Anti-Paedobaptism, Section 8
SECT. VI.
Mr. Bs. arguments are answered, whereby he attempts to prove that the breaking off and graffing Rom. 11. 17. 20. 24. are meant of the visible Church as such.
ANd (saith Mr. B.) 1. I argued from v. 24. For if thou wert cut out off the olive-tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive-tree; how much more shall these which be the natural branches be graffed into their own olive-tree? Hence I argued thus: That Church whereof the Iews were naturall branches, was the visible Church: But the Church that Paul speaks of, was that whereof the Iews were natural branches: therefore it was the visible Church. Here an ordinary man would think there were nothing to be denied, But Mr. T. denied the major; whether according to his conscience or against it, he best knows. For can any man believe that the Jews are called natural branches of the invisible Church onelyonly?
Answ. The word [Church) is not in the text: there is only the word (olive-tree) that I know that answers to it. Now as Abraham being the root hath a double habitude or relation expressed by the Metaphor of a root, one that he is Father of the faithfull, another that he is the Father of the Iews: so the olive-tree hath a double habitude or relation, one as it notes a race of men descending from Abraham as a naturall Father, another as it notes a race of men issuing from him by imitation of his faith as a Spiritual Father. The Jewish people who shall be graffed into their own olive, shall be branches in both considerations, and in respect of one called naturall, but branches of the olive from Abraham the root in both considerations. They then shall be natural branches, as men descending from Abraham of the Iewish nation, which being formerly the Church of believers, they being believers, shall be branches of the olive-tree, not as it notes a race of men descending (for so they are now in it afore their re-ingraffing) from Abraham by natural generation, but as it notes the Church invisible, or the Church of true believers, which once in the first place they were, descending from Abraham by faith as well as naturall generation. Whence in answer to the argument I say: if the Conclusion and Major be meant thus, the olive-tree is the visible Church only, or the visible as visible under that formal consideration, so as they should be branches who are only in the visible by profession or an outward ordinance, the Conclusion is denied, and the Major without any reluctancy of conscience. If they be understood of the visible without exclusion of …e invisible, so as that the meaning should be (as the words [for can any man believe that the Jews are called naturall branches of the invisible Church only?] do import) the believing Iews were natural branches not only of the invisible but also of the visible, and that the Church Paul speaks of under the similitude of the olive-tree was the invisible and also the visible, though not precisely considered as visible, so as the being in, should note admission by an outward ordinance, then I grant the Major and Conclusion as not repugnant to my tenet, who as Mr. B. acknowledgeth confessed that Paul speaks of the Church, not only invisible but visible also.
Mr. B. addes. I prove the major therefore thus: If Paul here speak of the main body of the Iewish nation, and that body were all members of the visible, but not of the invisible Church, then is it the visible Church, and that most directly that Paul here speaks of: But Paul here speaks of the main body of the Iewish nation, who were all members of the visible Church, but not all of the invisible: therefore it is the visible Church, and that most directly that Paul here speaks of. Me thinks this is plain: can any man imagin that Paul speaks only of the Elect Iews, who only are members of the invisible Church? that they are cut off, that we might be graft into the invisible Church in their place? This argument might prove the main by it self.
Answ. Mr. B. undertook to prove the major of the former syllogism, but as a man hasty to utter himself, heedlesly forgets what was to be proved, and instead of proving the major [that Church whereof the Iews were naturall branches, was the visible Church] he proves the Conclusion, with some addition, that it is the visible Church, and that most directly that Paul here speaks of. What he means by [most directly] and where it is that Paul speaks of the main body of the Iews, who are all members of the visible Church, but not all of the invisible, by reason of his obscurity, whether affected or through heedlesness, I am put to ghess. I think he means not v. 20. alleged in the beginning of the chapter, though that be the place in question, of which alone can be meant those words [but I will give you divers plain arguments from the text to prove that Paul speaks here of the visible Church] now the text mentioned next before is v. 20. But I know no word in that verse that expresly mentions any term answering to the Church: and however the branches by unbelief broken off, were the main body of the Iewish nation, and in that it is said they were broken off is implied the olive, that is the Church, yet most directly or in the first place they were broken off from the invisible Church of true believers: for they were broken off by unbelief, and were none of them of the visible Church of Christians, for they were professed unbelievers; nor can the visible Church be meant of the Jewish in opposition to the Christian: for from that they were not broken off, but continued in by unbelief, or rather were that Church it self, and therefore could not be said in any good congruity of speech to be broken from it. But it is more likely he means v. 24. produced when he concludes [it is the visible Church Paul here speaks of] For there is mention of the naturall branches, not v. 20. However the Reader may observe how heedlesly he writes, who undertaking to prove from v. 24. that Paul speaks v. 20. of the visible Church, concludes not at all that Paul v. 20. speaks of the visible Church, but from v. 24. concludes hat there, to wit v. 24. (which was not to be proved) Paul speaks of the visible Church. Yet to that place his words cannot well be fitted. For if he mean by [here] v. 24. he saies not right, that [Paul speaks of the main body of the Jewish Nation, who were all members of the visible Church, but not all of the invisible.] For though he speak of the main body of the Jewish Nation, yet he doth not speak v. 24. of the main body