be baptized who are in covenant with God as well as we For though God should reveal that this or that person were elect and that his Covenant did belong to him for the future yet he were not to be baptized till God revealed that he were a believer or disciple For if so than if God did reveal concerning any as he did of Isaac and Jacob that he were a child of the promise though yet unborn in the Mothers womb he were to be baptized which is absurd None are to be baptized afore born therefore any principle whatsoever in Scripture demonstrating a person to be in the Gospel covenant is not sufficient to intitle to baptism much less such an uncertain doubtful guess called charitable presumption that he is in the Covenant as is without any particular declaration of Scripture or other revelation from God concerning the person or any shew of his that he is Gods child which yet Mr Geree makes a sufficient warrant to baptize nor is his reason of any force for we might in like manner say They have the election of God which is the greater who can inhibit the sign which is the less It is not whether that which they have is greater much less that which is conjectured or hoped they have which is the rule to baptize but the manifest having of that qualification of faith or discipleship which is prerequired to baptism according to the institution and primitive practice of it But Mr. Geree hath more to prove his Major Besides saith he we find in the administration of the Gospel covenant to Abraham and his seed whom God had thereby separated then to be his church and evidenced it by an outward seal there was so near a relation between the Covenant and Circumcision the Sacrament of initiation whereby men were externally separated from the world that circumcision was called the covenant and the token of the Covenant Gen. 17.10 11. to shew us how the seal did follow the Covenant and therefore when any were aggregated into the Jewish Church and taken into the Communion of the Covenant made with Abraham they were initiated into that administration of the Covenant by the Sacrament of Circumcision To which I answer letting pass his Phraseology this reason goes upon these suppositions 1. That by Circumcision God had administred his Covenant to Abraham and his seed and separated them to be his Church and evidenced it by Circumcision and that the seal did follow the Covenant when any were taken into Covenant they were circumcised and therefore it must be so in baptism But if he mean that to as many as God appointed to be circumcised he administred the covenant of grace which sense alone serves his turn it is not true Ishmael was circumcised yet the Covenant not administred to him nor he separated to be of his Church not this evidenced by an outward seal but the contrary declared concerning him afore his Circumcision Gen. 17.18 19 20 21. and he in the event cast out and so the seal did not follow so the Covenant but that it was imparted to them to whom the Covenant was not made and not imparted to them to whom it did belong as v. g to the females nor were the Prosâ—lytes all taken into Communion of the Covenant made with Abraham though they were taken into the Communion of the policy of Israel nor 〈◊〉 the calling circumcision the covenant or a token of the Covenant which are all one Gen. 17.10 11. prove that all that were circumcised had the Covenant made to them but this that Circumcision was a memorial that such a covenant was made with Abraham and God would perform it 2. That it must be in baptism as it was in circumcision But for proof of that there 's not a word brought by Mr. G. and what others bring is examined in its place M. G. goes on thus Now for your exceptions against the connexion which we put between the Gospel-covenant and the Sacrament of initiation annext to it in any administration they will cleerly be wiped away for what though as you say the Covenant made with Abraham were not a pure Gospel covenant but had some external additaments yet a Gospel covenant it was and for substance the same with ours Gal. 3.8 The Gospel was preached before to Abraham and as circumcision was the seal of initiation under that administration so is baptism under the Christian administration neither is the Gospel covenant now so pure as to exclude all temporal promises For godliness even under the Gosspel hath the promises of this life and that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 Answ. The distinction of a pure and a mixt covenant was brought in by me to shew that Paedobaptists do but mislead people when in their writings and sermons they express themselves as if they would have men conceive that the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. is all one with the Covenant of grace and so that there is the same reason of baptizing infants because of the Gospel covenant as there was of circumcising infants because of the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. Now how doth Mr. Geree wipe this away He tells his Reader That I say the covenant made with Abraham was not a pure Gospel Covenant but had some external additaments But neither do I so speak in my Exercit. pag. 2. nor Exam. part 3. s. 2. nor any where else I know I say the promises were mixt Exercit. pag. 2. Exam. part 3. s. 2. now promises are not external additaments to the covenant but integral parts the covenant being nothing but a promise or an aggregate of promises yea I prove that the peculiar promise to Abrahams natural posterity inheriting of the Land of Canaan c. is frequently called by the name of the Covenant Psal. 105.8 9 10 11. Nehem. 9.8 c. And for what he saith That the covenant made with Abraham was a Gospel covenant this is true according to the more infolded and hidden sense of the spirit but not according to the outward face and obvious construction of the words which in the first meaning spake of things proper to Abrahams natural posterity though the Holy Ghost had a further aim in those expressions And whereas he saith The covenant made with Abraham was for substance the same with ours Gal. 3.8 Though that promise mentioned Gal. 3.8 be no in the Covenant Gen. 17. to which Circumcision was annexed but that Gent 12.3 and the term substance be ambiguous yet I grant the Covenant made with Abraham according to those Gospel promises which in the hidden meaning declared justification by faith as the new covenant sealed with Christs blood doth is the same in substance meaning by it the intent purport and meaning of the Holy Ghost though not in words or expressions yet I deny that it was every way or in every respect in substance the same For the promise according to that sense in which they contain domestique or civil
of them For in the Evangelical sense to whom God promiseth to be God he promiseth to justifie them to regenerate them to raise them up to eternall life as appears by our Saviours own reasoning Luke 20.37 38. where he infers from Gods avouching himselfe to be the God of Abraham his living to God rising from the dead to eternal life by the Apostles inference Rom. 4.16 from thence that righteousness is by faith Rom. 9.7 8. determining them to be elect people of God to whom he hath promised to be God Heb. 8 10 c. But God doth not promise to every believers child to justifie regenerate and raise him to eternal life for if he did promise it he would perform it to say he makes a promise to any and to say they have not the efficacie of it is to make God a lyar whereas many children of believers are never justified regenerated nor shall be raised to eternall life He performs it to all true believers and elect persons and to none other therefore none others are meant there by Abrahams seed in the Evangelical sense 8 Lastly the words of John Baptist Matth 3.9 When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his baptism saying to them And think not so say within your selves We have Abraham to our Father for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham do evince â— that repenting and believing persons though raised by God of stones without naturall generation are the children of Abraham to whom the promise is made Gen. 17.7 2. That it was not their naturall descent from Abraham without repentance and Gospel faith which did entitle them to Gods favour or to his baptism and therefore it follows thence that the children of Abraham to whom the promise is Gen 17.7 are onely the elect or true believers 3. That to be the child of a believer is not a sufficient title to Gods favour or baptism To this purpose Paraeus Com. in Matth. 3.9 He teacheth also that the promises of God are not tied to fleshly birth but pertain only to believing spiritual posterity For they are not sons of Abraham who according to the flesh are of Abraham but who are according to the spirit Piscat Sch. in Matâ—h 3.9 His sentence is although ye come from Abraham according to the flesh yet ye are not therfore those sons of Abraham to whom pertains the promise of eternall life made to Abraham and his seed For this belongs to them who imitate Abrahams faith and piety Diodati Annot. on Matth. 3 9. And think not do not dally with your selves to think that because you are issued from Abraham according to the flesh you are in Gods favour and free from his judgement for with him the imitation of Abrahams faith and piety is the onâ—ly thing which demonstrates and causeth to be the children of Abraham and not the corporall generation Rom 4.12 Now such children may be brought forth of all Nations yea and out of these stones Neither do you perswade your selves that by your perdition Gods people shall perish for Gods people shall always subsist in these spiritual children of Abraham towards whom Gods covenant and promises shall be verified This then is the constant Doctrine of the New Testament that the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelicall is made onely to the elect and true believers that they onely are Abrahams seed spirituall and so onely in the covenant of grace by Gods promise and therefore if it be true that they onely who are in covenant which Paedobaptists say when they say the Seal follows the Covenant are to be baptized not any one because he is the child of a believer but the elect and true believers are to be baptized and so their own argument for Infant-baptism overthroweth it SECT XXIX The Allegation of Rom. 9.6 7 8 Matth. 3.7 8 9. to prove that the seed to which the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelicall belongs are true believers or the elect onely is vindicated from Mr. Blakes Answer Vindic. Foed ch 36. and Mr. Sidenhams Exercit. ch 6. TO my Allegation of Rom 9.6 7 8. in my Examen part 3. sect 4. Mr. Blake undertakes to give an answer Vindic. Foed ch 36. And first having belied me as borrowing from Stapleton the Jesuit and learning to a â—air to follow him though to my remembrance I never read that passage in him which he allegeth nor made any use of his exposition of the Epistle to the Romans or any other of his works in that Book of mine he proceeds thus in his scoffing calumniating fashion like a Satyrist rather than a Disputant We have drunk up the Protestants poyson and Mr. T. his great care is to preserve his party by the Jesuits Antidoâ—â— be is wholly beholding to them for the Receipt Which is Mr. Blakes manifest calumny as the quotations in my Examen part 3 sect 4. in which he might see that I received it from the most eminent Protestants and alleged but one Papist and he no Jesuit but one of the better note and since the quotations in the foregoing Section do fully prove and it were easie to produce treble the number if need were But I find it in vain to endeavour the satisâ—ying of such eager and through prejudice selfe-blinding Antagonists as Mr. Blake is I could if I liked such Arts as Mr. Blake useth tell Mr Blake he borrows from the Jesuit Bellarmin who against Peter Martyr saying the promise Gen. 17.7 is not universall concerning the children of beleivers but hath place onely in the predestinate replies This is said without proof for the words of the Scripture are absolute nor is there any mention of predestination in that whole chapter But Mr Blake promiseth me square dealing in the examining my Argument and sets down my words at length and then in stead of answering it puts divers Quaere's to me yeelding first to me that the Text Gen. 17.7 was in that place Rom. 9.6 7 8 brought into question by the Apostle 1 saith he How Bain and Ameâ— come to the name of Remonstrants I had thought they had been on the party that are called Contra-remonstrants Answer And so aâ—so did I and therefore called them the answerers of Arminius and the cited Remonstrants not Remonstrants as Mr. Blake not heeding my words suggests as one not willing to omit any thing whether right or wrong which may render me odious or contemptible 2. saith he Where it appears that Arminius conceived that the Covenant there spoken to was the word of the Law and not of Promise I am sure in his Analysis on this chapter to the Romans of which Mr. T. should not be ignorant little lesse than vapouring of his examination of it in Oxford Apolog. page 131. he spake in another manner even in Mr. T. his own Dialect as though the ones Comment had been spit out of the mouth of the other The sons of the flesh with
