A just vindication of the covenant and church-estate of children of church-members as also of their right unto bastisme : wherein such things as have been brought by divers to the contrary, especially by Ioh. Spilsbury, A.R. Ch. Blackwood, and H. Den are revised and answered : hereunto is annexed a refutation of a certain pamphlet styled The plain and wel-grounded treatise touching baptism / by Thomas Cobbet.

CHAP. II. Sect. I. The Explication of Rom. 11. 16, 17, &c.

LEt us now goe on to some proofs of that generall truth propounded, removing objections intervening, and then come to the particular of baptisme. Let us then a little more fully cleare that place, Rom. 11. 16, 17. so farre as it concerneth the matter in hand. Our op∣posites in this point, would have the place onely to bee applyable to the personall estate of this or that beleever, Jew or Gentile, and of the personall way of their inserting by true faith. But wee af∣firme, that as the Chapter in other parts of it hath reference to the Jewes or Gentiles in the fruition or deprivation of covenant pri∣viledges; it is in a collective, and not meerely a distributive way, so are those Verses mentioned taken in the like collective reference. And first, as the discourse hath relation to the Jewes, either in their admission or exclusion from Church priviledge; it is in a colle∣ctive, not bare personall respect, as appeareth by these reasons.

1. In that those are intended, whose fall was the occasion of the Gentiles salvation, and their casting away was the life of the world, verse 11. 15. and on whom God shewed such severitie, verse 22. now none will restraine these to this or that particular persons casting away, but must understand it of the people, whe∣ther parents or children.

2. In that those are intended, of whom it may bee verified, that they are in such sort, and so long cast away as is from the first comming in of the Gentiles to their fulnesse, which is the space of many ages. Now none will say, that this can bee affirmed of one and the same person or persons, but must apply it to the peo∣ple, parents and children successively, hence expressed by that collective name of Israel, verse 25.

3. In that those are intended of whom it may bee verified, they are cast away, and yet to bee reconciled, verse 15. cut off, and yet to bee re-ingraffed, verse 20. 24. enemies, yet beloved, verse 28. which cannot bee verified of this or that person, but must bee ta∣ken of that people.

4. In that they are intended, whose receiving in, scil. to actuall fruition of covenant and Church priviledges from which they are

now de facto excluded, v. 24. will be to the inchurched world as life from the dead, vers. 15. which must be taken collectively of that peo∣ple, not distributively of such a person, or persons amongst them.

5. It is intended of those whom God from the first chose unto himselfe, which yet all the space from the comming in of the Gen∣tiles, till their fulnesse, abode enemies, vers. 25. 28. compared. Now none will restraine this to such or such elected persons to whom blindnesse could not happen so long, yet afterwards bee removed, as the phrase, untill, sheweth: but must bee applyed to Gods act of election of that people, as some judiciously observe upon the place; many thousand persons of this people, lived and died, and •…•…ill doe live and die in this while: The space being yet not accom∣plished in their sinnes. Then it seemes, some that are subjects of election may live and die in their sinnes. Yea verily, this absurdi∣tie must follow, if you take election, vers. 28. strictly in reference to such and such persons among them, and not largely in reference to that people. There is a twofold act of divine election, the one more generall, whereof the body of such or such people is the ade∣quate subject, by this act God subjecteth such a people from all other peoples to himselfe; and yet sundry particular persons amongst such a people may perish: Thus the people of the Jews were, collectively considered, enemies to the Gospel, yet as touching election beloved, for their covenant fathers sake, vers. 28. of this electing act of God, see Deut. 7. 6. The other more particular and speciall, whereby God maketh, as I may say, a second draught, and out of such or such selected people culleth such or such particular persons to bee saved by Christ: Now such as are the subjects of election in this sense, can never perish, and in this sense, the election among the Jewes attained it, and the rest were blinded, see Rom. 12. 5, 6, 7. see John 10. 3. 11. 14. 27, 28, 29. Apoc. 13. 8.

6. In that it was intended of those, to whom the Gentiles are opposed, and in whose stead they are inserted; and against whom the Gentiles must not boast, vers. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. 17, 18. But it were improper to oppose in such sort, such a world as they are called, verse 14, 15. compared, to such or such particular Jewes.