of the Jewish Nation that [were] members of the visible Church, but of them that shall be hereafter engraffed into their own Olive, And of these it is false that they shall be all members of the visible Church, but not all of the invisible: for they all that shall be ingraffed shall be saved, v. 26. There is one thing here by the way to be observed, that when he saies, that Paul speaks here of the visible Church, an ordinary reader would imagine that he meant of the visible Church Christian, for who would imagine that Mr. B. should conceive Paul maketh it a matter to be feared to be broken off from the visible Church Jewish, as he doth v. 20, 21. or that he should conceive it were such a mercy to the Gentiles, a wild Olive, to be graffed into the visible Church Jewish? Yet both his words Chap. 7. [the Apostle saith it of the Jewish Church, that it was but some that were broken off from this Church] and here [the main body of the Jewish Nation were all members of the visible Church] which can be true onelyonly of the visible Church Jewish even after they rejected Christ, shew it to be his meaning: which what absurdities it draws with it, hath been in part shewed before: Here onelyonly I note it that Mr. Bs confusedness and darkness in this may be discerned. But to return. I should have thought that I had found the words Mr. B. means when he saies [Paul speaks here of the visible Church] were it not that the words whereby he confirms his argument [me thinks this is plain: can any man imagine, that Paul speaks onelyonly of the elect Iews, who only are members of the invisible Church? that they are cut off that we might be graft into the invisible Church in their place?] do intimate the place to be v. 17. alleged by him ch. 7. Now if he mean that place, I answer him if he ask for my imagination it is this, that Paul is so far from speaking of the elect Iews, who only are members of the invisible Church, that they are cut off, that we might begraft into the invisible Church in their place, that I think he speaks of the reprobate Iews, who were cut off from the invisible Church of true believers by not giving them faith, that we might be graffed in foreign, for or instead of them, or in their place, as Beza, that is the place which they should in course have had, if they had continued in the faith as their ancestors did. And thus whereas Mr. B. saith, that this argument might prove the main by it self, I have shewed his magnified dispute to be so mis-shapen, that it can serve only to prove this one thing, which the Reader needs observe, that Mr. Bs. disputes seem somewhat afar off, but at a nearer view are shapeless and feeble lumps, hastily brought forth, but never licked over with any acurate study. But however it is my task to examine them, and I proceed.
Mr. B. addes. Further thus: If there be none known to us to be of the invisible Church immediately, but by first knowing them to be of the visible, then it must be principally or first the visible Church whereof Paul saith, the Iews were natural branches. But the former is true, therefore the later. Who dare say that Paul spake here from some revelation extraordinary when he calleth the Iews naturall branches? But if it had been of the invisible Church directly, Paul could have known no man to be a member of that but by extraordinary revelation.
Answ. If the Conclusion be granted it hurts not me, who never denied that the natural branches mentioned v. 24. shall be graffed into the visible Church, nor do any where meddle with it as any thing material whether they are first or principally of the visible or invisible Church. The thing to be proved is, that any of the ingraffed branches v. 24. shall be bare visible Church-members, or that their ingraffing shall be onelyonly by an outward ordinance into the visible Church, or that Paul speaks of any other ingraffing or breaking off than in or from the invisible Church by giving or not giving faith according to election and reprobation. Yet to shew how sleightly Mr. B. argues, 1. It is to be observed that there is no connexion between the antecedent and consequent, there being no necessity that Paul should speak there v. 24. of that which is first known. 2. There is as little necessity that Paul must not speak that of the Iews which is not known to us immediately, but by first knowing them to be of the visible Church. As for the question, who dare say that Paul spake v. 24. from some revelation extraordinary, when he calleth the Iews naturall branches? Answ. To know the Iews to be natural branches requires no extraordinary revelation, it's known by their descent: but if the meaning be, who dare say that Paul knew by extraordinary revelation, that these natural branches should be graffed in again into the invisible Church? I reply, who dare say otherwise, that acknowledgeth he wrote by inspiration of the Spirit, that which is a prophecy, and he calls a mystery, v. 25?
Mr. B. adds. Further I argued thus: (but chiefly ad hominem, because Mr. T. stands so much on Rom. 9. 7.) If the Iews were not naturall branches of the invisible Church directly, but onelyonly of the visible, then it is the visible Church that Paul here calls them natural branches of: But the Jews were not naturall branches of the invisible Church directly: Therefore it is the visible Church that Paul here speaks of. Mr. T. denied the minor, which I proved out of Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. They are not all Israel which are of Israel (but they were all natural branches) neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called; that is, they which are children of the flesh, these are not the children of God (therefore not naturall branches of the invisible Church) but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. To this Mr. T. answered by a learned distinction [that they were the natural branches of the invisible Church, but not by nature.] To which I replied, that the very express words of the text v. 24. of Rom. 11. confuteth his distinction, using both terms [naturall and by nature] He then added [that as men they were of Abraham, and so were naturall; but not as branches] Ah, what a pack of poor shifts are here? 1. The Apostle speaks of naturall branches, and not naturall men? 2. He opposeth them to the Gentiles, who were naturall men as well as the Iews; but not naturall branches. The rest of the heap of words that were here used, had no senee in them that I could understand, and you shall find them in the dispute if published.