Evangelical grace contains a promise to a Gentile believere of the external privilege of an initial seal or external â—ight to outward ordinances to them and their natural seed and accordingly saith Pag. 41 The Covenant then of the Gospel hath outward privileges of Gods Tabernacle annexed as wel as Abrahams Covenant yea in that it 's the same with it Which conclusion in this sense were manifestly false for the Lord hath of purpose taken away such a Tabernacle according to Christs prediction Iohn 4.21 that there might be no distinction of Iewes and Gentiles all having one access by one Spirit to the Father Eph. 2.18 As for his proofs I intend not to construe every speech of Mr C. there being many of them if they be good sense yet very darke but onely shew the impertinency of his Texts to this purpose Leâ—i 26.11 1â— Containes a promise proper to the Isralites obeying God v as v 13 c. and shewes and it is a promise of that which is not now to be performed to us or setling his Tabernacle among us the Tabernacle and Temple being now taken away since Christs incarnation God hath setled no Tabernacle now among us but Christs body or heavens Iohn 2.21 Heb. 8.2 and 9.24 or the Câ—urch of God 1 Cor. 3.6 17. and 6.19 and his setling this Tabernacle or Temple is by saving grace hath no reference to ouâ—wâ—rd Church privileges such as Mr. C. means Revel 21.3 is a promise of something to be performed in the last time whether at the calling of the Jewes or after the judgment whatever it be it notes another thing than external right to outward ordinances common to elect and Reprobate though it be expressed by a terme illusive to the material Tabernacle of the Jews Ephes. 2.11 12. It is said the Gentiles were without God in the world after their Conversion not because their children wanted an external right to an initial seal for Cornelius the Centurions children and such Proselytes of the gate wanted such a right and yet were not without God in the world but because they knew not the true God and his will concerning them that believe in Christ Piscat Analys loci or or worshiped not the true God after his will as the new Annot. even as Galat. 4.8 the Galatians before their Conversion are said not to have known God but to do service to them that by nature were not Gods Exod. 29.45 is a promise to the Israelites whom he brought out of Egypt v. 46. and from whom he had sanctified Aâ—ron and his sons Revel 21.4 as v. 3. is neither mâ—â—nt of ouâ—ward ordinances nor of an estaâ—e which is yet pertaining to the godly who are still under persecutions Levit 26.41 42 45. Certain promises of restoring the Israelites from Captivity and bringing them back to Canaan as v. 43 44. shew Zech. 9.11 whether meant of temporal deliverance or spiritual it is another thing than outward ordinances in the former sense it is proper to the Jewes carried to Babylon in the latter to the elect onely The like may be â—aid of Gen. 17.5.5.8 Psal. 111.5 Ierem. 33.31 51. likely v. 35.36 2 Cor. 6.16 18. Exod. 3.6 compared with Leviâ— 20.37 38. Heb â—1 6 In none of whâ—ch their 's a word of a right of Infants or meer professing parents to the visible administration by vertue of Gods Covenant Gen 17.7 to be Abraham and his seed nor doth it follow because God saith my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant Gen 17.13 therefore ouâ—ward ordinances and right to them as then are to be perpetual for then Circumcision of which those wods are spoken must conâ—inue still but raâ—her as Mr Lâ—y in his Annot on Gen 17.13 The Covenant may be said to be everlasting in respect of the spiritual part for which Circumcision was ordained and in respect of the long continuance of the outward ceremony If Ezek 37.25 27. be meant of the Jewes calling in the time yet to come and the same phrases be used yet that eiâ—hâ—r the promise should be meant v 25. of their childrens having â—n inâ—â—ial seal v 27. their having a material Tabernacle or Temple and outward ordinances as in the former time is but a vain conceit For then they must by the same reason have David the son of Iesse to be their king wherefore as by David is meant Christ typified by David so Circumcision is continued in the mortifying of sins Col. 2 11. and Gods placing his Tabernacle is as Piscat sch in Ezâ—h 37.27 The gratious inhabiting of God in the hearts of the elect 2 Cor 6.16 And if because in the new Testament such allusive phrases are found as are in the same language with those used in the old therefore such outward things are imported by them as were in the Law then outward privileges offices rites should be meant by presenting our bodies as Sacrifices being Preists to God c. It is in my apprehension a manifest Anti-evangelical and Iudaizing assertion which Mr C. hath that the Covenant of the Gospel hath outward privileges of Gods Tabernacle annexed as well as Abrahams Covenant yea itn that it is the same with it Sect 3 â—â— when he saith Conc 2. that the Covenant of grace Gen 17. is to be considered as invested with Church Covenant it is such an ambiguous expression as I know not well how to understand what I imagine to be the meaning I have refuted before in this Section Nor doth that which is here said that there is mention of this Covenant to be kept by them v 9. and further expressed in one particular thereof v 10. and that this was required as an initiatory sign incorporating them into one instituted Church body wherby they were made capable of further Church-ordinances and other duties which lay upon them virtually by it prove the Church-covenant he speaks of unless it be proved which I think he cannot do they did tie themselves thereby to walk with one another in holy Communion with subjection to their Superiors as a distinct visible political Church SECT XXXIX Animadversions on Sect 4. of the same Chapter whereby the Coâ—ceits of Mr. C about external being in the Covenant of grace are shewed to be vain Sect 4 Mr. C. sets down this conclusion that there is a bare external being in the Covenant of grace of persons who possibly never shall be saved But he no where shewed in Scripture either the term Covenaâ— of grace or the phrase of being in the Covenant of grace externally or inâ—ernally Did Mr C. and other Paedobaptists distinctly set down 1. What thâ—y mean by the Covenant of grace 2. What they mean by being exâ—ernally in the Covenant of grace whether it be any oâ—her thing than to be Baptized or Circumcised and what it is distinct from one of these or Title to one of them 3. By what act â—t is that a person is externally in the Covenant of grace whether Gods or
for the begetting of a favourable opinion of themselves and their children which are more to most then demonstrations out of Gods word do gain an easie assent And though I am not out of hope that those who have opposed the truth I assert with impetuous zeal will be especially the most tender conscienced who examine their wayes and review their doctrines awakened and see and confess their errour yet I fear the obloquy and perhaps detriment in repute and outward estate and peace which mâ—n either are likely or doubt they may incur by owning the truth I hold forth or the seeming inconsistency of the reformation I seek to promote with the peace of the Churches of God will divert the thoughts of many from an exact consideration and an equall judgement of what I shall write either of my self or the matter under debate What was wont to be opposed against the reformation of Popish and Prelatical corruptions shall we go against all antiquity Be wiser then our Fathers condemn all the Churches make rents in the Church and such like objections though they be upon examination but vain yet like Gorgons head they are apt to turn men into stones and to make men not see what they do or might see and to be insensible of the evil of that practise which otherwise their Consciences would be affrighted with And truely though it be the wise and just contrivance of Divine provâ—dence and congruous to his end that the vanity of all things under the Sun might appear yet is it an humane irregularity that not onely for evil labour but also for all travel and every right work a man is envied malignâ—d or disliked of his neighbour Eccl. 4.4 chiefly when it crosseth self ends and conceits Nor is it incident onely to the prophane and unbelievers to dislike and oppose such acts as are rightly done but also to the godly until their mistakes are discovered to them The building of the Altar of Ed Josh. 22.12 was likely to have been an occasion of war beetween the rest of the Congregation of Israel and some Tribes till the intention of the builders was cleared to Phinehas and Peter's going in to Cornelius Act. 11.2 occasioned contention with him though it were from God till his warrant was shewed Paul knew that his promoting the collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem might be distasted of the best and therefore he prayes that his service which he had for Jerusalem might be accepted of the Saints Rom. 15.31 Even holy upright men have their weaknesses passions mis-prisions prejudices which oft times hinder a right understanding of tenents and actions of Christian Brethren and thereby no small contentions arise God would have us discern thereby humane imperfection and keep our spirits humble and heedfull how we manage the rightest actions Surely no action is more necessary then the discovery of truth in the things of God nor should any endeavours be more acceptable to holy persons then such as tend thereto yea though there should be imperfection in actings and defect in the success Yet too much experience hath shewed that such attempts meet with much opposition and are ill entertained even by those who are or seem friends to truth It is unnecessary to give instances in the Scripture Acts 15.2 c. in the Ecclesiastical Story there are so many as verifie it beyond all contradiction If there were no other example but what hath befaln me about the point in this writing discussed yet it were sufficient to verifie what I said of the difficulty to gain entertainment of that truth against which men are prepossessed and of the ill usage of them that in a due manner endeavour to cleer it That Infant Baptism was not according to Gods will I thought might be made manifest by the silence of it in Scripture and the Writings of the two first Ages and by shewing how it was counted but an Ecclesiastical humane tradition unwritten induced upon such reasons by the Leaders of the Churches in after ages as are now judged erroneous and how false and dangerous the grounds are on which it is made a Divine institution to wit an imagined Covenant of grace to a Believer and his seed natural the nature of Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace the inference of duties about positive rites of the new Testament from analogy with abrogated Ceremonies of the old the command of Circumcision to have been in the extent of it commensurate to and derived from the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. as the adequate reason the succession of Baptism into the room and use of Circumcision all which or most of them are so contrary to the Scripture and Protestant doctrine as that I presumed they would quickly have been discerned by those who are acquainted with the controversies of Divines and sought reformation in Discipline and removal of humane inventions in Gods worship and had entered into a solemn oath and Covenant to that end And for my way of manifesting my doubts first to the Ministers of London and then to the Committee of the Assembly then sitting at Westminster and after to a prime man in it in the years 1643 1644. and what opposition I found is so manifest in my two Treatises and Apology published 1645 1646. as that it were but actum agere to say any more thereof Which I hoped would have taken off such prejudices as my Antagonists writings had raised against my writings and person that I might securely apply my self to review the Dispute wâ—thout hearing of any more personal objections But when I found the like usage continued by Mr. Robert Baily of Glasgow in Scotland I published an Addition to the Apology 1652. though it were framed before and sent in a letter Manuscript to him Yet the hottest charge was behinde After my necessitated removal from the Temple in London to Bewdley in Worcestershire anno 1646. it happened that a publike Dispute was between Mr. Richard Baxter of Kidderminster near to Bewdley and my self at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. which how it was occasioned managed injuriously divulged may be perceived by the writings on both sides his Epistle before the first Edition of the Saints Everlasting rest his Book of Baptism Praefestinantis Morator and my Antidote printed 1650. and Prâ—cursor anno 1652. By Mr. Baxters book of Baptism my self doctrine answers practise have been so unwoâ—thily dealt with as that they have been painted out in deformed shapes quite besides their true feature and thereby exposed to the unrighteous censures and contempt of so many that Mr. Blake in his Preface to his Vind. faederis thought he might without controul say Mr. Tombes is generally lookt upon low enough under hatches It is indeed too manifest that upon the publishing of Mr. Baxters Book of Baptism which was often printed and very much dispersed floods of reproaches were cast on me and those who are of my judgement in that point triumphant boastings of that