As the Jewes are thus collectively considered, so the Gentiles comming into their Olive estate, are taken in a collective sense, therefore called the world, vers. 15. the Gentiles, vers. 12. notions not to bee restrained to the growne sort of them, but necessarily including the species of Infants among them. Hence also, the col∣lective

notion of Thou and Thee often used, vers. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. 24. And that this singular is not distributively taken of some one or other Gentile, but of the people of the Gentiles, hee there∣fore in other verses speaking to the same people mentions them plurally, Gentiles, vers. 11, 12, 13. 25. Hence, the phrase Yee, and Your, applied to them, vers. 28. 30, 31. Besides, they are still set in opposition to the Jewes which fell, vers. 11. 12. which were cast away, vers. 15. and broken off, vers. 20. 24. 28. Now none will say, that those refuse Jewes are taken distributively, but collectively, as was proved, and much lesse that the Jewish parents onely, exclu∣ding their children, were understood; so then, if the opposition bee sutable, and direct, the opposite parties must bee collectively ta∣ken also, and Gentiles children received in with their parents, as opposed to Jewish children excluded with their parents. Nay they are not onely opposed, but the Gentile body is received in instead of the Jew-body broken off, vers. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in ramorum defracto∣rum locum, Beza on Rom. 11. 17. and vers. 19. They were broken off, saith the collective Gentile, that I might bee graffed in. The Apostle yeelds this as truth; well, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as if hee would say, it is true; now growne ones among the Jewes were broken off: who came in their stead? growne Gentiles. True, but Jewish babes and little ones too, amongst other branches and sprigs, are bro∣ken off, that Gentiles might come into covenant and Church estate in their stead. What Gentiles? growne ones? nay roome is made for them in the breach of the growne Jewes. Verily then such a like species of Gentiles unto those rejected Jewish sprigs, scil. Gentile babes and little ones, must necessarily bee thus inserted and admitted into that covenant and Church estate out of which the other were broken. So then, as Jewes were, so Gentiles are considered in this Chapters discourse touching communion in fe∣derall and Church ordinances and priviledges, under the notion of Olive fatnesse, &c. not in a bare personall way, but in reference to people of both kindes, and persons of all sorts, and species younger or elder, which is a strong argument that God never in∣tended to limit the benefit of his covenant grace to growne ones, or parents personally, but rather extends it to them in a parentall way at least. Hence when that commission, Matth. 28. 19. was gi∣ven, for this end, it is in the old terme and notion of nation, a large word, and subject. God delights to inlarge his grace in these times, and his very intent in Matth. 28. is inlargement of Gospel mercies.

The more crosse are their minds to Gods thoughts who from that very place would conclude a straightning such a Gospell mercy as this mentioned, was and is both to parents and children, and for which they have nothing equivalent in stead thereof. The A∣postle it's confessed bringeth in Rom. 11. 16, 17. as an argument to prove the receiving in againe of the Jewes, scil. unto actuall fruition of all covenant and Church priviledges, vers. 15. For if the roote bee holy, so are the branches, vers. 16. and so vers. 28, 29. To the same purpose now, if the covenant with godly ancestors bee so for∣cible to fetch in such Apostates after so grosse and long a time of their desperate revolts from, and contempts of covenant grace in Christ; is it not much more of force to the receiving in of the babes of next beleeving parents unto the visible fellowship of co∣venant grace? God forbid, that any should obstinately gainesay it.

SECT. II.

BY roote, I. S. saith in that, Rom. 11. 16. is meant Christ per∣sonall, and yet the same author elsewhere would have it meant mystically considered; and elsewhere, of union and communion with God in ordinances; and elsewhere of Abraham in his faith; and elsewhere of beleeving parents in part; for hee saith not one∣ly beleeving parents are the roote, &c. not onely [in part, then such parents are the root.] But indeed this author refuteth himselfe, in that hee knoweth not where to fix. Abraham in his faith as la∣therly, and eying the covenant in this latitude, as to him, and his seed of Isaac by propagation, and to the beleeving Gentiles with their seed by proportion, thus hee might bee a root in his faith; but if Abrahams faith bee considered in a meere personall respect, so neither Jewes nor Gentiles are properly, said to bee inserted into that, but rather into his faith with its object the covenant. It is improper to say of the Gentile that they stood in it, scil. in the root of faith, by faith, or that the Jew was broken off from Abrahams personall faith by unbeliefe. Abrahams faith was a saving faith, if this therefore had been in them all, or they in it, they had not fallen as many Jewes and Gentiles priviledged by externall covenant right, did and might; or supposing the root to bee meant, not of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but of Christ, as Mr. B. also affirmeth, who is elsewhere called a root, Apoc. 22. 16. and 5. 5, &c. if they had been in him, by any proper and invisible union, neither those of the Jewes had been, nor so many of Gentiles could have been

