Anti-Paedobaptism, Section 7
SECT. VII.
That the words Rom. 11. 20. of breaking off by unbelief prove not that believers children have visible Church-membership and title to the initiall seal as it is called.
CHapter 8. Mr. B. speaks thus: My 3d. argument to prove that this is not repealed is from Rom. 11. 20. [well: because of unbelief they were broken off:] whence I argue thus: If none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief, then believing Jews and their seed were not broken off; and consequently the gift of Church-membership was not to them revoked: but none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief: Therefore believers and their seed were not broken off; and consequently the gift to them is not repealed. The Major or antecedent is plain i… the words of the text; the Consequence I think is undeniable. For I hope none will affirm that God broke off all the infants of believing Jews, for the sins or unbelief of other men. He that will not punish the children for the Fathers sins, will much less punish them for a strangers.
Answ. 1. The text saith, [by unbelief they were broken off] but not as Mr. B. saies, is plain in the words of the text [none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief] These are not equipollent. 2. Yet waving that, I say, there's a breaking off in purpose, and in execution; in respect of this later, the meaning must be understood, unbelief is not a motive or antecedent to the decree of Gods reprobation, but a consequent of it. But it is a means of the execution of the decree, and so the term is fitly rendred foreign, by unbelief they are broken off: it is not foreign, for unbelief, as the motive of Gods purpose, but by unbelief as the means by which they came to be broken off. 3. The Unbelief here meant appears from Ch. 10. 21. to be not onelyonly negative, but also contrary of them that rejected the Gospel: therefore if none were broken off but unbelievers here meant, no infants, no not of infidels that never heard of Christ were broken off, but by Mr. Bs. argument, must be visible Church-members: For such were not gainsaying unbelievers. Wherefore to the argument I answer, 1. By denying the antecedent to be in the text: it saith Jews were broken off by unbelief, not that none were broken off but unbelievers: infants of the Jews might be broken off, Rom. 9. 11, 12, 1…, 18. though they were not such unbelievers as the Apostle speaks of Rom: 11. 20. 2 Nor is there a word in that place, Rom. 11. 20. of breaking off any infant either of a believer or unbeliever, neither here nor elsewhere do I find Gods purpose expressed concerning them. For such texts as these Mark 16. 16. John 3. 5. 18 36. 1 Iohn 5. 11. &c. are to be understood of adult persons. 3. the breaking off is not revoking of an ordinance about visible Church-membership (it's wonder to me that any man that seriously reades the chapter should imagine it) but the execution of the decree of reprobation in excluding them from the invisible Church. Therefore I deny both the antecedent, if it be understood of infants as well as grown persons, and the the consequences. For though none should be broken off but unbelievers among the Jews, yet it follows not that of believing Iews their infant seed were not broken off from visible Church-membership, nor that the imagined gift of title to the initiall was continued: sith the breaking off was of another kind, and the revoking of the intial seal, was from another cause common to Iews and Gentiles believers as well as unbelievers, to wit, Gods will in altering the Iewish Church-frame. Mr. B. mistakes in conceiving the taking it away to be a punishment. And his reason is against himself. For if God will not punish the children for the Fathers sins, then he should not punish the children of the unbelieving Jews with deprivation of visible Church-membership for the parents unbelief, which nevertheless he holds God did to the Iews children.
But Mr. B. goes on thus. All that I know that Mr. T. saith to all these is, that they speak of the invisible Church. But I pray you mark: he doth not say of the invisible onelyonly: nay, he confessed in our dispute, that it spoke of the visible also: And that is as much as I need, and indeed, a yielding of the cause.
Answ. That which I say is this: that when the Apostle speaks of the Gentiles being graffed into the olive-tree, or the Iews being graffed in again, the meaning is not of admitting into the visible Church by an outward ordinance, such as Circumcision and Baptism are, but into the invisible onelyonly by given true faith according to the election of Grace, and when it is said, the branches, that is the most part of the Iewish Nation distinguished from the remnant according to the election of Grace, v. 5. and the people which he foreknew, v. 2. were broken off, the meaning is not that they were broken off from the visible Church by Excommunication or defect of title to Baptism (which is Mr. Bs. vain conceit if I understand him) but that they were by Gods purpose of reprobation hardned in unbelief, and so broken off from the olive, taht is the Universal invisible Church of Gods elect and true believers; of which Abraham was the root by his exemplary believing. And because this olive-tree was first after Abraham in the Iewish people to whom Abraham was a Father in a double relation, as their natural progenitor, and the Father of the faithfull, therefore the Iewish believers are called the naturall branches, and the Universall visible Church, their own olive, the Gentiles the wild-olive by nature, ingraffed by emulation of them in believing. Now when I say the phrase notes onelyonly graffing into the visible, and breaking off from it, yet I adde that they who were ingraffed into the invisible or broken off from it, were also graffed into and broken off from the visible, though the phrase of graffing in, and breaking off, express more or another thing as I say in my Apology page 71. Now if Mr. B. need no more, and this be a yielding of the cause, let him make his best of it, I still avouch it. But it seems to me to overthrow Mr. Bs. cause. For Mr. Bs. cause is grounded on this, that by not breaking off, is meant not repealing the ordinance of visible Church-membership and initial seal, and that the ingraffing is by an initial seal into the visible Church, and that parents and children were so graffed whether elect or not, true believers or not, if the parents professed faith, upon which it must follow, that non-elect, nor true believers were ingraffed in according to his sense. Now if it be proved that the ingraffing be of giving faith according to election, so as that none are ingraffed but elect persons and true believers, and the breaking off be by hardning according to reprobation, so as that none are broken off but reprobates, I appeal to any mans understanding, whether this be not impertinently alleged by Mr. B. who brings it to prove such a breaking off as may agree to elect persons (for they may be excommunicated or not admiitted into the visible Church) and such an ingraffing as may agree to reprobates (for they may be visible Church-members and admitted by Baptism) though it be granted that the same persons who were graffed in, were also in the visible Church and baptized, and the persons broken off, were not in the visible Church nor baptized.