are in that respect Abrahams seed M. Drew adds But yet further 3. T is plain in the Gospel that faith maketh a believer the child of Abraham yea and a surer heir to the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed then carnal descent from Abrahams Loyns doth Abraham had 2. seeds one descending from Ishmael and onother from Isaac all that came from Abraham were not children Rom. 9.7 But in Isaac shall thy seed be called Isaac was his special seed and typed out his believing seed under the Gospel for ver 8. they which are the children of the flesh these are not that is not in so peculiar a manner the children of God as the believing seed for the children of the promise are the seed the seed by way of eminencie that is the prime seed and Mark I pray you how the same Apostle explaines and applyes this to our purpose Gal. 4.28 29. The Galatians were Gentils but being believers we saith the Apostle as Isaac was are the children of promise and so the special seed of Abraham the Galatians were no more of Abrahams natural seed then we are but by faith they became his prime seed and heirs apparent to all the promises as Isaac was who is said in the next ver to be born after the spirit as well as Gospel believers are And sirs shall we make the Covenant curtail and narrow to Abrahams prime seed and halve the promises to them when they are full and large to his worser seed The Appostle will not suffer this Gal. 3.29 If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise which surely must needs be according to the full extent of that promise made unto our Father Abraham for if it be not ours so fully as it was his then we are not heirs according to the promise if our seed be exempted it fals much short of what was said to him I will be thy God and the God of thy seed And mark friends I beseech you that was Gospel which was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8 In thee shall all Nations be blessed not onely his natural seed that was but one Nation but all that were of the faith shall be blessed as children of what nation soever ver 7. For faith was imputed to Abraham in uncircumcision Rom. 4.10 11. to this end that he might be the Father of all them that believe though not circumcised And truely I wonder since the Gâ—spel is so clear that believers are Abrahams children that any man dare rob them of any comfort or priviledge wherewithall he was invested by that promise to which they are more sure heirs then any of his natural seed as I think is made plain to the easiest of your capacities Answer the thing to be proved is that to the natural seed of Gentile believers God hath promised to be a God To prove which divers places are brought which do manifestly refute it That of Ro. 9.7 8. determines that all the natural children of Abraham were not the seed to whom God had promised to be God but that in Isaac his seed should be called And the same is determined Gal. 4.28 that Isaac was the child of the promise and not the son of the bondwoman and that no child of any man is a child of the promise but he that is born after the Spirit And Gal. 3.29 is meant of those onely that are the sons of God by faith in Christ ver 26. and from the Gospel mentioned Gal. 3.8 in thee shall all nations be blessed he infers ver 9. onely of believers so then they that are of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham And Rom. 4.10.11 Abraham is said to be the Father of believers or as it is ver 12. those that walk in the steps of the faith of our Father Abraham which he had yet being uncircumcised Wherefore I may much more justly wonder that learned Protestants who so commonly say that elect persons onely are in the Covenant of grace from Rom. 9.7 8. when they dispute against Arminians should yet have the face to avouch that every believers yea though but by profession a believers natural child whether elect or a believer or not is in the Covenant of grace made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 when they dispute for paedobaptism though by such doctrine they make the word of God to fall it being not true of Ishmael Esau and thousands of others of both of Abrahams and other believers seed God hath not nor will be a God to them T is true believing Gentils are heirs of the promise made to Abraham of blessing or justification by faith as he had but it is false every believer is heir of every priviledg Abraham had none besides him is Father of the faithfull as Abraham or hath Gods promise to his natural seed as Abraham had to his spiritual yea or to his natural None hath the promise that in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed Acts 3.25 nor any that his posterity should be graffed in again as it is assured to Abrahams seed Rom. 11.28 29. The imagined priviledge that God would be the God of his naturall seed was never promised to Abrahams natural posterity as such Yet it is false that a believers child is a more sure heir of the promise then any of Abrahams natural seed For though God hath not promised to be a God to all Abrahams posterity yet he hath to some which I know not that he hath done to any believing Gentils natural child M. D. doth but Calumniate by insinuating as if we curtaild the promise robbed believing parents of any comfort or privilege wherewith Abraham was invested by that promise Gen. 17.7 perverting the text as if when God said he would be a God to Abraham by Abraham were meant every believer and when he saith he will be a God to Abrahams seed it were meant of every belivers natural seed whether believers or not About which he and other paedobaptists particularly the Assembly at Westminster in the Directory about baptism do but abuse people and lead fond parents who swallow down Preachers sayings without Scripture proof into a fools paradise by telling them that the promise is made to a believer and his seed that God will be a God to a believer and his child and that Infants of believers dying in their Infancy are saved by the parents faith and by this there is assurance of their salvation But Master Drew once more urgheth Rom. 11 17. that the term graffing shews believing Gentils come in with their seed or twigs that grow from them else surely they cannot be said to be graffed in as the Jews were cut off But I have so fully proved the ingraffing to be by giving faith according to election and that none but elect persons are ingraffed according to the Apostles meaning and that ingraffing is into the invisible Church in my Ample disquisition being the first part of
8. which Mr. Geree and other Paedobaptists call the covenant of grace and usually make the interest in it the reason of circumcision and was sealed by it and That it was the same Covenant is apparent from v. 19. now then it was a covenant of personal benefit if it derive grace to the person or any other personal benefit If it were only the Covenant containing the special prerogative mentioned then it was not the covenant sealed to any but Isaac not to any of the rest of Abrahams house that were circumcised 2. It is insufficient For it shews not that to Ishmael any promise either Evangelical or Political in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong though he were circumcised which he should have done if he would have answered to the objection and have vindicated his argument from it As for his inference Therefore notwithstanding that exception Ishmael when circumcised might be and was a member of the visible Church in Abrahams family and in regard of his person within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham and so in the judgement of charity no alien from the covenant of grace but under it I answer I know not what it is to be under the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham except it be to be circumcised and therefore I count this speech that Ishmael when circumcised might be within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham to be an inept tautology as if he had said Ishmael when circumcised might be circumcised But were his speaking right yet it is impertinent For the thing he should have shewed was not that Ishmael notwithstanding that exception was a visible Church-member within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham or in the judgement of charity no alien from the covenant of grace but that any of the promises in the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. did belong to him and so that he was circumcised because of his interest in the covenant Yet how Abraham could in judgement of charity judge him no alien from the Covenant of grace but under it whom God so plainly excepted out of that Covenant which Paedobaptists themselves take to be the Covenant of grace I see not It is true that God heard the petition of Abraham for Ishmael Gen. 17.18 but that God granted him spiritual blessings doth not appear but the contrary v. 20. where the blessings granted upon Abrahams Petition for him are recited However it is clear that he did exempt him from the covenant v. 21. and therefore he was not circumcised by vertue of his interest in the Covenant nor did his circumcision seal that interest As for what Mr. Geree saith no more can be truly gathered from thence then what may be said of Melchisedec or Lot it is not true For though it s not said expressely that God established his covenant with them yet they are reckoned among the righteous and so in the Covenant of grace But for Ishmael when Abraham begged for him God answers how far he would grant for him and then addes adversatively But my covenant will I establish with Isaac that is not with Ishmael which can be no other then the covenant before mentioned v. 2 4 5 6 7 8. which thing was further manifested by Gods ratifying Sarahs desire of Ishmaels election Gen. 21.10 12. where he is excluded from Abrahams seed from which the Apostle argueth Ishmael not to have been a child of the promise nor elect nor born after the Spirit but reprobate a persecutor born after the flesh And therefore in my Exercit. I cited those texts which Mr. Geree did ill to omit sith they served for my purpose to prove that Ishmael had no part in the Covenant made with Abraham To the instance of Esau Mr. Geree tels me The case of Esau was but as that of Ishmael and others that were of Israel but were not Israel they were under the external administration of the Covenant though not really within the covenant of grace This distinction you your self acknowledge in the fourscore and sixteenth page of your answer when you say it is one thing to be under the outward administration another thing to be under the covenant of grace It s true these are distinct but those that are under the outward administration are to be reputed under the covenant of Grace and thence were to be sealed thus was it with Esau for that sentence the elder shall serve the younger Gen. 25.23 could sound no higher in Isaac's apprehension then that difference which was put between Ishmael and Isaac To which I reply If Ishmael were not really within the covenant of grace then Mr. Geree yields what I proved before that the promise of the Covenant of grace did not belong to him and if it were so then Ishmael and Esau were circumcised though no promise in the covenant Gen. 17.2 4 5 6 7 8. did belong to them and because this was revealed to Abraham and Isaac they were not reputed under the covenant of grace and thence to be sealed as Mr. Geree saith Nor is it likely but Isaac did apprehend concerning Esau by the Oracle Gen. 25.23 that none of the promises in the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17.2 4 5 6 7 8. did belong to him However God appointing circumcision to these to whom he intended no interest in the covenant it follows he made not interest in the covenant the adequate reason of each persons circumcision but his own institution To the instance of strangers in Abrahams family he answers By Gods own testimony Abraham would keep none in his family but such as were outwardly conformable to the waies of God Gen. 18.19 and so were in the state of Proselytes and interessed in the Gospel covenant Answ. Whether Abraham did or might keep any infidel in his family was considered by me in the first part of this Review s. 37. But for the text Gen. 18.19 it doth not testify that Abraham would keep none in his family but such as were outwardly conformable to Gods waies but that he would command them to keep Gods waies and shall keep the way of Jehovah but this being spoken indefinitely is equipollent onely to a particular as appears in Ishmael and Esau and others But were this granted they were so conformable and were so proselytes and were in some sort interessed in the benefit of the Gospel covenant yet it follows not that any promise in that covenant did belong to them much less that such interest was the reason of their being circumcised As for Mr. Gs. useful observation that circumcision was not annext to the Covenant only because it was a mixt covenant sith it was appliable to the Proselyte Gentiles and their seed that were not onely without but uncapable of interest in the land of Canaan I know not what use there is of it for his purpose it goes upon a mistake that circumcision was to be to none but who had interest
Abraham 2. That Abraham should be considered rather as a pattern to fathers then as a particular person is said without any proof nor is it true 1. Because it is understood in Scripture as meant of Abraham as a particular person Gal. 3.16 c. 2. Because if he were considered as a pattern the promise should be to others as to him Gen. 17 7. but that is not true the promise is made to none besides as to Abraham Gen. 17.7 And whereas Master Cobbet observes that the promise to them and their children cannot be meant of the children as their children after the Spirit because they could not be such spiritual fathers to any children of theirs themselves being not yet such relates as believing fathers nor having such correlates as children after the Spirit this doth plainly shew that the promise to them and their children is not all one with a promise to believers and their children and the mention of the children Acts 2.39 is not to intimate any priviledge arising to the child from the faith of the parent For as Master Cobbet saith truly as yet they acted not faith and repentance nor doth Peter say The promise is or belongs to you for you have repented and consequently believed As for Master Cobbets inference that if thâ— imprecation of the Jewes Matth. 