broken off, as they were, & whole Churches of these are, witnes this Church of Rome, to which the Apostle wrote this. But otherwise, if understood of impropper and visible union with Christ, scil. a vi∣sible union with Christ mysticall; thus indeed many such may fall away finally, as did these. Hence that John 15. 2. now in this sense parents and children Inchurched, whether Jewes or Gentiles, by being in the holy root of those covenant fathers, they are visibly in that holy root Christ, or Christ mysticall, as was shewed. I. S. will and doth confesse the first fruits, of whom yet the same holy effect is affirmed, Rom. 11. 16. to be these fathers, and why not then as wel the same fathers to bee the root? since the context cleareth it, that the Apostle intendeth the same of the selfesame persons under di∣vers Metaphors. Either then Christ is the first fruites, as well as roote intended, or those fathers are the first fruites, as well as the root mentioned. Verily covenanting Abraham in reference to his seed is called a rock, whence that Church, as a Church was hewen; for in that sense the Prophet speakes to them, Esay 51. 1, 2. yet is Christ the rock of the Church too in another sense; and why is not Abraham then a covenant root to such Church branches, as that from whence they in that sense doe spring? And what I say of Abraham, is as well to bee referred to Isaac and Jacob in the same respect, as being other veines, making up this one root, the Instrumentall meanes and cause of the mercy offered and exhibited both to Jewes and Gentiles, in regard that to them all this large covenant was made over in a radicall way, see Gen. 17. 2. 7. and 22. 18. compared with Gen. 26. 3, 4, 5. and 28. 13, 14. whence such fre∣quent mention in Scripture of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in refe∣rence to covenant blessings, yea their names are pleaded in prayer for that end, Exod. 32. 13. Deut. 9. 27. see more 2 King. 13. 23. and Mich. 7. 20. &c. This was not in respect of any personall ho∣linesse of theirs, or barely in respect of their personall faith, but it was by reason of that large covenant made with them in this re∣ference, as the places quoted shew; see further for this end, Luke 1. 71, 72. Rom. 15. 8. Deut. 4. 37. and 10. 15. with other like Scrip∣tures. Hence too, they are made here a radicall meanes of the Jewes receiving in againe, Rom. 11. 15. grounded on this reason, vers. 16. compared with vers. 28. Whence also, the Jewes which are called holy branches, by vertue of their holy root, vers. 16. they are termed naturall branches too, scil. of that root, and Olive tree, vers. 24. not naturall branches of Christ as the root. Our

very opposites will say, that were improper to affirme; nor meer∣ly of Abraham, but Isaac and Jacob also; nor is it proper to call one Abraham [fathers] vers. 28. or first fruits, vers. 16. Now as to Jewes, so to Gentiles, were those covenant [fathers] and root; God saith to Abraham and Jacob distinctly that hee would blesse all nations, and families, as in their seed, so in them, Gen. 12. 2, 3. In thee [Abraham] Gen. 22. 28. in thy seed, and Gen. 28. 14. in thee [Jacob] and in thy seed How in them at all distinct from the seed Christ, who is the sole author, worker, and meritorious cause of all covenant blessing? Verily in respect of the covenant made with them, in reference as to the nation of the Jewes, and the families therein, so to Gentile nations and the families therein, to bee by virtue of that covenant partakers, at least visibly, of the covenant blessing. Hence wee Gentiles are said to come and sit downe with those fathers, Matth. 8. 11, 12. as inserted branches are in some sense seated and setled in and with the root. Hence likewise, this root is said to beare the Christian Gentiles collectively taken, and for that cause the Gentile is not to boast against the Jew branches: branches of what? of the root mentioned: what root? Christ? That were improper to affirme: but rather, of those fathers.

SECT. III.

THe Olive tree, some take it of the Fathers also in opposition to the other wilde Olive tree out of which the Gentiles were cut, vers. 24. scil. Their wilde ancestors, or ancestors estranged from the covenant, Ephes. 2. 12. The Jewes indeed are cut out of these fa∣thers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as covenanting in respect of any present actuall benefit of the covenant, but yet are not cut out of those fathers as begetting, as it is evident, they are still Abrahams stock; which by the way observe against that distinction, by which some use to avoid our arguments in this businesse; They say Abra∣ham, Isaac and Jacob were onely a root to the body of the Jewes, as naturall and begetting fathers, and not as spirituall and beleeving fathers, or fathers by faith imbracing the covenant made with the Jewes also. Surely such men would frustrate the ground of the Apostles discourse here, supposing so sad an exclusion of the Jewes from a former sweet and sappy Church estate, yea such as into which the Gentiles could not come but by a preter-super, yea con∣tra-naturall way, vers. 24. if they were in those fathers as begetting fathers onely, so are they still their naturall children, and then

not cut off from them at all, contrary to this expresse Scripture. Others would have the Olive tree, to bee meant of the visible Church distinguished from the root, vers. 17. see Jer. 11. 16. spoken of the Jewes in their Church, as well as civill relation: into which as into their owne Olive, by that generall covenant right, Rom. 11. 16. 24. they shall bee re-ingraffed, in so farre as they are federally holy, vers. 16. scil. intentionally, in so farre is a Church right their owne; with which latter respect of the Olive I fully close; but of this more afterwards.

By [ingraffing into the Olive] seemes to bee meant, an actuall interesting, and instating into the visible Church, or into those covenant fathers in reference to the Church, whence also ariseth the actuall fruition thereof. By Olive fatnesse mentioned, vers. 17. must needs bee meant such covenant or Church blessings, priviled∣ges, and ordinances, &c. whereof all sorts of Church members, even such as may bee fatally cut off, may partake of as well as others: which are not the graces of the Spirit, for they flow not immediat∣ly from the Olive the Church, nor from any of the best of the sons of men, but rather they are the seales and other Church ordinan∣ces visibly dispensed to persons according as they are capable of them. These are the instrumentall causes of the bright shining, at least in visible profession of Christ, unto the whole Candlestick, and all the greater or lesser branches and parts of it, Zach. 4. 2, 3. 11, 12, 14.