To which I reply (though it be answered in my praecursor in clearing my self from the 14th absurdity in the dispute, which Mr. B. would fasten on me) The term branches in the Apostle v. 17, 18, notes two races of men, which had a state in the olive (which is the Church of true believers) and were from the root of Abraham, the one were men descended by natural generation, and therefore called naturall branches and the olive their own, as being firstly from Abraham the Church of believers) the other Gentils who were a wild olive by nature, that is a race of men descended from Idolaters, & by preaching the Gospel being made believers, were graffed into the good olive besides nature and so were branches partaking of Abraham as a Spiritual Father, and the blessings of the oliv…-tree called its fatness, to wit, the promises of Gospel-remission of si…s, adoption, &c. The natural branches, to wit, the most part of the Iewish na…ion being broken off from that station in the olive their Ancestors had, through their unbelief: yet so as that at length these through the power of God in some of their posterity shall be brought to the faith of Christ, and again ingraffed into the olivetree, the Church of believers, which is not meerly the visible, but also the invisible. Now to Mr. B…. arguments I answer. That the Iews were neither natural branches of the invisible Church, nor of the visible directly in this sense as they were by nature descended from Abraham, so as that all descended from Abraham, by Isaac and Iacob, must be Church-members, either invisible or visible: yet they are naturall branches of the visible and invisible in contradistinction to the Gentiles, who were also branches, but not naturall, but besides nature. In a word, the Iews are called naturall branches not to imply the cause of their being branches in the olive, that is members in the invisible Church; for they were by the same cause both Iews and Gentiles alike in the invisible Church, to wit, by election of grace and by faith, v. 20. but to note their originall in birth, and so to difference their descent from the Gentile-christians descent. The text Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. doth not say the elect Iews were not naturall branches of the invisible Church, as [naturall] notes not a cause of being branches in the invisible Church, but a bare qualification of the persons that are branches, in which sense I take it. The distinction I gave was right. The elect Iews were natural branches of the invisible Church as [naturall] notes onelyonly a qualification of their persons in respect of their descent: and yet not [by nature] as the cause of their being branches of the invisible Church. There are no words v. 24. that confute this distinction: though in our translation there is [by nature] and [naturall] v. 24. yet it is, in both in Greek [foreign, in according to nature] in neither [foreign, by nature] as the cause, nor is that [by nature] in the translation said of the Iews, but of the Gentiles, that they were a wild-olive by nature or according to nature, that is according to their descent from their ancestors, who were Idolaters. What I added was right, that the natural branches were [naturall] as men from Abraham, but not as [branches] to wit of the invisible Church. Nor are these poor shifts, but the reply to them is poor. The Apostle, saith Mr. B. speaks of natural branches, and not naturall men. To which I return. I presume Mr. B. doth not conceive the branches were boughes of a tree without a Metaphor: that were to imagine a metamorphosis of Iews into boughs of trees like to those in Ovids fables: and if the speech be borrowed, I know no other meaning in the Apostle by naturall branches, but naturall men descended from Abraham by nature, and so the Gentiles were not naturall men as the Iews were. If any thing fell from me in the dispute which was not good sense, Mr. B. might have had so much humanity as to let it pass as from humane infirmity: And perhaps if Mr. B. had been to speak without premeditation, and with such altercation of words as were then, he would have uttered words as empty of sense as mine. Some things have been counted absurd and nonsense by Mr. B. through defect of his own understanding. This answer of mine will I doubt not vindicate me and the truth, if I meet with candid Readers: if not, I expect but what I have found, nothing but injurious censures, and contempts. The words of my Examen pag. 108. if I were to reprint that book, I would alter, and not say that the term [naturall branches] did import, that they had this privilege to be reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the olive-tree by their birth. For though I deny not that they had that priviledge of being members of the Iewish Church by their birth, yet I would not say, it were imported by the term [these according to nature] because I now think it imports only their descent by natural generation from Abraham: which is a plain answer without shifting. Mr. B. saith. Furthermore I adde: those that were not branches of the invisible Church at all, were neither naturally, nor by nature branches of it: But many thousand Iews were no branches of that Church at all: And those that Paul saith Rom. 9. 8. [that they were not the children of God because the seed of Abraham] then they were not members of the invisible Church, either naturally or by nature: but yet they were members or natural branches of the visible Church, as the seed of Abraham, because the Covenant made over that privilege to his seed.
