Ch.;B. of the i.ffite of Beleevers. 317 plied a former union, which is not without Election. Are all the Princes of Europe broke off, or depofed from the Empire of Ger- many , becaufe the Eledors never made choice of them? And that there fhould be a breaking off from the vifible Church by non.fldsná on, non- Circumcifng, non-"Baptizing is as firange; We ufe to fay, Turpius ejicitur guàm non admittitur ; but if non -' Admiftìon be an ejection, that received phrafe is evinced of non - fenfe. He is fouler caft out, then not calling out ; cafting out by Excommunication is fomewhat , but nothing to the prefent pure pofe : That is, the ad of the Church on force particular Mem- ber, or Members; But this here is the aft of God , which is by taking away the Kingdome, by removing their Candleffick , de parting with his prefence. Mailer Baxter mentioning the mercifull gift ofChurch -Mem- berfh p granted to the jewes and affirming that it is not revokt; Mafter Tombes anfwers, This merciful gift and ordinance I finele no Where , nor bath Air. Baxter fhewed it yet any Where, but in the info - tution of C'ercumcifion, Gen. 17. I hope the Reader will fee it as begun in that great Charter of Heaven, fo through all the ages of the Earth continued,never antiquated or repealed; but confirm- ed and eftablifhed. Mailer Baxter urging, That the ?ernes were cafe off forunbelief infants were not guilty of unbelief; and therefore they were not call off; Mailer Tombes, Sett. '. denies the Antecedent; feeing the Text faith, that the Jewes were broken of by unbelief; not that none were broken off but unbeleevers. But the Text afiignes unbeliefe, Mailer Tombes affignes no other caufe, then that muff (land. And after an impertinent diftinction of breaking offin purpofe,& Execution, he layes ; Tl be unbelief here meane, appears from Chap. 20.21. to be not only negative, but contrary, of them that reje led the Gofßel ; therefore if none were broken of but unbeleevers here meant , no Infants, no not of Infidels that never heard of C'hrift, were never broken off. We eafily yield his conclufion if he frame it in a Syllogifine ; `i hat the Infants of Infidels that never heard of Chrifl, were never broken off They could never be broken off,that were ne- ver taken in. A branch of a Bramble was never broken off from a Vine or Olive. And then he determines, pag. 54_. The breaking off is not revoking of an Ordinance about vifible Church-Memberfbip ; (it's wonder to me, that any man thatferioufly reads the Chapter, S f 3 fhoule
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=