SECT. IIII.

TO draw to a Conclusion. 1. Then looke how the Jew-bran∣ches were set into their Olive and root mentioned, so are the Gentiles which come in their stead, Rom. 11. 17. 19. But they with all their buds and sprigs, scil. children, as Esay 44. 3. and 18. 5. and 61. 9. and Psal. 128. 3. they are called, were set thereinto, therefore in like sort are the Gentiles with their children inserted. Amongst them were three sorts thus inserted. 1. Growne ones truely beleeving, as were godly proselyted Gentiles. 2. Growne ones, which did not prove truly beleeving, as many of the prose∣lytes. 3. The children of Jewes, and of both those sorts of pro∣selytes, some whereof afterwards made holy improvement thereof, others abused and rejected their covenant priviledge: and so is it with us now.

2. Looke how they were by unbeleefe broken off, so are the Gen∣tiles

taken in by faith; but they both parents and children were broken off through the unbeleeving rejection of the covenant ex∣pressed by the wicked parents onely, therefore the Gentiles are in∣serted with their children, albeit the parents onely expresse a be∣leeving embrace of the covenant. Gentiles children are not indeed expressed by name in this inserting: but yet the Gentile is collective∣ly spoken of as was proved, and so must needs include at least the children of such inserted Gentiles; as in the cutting off of the Jewes, and casting away of them, their children are not mentioned, except comprehensively, here, or in Matth. 8. 11. and 21. 42. yet all grant that they were intended, and so in this case.

3. Looke how the Gentile in case of apostasie is cut off from his Church estate, and union and communion in the Olive root and fatnesse, and looke as hee is not spared in case of his unbeleefe, so was the Gentile graffed in, vers. 20. 21, 22. But in that case of un∣beleefe and apostasie, the Gentile, both parent and child is cut off from federall grace and Church priviledge; witnesse the case of those which at first fell off, when first the Asian and other Churches, as of Rome, &c. were unchurched: Therefore so was the Gentile parent and child graffed in.

4. Looke how the better part of the Jewes, which did not thus actu∣ally & obstinately reject the covenant and Gospel of grace, & Christ the foundation thereof, did then, when the Apostle wrote this, Rom. 11. 17. remaine still in their roote: in such sort, are the Gentiles with them, partakers thereof: But those Jewes parents and chil∣dren abode in that covenant estate: Therefore Gentile parents and children so partake with them. Of those Jew parents none will make question, and of their children, is no ground to doubt: which being once in covenant in their ancestors, yea and parents right also, and not being then of yeares to reject Christ, how come they at present to bee cut out? surely not for their parents unbeleefe, for they receive Christ, not for others rejecting Christ, for what's that to them? not for their owne actuall rejecting of Christ, for they were not then of yeares to doe so.

5. Looke how the Jew shall againe bee graffed in, in such sort were the Gentiles at first graffed in, but they parents and children with them shall be graffed in; therefore so were the Gentile pa∣rents and children graffed in or inchurched. The major is evident by vers. 17. 19. 23, 24, 25, 26. compared: The minor is as evident by the same verses compared. For as they were broken off by un∣beleefe,

so are they re-inserted by faith: now the former was by the parents unbeleefe, that young and old were cast off, as was proved; therefore by faith in the parents, young and old are re∣inserted, else, as was said, parents and children lost this which was a speciall and comfortable blessing by parentall unbeleefe, which they never recover through the like parentall faith. Besides, it hath been proved, that the Apostles discourse, both of the Jewes casting off, and of their receiving in, is still of them in a collective sense, and not barely personall, and so their children cannot bee exclu∣ded, but must be included. Little ones are not indeed named in their re-ingraffing, no more then in their cutting off, yet as in the one, they are necessarily understood, so in the other. Besides wee have before proved that the Jewes children are interested in these promises of grace, yet to bee fulfilled, Esay 61. 9. and 65. 20. and 23. Their off-spring are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, with them, or as well as themselves: So Ezek. 37. 20. to the end, and Jer. 13. 19, 20. Their children shall bee as aforetime: how? in a com∣mon wealth, and civill way meerely? nay rather in a Church way, as aforetime: now aforetime, who dare deny, but their children were eyed as in covenant, Acts 2. 38, 39. And as parts and mem∣bers of the Church, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. 36. and therefore were they sealed with that seale of the covenant, Gen. 17. Hence some godly learned Divines in their Commentaries upon the Canticles, expoun∣ding that Cant. 6. 11. 13. and Chap. 7. and 8. of the Jewish Church yet to come; they expound that Cant. 7. 2. mentioned of the Chur∣ches navell, that wants not liquor, to be understood of Baptisme, as that heape of Wheate, to bee meant of the Lords Supper to bee administred amongst them. Now ••s the navell is of speciall need and use, to such as cannot receive nourishment, as growne ones doe, at the mouth, to convey secretly corporall furtherance to the Babes bodily life and welfare; so this Church navell, not wanting such an inlivening supply, it will bee amongst them accounted and improved as of need and use to bee a divine meanes, as well as seale, of conveying secretly gratious influences tending to the Churches Babes spirituall welfare.