An. It is granted that many thousand Iews were neither naturally, nor by nature branches of the invisible Church, and that Rom. 9. 8. proves it: And this is a good argument for me to prove that the Covenant of grace was never made to Abraham and his naturall seed, though that be the basis of the Paedobaptists tenet for Infant-baptism. But if Mr. B. would have proved any thing to the present purpose, he should have proved that some of the elect believing Iews were not naturall branches of the invisible Church. But whereas he saith, yet all the Iews were members or naturall branches of the visible, as the seed of Abraham, because the Covenant made over that privilege to his seed, if he mean by [the visible Church] the visible Church of Christians (of which alone is the question) and [the seed of Abraham] his naturall seed, it is not true: nor was there ever any Covenant by which God bound himself perpetually to make over that privilege to Abrahams natural seed to be members of his visible Church, much less of the visible Church of Christians; the Apostle Rom. 10. 19, 20, 21. proves the contrary. It is granted that the infant-Iews were because of their naturall desceat reckoned as part of the congregation of Israel, who were the v…sible Church of God, till the body of the Iewish people, their Priests, Lawyers, Rulers, and the generality of the commons did reject Christ, and so they continued after, and do at this day members of the Iewish Church. But this they have not by priviledge, but by curse, and it comes not from Gods Covenant, but their Unbelief, and is so farre from making them branches of the olive, that indeed their continuing members of the Iewish Church opposite to the Christian, shews they are broken off till they be re-ingraffed into their own olive.
2. Saith Mr. B. I further prove that Paul speaks here of the visible Church, thus. If the breaking off be visible, then it must needs be from the visible Church (yea and directly from it alone) But the breaking off the Jews was visible; therefore it must needs be from the visible Church. The antecedent (that it was a visible breaking off) I prove thus, From Rom. 11. 22. Behold the goodness and severity of the Lord, on them which fell severity, &c. That breaking off wherein Gods severity was to be beheld by the Gentiles, was sure visible: But this was such a breaking off, wherein the severity of God was to be beheld by the Gentiles: therefore it was visible. Paul would not call them to behold that which could not be seen. 2. That breaking off which the Gentiles were in such danger of boasting of against the Jews must needs be visible (For they would not boast of that which was undiscernable). But this was such as appears ver. 18. 20. Boast not against the branches: be not high-minded, but fear. Yea, 3. Paul himself could not else have known that the Jews were broken off, but by revelation extraordinary, except it had been a visible breaking off: therefore certainly the breaking off was vible. 2. And then the Consequence is evident (that if the breaking off be visible, it must needs be from the visible Church) For to be visibly broken off is to be visibly removed from the terminus a quo (or the Church from which they are broken) But there can be no visible removal or distance from an invisible terminus: therefore there can be no visible removall from an invisible Church, and consequently it is the visible Church which they are directly visibly broken off from: Though it's true, that their breaking off from the invisible Church, may from thence in the second place be rationally concluded.
Answ. Mr. P. in this argument would prove that the breaking off Rom. 11. v. 17, 19, 20. must needs be from the visible Church, yea, and directly from it alone, though their breaking off from the invisible Church may from thence in the second place be rationally concluded, and yet his sixth argument is to prove that the breaking off must be from the visible Church, because there is no breaking off from the invisible. How can breaking off from the invisible be rationally concluded, which cannot be? This tome seems a contradiction. But to the argument. The visible Church is either of the Iewish Nation, opposite to the Christians, or the visible church of christians consisting of Iews and Gentiles owning …hrist: The visible breaking off is either by an Ecclesiastical censure, as Anathematizing, or Casting out by Excommunication, or such like, or else by their own act of Apostasy from the Christian Communion. Had Mr. B. distinctly told us from which of these visible Churches, and by which of the acts the visible breaking off is of which he speaks, my answer might have been shorter and more easie. But I am sure none of them is the truth; not from the visible Church of the Jews, for the unbeliving-Jews stood still in it, and the believing-Iews were broken off from it: not from the visible Church of Christians by an Ecclesiastical censure, for they were never within, and therefore not liable to it, according to that 1 Cor. 5. 