27.25 were the occasion of Peters words Acts 2.39 then the promise must be also to their babes on whom they wished Christs blood else the plaister were too narrow for their wounds rising from the guilt of bloud wished upon their children including and not excluding their babes it followes not For 1. Though babes be children yet children indefinitely put without any universal sign may be meant of others then babes or infants 2. The wish may be meant of infants and the promise also yet not to take place or to be accomplished on them or to them in their infancy That curse and that promise which is made to a mans children being for present infantâ— is verifyed if it happen to them at twenty years old they being then thâ—â—â—me persons which they were when they were but a day old 3. Will Master Cobbet assert the promise must be as large as the curse If so then the promise must belong to their children elder or younger whether believing or unbelieving pâ—nitent or impenitent for the wish was on all absolutely But Master Cobbet I presume will not assert the promise of remission of sins was in praesenti to all the children of the Jewes to whom Peter spake elder and younger believing and unbelieving penitent and impenitent in respect of external right and administration Therefore he must limit the term your children if he will have his own exposition to hold good and consequently the children Acts 2.39 must be fewer then those the imprecation lighted on Mat. 27.25 Sect. 5. That which Master Cobbet saith that those who say the promise made to Abraham of sending Christ and now fulfilled is to them in effect say as those that expound the promise is to you that is is offered to you is not right For the fulfilling notes something past the offer is of something to be yet done or attained yet it is true that the speech of Peter did contain not onely an offer but also an assurance of remission of sins to the called by vertue of the promise fulfilled in Christs coming Of the sense of the words Acts 3.25 I have spoken somewhat before The terms children of the prophets and of the covenant are appropriated to the Jewes as Rom. 9 4. they being the onely people to whom the prophets were sent as Beza annot in locum id est â—i â—stis quibus peculiariter destinati fuerunt prophetae quibuscum foedus est sancitum ex Hebraeorum idiotismo quâ—m supra aliquoties annotavimus Huc pertinet quod ait Paulus Rom. 9.4 And when he saith they were children of the covenant made with the fathers and not of the fathers with whom the covenant is made the intent is not to shew that it 's meant of Church and federal interest in them as covenant-fathers and dispensers or to shew that the covenant was as seed by vertue whereof they considered as foederally and ecclesiastically priviledged did spring in Master Cobbets sense of outward Church-membership and initiating ordinance but the plain meaning is that they were the people to whom the first exhibition and tender of the Gospel did belong in that they were the posterity of the Fathers with whom the covenant was made and so the Jewes had a priority of not onely external interest in the covenant but also internal though when the Gentiles were called the priviledges of the covenant were equal to the Gentiles with the Jewes and the condition of the promise that is the obtaining remission of sins by the fulfilling of the promise is equally to Jew and Gentile savingly believing Sect. 7. Master Cobbets conceit of the term afar off Acts 2.39 that it is meant of their being strangers from actual interests in the covenants of promise and Common-wealth of Israel or the visible political Church Ephes. 2.11 12 13. supposeth 1. The terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those afar off Acts 2.39 to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were sometimes afar off Ephes. 2.13 But the phrases are not the same and it is for reasons formerly given more likely that the remoteness Acts 2.39 is meant of place or descent 2. that the remoteness Ephes. 2.13 was in respect of external Church interest and so in like manner Acts 2.39 But Ephes. 2.13 the remoteness was such as was taken away by the blood of Christ which is more then external Church-interest and the nearness such as you and your children Acts 2.39 had not then attained to but were then afar off from God or as it is v. 18. had not access by one Spirit unto the Father And therefore Master Cobbets sayings that the Jewes and their children Acts 2.39 were not then when Peter spake afar off as the tâ—rm is meant Ephes. 2 13. but rather nigh in that sense and that the promise is to them actually quoad hominem and to the other that is the Genteles afar off intentionally quoad Deum even whilest afar off and uncalled are but conceits arising from the mistakes of Peters speech Acts 2.39 and Pauls Ephes. 2.13 It is true to the Jewes indefinitely that is to that nation or people did the Adoption and promises belong yet not to every particular person of that nation For as it is said Rom. 9.4 To whom pertaineth the adoption and the promises so it is said v. 4 5. To whom pertain the service of God of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came and yet these things not true of every Israelite It is true Moses made a covenant Deut. 29.15 with the unborn which were not actually existent in Church-estate and humane being but that this was a covenant wherein Covenant-grace is expressed
in his exercitation ch 5. are considered I Shall adde a consideration of what Master Sidenham notes on Acts 2.39 that I may at once shew the impertinency of its allegation for connexion between the covenant and baptism and infants of believeâ—s covenant-interest upon that consideration I agree with him that the promise is of remission of sins and so of salvation Nor do I deny it to be suitable to what is promised Gen. 17.7 understanding it not as Paedobaptists and among them Master Sidenham conceives as a promise to each believer and his natural seed but as a promise to Abraham as the â—ather of believers and his spiritual seed by the following of his faith of righteousness before God repeated at large Jerem. 31.34 Nor do I mistake his making it the same with the promise of Christ and the Spirit as Gal. 3.14 is meant including justification sanctification and all graces And his words I conceive very opposite to overthrow Master Cobbets and others conceit of external right and administration when he saith it would be but a poor comfort to a wounded soul for to tell him of a promise of gifts not of spiritual grace and the Holy Ghost is a better Physician then to imply such a raw improper plaister to a wounded heart which would hardly heal the skin this promise is brought in as a Cordial to keep them from fainting and to give them spirits to believe and lay hold on Jesus Christ. And truly no other promise but that of Free-grace in order to Salvation can be imagined to give them comfort in that condition And after and it must needs have been a mighty low and disproportionable way of perswasion to put them upon such high things in the former verse and to encourage them onely by the narration of some temporary gifts in the following when their eye and heart was set on remission of sins and salvation by Jesus Christ and nothing but a promise holding forth these mercies could have been considerable to them Nor do I deny that the children as well as the Parents are included in this promise nor do I deny but that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as well as the parents But I deny 1. That the mention of the promise to them and their children was allusive to the expressions in the Old Testament when God said to Abraham I will be the God of thee and thy seed Gen. 17.7 or that Isai 44.3 and such like nor hath Mr. Sidenham proved it and there is this reason against it For in those expressions the Fathers are mentioned as righteous persons and believers but here the parents could not be considered as righteous and believing persons for they were not such but then charged by Peter and at that time under the sense of the great sin of killing Christ and admonished to repent of it and therefore the words have clearly this sense The promise is to you and your children as bad as you have been and the mention of their children is not allusive to Gods expressions in the Old Testament but to their own curse on them and their children Matth. 27.25 and so cannot note a priviledge to them and their children as persons better then others but an assurance to them of that good which they feared their sin debarred them of by telling them of Gods inrent for good according to his promise though they meant it for evil as the same Apostle doth Acts 3.17 18 19. and Joseph did Gen. 45.5 and 50.20 2. I deny that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as giving title to baptism of it self for the promise is urged as a motive to a duty not as a plea whereby they might claim nor was their interest in the promise the antecedent to baptism but the consequent on it For the promise whether it be of remission of sins or of the saving gift of the holy Ghost allowing Master Sidenhams observation that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is certain that Peter did assure them of it not as yet already attained but as attainable not before but upon their repentance and baptism neither to them nor to their children as their children but to them and their children and all afar off as many as the Lord should call 3. He doth not invite them to baptism but so as that he first puts them in minde of repentance Now if the promise had been alledged as giving title of it self to baptism he had left out repentance But putting it in first he plainly shewes that the alledging of the promise was as well to move them to repentance as to baptism and first to repentance then to baptism nor is any other course taken with the children then the parents the promise and duty are declared in like manner to both And therefore Master Sidenhams talk of Peters speaking in the known dialect of the Old Testament that if he had not meant upon their believing and baptism without any other consideration of Gods calling or their repentance the children to be in the promise he had deceived them and that there was no other intent in mentioning the promise but to intimate that as the Jewes and their infant males were circumcised by vertue of the promise so it should be to them in baptism is but vaiâ— without proof and without truth But Master Sidenham asserts that the words as many as the Lord shall call can in no sense be referred to the former part of the verse either to parents or children which if true then according to his own interpretation of the promise the Apostle asserts that the promise of remission of sins and of the Spirit including justification sanctification and all graces was to them and their children whether called or no. But let 's view his reasons for this audacious assertion For saith he 1. He changes the sense in both parts of the verse in the first part unto the Jewes he speaks de praesenti of the present application of the promise repent you and be baptized for the promise is to you and your children even now the promise is offered to you and they were then under the call of God But when he speaks of the Gentiles because they were yet afar off and not at all called he speak de futuro as many as God shall call even of them also which is the first hint of the calling of the Gentiles in all the Acts of the Apostles Ans. The Apostle changeth not the tense of the same veâ—b in either part of v. 39. For there are but two verbs in the verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and neither used above once so that he might have said he useth two verbs in two tenses but neither changeâ—h in one or both parts of the verse the same verb or the same tense of the same verb. But what if he had changed the tense and had said the promise is
sense of the duty oâ— by foundation of a duty may be understood the Rule according to which that duty is to be performed and this may be understood either thus to whomsoever there is a promise of that thing by which a duty is urged on others they are bound to do that duty and then it is false for Christ promised Matth. 28.19 20. to the Apostles whom he bid preach the Gospel and baptize that he would be with them and Matth. 18.20 to two or three gathered together to be in the midst of them doth it therefore follow that every two or three gathered together in his Name are commanded to preach and baptize or it may be understood thus that he to whom the promise is upon the doing of that duty is bound to do it and this I grant to be true but this will not serve Mr. Sidenhams turn for there is no promise to infants that upon their baptizing themselves they should have remission of sins nor is Mr. Sidenham so absurd as to make baptism infants duty but their right now as Mr. Sidenham would have it that because there 's a promise to infants therefore others are in duty bound to baptize them as having right to it it is false sith the institution of Baptism is not to whom God hath promised to be a God for that is according to his election which is unknown Rom. 9.6 7 8. but to them who are Disciples or believers in Christ Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. There are ambiguities in the speeches that commands in the Gospel do suppose promises that promises made to persons do include commands that all the New Testament Ordinances are annexed to promises which would be too tedious and unnecessary to unfold it is sufficient to shew they will not serve Mr. Sidenhams turn in the sense they are true and will as well serve to prove infants right to the Lords Supper as to Baptism That which he saith We have as much in the New Testament to prove infant-baptism from the true principles of right to Ordinances as they have for those whom they baptize for they baptize grown persons on such and such considerations and we shall hereafter shew we baptize on as strong and equivalent grounds is notoriously false for we baptize according to the qualification required in the institution of Christ and the Apostles and other Preachers baptizing and directing the use of Baptism in the New Testament which are acknowledged the true principles of right to Ordinances and it is acknowledged even by Paedobaptists that they have neither precept nor example in the New Testament of infant-baptism and therefore cannot have as strong and warrantable grounds as we who are Pistobaptists that is baptizers of believers Nor is it true that it is requisite we should shew them expressâ—command against Infant-baptism it is enough that they cannot prove in its institution Infants never by divine warrant enjoyed Baptism and for Circumcision it was more unlike than like to Baptism and of it an authentique repeal is easily shewed Acts 15. and elsewhere In the rest Mr. Sidenham shews not why infants should not have been baptized at first as well as grown men if it had been Christs minde Ishmael and all Abrahams males were circumcised the self same day in which Abraham was Gen. 17.26 27. and therefore if Paedobaptists Hypothesis were right infants as well as persons of years should have been baptized by the Apostles which they did not for in that it is not exprest it is enough to shew it was not done unless we make the Spirit of God defective in what was needfull to have been set down and to say as Mr. Sidenham doth There is enough to shew it was done though not written is with the Papists to maintain unwritten traditions Rule â—f manners There is no hint left by Christ or the Apostles to deduce as a infant-baptism from And it is false which he saith God hath always ordained some Ordinances in the administrationâ— of which for the most part the subject hath been purely passive He names nor can name any till the institution of Circumcision which was not till after the world had been above two thousand years The rest of his speech savours of this corrupt principle that what we conceive fit in Gods worship is to be accounted his