Mr. B. goes on. But he saith, It speaks not of the visible Church as visible: How then? Doth it speak of the visible Church as not visible? This is an answer like the rest.
Answ. To which I reply; This kind of refuting is like the rest of Mr. Bs. refuting, sleight and superficiall, fit onelyonly for shallow understandings, of which sort did not Mr. B. presume the most of his Readers would be, he would not handle things so lightly and contemptuously. He brings in my words in this imperfect manner. It speaks not of the visible Church as visible: whereas that which I say is this, that the ingraffing Rom. 11. 17. and the breaking off v. 20. are not meant of graffing in, or breaking off from the visible as visible, by Baptism or Excommunicarion, or defect of title to Baptism, and therefore there is no such thing meant as continuing or repeal of an ordinance about visible Church-membership and initial seal as Mr. B. would draw hence: but into or from the invisible Church by giving faith or blinding; though the same persons that are in or out of the invisible, be in or out of the visible. As when Rom. 8. 30. the Apostle saith, whom he hath called, them he hath justified, though the same persons be outwardly and inwardly called, yet the calling there is not meant of bare outward calling (for so many are called who are not chosen, Mat. 20. 16.) but of inward, of which onelyonly the speech is true. Now how doth Mr. B. refell this? Forsooth by a question: Doth it speak of the Church as not visible? To which I answer, if such a frivolous question need answer, The Apostle when he speaks of the olive-tree, he means that Church which was visible as well as invisible, yet he doth not speak of it barely as visible, that is, the ingraffing into it and breaking off from it, are not meant of such ingraffing or breaking off from it as respect it as visible, but as invisible.
But Mr. B. saies of me, He brings many reasons in his Apology, to shew that the invisible Church is here meant, but not of force though nothing to the purpose.
Answ. I brought 10. arguments in my Apology page 71. &c. to prove that the ingraffing Rom. 11. 17. is meant of giving faith according to election, and consequently none ingraffed but elect persons, and so by the olive meant the Church invisible, not the visible as visible consisting of good and bad, of what force they are may appear by refelling Mr. Gerees answers now herewith printed. That they are to no purpose, is most in considerately said by Mr. B. sith they overthrow the very foundation of Mr. M. Mr. G. Mr. B. and others in their disputes, for visible Church-membership to infants of Christians from hence, that we have the same ingraffing by an initial se…l for our children which the Iews had: which is most false: for then ours must be Circumcised as theirs, and if it were true, yet this text speaks nothing of ingraffing or breaking off opposite to it, but of an ingraffing and breaking off of a higher nature, and consequently this text is most palpably abused by Mr. M. Mr. G. Mr. B. and the Assembly in their confes. of faith, ch. 25. to vindicate which, every one that desires to understand the Scriptures aright will think to be to good purpose.
But Mr. B: tells me. The truth is, it is the same Church in several respects, that usual…y is called visible or invisible. It is specially for the sake of true believers, that all seeming believers are called the Church: And to say therefore, that the Jews are broken off from the Church invisible only, and we planted in their stead, is vain.
Answ. I grant all this: for it hurts not me, who never denied that the Iews were broken off from the visible Church, and not from the invisible only: but do expressely premise it page 71. and Mr. G. acknowledged it, and Mr. B. himself here confesseth I acknowledged it in the dispute between us: Nor did I ever deny that we who are planted in their stead are planted into the visible as well as the invisible Church. And therefore his similitude to illustrate his meaning, and his reasons to prove that the Gentile-believers do come in stead of the Church Iewish, not only as invisible but also as visible, is to prove that which is not denied. That which is indeed to be proved, is, that the ingraffing or breaking off is meant of graffing in or breaking off from the visible Church by an outward ordinance, and not into or from the invisible Church by giving faith according to election, or not giving it according to reprobation, so as that any may be said to be ingraffed who are not elect, which might if it were meant of the visible Church as visible, sith in it are many reprobates, who are taken in by Baptism, or any broken off who are not reprobates, whereas many are broken off from the visible Church, as such by Excommunication who are not reprobates but true believers. But let us consider Mr. Bs. plain arguments from the text to prove that Paul speaketh here of the visible Church.