12. what have I to do to judge them that are without? nor by their revolt from the Christian Communion, for they were never joyned to it, and yet that only is opposite to Mr. Bs. purpose as being directly opposite to admission by a visible ordinance, which is the thing contended for in behalf of infants: nor was the visible breaking off any other act of theirs: For though it is true, they were broken off by their not believing, v. 20. yet the breaking off was not their visible act, but Gods, he brake them off, he spared not the naturall branches, v. 21. it was his foreign, v. 22. his cuttingness, sharpness, or as it is translated severity, and therefore it was a judiciall act of his according to his purpose of reprobation, which brake them off from the invisible Church of Gods Elect, who are a certain body having an existence in all ages; and because they were after Abraham the root for many ages in a sort appropriate to the Common-wealth of Israel, therefore called their own olive, yet not as a rock that abides the same, but as a river which is in flux, some water coming, other water flowing away though the same river, yet I say, that the Iews when they were broken off from the invisible Church, they also by consequent did break themselves off from the visible Church of Christians by denying Christ, and persecuting Christians. But the act of breaking off Rom. 11. 17. &c. taken formally and precisely, notes only Gods judiciall act of blinding and hardning, or his not giving faith according to his purpose of reprobation. Now to the argument I answer, 1. Concerning the antecedent I distinguish: The breaking off the Apostle speaks of may be said to be visible, either in it self, or as the Schools speak in the act, as when David slew Goliath, or in the effect or consequent of it, as when the Angel of the Lord slew Senacheribs hoste. If the antecendent be understood of visible breaking off the former way, I deny it, if the later way, I grant the antecedent, that it was a visible breaking off in the Consequent their denying Christ, as the conversion of the Ephesians, by the Spirit of God was invisible in the act by a secret work like the winds blowing, John 3. 8. upon their hearts, yet it was visible in the effect the burning their books, Acts 19. 19. Now if Mr. B. mean it of this visibility, I deny the Consequent. And to his several arguments I answer. To the first. The term [foreign Rom. 11. 22.] is often used concerning that which is not visible in the Act, but in the Consequent, 1 John 3. 1. John 11. 36. &c. and so Paul might call them to behold that which could not be seen in it self, but in the Consequent. And yet the truth is, the thing the Apostle calls on them to behold is not the act of breaking off, for that is presupposed as known, but the goodness and severity of God, which can be seen only in the Effects or Consequents. The same answer serves to the second argument: they might boast of that which was not visible in it self, but in the Consequent, though it seems to me Mr. B. takes [visible] for any thing that may be known by any way of discerning without extraordinary revelation, whereas that only is visible which is to be discerned by sense, as it is usually taken in the dispute about the visible Church: otherwise visible and invisible might be confounded, a member of the invisible Church being discernable by reason or faith, though not by sense. To the 3d. Paul might know that the Iewish people were broken off by their obstinate continued gainsaying and persecuting christianity, yet the breaking off be from the invisible Church, and an act in it self invisible. Nevertheless I make no question but Paul knew their breaking off by special revelation. For it is termed by him a mystery Rom. 11. 25. and as a Prophet he foretells their restitution. If the visible breaking off be so termed in respect of the Consequent as being visible in the event, I deny the Consequence. For a breaking off from the invisible Church, may be visible in the Consequent, though not in the act it self. Yea to shew you how weak Mr. Bs. Consequence is, though it were true that the act of breaking off were visible in it self, yet it follows not that the Church from which the breaking off is, must be the visible. For it is not true which he saith, there can be no visible removall or distance from an invisible terminus. In locall motion if an Angel be present at a place as Luke 2. 9. he may be said to be a terminus à quo, when the person departs from the Angel, the motion visible from an invisible term. But it is much more manifest in morall and legall removals, as when men depart from God by serving Idols, by express renouncing God as Job 22. 17. when Christ declared Iudas to be a son of perdition, Iohn 17. 12. there was a visible breaking off from the invisible Church.
Mr. B. proceeds. 3. Again: The Conclusion before-said I prove thus: (viz. That Paul here speaks of their breaking off from the visible Church) If every visible breaking off from the invisible Church be also a visible breaking off from the visible Church: then the breaking off which Paul here mentioneth must be from both (if it be from the invisible) but the former is certain, therefore the later: The Antecedent I prove thus. To be visibly broken off from the visible Church is to be visibly out of Covenant with God, out of his favour, and in a known state of damnation; (I speak not here of casting out of one particular Church onelyonly, or with limitation or of meer non-communion) but all that are visibly out of Covenant with God, and out of his favour, in a state of damnation, are visibly broken off also from the visible Church; (I will not dispute whether de facto or onelyonly de jure, whether in se or quo ad nos:) therefore breaking off visibly from the visible Church is inseparable from visible breaking off from the invisible: (nay, it is the same thing in another notion.)