minde This is enough in answer to the first Chapter In the second he saith untruly that the Covenant Gen. 17. was first made with Abraham and his seed in the name of all believers and their seed both Jews and Gentiles nor is it true that if he should finde the same Covenant reaching Gentile believers and their children as Abraham and his they cannot be denied the new external sign and seal of the same Covenant that is Baptism And for what he saith the Covenant Gen. 17. was a Covenant of pure grace I grant it so far as it was Evangelical but deny it to be a pure Gospel-covenant nor do any of his Reasons prove any more than I grant that there were Gospel-promises meant by God under promises of temporal mercies proper to Abraham and his natural posterity and those that joyned with them in their policy which I have proved before out of Scripture to be termed the Covenant it self without a Metonymy and God is said to keep that Covenant by establishing the Israelites in Canaan and therefore it is but vain talk that the promise of Canaan was but an additional appendix added ex super abundanti if he mean it of the Covenant Gen. 17. if he mean it of the Gospel-covenant it is more true that was added to the other as a more hidden sense under the promises of civil and domestick privileges I do not make a mixture in the Gospel-covenant but in the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. nor by mixture do I understand any other than a composition of various parts not a mixture in the nature of it or substance or circumstances but that the Covenant made with Abraham had promises of two sorts some promises in the first obvious sense of the words proper to Abrahams natural posterity some spiritual common to all believers in the more hidden sense of the words which with what hath been said before is enough to answer that Chapter aâ—so proceeding upon mistakes of my meaning in the term mixt in many passages and the rest if not answered before I let pass because dictates without proof In the third after he hath allowed the distinctions of Abrahams seed into carnal and spiritual natural and believing he sets down six considerations 1. That Abraham 's spiritual seed were as much his fleshly seed also Isaac as Ishmael except Proselytes and Servants which may be granted with these limitations 1. That it be not understood universally for Christian believing Gentilesâ— neither Proselytes to Israel nor servants to them are Abrahams spiritual seed yet not at all Abrahams fleshly seed 2. That Isaac was as much Abrahams fleshly seed as
Ishmael according to the meaning Rom. 9.8 as fleshly seed is called from natural generation simply considered but not as Gal. 4.23 it is meant of fleshly seed called so from natural generation in some respect to wit as begotten in a baser way The second consideration of Mr. Sidenham is this The Covenant was administred to all Abrahams natural and fleshly children as if they had been spiritual and before they knew what faith was or could actually profess Abrahams faith If he mean by the Covenant onely Circumcision I grant it of all Abrahams natural male children if he mean the covenant of grace which is Evangelical though I deny not that it was administred by the mediation of Christ and the work of the Spirit to many elect infants afore believing yet I deny that it ever was or shall be administred to any but the elect of God who have the denomination of Abrahams spiritual seed For I know not how the Covenant which promiseth remission of sins justification regeneration adoption eternal life is said to be administred but by giving these which are given onely to the elect not to Abrahams meer natural or fleshly seed Meer outward Ordidances and outward gifts and privileges as they are not promised in the Gospel-covenant which we call the covenant of grace either as made to Abraham or confirmed by Christs bloud so neither are they administrations of it but arise from Gods command or providence without the Covenant as Evangelical His third consideration is It 's no contradiction in different respects to be a seed of the flesh by natural generation and a childe under the same promise made with the parent for they both agreed in Abraham 's case which I grant if meant of Isaac and Jacob and such other Heirs of the promise as the Scriptures term them But I reject that which follows that none was a childe of promise but as he came of Abraham 's flesh for believing Gentiles are children of the promise though they come not of Abrahams flesh yea it is not onely true to the contrary but expresly avowed Rom. 9.8 That none are children of the promise as they come of Abraham 's flesh Nor is it true that as he came from Abraham 's flesh so every one had the seal of Gods Covenant on his flesh for this is not true of males under eight days old or females and therefore this inference is vain Thus a spiritual promise was made with Abraham and his carnal seed His fourth consideration is There was no distinction of Abraham 's fleshly seed and his spiritual seed in the Old Testament but all comprehended under the same Covenant untill they degenerated from Abraham 's faith and proved themselves to be meer carnal and rejected the promise But this is manifestly false Esau was Abrahams fleshly seed but never his spiritual seed The Apostle determines Rom 9.11 afore he had done good or evil he was rejected and with the Apostle a childe of the promise and an elect person are the same No man is Abrahams spiritual seed but an elect person or true believer Scripture makes none else his seed spiritual Rom. 4.12 16. 9.7 8. Gal. 3.29 John 8.39 This very Authour makes the distinctions of fleshly and spiritual believing and natural taken out of Rom. 9.7 8 Gal. 4.23 3.16 most true And if a person may be Abrahams spiritual seed a while then the degenerate the elect and true believers may fall away finally and totally and if they that be Abrahams fleshly seed be under the same covenant with the spiritual till they degenerate then a person may be in the covenant of grace and be meerly carnal having not the Spirit of God then a man may be in the covenant of grace and not abide in it then the covenant of grace may be defective mutable and if there be no distinction of Abrahams fleshly seed and his spiritual in the Old Testament untill they rejected the promise then there is no distinction of elect and reprobate till in time they embrace or reject the promise contrary to Rom. 9.11 He that holds this position must become an Arminian His fifth is There is a carnal and spiritual seed of Abraham even under the New Testament as our Opposites must acknowledg as well as Infants so are the most visible Professours which they baptize which may have no grace and many prove carnal indeed through the predominancy of their lusts and corruptions Answer It is ackdowledged that there is a carnal seed of Abraham under the New Testament in the Jewish Nation but visible Professours of the Gentiles which are baptized although they be many of them carnal men and so are many of the congregational Churches not baptized yet they cannot be termed the carnal seed of Abraham being not his seed either by nature or by believing as he did His sixth is when there is mention of Abraham 's carnal seed in oppâ—sition to spiritual seed it cannot be meant primarily or solely of those that descended from Abraham 's flesh for then Isaac and Jacob were the carnal seed yea Christ himself who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham it must be therefore of those of Abraham 's seed which degenerated and slighted the Covenant of the Gospel and these were properly the carnal seed Answer The distinction of Abrahams carnal and spiritual seed is as the distinction of the Church into visible and invisible in which the members may agree to the same persons though on the other side also they may not agree The same persons may be of the Church visible and invisible and yet some persons may be of the Church visible who are not of the invisible and some of the invisible who are not of the invisible so some are Abrahams carnal seed who are also his spiritual as Isaac Jacob Christ some â—re his spiritual seed but not his carnal as Gentile believers some his carnal seed but not his spiritual as unbelieving Jews some neither his carnal nor spiritual seed as unsound Professours of faith of the Gentiles who are no way Abrahams seed nor ever called his carnal seed in Scripture There are but two places I know in which the term of Abrahams fleshly seed or childe is used Rom. 9.8 Gal. 4.23 in both which is meant of his seed by natural generation though in the later in a worse way In the former way those that embraced the Covenant without degenerating from Abrahams faith being descended from Abraham by natural generation are as properly termed Abrahams carnal seed as those Israelites that did backslide I grant Abraham was a natural father to many of thâ—se to whom he was a spiritual father as to Isaac and Jacob and the godly of their posterity but not to all He was a spiritual father to believing Galatians though not a natural Gal. 3.29 But what Mr. Sidenham saith That all to whom Abraham was a natural father were under the Covenant and had the seal untill they rejected themselves
he take the promise to be made to Christ the seed as the Head of a visible Church then still it speaks for us Answer This is doughty disputing likely to turn the edg of our weapons against our selves when the Antagonist must yield him what he would have and me thinks he should have brought some Expositour or some argument for him and not so pitifully beg what he should prove To the contrary I urge that by Christ Gal. 3.16 is meant either Christ personal or Christ mystical or both and not as the Head of a visible Church 1. That the promises said to be made to Abraham 's seed that is Christ are of the blessing of Abraham which is righteousness and the spirit Gal. 3.8 9 14. the inheritance v. 18. life v. 21. not bare outward privileges But these things belong onely to Christ and his mystical body not his meer visible Church Ergo they are not the seed there meant 2. From the condition or means by which the promise is made good and that is faith v. 14 22. But the meer visible Church may be without faith therefore the promise is not made to it 3. By the express determination of the Apostle v. 7. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham vers 29. And if ye be Christs that is by faith v. 26 27. then are ye Abraham 's seed and heirs according to the promise which a man would think were enough to silence thâ—se that make the promises to belong to unbelievers as Abrahams seed 4. The current Protestant interpreters of note such as Beza Piscator Perkins c. go this way But Mr. Sidenham thinks to evince his purpose from v. 14. where the blessing of Abraham is said to come on the Gentiles through Christ and this blessing of Abraham was not personal but to him and his seed this very blessing is come on Gentile believers as on Abraham therefore it must come on believers of the Gentiles and their seed For it cannot be called Abraham s blessing except it come on the Gentiles according to the substantial terms of Abraham 's Covenant now this was the absolute form of Abraham 's blessing I will be a God of thâ—e and thy seed and this very blessing is come on the Gentiles through Christ as it came on Abraham and therefore it must be to believing Gâ—ntiles and their seed else it will neither â—e Abraham 's blâ—ssing in the form nor faâ—ness of it Abraham 's blessing will descend on the Gentiles clipâ— half off not like it self and it must needs be a very uncouth saying to all judicious ears to say that Abraham 's blessing is come on the Gentiles by Christ as it was on the Jews by Abraham and to exclude half the subjects at once from any right to it for so you must if you cast out the seed of Gentile believers To which I answered that had not the Assembly at Westminster Confession of Faith chap. 28. art 4. cited Gal. 3.9 14. with Gen. 17.7 9. to prove infant-baptism of a believing parent I should not have transcribed so much of this arguing The blessing of Abraham must come on the Gentiles saith he according to the substantial terms of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 Ergo on Gentile believers and their seed Now what is the blessing of Abraham and what the substantial terms of the Covenant and what seed of Abraham did it come on and how 1. The blessing is plainly expressed v. 8.9 to be justification v. 14. to be the receiving the promise of the spirit The same Apostle Rom. 4 6 9. placeth the blessedness of Abraham in the imputation of righteousness through faith Beza Annot. in Gal. 3.14 Et spiritus nomine benedictionem aeternae spiritualis vitae intelligo Perkins Comment on Gal. 3.14 That the blessing of Abraham that is righteousness and life everlasting Piscat Schol. in Gal. 3.14 Ut benedictio illâ— Abrahae promissa de qua supra v. 8. ad Gentes perveniret in Christo quatenus nimirum illae Christo inseruntur per fidem Diâ—son in Gal. 3.14 benedictio Abrahae id est justitia vita aeterna 2. The substantial terms of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 are thus set down by Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 10. The substance of the Covenant on Gods part was to be Abraham 's God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and of sanctification and of everlasting life On Abraham 's part the substance of the Covenant was to believe in the promised Messiah to walk before God with a perfect heart to serve God according to his revealed will to instruct his family c. Not one that I know that makes the blessing or the substance of the Covenant to be an initial seal visible Church-membership and such like meer Ecclesiastical privileges 3. The seed of Abraham to whom the blessing is promised is his spiritual seed and it onely Diodati Annot. on Gal. 3.14 of Abraham namely promised to Abraham and to his spiritual posterity onely Trapp Comment on Gal. 3.14 v. 14. The promise of the spirit that is the spiritual promise made to Abraham and his spiritual posterity The Text it self â—al 3.7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham 4. The means is through faith Gal. 3.14 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham vers 9. From which I infer that he that would conclude from hence that the blessing of Abraham comes upon the Gâ—ntiles fathers and infant-children and that this is according to the substantial terms of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 must hold that all children of Gentile believers are elect and believers and that they are justified as Abraham was which Mr. M. and Mr. G. disclaim and indeed is manifestly false being contrary to Scripture and experience But Mr. Sidenham thinks to infer hence a meer Ecclesiastical privilege of right to an initial seal which is not at all meant Gal. 3.14 by the blessing of Abraham nor ever meant by the Covenant Gen. 17.7 nor would the promise be true if meant of it for many of Abrahams seed had no right to Circumcision or visible Church-membership Surely according to Paedobaptists Hypotheses all the posterity of Abraham by Ishmael the sons of Keturah Esaus were excluded and therefore the word of Gods promise so expounded had been false As for Mr. Sidenhams Reasons there 's no force in them The first may be retorted The first is come on Gentile believers as on Abraham therefore it must not come on believers of the Gentiles and their seed also universally for it came not on Abraham and his natural seed universally nor is it true this very blessing is come on Gentile believers as on Abraham for it is come on Abraham not simply as a believer but as a father of