6. Looke of what Olive fatnesse in the substantialls thereof, and in what sort those branches did partake of the same, and in the same sort doe the branches taken out of the wilde Olive partake. But those branches did partake of the fruit causing fatnesse of Olive, and Church ordinances and priviledges, not as shut up, or

residing in the greater boughes, parents, but thorow them and by them passing to their lesser sprigs or children springing from them. Therefore of such fatnesse doe and must Gentiles partake. And this way was their fall an inriching of the Gentile in-churched world, Rom. 11. 12. scil. as this was to bee conveyed, as a covenant heritage, from beleeving parents to children. Else were it poore and sad with beleevers. As with other parents in other heritages, if what they have in such sort, they cannot leave with, or instru∣mentally convey unto their children; as godly Joseph is a fruitfull bough in reference to his flourishing branches, not in a meere ci∣vill and naturall, but in a covenant and Church respect, Gen. 49. 22, 23. so is it with other such parents as hee. It's contrary to na∣tures Law, that any communicable sappe should be ingrossed to, or shut up within the greater boughes, and not to bee withall con∣veyed instrumentally to those sprigs that are upon them; so is it here, in respect of this communicable sappe of federall and Church right in Church Olive boughes; It is contrary to the Law of the tenure of the covenant of grace made to parents with respect to their children in and with them, that this Church fatnesse should not bee conveyed to them. So farre as the greater boughes are in∣graffed into this visible Olive Church estate, their sprigs also which are on and in them, are set in with them, by the same Church act of ingraffing. If Olive roots as such, should not convey instrumen∣tally their sap and fatnesse to the Olive boughes, as such, and those boughes in like sort to their sprigs, Olive trees would faile in an ordinary way: so in an ordinary way must Churches faile: if this ecclesiasticall conveyance instrumentally of Church and cove∣nant sap from parent to child be denied.

SECT. V.

Object. 1. THe Jewes being federally holy, as Rom. 11. 16. sheweth, and yet not having right to Church pri∣viledges, baptisme, &c. as is evident in these refuse Jewes at this day; it shaketh your foundation, that persons because federally holy must have a right to Church priviledges.

Answ. Federall holinesse is ascribed to persons two wayes, ei∣ther as they are collectively or distributively taken. Collectively, and so it is here ascribed to the body of the Jewes, as one whole nation, which if considered distributively of all the parts, and of each person in that nation, so it is not intended of them. That we

may a little illustrate this, from what is here said in this Chapter, they bee said to bee broken off, scil. from the rest, vers. 20. cast away, and so uncleane, prophane, and not holy, vers. 15. yet are they said to be holy by vertue of the roote, in and of which they bee bran∣ches: so are they said to bee cast away, and yet such as shall bee re∣ceived in, vers. 15. they are said to bee enemies concerning the Gos∣pell, and yet beloved of God, vers. 28. What? are the selfe same persons said to bee holy, and not holy? rejected, yet to be recei∣ved? enemies, and yet beloved? no verily: But when they are said to bee holy, and beloved of God, &c. it is true of the whole body of the Jewes collectively taken, in respect of the choycer part which is federally holy, properly so called, and beloved of God, by vertue of the covenant made with their fathers; as on the other side, when it is said of the whole body, that they are cut off, cast away, and that they are enemies, it is meant of the whole collectively in re∣spect of the refuse part, for not all wholly were cut off in the Apo∣stles time, but some of the branches were broken off, vers. 17. And blindnesse did happen to collective Israel, but not wholly, but in part, vers. 25. In both which, that which is proper to the parts, is applyed to the whole of which they are parts, by a synecdoche. To come then to argument, it is true, that the Jewes, collectively taken for the whole nation, containing the choicer part intended, they are federally holy, scil. in respect of that choyce part, and yet it followes not that the Jewes distributively taken, for those Jewes living at this day, supposed to bee a refuse part of that whole, should bee properly said to bee federally holy, and so neither to have right to Church priviledges; so that the instance crosseth not us, who speake of persons federally holy, as well distributively, and not meerely collectively considered. There is therefore a fallacy, a dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter.

Rep. Suppose we take this of the whole in respect of the choycer part of the Jewish nation, this choyce part then, at least, is federally holy, yet they have not right to Church priviledges, as being not yet ingraffed into the olive, nor possibly, in actuall being in the world.