An. M. B. seems to conceive a visible breaking off from the visible Church which may be de jure, and not de facto, in se, and not quoad nos: but I conceive there is no visible breaking off from the visible Church but it is alwaies de facto and quo ad nos: but this onelyonly by the way. The Conclusion M. B. infers is, that the breaking off which Paul mentions Rom. 11. 17, 19, 20. must be both from the visible and invisible Church (if it be from the invisible) concerning which I have often granted that the Jews mentioned under the term [branches] Rom. 11. 17, 19, 20. were broken off from the invisible Church of true believers, and the visible Church of professors of true faith: but that the phrase imports breaking off from the invisible formally, the breaking off from the visible follow'd on the breaking off from the invisible. But for the Argument I deny the consequence. For though every visible breaking off from the invisible Church were also a breaking off from the visible Church, yet the breaking off which Paul here mentions is not thereby proved to be from both, till it be proved that the breaking off Paul mentions was visible in the act, and not onelyonly in the consequence of it, which is not yet done. Nor indeed doth M. B. offer to prove this consequence, but supposeth it as if it were proved before, to which I have here answered. As for the proof of his Antecedent, it is not true which he saith, that breaking off visibly from the visible Church is inseparable from visible breaking off from the invisible, much less that it is the same thing in another notion, nor that all that are visibly out of Covenant with God, and out of his favour in a state of damnation, are visibly broken off also from the visible Church. For a person who is excommunicated for a seeming contumacy in evil or error, but mistaken, is visibly broken off from the visible Church, and yet not from the invisible; and a person that lives in a state of impenitency in some gross sin, or damnable error, and yet is not excommunicated (which experience shews may happen, from many causes) is visibly broken of from the invisible by his open evil life, yet not from the visible in which he still continues. Nor can the visible breaking off from the invisible, be the same thing with visible breaking off from the visible, sith there may be a visible breaking of from the visible meerly by the censure of others, but no visible breaking off from the invisible, but either by a visible declaration of God, or some visible act of the person of Apostacy, deniall of faith, open impenitency, and contumacy in error or sin that cannot stand with true grace. But Mr. B. adds, Further if God should break of from the invisible Church onelyonly and directly, then it would be by an invisible act: But this was by a visible act: therefore it was from the visible Church.
To which I answer, The Minor is that which is to be proved, yet not a word brought to prove it. Yea all along the chapter the act of God by which the Jews were broken off is expressed by terms that note invisible acts of God in themselves, though in the consequent visible: as rejecting, v. 1, 2. blinding or hardning, v. 7. giving a spirit of slumber, eies that they should not see, and eans that they should not hear v. 8. making their table a snare v. 9. darkning their eies not to see v. 10. casting away v. 15. which either note the immanent act of Gods reprobation or the not giving of faith, which is visible onelyonly in consequent not in the act.
Mr. B. goes on. 4. Again you have heard before from v. 17. That God broke off but some of the Jews, and so the rest remained in the Church: now if some remain in the invisible Church, then much more in the visible, for if God should break off all from the visible Church, and but some from the invisible, then he should take those for his true servants and in a state of salvation, who do neither profess to be his servants, nor are in Covenant with him; but the consequence is absurd, therefore so is the Antecedent.
To which I answer, I grant his Conclusion, that they which remained in the invisible, to wit, the remnant according to the election of grace v. 5. of which Paul was one, were also in the visible Church, and that they who by harding or blinding were broken off from the invisible Church were also broken off from the visible: But all the question is what the terms [breaking off and ingraffing] import in those places v. 17, 19, 20, 23. whether a breaking off from the invisible by not giving faith according to reprobation, and an ingraffing into the invisible by giving it according to election, or breaking of directly from the visible alone, which is wont to be by some Church-censure, and the engraffing into the visible alone directly by an initiall seal. Now this later is not proved by proving they were in the visible Church as well as in the invisible, no more than it is proved that the calling Ro 8. 30. doth note their outward calling, because they that were inwardly called were also outwardly called. The rule in Logick is true, that quae conveniunt in eodem subjecto non sunt eadem formaliter. Yet because there is something observable in that which follows I shall examine it. That this absurd consequence (saith Mr. B.) would follow appears thus, from the nature and properties of both sorts of Church-members: for visible being in Covenant or professing true Religion (explicitly or implicitly) makes a visible member; and sincerity in the Covenant makes a member as invisible; and all these are in the state of salvation: now to say that one is a member of the invisible Church, and not of the visible, is to say, he is sincere in the Covenant which he is not known to be in at all; and that he is in a state of salvation before he be in a state of common profession, or any thing equivalent, which is absurd. And I shall shew you afterward, that without this abjurdity Mr. T. cannot in his way affirm that any Infant is saved.
