I ſubmit to judgement.
Let him mind his Argument, and the force of it; That ingraffing is meant whereby the wild Olive is partaker of the fatneſs of the root: but that is only election and ſaving grace, &c.
1. Were not the natural branches which were broken off partakers of the fatneſs of the root? and were they all elected and partakers of ſaving graces or outward priviledges only? and why then ſhould it be thought abſurd for the Gentiles by ingraffing to partake of the fatneſs of the root only in outward priviledges, ſeeing it was ſo with the natural branches, and they all grow on the ſame root?
2. The old abſurdity will ariſe ſtill from this, That Saints may fall away from election and ſaving grace.
3. How can he imagine Abraham to be the root, and the fatneſs of the root to be election and ſaving graces, and that engraffing the way of being co-partakers with the root, and yet deny Mr. Blakes Argument, That we are elected in Abraham?
1. It's improper to call a root an exemplary cauſe; there is no harmonie between them; an example conveyes nothing; here is a conveyance of fatneſs.
2. How unſutable to good language is it to ſay, That ſuch are partakers of the fatneſs or fulneſs of an example? can we think the Apoſtle would ſo far over-reach?
3. Were the Jews partakers of the fatneſs of Abraham in the Covenant, meerly as from an Exemplary cauſe? had not they it from him as a natural Father, God making the Covenant with him and his ſeed? and do not ingraffed branches afterwards become as natural?
He only adds, p. 73. That if it were meant of outward priviledges, it were falſe; for the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward priviledges of Abraham.
Sol. Abraham is a root in the New Teſtament as well as in the Old, and ſtill ſtands by virtue of the Covenant to Believers and their Children: And though Old Teſtament Ordinances were taken away with the Jews, and that Church ſtate, yet the root is not taken away; but the New Teſtament priviledges grow on the ſame root; and our ingraffing in gives us to be partakers of the fatneſs of them, as well as it gave to the Jews the participation of former priviledges until they were broken off.
All the reſt of his Arguments are much of the ſame nature; only a touch further of each of them.
Ob. 5. From v. 25. If the breaking off the Jews be by blinding, then the ingraffing is by giving faith; but the former is true, ſo the latter.
Sol. This is the ſame in effect with the third Argument: Yet,
1. There is not the ſame reaſon, ſeeing he takes it of giving ſaving faith; their blinding was judicial, a puniſhment for their unbelieving, rejecting of the Goſpel, though they had not ſaving faith to embrace the Goſpel; the giving of ſaving faith is not on ſuch terms; neither is ſaving faith ſo abſolutely antecedent to make a man a member of the viſible Church, as blinding is to Gods final rejection.
2. Blindneſs came but in part on Iſrael; it fell only on the meer viſible members, not the inviſible and elect: therefore, the ingraffing muſt be only of viſible members into the viſible Church, v. 7. The election hath obtained it, but the reſt were blinded.
Arg. 6. If re-ingraffing of the Jews produceth ſalvation, is by turning them from their iniquity, &c. then it is to the inviſible Church: but ſo it is, V. 26, 27. Ergo.
Sol. To which I give this fair Anſwer, That doubtleſs according to thoſe promiſes, when the Jews ſhall be called in to be a viſible Church again, there ſhall be abundance of more glory be brought in with them, then ever yet the world ſaw; and the new Heavens and the new Earth, the coming down of the new Jeruſalem, and all thoſe glorious things are fitted to fall in with that time. And from theſe conſiderations many do interpret v. 26. literally, And ſo ſhall all Iſrael be ſaved. But yet,
1. They ſhall be ingraffed in as a viſible Church; elſe Abraham and the Fathers would never be mentioned as roots.
2. They ſhall be ingraffed in as they were broken off: now they were broken off as a viſible Church.
3. All that can be gathered is this, That the fulneſs of ſalvation, and the virtues of the promiſes, ſhall more fully and univerſally take effect on the Jews, even to the ſalvation of all of them; and ſo the inviſible and viſible Church be more pure, and as one in the earth: but this fulneſs ſhall be to them as a viſible Church, and on the earth.
Arg. 7. If the re-ingraffing be by virtue of Gods election and love, then it is to the inviſible Church: but the former is true, v. 28. Ergo.
Sol. 1. It's ſaid, That as touching election, the Jews are beloved for their Fathers ſake; hence it follows, God hath a love of election to Believers, and their natural ſeed; for ſo the Jews were the natural ſeed of Abraham. But,
2. It's granted that the calling of the Jews ſhall be according to Gods election and firſt love; and that Gods election ſhall more fully take hold of the Jews at their re-calling, then of any Nation: but yet ſtill the Argument is of no force to prove that their re-ingraffing, and ſo ours, is only or firſtly into the inviſible Church; for they are elected as well to be a viſible Church, as to be partakers of inward graces; and their re-ingraffing muſt be ſpecially and firſtly into the viſible Church from which they were broken off, or elſe there will be no correſpondence between their rejection and re-ingraffing.
The laſt and weakeſt Argument is this; If the ingraffing of Jews and Gentiles be the fruit of Gods mercy, the breaking off by ſhutting up in unbelief; then it is into the inviſible Church by election, &c. but ſo it is. Ergo.
Sol. You ſee he hath ſpent his ſtock and ſtrength to be ſo low at laſt: This Argument needs no Anſwer, but by ſhewing you the unſoundneſs of this univerſal propoſition on which the Argument is built. Whatever is a fruit of Gods mercy, is from election, and ingraffing into the inviſible Church: Which propoſition is moſt falſe, univerſally conſidered: Are not health, meat and drink, preſervation, all outward priviledges, fruits of Gods mercy? Is not long-ſuffering to theſe that periſh, and the affording the means of grace and ſalvation, the inſtitution of Ordinances, fruits of Gods mercy? and yet muſt they be given only to elect ones? and do they ingraff to the inviſible Church? but ſatis eſt repetere: you have ſeen the utmoſt ſtrength of the greateſt Antagoniſt to the Truth we hold out.