Therefore persons may bee federally holy, which yet have not right to Church priviledges.

Answ. Wee againe distinguish, persons may bee said to be fede∣rally holy, either seminally, & preparatively, or actually: in the for∣mer sense, persons not yet existing, may bee said to bee in cove∣nant with God, or such as God makes a covenant with, and con∣sequently

to bee federally holy, Deut. 29. 14, 15. neither with you onely doe I make this covenant, but with him that standeth here with us before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not with us, this day. Marke it, God saith not, I [will] make this covenant in the future, but in the present tense, I [doe] make this covenant with him that is not here this day, that is, with persons unborne; these being expresly taken into covenant with God, and their covenant right laid up and included therein, in such sort, as that which in its season should actually bee exerted, these persons albeit unborne, and not actually existing, yet in this seminall and preparatory respect of the covenant, they have thus far a co∣venant right, and so farre also a Church right together with it: so here in these unborne Jewes as they are federally holy in that se∣minall respect. Hence, the Olive or Church here, is called their owne Olive, Rom. 11. 24. How is the Church now their owne, but in respect of this seminall Church right?

Federall holinesse actually taken is that which is actually sub∣jected and exerted in a person existing, whether parent or child in which sense God made his covenant with those Jewes, and with their children that were before him that day. Deut. 29. 14, 15. And in this sense, the Apostle speaking of the federall holinesse, especi∣ally of children actually borne of covenant in-churched parents, saith they are holy, scil. actually, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Now therefore to ap∣ply the Argument, it is defective in the consequence of it, thus, Per∣sons not in being which are federally holy, onely seminally and in∣tentionally, they have not actuall Church right, nor can actually bee baptized; therefore persons existing and living which are fe∣derally holy, actually, they may not bee baptized; this followeth not: one may as well reason thus. Those with whom God made a covenant, Deut. 29. 14, 15. who were not borne, not there that day, had not actuall right to circumcision, could not be uncircum∣cised: Therefore those children which were there that day with whom also God made his covenant, Ibid. they had not actuall right to circumcision, might not, could not bee circumcised: this every rationall man will say is a non sequitur.

Object. 2. This Rom. 11. 16. is spoken of the naturall branches, which have an hereditary covenant right, as naturall branches of that roote, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And therefore not perti∣nent to the Gentiles, and their children which are not branches of that root.

Answ. Albeit the beleeving Gentiles, and their children are not of that root by nature and propagation, yet they are in that root by grace and by proportion. The Jew-branches were broken off that the Christian collective Gentile might by grace be graffed in, scil. in their stead, Rom. 11. 19. Looke then what covenant and Church right the Jewish parents had for their children in an here∣ditary way, the same hath the inchurched Gentile for his chil∣dren through grace.

Repl. This were to make way for all children of Christian Gen∣tile nations to have right to Church priviledges.

Answ. It sufficeth that thus farre it holds, that as all and onely Church-members children were ecclesiastically priviledged among the Jewes, so all and onely Church-members children are eccle∣siastically priviledged among the Gentiles.

Object. 3. The Gentiles are said to bee ingraffed, not by a na∣turall way, as being of such parents, but by a way contrary to na∣ture, and therefore what is this to the federall estate of Gentile Infants, as comming of beleeving parents? and so in a way of na∣ture?

Answ. It is most true, if applied to the first parties amongst any Gentile people, which in the Apostles time or since, enter into Church estate, living formerly in a Pagan estate, and not having any of their ancestors other then Pagans, or such as were cut out of the wilde Olive tree, scil. Ancestors pagan or outlawry from all covenant and Church estate. Rom. 11. 24. Ephes. 2. 12. But if it bee applyed to other, which come of such persons, so transplanted from that wilde Olive, to this good Olive estate, as branches or sprigs of such Olive boughs, or gratious ancestors, then is it not fully verified, that these are onely in a way contrary to nature, partakers of the fatnesse of the Olive. As they are considered toge∣ther with their gratious ancestors, as all of them of other pagan ancestors, so they are all ingraffed in a way contrary to nature, even meerely by divine Grace, but as they and their gratious fa∣thers are considered apart, their fathers as nextly descended of pagan ancestors, these their children as nextly springing from fa∣thers visibly beleeving, and inchurched, so their covenant and Church estate, comes to them principally by a way of divine grace, and instrumentall by birth descent from inchurched ancestors: and in this latter respect therefore such children may bee said, to bee in∣serted by a way of nature: for looke as the Israelites of old, before

their cutting off were, and others of them hereafter will bee, by virtue of their holy root or covenant fathers, holy branches as naturall branches: scil. branches springing naturally from them, or borne of them, Rom. 11. 16. 24. compared: or as those Israelites, were not sinners, or outlawries from covenant or Church, as were those of the Pagan Gentiles, but Jewes, or ecclesiastically privi∣ledged, even by nature, or naturall descent of such ancestors in∣churched, Gal. 2. 15. so must the proportion hold in the children of Gentile in-churched parents. Though even this also is of grace, that they should naturally descend from such parents, Gen. 49. 26.