reason thus None but these who are Christ 's are Abraham 's seed and none are Chiist 's but real believers and therefore none but they must be baptized For though it is true that before God none have right to Baptism but such yet sith the Minister of Baptism cannot distinguish between a believer in reality and one in profession he is without fault in baptizing a believer onely in profession whom he takes to be a believer in reality If any say Baptism knows no flesh the meaning likely is that Baptism is not alotted to any for its natural birth though of a believer So that I need not answer Mr. Sidenhams arguments to the contrary sith I do not assert that none but Abrahams seed may be baptized Nor is it true that we have the same ground of charity to act on infants of believers as on grown men For though infants may be Christs yet we have not the same evidence that they are Christs which we have of grown persons whose words and actions shew that the Spirit of God dwels in them Nor would God have us 1 Cor. 7.14 to account the children to be holy as visible professours are for the parents faith but to be legitimate from the lawfulness of their generation Nor can it be proved that any one infant of the most godly person is taken into the same Covenant with the parent nor doth Christ 's respect to infants when brought to him give warrant to any to judg better of a believers infant than of a visible professour or to account of such an infant as baptizable Nor is it true that a general Scripture-assertion and the ground of an indefinite promise is more than all our Reasons to judg a visible Professour Christ 's or Abraham 's seed or a subject of Baptism sith the words and actions of such a one do shew more of Christs spirit and faith than any speeches of God or promises do of infants now existent and he that baptizeth a visible professor of faith proceedeth uppon certain knowledge according to a certain rule of baptizing Disciples which is more to assure the conscience in the doing the will of God then any Charitable judgement or any probable likelyhood of an infants being Christs or in covenant for the present or certain revelation of the infants election and being in covenant and so will be a believer hereafter can be to warrant a man to baptize it at this instant Nor is it true that he that baptizeth a visible professor goes by the purblind eye of his probable judgment For he baptizeth upon an unerring rule of baptizing manifest disciples according to an unerring knowledge that those he baptizeth are such under the Gospel the Jewes are Abrahams fleshly seed though they be not visible professors of faith in Christ no meer Gentile visible professor is Abrahams seed nor any true believers natural seed as such nor doth the covenant make every believer in reallity or any except Abraham much less every visible believer a spiritual Father I confess the spiritual seed of Abraham takes its denomination from the covenant I mean the future seed and from their believing the actual but the natural seed takes not its denomination from the covenant but Abrahams begetting nor is it true the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural seed is renewed in the new Testament with believers and their seed neither formerly nor now are infants of believers non-elect Abrahams seed nor is there in the word of God one passage either in the old or new Testament either of those alleaged by Master Sidenham or any other I know wherein infants of believers are visibly owned as we own visible professors There will be found visible subjects of baptism though neither infants of believers nor meer visible professors be Abrahams seed I conclude my animadversions on this chapter of Mr. Sidenhams with these considerations that none but elect or true believers of the Gentiles are the seed of Abraham with whom the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is made nor are persons to be baptized for their interest in that Covenant except it be made manifest by their profession of faith and therefore neither can we say of any infant of a believing Gentile that he is in that covenant nor if we could were it to be baptized till by profession or other waies its faith did manifest it to be a Disciple of Christ. In the 4. chapter Mr. Sidenham tells us of a being in Covenant according to the purpose of election in Gods heart which I allow and of being in Covenant in the face of the visible Church by the persons own visible profession which I deny not but for the other sort of being in covenant with God as in a political moral consideration as in the right of another through a free promise to him and his heirs it 's a meer figment there being no such kind of being in Covenant in the time of the new Testament nor doth Mr. Sidenham bring one text of Scripture to prove it and for his reasons they prove it not 1. Saith he If men deny an external as well as internal being in covenant none can administer an external ordinance an outward sign to any for we must go by external rules in these actings But this reason is nothing to prove a political moral being in covenant without any act of Covenanting by either of the parties in Covenant I deny not but that all the elect are in Covenant with God in his purpose and so infants are in Covenant with God by Gods promise eiher to his son when he gave them to him or at some other time And I grant that visible professors of faith in Christ are in Covenant externally by their own act of covenanting and such may be baptized they being Disciples of Christ. 2. Nor did I ever say that no Ordinance must be administred to these which are not internally in Covenant 3. Nor do I count it any absurdity to say we may set a seal to a blank though I like not the expression in this sense a man may lawfully be baptized to whom God hath not promised to be his God 4. And I have shewed we have certain evidence of visible professors being in covenant for we hear their profession and see theiâ— actions and their rule by which baptism is to be administred but of infants we have no evidence of their being in covenant by profession of faith according to which we are to be baptized yea we have evidence to the contrary and their being in covenant according to election is uncertain and if it were certain yet till they be actual believers or Disciples of Christ we have no rule to baptize them by nor is there a jot brought by Mr. Sidenham to prove they are in Covenant by their parents faith onely in Gospel times Nor doth any thing Mr. Sidenham hath said answer that which he saith is the great question I and we all urge that if God made the
which Mr. Dickson thus paraphraseth if they which are of the Law or which seek righteousness by works were the sons of Abraham and heirs of life and partakers of righteousness then faith should be made void and the promise vain But this is absurd Therefore they which are of the law are not heirs but alone believers are sons of Abraham and heirs of life and righteousness The 16. v. doth yet more plainly express that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 As Evangelical is made are believers onely Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed not to that onely which is of the law but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all Upon which saith Mr. Dickson with that uery counsel God appointed that the inheritance should be of faith that it might agpear to be of grace or by grace Therefore onely and all believers uncircumcised and circumcised alike are heirs The inheritance is of faith and by grace by the Counsel of God that the promise might be sure to all the â—eed not onely to that which is the seed of Abraham by the law of nature and hath faith also that is the circumcised Jewes believing but also to that seed which is not by the law of nature or the flesh but onely by the faith of Abraham that is the uncircumcised believing Gentiles Therefore unless suspending the promise of righteousness and the inheritance upon the condition of the law to be performed we would make it unsure and uncertain the whole seed of Abraham or all and onely believers circumcised and uncircumcised are heirs by faith with father Abraham who according to faith is father of all us believers of Jewes and Gentiles Beza Annot. ad Rom. 4.16 Paul manifestly devides into two members that which in general he had said of the whole seed of Abraham that is believers both circumcised and uncircumcised Pisc. Sch. to all the seed that is of Abraham to wit all believers Diodati to all namely to the spiritual seed according to the faith of which God intended to speak in that excellent promise I will be thy God and of thy seed after the Gen. 17.7 Lastly the Apostle interprets the promise Gen. 17.5 That Abraham should be the father of many Nations thus that the Gentiles should be his seed by faith v. 17. as it is written I have made thee a father of many Nations on which Master Dickson By force of the divine promise promising that he should be the father of many Nations Abraham embraced for sons all believers to be ingrafted into his seed and so in vertue of the promise as it were begat or conceived believers to himself as sons promised The new Annot on Rom. 4.17 I have made thee a Father See Gen. 17.5 Not of those only that should issue from him according to the flesh but also of those among all nations that by faith should be adopted and received into his spiritual family 5. The texts also which are Gal. 3.7 16 â—9 and 4 28. Are very pregnant to the same purpose that the seed of Abraham to which the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelical is made are only true believers or elect persons The first of these places is that which is asserted in terms Know ye therefore that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham where the speech is equipollent to an exclusive For having v. 2.5 told them they must have the spirit and be Abrahams children either by the works of the law or by faith and determined that they had not the spirit by the works of the law but by faith supposing that they who are children have received the spirit as it is v. 14. it plainly followes that they only are the children of Abraham which are of faith even as Protestant divines conclude from Gal. 2.16 that justification is by faith only because the disjunction being sufficient justifycation is either by faith or by works and works excluded it followes we are justified by faith onely And so Mr. Dickson conceives that the Apostles argument is Gal. 3.7 They onely who are of the faith or who seek to be justified by faith and not by works are the children of Abraham therefore the only reason of justification is by faith Diodati Annot. on Gal. 3.7 yet you know that is to say this doctrine is clear and resolved upon amongst Christians that the true children of Abraham comprehended in the covenant which God made with him and his posterity are not the carnal Jewes which are borne of him or joined to him by circumcision and by professing of their ceremonies but all such as according to Abrahams example do renounce all confidence in their own proper works and put it wholly in Gods promises and grace in Christ as Abraham was made a father example and paragon of faith to all those to whom the covenant made with him was to appertain The like is the determination of Mr. Perkins that I may omit others who in his com on Gal. 3.7 Saith the promise and election of God makes properly children of Abraham and that the true mark of the child of Abraham is to be of the faith of Abraham and that profession of Abrahams faith and descent from Isaac are not sufficient to prove men children of Abraham without following of his faith The texts Gal 3.16 29. have been considered before and our inferences vindicated from Mr. Sidenhams evasions The other to wit Gal. 4.28 Speaks to the same purpose to which the fore alleaged texts do Now we Brethren as Isaâ—c was are children of the promise that is we of whom the Jerusalem which is above is mother that is as Beza Annot. adde v. 26. we who embraced Christ adde v. 27. he shewes the true sons of Abraham are born spiritually by the Gospel adde v. 28. are children of the promise that is that seed to which pertaineth that promise I will be a God to thee and thy seed out of all which it appears that as the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee was Evangelical it was made only to the elect of God and true believers and they only are Abrahams seed there meant 6. I shall next adde the consideration of that text Rom. 9.6 7 8. Whâ—re the Apostle speaks thus not as though the word of God hath taken none effect For they are not all Israel which are of Israel 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 the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed I suppose it will not be denyed that this passage is an answer to an objection occasioned by the intimating of the rejection of the Jewes from being Gods people v.