To which I answer. Mr. B. supposeth an implicite profession of true Religion or some thing equivalent to common profession makes a visible Church-member. The implicite profession, and the thing equivalent to common profession is the parents real actuall believing in Mr. Bs. judgement, as his words ch. 29. shew, or some ones who hath the disposing of a person. But we must take this upon Mr. Bs. word, that in the Christian Church parents reall actuall believing is equivalent to the infants explicite profession to make it a visible Church-member. No Scripture saies so, nor is it much unlike to the Popish doctrine of the Colliers implicite faith in the Church as sufficient to save and to admit into Church-Commnnion, though the person himself know nothing of Christ. Credit in altero qxi peccavit in altero, is a saying of Augustin without proof. The invisible Church is sometimes described the number of elect persons, according to Heb. 12. 23. The Church of the first-born, which are written in heaven. And so all elect persons are members of the invisible Church though unborn, or if born yet either make no profession or profess contrary to the faith, and so are no visible Church-members of Christ, but visibly members of Satans Kingdome for the present: nor are all such members of the invisible Church in the state of salvation for the present. But because as Dr. Ames Med. Th. lib. 1. c. 31. sect. 4. 5. the elect afore they are ingraffed in Christ are not actually, but onelyonly in possibility in the Church, therefore that definition of the invisible is of it not as existing actually onelyonly, but also as future, therefore others define it, a company of true believers elect. But then this must be understood of true believers in the seed or extraordinary exercise of faith, or else infants will be excluded, which must be acknowledged to be true of infants in the womb, or else all they be out of the invisible Church: But infants in the womb cannot be said to be visible Church members before they be visible men, therfore it follows, that one is a mēber of the invisible Church and not of the visible, and in the state of salvation afore he be in a state of common profession, or any thing equivalent, which Mr. B. counts absurd. And thus without any absurdity Mr. T. can in his way affirm that many infants are saved, and yet deny them visible Churchmembership. And for what Mr. B. tells us, he shall shew afterward when I come to examine ch. 27. of this book of his. I doubt not to shew the vanity of his arguing grounded upon his mistake, that to be a visible Church-member is to seem to be of the invisible according to a judgement of probability without any visible act of theirs, and that by denying infants visible Church-membership we deny the seeming though but in a judgement of probability to be of the invisible, and consequently we can have no true ground of hope of their salvation. Which is falsely by him ascribed to me, who do take visible Church-membership to be that which is discernable to sense, and deny not a probability of infants being elect, but expressely grant it, and that from thence there is a good ground of hope of the salvation of infants, though none of them be visible Church-members of the Christian Church, which consists not of a nation by generation, but of disciples made by preaching of the Gospel. But I must follow Mr. B. who thus proceeds.
5. Again you heard before, that they were broken off only for unbelief: now if unbelief onelyonly break off from the invisible Church; then it onelyonly breaks off from the visible; and therefore it must needs follow both that the visible Church is also here meant, and that none but for unbelief are broken off from one (rightly) any more then from the other: (I run over these hastily, because I would have done with this which is so plain already.)
Answ. It seems Mr. B. doth run over things hastily, because for the most part like Ahimaaz he runs without his errand. Canis festinans caecos parit catulos. But if he would have done with that point, why did he trouble the reader with his medium, which is the same he urged before, and so hath answer before? To which I adde, that it is not said by the Apostle, that the Iews were broken off onelyonly for unbelief, much less that none are broken off but for their own unbelief, such as was in the Iews; nor if it were granted, will it follow, that if unbelief onelyonly break off from the invisible Church, then it only breaks off from the visible. For there may be a breaking off of true believers from the visible Church, by a just Excommunication. Nor doth it follow that by the olive-tree must be meant the visible Church, as visible consisting of good and bad, or that none but for unbelief are broke off from one (rightly) any more than the other. Yea, if this be true, then Excommunication must be taken away. For that breaks not off any such for such unbelief as is meant Rom. 11. 20. which was contrary unbelief of them that voluntarily refused and persecuted the Gospel: now such are not the subject of Excommunication according to the received Exposition of 1 Cor. 5. 12. And if none but for unbelief are rightly broken off from the visible Church, then it is against right that any professed believer be Excommunicated though he be scandalous: which overthrows the use, and condemns the practice of of Excommunication by taking away the subject of it. But Mr. Bs. dictates deserve not so many words to refute them, saving for the credit he hath gotten among the inconsiderate, to the prejudice of the truth.
6. Lastly, saith M. B. I argue thus. That Church which men may be and are broken off from, is the visible Church (for Mr. T. will confess that no man is broken off from the invisible Church): But this Church is it that men (the Jews) were broken off from: therfore this is the visible Church. Mr. T. hath 2. answers to this, 1. That they are broken off in appearance, as those branches in John 15. 2. are said to be in Christ in appearance: But this is to adde error to error. It is bold expounding to say, that when Christ saith they were branches in him, the meaning was, they were not in him, but onelyonly seemed so; They were really in Christs visible body. To which I reply, the interpretation if it be bold, yet it should be favourably censured for Chamiers sake whom I cite in my Apology page 76. and other Protestant authors as thus using it. Nor indeed is Mr. Bs. sense any other than it. For Mr. Bs. being in the visible body of Christ really is no other than the being in Christ in appearance, not in reality as before God, as Rom. 8. 1. it is taken. So that in that answer is no adding error to error. But because the other answer is that I stick to, let's see what Mr. B. saies to it. But 2. (saith Mr. B.) This answer in his Apology he after dislikes upon the discovery of one that he thinks better, viz. That it is the Collective body of the Jews, not taken as at that one time, but as the river that runs to day, is the same river that ran long ago, though not the same water. But this shift will never serve his turn. 1. For if the Church be constituted of individuall persons, then if none of those individuall persons were broken off, the Church was not broken off: But the Church is constituted or composed of individuall persons, therefore if none of them be broken off, then the Church is not broken off: (but that is false.)