Object. 4. The Gentiles come into and abide in Church-estate by faith, Rom. 11. 20. But children have not faith. Therefore this Scripture concernes not them.

Answ. 1. The Gentiles that so stand by faith, are collectively taken as including also their children with them so abiding, untill that these their children come to reject, as did the children of those godly Jewish ancestors, their covenant right: And observe it by the way, how tender God was of covenant children: They were ne∣ver excluded, untill they came, after many generations, so wholly to degenerate, as Rom. 11. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 28. sheweth, and then, but not till then, they are rejected, so is it still. God is ten∣der of unchurching and discovenanting any that come of godly ancestors, till they grosly and obstinately reject their owne mercy. But if they grow up to that obstinacy, then they cut off the grati∣ous covenant, entailed as from themselves personally, so to their children parentally, as did those of old, Rom. 11. 20. and as those of Rome, Corinth and Ephesus, &c. have done since.

2. This faith mentioned is not a bare personall faith respecting this or that particular Gentile, but such as is in direct opposition to that unbeleefe of the Jewes, by which they were broken off, as that opposition, Rom. 11. 20. sheweth; now it is evident that their unbeleefe was the obstinate rejecting of the covenant of grace, as it was held out in Christ to them, and theirs joyntly, and not as barely made to themselves personally, Acts 3. 25, 26. and 13. 46, 47. Matth. 21. 41. 42, 43, 44. Rom. 9. 31, 32, 33. and 10. to the end: see Rom. 10. 21. with 11. 1. &c. and vers. 20. So verily is it in the faith of the Gentile opposed thereunto. It is a faith that lookes to Gods covenant, as in reference to families and kindreds of the earth so imbracing it, and so being quickned, and comforted

by it. That pretious fruit of faith must hold proportion to the na∣ture of the seed thereof, scil. the words of promise, 1 Pet. 1. 23. now the words of promise run not barely in a personall way, but in a parentall, oeconomicall and plurall way, as well, Jer. 31. 1. Acts 3. 25, &c. our faith is, or de jure should bee inlarged according to the latitude of covenant, as was before proved, Rom. 10. 8 &c. By what hath been said, their grosse mistakes appeare, which say, that none are the subjects of this lumpe but elect ones: That the branches were such onely which were in Christ by faith, and hee in them by his spirit; for neither Jew nor Gentile branches, many of them were such, as appeares by their being broken off: nor is that assertion sound, but absurd, and crosse to the very text: that the Jewes owne naturall root and Olive tree whereof they were naturall branches, onely by faith was union with God, &c. since that way of being branches onely by faith, is no where called na∣turall; nay in the same verse, Rom. 11. 24. speaking of the first growne Gentiles inserting by faith▪ it is said to bee contrary to nature, nor is inserting which is onely by faith, more naturall to Jewes, then it is to Gentiles. Neither is that true and sound, that no other holinesse inrighteth any in any priviledges of grace, if understood of Church priviledges now in question, then holi∣nesse of justification or sanctification: since many of those naturall branches, which as naturall branches of that holy root, were holy federally, and did partake of the root, and fatnesse of the olive be∣fore their rejection, as well as some better Jewes did afterward, yet they were not justified; for which compare, Rom. 11. 16. 24. 17, 18, 19. so likewise the Gentiles, which came to partake of that Olive fatnesse in their stead, ibid. yet were fatally cut off many of them, which had never bin, if they had been justified and sanctified.

Object. 5. Doth not the Apostle only speake here of the invisible Church, under the notion of the Olive, which sometimes was amongst the Jewes, and therefore called their Olive; the Apostle reasoning about the elect remnant, Rom. 11. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. and making the tree to bee the Church of beleevers, still standing, and some branches broken off, and others graffed in, and so it might seeme the graffing in to bee inserting into the invisible Church, by election and faith?

Answ. I deny not but that the Apostle discourseth about the elect and invisible members of the invisible Church, vers. 1, 2, 3. &c. and therefore proveth fully enough one principall thing propoun∣ded,

scil. that the invisible elect membes of it, or the elect seed, and branches of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, did not, could not fall away finally: but it will not therefore follow, that hee speaketh onely of the invisible Church in the whole chapter; or that he discourseth not, as well of the visible Church, & of the Church seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yea it wil appeare by good reason, that in that part of the Chapter, where hee discourseth of the Church, as an Olive, communicating its fatnesse to all the branches of it, hee principal∣ly intendeth the visible Church, as visible.