the Apostle saith he are those who by the works of the Law follow after righteousness and salvation The soâ—s of the Promise are those that seek after righteousness and salvation by faith in Christ and he thus frames the principall Syllogism of the Apostle for confutation of the Jewes arguing from the rejection of the Jewâ—s Gods failing in his promise If the word of God comprehend onely the sons of the promise shutting out the sons of the flesh then it follows that the word of God doth not fail â—hough the sons of the flesh be rejected But the word of God comprehends onely the sons of the promise shutting out the sons of the flesh Therefore the word of God doth not fail though the sons of the flesh be rejected Armin. Anal. cap 9. ad Rom. pag. 781 Let any now judge whether he can interpret this of the Law and not of the Promise Answer 1. The mention of my examining of Arminius his Analysis of Rom. 9. is little less than vapouring as Mr Blake in his spitefull fashion terms it but a necessary allegation with modesty to clear my self from his false charge That I had lately preached this as a Gospel â—ruth that this is one of the promises of the Covenant of grace that God will be the God of beleivers and their seed and that now I was suddenly otherwise perswaded If the Reader view my words he wil discern a spirit of malice or waywardness in Mr Blakes misrepresenting of my actions 2. To his Quaere I answer That I have not now Arminius his book to discern whether it was Arminius his conceit or not nor need I prove it was not alleging it as of my own search but upon the credit of Bain and Ames And I find in that Edition I have of Bain on Ephes 1. Anno 1618. pag. 134. on vers 5. that he saith that Arminius was deceived in this among other things that the objectors whose objection Paul preventeth vers 6. do by the word of God conceive the word of the Covenant legall which he refutes 136 as one of those mistakes which did mislead Arminius Nor doth Mr. Blake at all acquit Arminius from this mistake which Mr. Bain charged him with For Mr. Bain did not charge him with that mistake in the framing of the Apostles principal Syllogism for confutation of the Jewes arguing from the rejection of the Jewes Gods failing in his promise but in the framing the objection v. 6. as if the Jewes objection That if they were rejected who by the works of the Law sought righteousness then Gods word in the Legall Covenant to take them to be his people who kept the Law did fail which Mr. Bain refutes and shewes That the objection did arise concerning Gods word about their naturall descent as being Israel and Abrahams seed which is the same which I alleged And the same is the observation of Ames concerning the cited Remonstrants Animadv in Remonstr script Synod de praedest ch 8. sect 4. where he hath these words Remonstr autem pro confesso concesso habent agi hic de sermone legis sicut apparet ex illis verbis Si legem Moses non violarint qui legem sequuntur Sed in textu agitur de sermone promissionis qui efficax est in populo praecognito de quo praecipâ—e gloriâ—bantur Judaei semetipsos Abrahae filios haerâ—des promissionis ipsi factae jactitantes sicut ex Pauli responso patet So that if the Reader do conceive that Arminius in the words cited by Mr. Blake meant by the word of God the word of Promise not of the Law yet Arminius might conceive the word of God in the objection of the Jewes to be the legall Covenant or word of the Law in which Mr. Bain and I after him took him to be deceived 3. Whereas he saith That Arminius speaks in mine own Dialect as though the ones Comment had been spit out of the mouth of the other alleging Arminius his words and afâ—er his third Quaere is when he affirms that to be born after the flesh is all one with the Apostle with legal Justiciaries Apolog. pag. 114. which is Arminius his interpretation how then can he by that distinction of children of the flesh and children of the promise shut out the naturall seed of Abraham Are the nâ—â—urall seed of Abraham and legall justiciaries one and the same He continues his spitefull language and calumniating course For 1. though it is true that Apol. pag. 114. I sâ—y one born after the fleshâ—s all one with the Apostle as legal justiciaries yet I limit this speech to the Apostles speech Gal. 4.22 c. And therefore it is a meer calumny that in the explication of Rom. 9 6 7 8 I spâ—ke in Arminius his Dialect as if my Comment had been spit out of his mouth Yea it might easily have been deprehended by Mr. Blake that I rejected Arminius his explication of children of the flesh and children of the promise Rom. 9 8. in that I excepted Exam. part 3. sect 2. against this very thing in Arminius his exposition did recite Mr. Bains words who grants that elsewhere sons of the flesh are put for legal justiciaries yet denies it of the phrase Rom. 9.8 where he proves it notes barely natural descent from Abraham page 138 139. 2. To this question I answer 1. I shut not out the naturall seed of Abraham universally from the promise but only do not include them universally this I do from the Apostles distinction not understood in Arminius his sense 2 To his second question Are the naturall seed of Abraham and legall justiciaries one and the same I answer No. for saith Mr. Blake if the Apostle exclude all the naturall seed of Abram from this covenant of God with Abraham as Mr. T. from Stapleton argues and take in onely his spiritual seed how can he be reconciled to himself Answ. There are divers untruths in this passage First it is untrue that I do argue that the Apostle excludes all the natural seed of Abraham from this covenant of God with Abraham 2. That I argue this from Stapleton which I am sure is most false nor would have been said by Mr Blake if he had any care to refrain from calumniating me 3. Nor do I think by Mr. Blakes own allegation of Stapletons worâ—s in this chapter from whence he imagines I borrowed my arguing that Stapleton himself did so argue but Mr. Blake misreports him also My assertion is and if Stapleton do agree with me I like it not the worse that in the promise Gen. 17.7 as it is Evangelical assuring regeneration justification and life eternall all the naturall seed of Abraham are not included but grant that many have been and shall be included yet say that as they are his naturall seed so they are his spirituall seed by believing or election and that to the elect onely that promise as Evangelicall is made by God and that this the
baptism So that Mr. Sidenhams answer is onely to the Consectary infer'd from the Conclusion deduced not to the premises no nor the first conclusion it self For the argument is this If Abrahams natural children had not right to baptism without their own faith and repentance But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent and consequently noâ— infants to be baptized Again if Abrahams children were not in the covenant without faiâ—h and repentance neither are ours for we have no more priviledge for our children then Abrahams had But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent and consequently a believers child is not in covenant because a believers child Yet once more If persons circumcised and descendended from Abraham were not therefore admitted to baptism then the same thing doth not intitle to baptism which did intitle to circumâ—ision nor the command of circumcision a command concerning baptism But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent and consequently infants are not to be baptized because they were to be circumcised Now Mr Sidenhams answer is to the allegation of John Baptists not baptizing infants not at all to any of these arguments drawn from his refusing the Pharisees though coming to his baptism and conceiving they might having Abraham to their Father Yet what Mr. Sidenham faith takes away the force of the argument if it had been thus made Those we are not to baptize whom John did not baptize but Iohn did not baptize infants Ergo. Yea his answer strengthens the argument For if Johns baptism were at the first institution of baptism and infants were not baptized then neither are they to be now For the first institution is the rule of observing it as the Lord Christ himself urgeth concerning marriage Matth. 19.4 and Paul concerning the Lords Supper 1 Cor. â—1 23. If baptism were a new institution and did require actuall visible believers as the first subject of it then it is not all one with circumcision which admitted infants at the first institution then such onely are to be baptizâ—d except some further Institution can be shewed the institution for infan-circumcision is not sufficient for infant-baptismâ— for that was in force as much at the first institution of baptism as after It is false that they could not baptize their children first that is at the first institution John Baptist and the Dâ—sciples of Christ might have baptized infants at first as well as Abraham circumcisâ—d them yea ought to have done it If Paedobaptists say true that the command of circumcision was the Rule in force concerning baptism nor need the parents be neglected no not though they had baptized the children first in order of time yea the right of the child being contemporary with the parenâ—s faith if they say true they should have been baptized as soon as ever â—he parent was a believer or the child in covenant Gods Covenant with Abraham was to him and his seed but his covenant was never made to every believer and his seed In the new Testament God renews the Covenant wiâ—h Abraham in respect of spirituall blessings but for the promises domestick or civill he doth not renew it He adds to the new Covenant the sâ—al of Christs death whose blood confirmed it and the initiating seal of his Spirit I know no other initiating seal added to it It is not true that the â—nâ—w covenant or covenent of grace was entail'd before to a certain line though the covenant with Abraham in respect of the civill domistick promises were entail'd to Abrahams naturall posterity and is now cut off Nor is the covenant every way of the same nature with Abrahams covenant nor upon a believers entering his name is the promise to him and his seed nor is it Acts 2.38 39. said that upon their repenting and being baptized themselves that the promise is to them and their children but the being of the promise to them and their children is urged as a consideration fit to move them to repent and be baptizd He next sets down 4 affirmations 2. That no man must be baptized or receive an ordinance by any fleshly prerogative Answer Then no infant is to be baptized by vertue of birth from a believer for that is a fleshly prerogative as the birth of Christ was but a fleshly prerogative to David the virgin Mary though there were an entail of a promise to them of this thing so is the imagined birth-priviledge of believers infants and yet there is no promise to retain it to a believers child 2. That no person grown up to years of udderstanding hath right to a sealing ordinance but upon his own personall qualification Answer Then Mr. Blake did erre in intituling unbelieving Jewes to priviledges of ordinances and thereby interessing them in the prerogatives of Gods visible people 2. There is no other right to an infant to baptism than what a grown person hath The third affirmation I grant and the fourth too if there were any such old priviledges of the promise to be conveyed to those which do really embrace the Gospel and their seed And this grant that those Pharisees and Sadduces had demonstrated themselves to be onely the children of the flesh and not of the promise and that they were excluded shews the covenant as Evangelical not to be made to a believers naturall seed nor they thereby have right to baptism SECT XXX Of the meaning of Mr. M. his second Conclusion the ambiguitie of which is shewed I now return to Mr. M. whose second Conclusion was thus expressed Ever since God gathered a distinct select number out of the world to be his Kingdome Citie houshold in opposition to the rest of the world which is the kingdome citie houshold of Satan he would have the iâ—fants of all who are taken into covenant with him to be accounted his to belong to him to his Church and Family and not to the Devils This conclusion bâ—ing the main pillar upon which he settles Infant-baptism the Antecedent of his Euthymem I examined with great diâ—igence after the exact manner of Scholastick Writers in their Disputes Which dealing of mine being indeed the oneâ—y way to clear truth and approved by a learned member of the Assembly Mr R.C. of P.C.O. and known to be one of the most accurate disputants in his time in Oxford yet Mr M. pag. 105. of his Defence in a most injâ—rious though frivolous way traduceâ—h as an indirect Artifice To which some answer is given in my Apologie sect 5. pag 23 I shall now view the reply he makes First he compares my dealing with an unnam'd person in Cambridge whose faculty was to make a clear text dark by his Interpretation whereas my way was the true and onely way to clear his meaninâ— by distinction which is by Logicians called the light of speech and in all consideration of things to be first as Keckerm Log Syst part 2. lib. 1. c. 1 spâ—aks Noâ— hâ—â—h Mr M. shewed in his Defence that any of those