An. Mr. B. hath so imperfectly and obscurely set down my answer, that the Reader without looking into my Apology page 76. will not rightly understand it. For 1. the Subject of the proposition in my answer, as he sets it down is [it] by which it is uncertain whether he mean the Olive-tree or the branches, the Church invisible or the people of the Jews who are branches from Abraham, and are one and the same people though not the same persons in severall generations: this later is my meaning, the former it seems Mr. B. conceived my meaning to be. 2. The Predidicate of my proposition is quite left out, which was [is broken off]. Now he seems to have conceived my answer to be, that the Church is broken of from the invisible Church: whereas my meaning was not that the Church of God is broken off from the invisible Church, but this, that the Nation of the Jews, of which the body or most part in some ages were in the invisibie Church, as branches in the Olive, in a continued succession, in the time of the Apostle that people, to wit, the most part of that Nation, were broken off from the invisible Church or Olive-tree in which that people in the individuall persons of a former age did stand. Now that this is no shift, that by the branches naturall and ingraffed were meant the collective bodies of Jews and Gentiles appears by the 6 Arguments Mr. Cobbet in his Just vindic. Part 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. proves it by: though I conceive he doth not so fully explicate and adapt the Apostles similitude as had been requisite, as may appear from my answer to M. G. before, and the examination of that chapter in that which follows. But to answer Mr. Bs. arguments, he would prove that the Church (which in a direct opposition to me, should be meant of the invisible) is not broken off, which contradicts not my words, who never said that the Olive-tree, that is the invisible Church of Believers, is broken off: but that the branches, that is the people of the Jews of Pauls time in respect of the greatest number and prevailing party were broken off from the invisible Church, in which were the same people or branches in former generations. Nor do I deny that the Church consists of individuall persons, or that individuall persons were broken off from the invisible Church; but I deny that the branches do note individuall persons as singularly and distributively considered, but collectively as the body of a people, and I say not that the same individuall persons were in the invisible Church, and were broken off from the election, faith, and place they had in the Olive-tree in their own persons: but that the individuall persons of one age, are broken off from that election and faith which the same people had in another age in their progenitors.
2. Saith Mr. B. Again, if they were broken of for unbelief, then for the unbelief of some particular persons, and consequently it was some individuall persons that for that unbelief were broken off: Now sure God would not break off the Church for the unbelief of any foregoing age, without their own.
An. The Conclusion being granted hurts not me, who speak not of the breaking off a Church, but a people or Nation, and that by the unbelief of particular persons, and those particular persons of that age in which that people were broken off from the invisible Church, though they were not broken off from what those particular persons were afore their breaking off, but from what their Ancestours were.
3. Saith Mr. B. Again, If but some were broken off, then those some must needs be individuall persons, and not all the nation in a sense containing no individuall persons.
Answ. When I say the Jewish Nation broken off, I mean some individual persons, even the greatest part of the individual persons of that time, and therefore Mr. B. in this fights with a shadow of his own.
4. saith Mr. B. According to Mr. T. his conceit, they must be in breaking off a long time, at least an age, viz. by the death of all the true believers, and succession of unbelievers: But this was not so; There was a time when the same Church (for the greater part) which was a Church before, did immediately cease to be, viz. when Christ added a new fundamental article to their creed, without which before they might have been saved, but after could not [if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins] They that were of the Church before, immediately upon the rejecting of this article, were all unchurched, this being now made essentiall to their Sonship or Church-membership, and of absolute necessity to their salvation, which was not so before to the same individuall persons: their unbelief which was but negative was now privative. Either they were a Church immediately before this breaking off, or not. If they were not, then they were broken off before this breaking off, and so this could be no breaking off: If they were a Church, then it was individuall persons that were broken off; and consequently it must needs be from the visible Church, seeing from the invisible there is no breaking off in Mr. Ts. own judgement.
Answ. According to my conceit rightly understood, there is no need of such a continued breaking off by the death of some, and succession of other. Their breaking off was as Mr. B. truly saies, when the Jewish people in the generality, chiefly the builders, rejected Christ the corner stone; (which is a good argument to prove the breaking off to be from the invisible Church by unbelief) These persons were not before in the invisible Church, they never looked for the redemption by Christ, as those Luke 2. 38. but trusted in themselves that they were righteous, Luke 18. 9. received honour one of another, and sought the honour that commeth from God only, John 5. 44. It is true they were of the visible Church of the Iews before, but never of the invisible Church of God: The visible Church of the Iews had in it the invisible Church before, which was never broken off. Individual persons, even the greatest part of the Iews in that age were broken off from the invisible, not from what they in their persons were in before, but from what the people of the Iews in foregoing time were. It is not true, that in my judgement their is no breaking off from the invisible Church, nor doth it follow if individuall persons be broken off from the Church, it must needs be the visible, not the invisible. And to Mr. Bs. confident affirmation, I return as confident a denial, that either he hath proved, that the Apostle Rom. 11. doth speak of breaking onelyonly, or graffing in only to the visible Church, much less of graffing into, or breaking off from the visible Church of the Iews by an initiall seal, according to the frame of that Church, or of the continuing the state of infants with believing parents, as visible members in the Christian visible Church. I follow after Mr. B.