For 1. The objection acknowledgeth, that it is the Church of beleevers still standing and some branches broken off, and others graffed in: now none that were in the invisible Church, by election and faith could ever bee broken off: Yea but they might bee in the Church in appearance, or visibly, as branches may bee said to bee in Christ, and after broken off, John 15. 2. Not to answer this with an exposition of that according to some to bee meant of Christ considered with his body the visible Church, as 1 Cor. 12. 12, 13. here is more said of these, scil. that others came in their roome, and place, Rom. 11. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in ramorum defractorum locum, as Beza noteth on that particle, they had then a reall place there, and a reall breach was made: neither did the Gentiles come into an imaginary place in the Church but a reall: and yet they came into no other place, then into the place of the broken branches; there∣fore theirs was a reall, not a seeming place in the Olive: the Olive then must bee the visible Church, where hypocrites may have place, and not the invisible Church, where they can have none. Besides, they were such branches of the Olive, as did partake of the fatnesse of the Olive; not like withered branches, seemingly in Christ, which are saplesse, nor did ever partake of the sap of Christs saving grace, as these did of Church sap, hence the Gentile is said to partake in common with them, Rom. 11. 17. Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. and thou partakest in common with them in the fatnesse of the Olive: What did the collective Christian Gentile partake in com∣mon with them, in shewes and semblances? nay in realities, in the very fatnesse of the Olive, of which they partooke, else it was not a partaking in common: as both partooke also in common in the root, Ibid. scil. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: not as naturall fathers: for so Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, albeit they were naturall fathers unto the Jewes, yet not in any respect naturall fathers unto the Gentiles; but rather as they were Church fathers: if they had not

beene Church fathers to the Jewes as well as to the Gentiles, how did Jew and Gentile partake in common in them as a root; and what common Church fathers were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob▪ those fathers, vers. 28. of the invisible Church? nay verily but of the visible, of which even the the refuse Jewes sometimes were.

Which may bee a second argument that the Olive tree of which Abraham, as some say and yeeld, or Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, as others: where the roote is considered here under the adjunct of the visible, and not of that of the invisible Church, and so it's plainely ly verified that Jewes and Gentiles were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, partakers in common in the root and fatnesse of the Olive, Rom. 11. 17.

A third reason thereof is in that the Olive here intended is that whose fatnesse it is that is communicated to the branches: yea to such branches as were broken off, as were many refuse Jewes, or might bee broken off: as sundry of the Gentiles which came in their stead might bee: whence that, vers. 21. yea ver. 22. otherwise thou shalt bee cut off; and so many have beene witnesses that Apo∣state Churches of Asia and other Churches. Now saving graces peculiar to the elect, flow not from any company of men, no not from the invisible Church, nor is it theirs but Christs to convey, and communicate, they cannot spare that oyle for others, Matth. 25. 9. but the ordinances, and they are the Churches properly: and such as from the Church are derived, and communicated to others whether elect, or reprobate that are members of her. Yea but what Church is that which holdeth forth, and dispenseth Church ordinances to others: not the invisible Church: all the members being homogeneall, the invisible Church properly hath not officers, if you suppose officers, you must suppose some calling, others called, and then they cease to bee meerely invisible, for in this act they become visible: now a Church without officers cannot administer all Church ordinances; not communicate that Church fatnesse of the seales: so then the Olive Church communicating all Church fatnesse indefinitely, and so the seales too, must bee the visible, not the invisible Church. Besides since no Olive or Church fatnesse is to bee had, but in, and from the Church: no Church ordi∣nances ordinarily to be dispensed, but in, and from the Church: if the Olive here bee supposed to bee the invisible, not the visible Church, no ordinary communication of Church ordinances to any is possibly to bee had since the invisible Church, being a

Church onely of elect and savingly called persons, and no hypo∣crites or reprobates being in, or of that Church: whither shall any repaire for Church ordinances? there being no Church in the world, dispensing ordinances by ordinary officers, which a∣lone can now dispense them in a Church way; that consists onely of elect ones: but there are some chaffe, and tares and trash and vessels of dishonour in it, Matth. 3. and 13. 2 Tim. 2. yea that Church being invisible as such is not obvious to the sense of any, which being brought to the faith would desire to bee joyned to this Olive thereby to partake of it's fatnesse: hee cannot see where, nor what that Church is, for it is invisible, this will drive us all to become Seekers, not till new Apostles come, as some fondly ima∣gine, but perpetually, yea hopelesly.

Fourthly, it's not denied by such as oppose us herein, that the Jewes had this priviledge, to bee reckoned in the outward admi∣nistration of the covenant of grace, as branches of the Olive by birth, by virtue of Gods appointment, which cannot bee true but in reference to the visible Church.

C.B. Object. 6. You will hereby set up a Catholique visible Church.

Answ. If that should follow hence touching a Catholique Church, as noting Aliquid integraliter universale, as eum dicimus orbis uni∣versus; which is not really distinct from all the particular Chur∣ches in the world considered in one: this universall integrum, the Church albeit not visible at once to any ones eyes, yet in its parts it is visible, both divisim in its particular visible members, as also conjunctim in visible congregations, Ames medul. Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 31, 32.