the Covenant and Seals in generall are the root of his error about baptism or at least much strengthen it and there he takes upon him to refute them Since that time Mr. Bl hath renewed his exceptions Vindic grat ch 7. to which as touching upon Mr B. about the thing sealed and manner of sealing Mr B. hath replied in his Apologie against Mr. Blakes Exceptions Sect. 60 c. pag. 115. Because of Mr Bs censure I have received the passages in Mr Blakes answer to my Letter ch 15. in my Postscript Sect. 21. and leaving Mr. B. who is no competent judge of my Writings by reason of his prejudice against me and the cause I maintain and others to conceive of my books as they please I am not ashamed to profess 1. That I discern no such true worth in Mr Blakes mentioned passages which open the nature of the covenant but rather sundry that darken it the shewing of which now would be but a digression 2. That there is not one of the three positions set down by Mr Blake which doth contradict anything I said in my Examen part 4. Sect 5. For I said not the Sacraments are Seals absolute not conditionall but that God seals not upon condition persons agnize the covenant as Mr M. said in his Sermon pag. 49 nor did I deny that the entrance into covenant and acceptation of iâ— is common to elect and reprobate but that Gods covenant of grace or as I said before his promise in the covenant of grace is common to the elect and reprobates and this was it which I termed symbolizing with Arminians not that which Mr. Blake sets down 3. That I do not find that I have need to make any further reply to Mr. Blake therein nor to the six arguments he brings Vindic. Foed ch 7. to prove Sacraments sealing conditionally And for the flings Mr Blake hath at some speâ—ches of mine I shall briefly return answer Those words of mine I like not to call the Sacrament a conditionall Seal for that which seals doth assure and supposeth the condition In my apprehension that which is called conditionall sealing is not sealing but offering or propounding or representing but about this I will not contend Mr. Bl. leaving out the later words thus opposeâ—h Then our Lawyers have a long time decived us who have given us presidents as they call them for obligations under seal to run in these words The condition of this obligation is such and after an indication of the condition to conclude and close up all then this present obligation to be void and of none effect or else to stand in full force and vertue Seals we see leave the condition to me doubtfull Whereto I reply Neither I nor the Lawyers do deceive Mr Blake but he deceives himself the words of the president do intimate that the validity of the obligation is conditionall and is left doubtfull not that the seal is conditionall which doth absolutely assure or testifie the obligation or as the Lawyers speak the act and deed of him that seals which is not future but present and so not conditionall Mr Baxter Apol. against Mr Blake Sect. 77. I never heard of nor knew a conditionall sealing in the world though I have oft heard of the effects of obligation and collation of right to be conditionall which are not onely separate from the terminus proximus of sealing but also are directly the effects of the covenant promise testament c. onely and but remotely of the seals inasmuch as that seal is a full owning of the testament of conveyance yet such a thing as a conditionall sealing may be imagined In a word a conditionall engagement or obligation is one thing and frequent a conditionall seal or sealing is another thing but unknown There are other things at me as calumniating Mr. M. concerning his words as symbolizing with the Arminians which I shall acquiâ— my self from in answering Mr B. and that Mr Bs questionist and my self are both of one pitch both for knowledge and ignorance and stand equally affected to Mr. Bl. both in respect of his person and opinions which intimate as if he were perswaded I were that questionist whom I profess to be unknown to me and were disaffected to Mr. Blakes person though I knew not wherein I have shewed any disaffection to him and for my knowledge or ignorance be it more or lesse I hope it will appear in the conclusion that God hath given me so much knowledge as to shew the vanity of Mr Blakes and Mr Bs pleas for Infant-baptism And for his flirt or scoff at the wide standing open of the door in my night Sacraments I think my actions justifiable in celebrating the Lords Supper at night as Christ did with such notes as the Apostle made thereon in calling it the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.20 and relating it so distinctly v. 23 25. My admitting none but bapâ—â—zed persons after profession of faith is justified by Mr Blakes own words though somewhat misrepresenting my tenent Vindic. Foed ch 23. nor do I admit any one other profession to baptism than was done in the first times by men who had the Spirit of God to guide them and if any be baptized in the night it 's justifiable by Pauls action Acts 16.33 His flings also which he hath Vindic. Foed ch 17. p. 126. shew the same Satyricall vein when he saith I establish a new conditionall covenant against the New Testament light which I shall shew I establish in that sense I do it according to plain New Testament light and censures these words the not teaching one another spoken of Heb. 8 11. is meant of that obscure teaching which was under the Law Apol. pag. 154. said somewhat Magisterially after my manner whereas neither could I well dilate then being straitned in time and the exposition of that place there was but on the by and enough was said by me in those words answerably to the occasion and I conceived understanding men would gather the reason of my interpretation from those few words which is that the new covenant being there declared coÌ„tradistinct to that in Horeb as the writing the laws in the heart is mentioned to distinguish it from the writing in stone so the teaching is mentioned to distinguish it fâ—oÌ„ that obscure teaching which was under the Law which I said not magisterially nor any thing else as Mr. Bl. mis-censures me This is enough if not too much to answer these flirts of Mr. Bl. Fourthly I add That I find sundry passages in Mr. Bl. which seem to me to speak to the same purpose with my words as Answer to my Letter pag. 99. that Baptism assures actually when men doe believe pag. 102. out of Mr. Ball They that be truly in covenant obtained the highest blessings p. 106. This covenant of Jeremies is no more than that promise Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed that thou
to which I deny 1. the Major or sequele that if Infants and little ones of visibly believing parents in their Church estate before they can make any personall confession or profession of faith in the covenant yet then are Abrahams Church-seed then is it Gospel that the promises belong to them Nor is it in substance or circumstance the Apostles Gal. 3.16 To Abraham and his seed are the promises made For though it is granted that it is Gospel that to Abraham and his seed the promises are made yet it is utterly false that theâ—e is meant a seed of Abraham who are neither elect nor true believers but onely the naturall children of Gentile inchurched believers yea of Gentile visible inchurched professors of Faith whom Mr C. in a new language of his own without Scripture calls Abrahams Church-seed yea the Text is so manifestly against it that I wonder Mr C. could imagine any Reader would receive his Dictates about this Text. For the Apostle expresly limits the promises to Christ as the seed of Abraham and whether Christ be understood personally or mystically as Beza and others yet by the Seed are not meant the fictitious Church-seed of Abraham to wit the naturall children even of infants oâ— visible inchurched Gentile-believers or visible professors of Faith but true believers or elect persons who alone are members of Christ mysticall And the promises are of the Spirit through faith v. 14. the inheritance v. 18. life and righteousness v. 21 22 which are made to none but true believers or elect persons To which I add that externall covenant-interest if there were such is never in Scripture termed the Gospel no not in those who rightly have it as true believers but Christs dying for our sins and justification by faith in him 2. I also deny the minor that the Infants and little ones of visibly believing parents in Church-estate before they can make any personal confession or profession of faith in the Covenant yet then are Abrahams Church-seed Mr. C. takes upon him to prove the minor 1. in those of Abrahams loins in the elect seed I should think saith he it should not be questioned but yet it hath by some that Infants while Infants and till believers are not in the covenant c. And by such other speeches of our Adversaries in this point the covenant-right not only of the individual Infants of believers but the Covenant estates of that species and sort of persons is wholly denyed and so since it 's evident and acknowledged that some are elected of that sort yet it 's denied that they have part in the word of Gods covenants so that if they die in Infancy as many of the choise seed of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob did c. Yet that ordinary means of saving efficacy in all the saved elect is denied contrary to that principle Rom 9.6 But more hereof anon but Rom. 9 7 8 9 10 11. is so clear for it I wonder any deny it Isaac and Jacob are made precedential instances of interest not only of election but of Gods calling unto the fellowship of his free covenant without respect either to their desire or indeavour of it personally v. 16. Answ. There are sundry reasons which make me conceive that in this and many other passages in this argument Mr. C. aimed at my self Mr. Robert Baillee minister of Glasgow in Scotland had in the 2. part of his Diswasive intituled Anabaptism ch 4. pag. 92. charged me with spoiling all Infants of all interest in the Covenant of grace and denying all right to the new Covenant to Iewish Infants till in their ripe years they became actuall believers From which false criminations I have vindicated my self in the Addition to my Apology printed at London 1652. Mr. C. here tels of some who speak as if they held that Infants while Infants and till believers are not in the covenant that wholly deny the covenant estate of that sort of persons though they acknowledg some of them are elected of that sort yet it 's denied they have part in the word of Gods covenant and if they die in Infancy that ordinary means of saving efficacy in all the saved elect is denied them I have reason to conceive that these are calumnies of others sure I am if theyrae meant of my self they are calumnies and so shewed in my Books before cited and in other of my writings From which that I may stand free I further express my self distinctly thus 1. That by in the Covenant of grace I mean the promise of righteousness and external life by Christ Jesus 2. That I mean by being in the Covenant of grace or belonging to it the having this promise made to them by God whether Gen. 17.7 or Gen. 3.15 according to the speech of the Apostle Tit. 1.2 that God promiseth eternal life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the times of the ages that is afore any age of man was past 3. that all the elect of God whether children of believers or unbelievers dying in Infancy or at the riper age are in this covenant of grace that is God hath promised eternal life to them by Christ they are given to Christ to save are children of the promise Rom. 9.8 4. That all these are Abrahams seed meant in the promise Gen. 17.7 though not actual believers 5. That all these have Christs meâ—â—â—s and the spirits inbeing in them afore they dye as ordinary means of salvation 6. That none but these elect persons have the said covenant of grace or promise of righteousness and life by Châ—ist made to them 7. That no where visible profâ—ssers of faith is in the Covenant of grace 8. That the natural child of a believer no not the naturall child of Abraham the Father of believers was or is in the covenant of grace as their child or barely by vertue of their faith but onely the elect of them by vertue of their election by God 9. That these elect persons though elected and having the promise made to them yet have not the things promised if of years of understanding till they do believe they are not justified till then and so are not actuall partakers of the covenant of grace or not actually therein 10. That no where in Scripture is the naturall child of a Gentile-believer or a visible professor of Christian faith termed Abrahams Seed and the term of Abrahams Church-seed applied to such is a novel expression not grounded on Scripture 11. That the formall proper and adequate reason why any was to be circumcised was not his being in the covenant made with Abraham nor is the reason why any should be baptized bareâ—ly his interest in the covenant of grace but the command of God in the one appointing males of eight dayes old of Abraahms house and Proselytes thereto to be circumcised in the other discipâ—es by their own profession of faiâ—h in Châ—ist to be baptized 12. That the use of the terms Being in the
same What a powerfull argument is here for a man to venture upon to unchurch all the infants in the world The efficient cause enters not the essence or if it did yet not every less principal inferiour cause such as the Messenger or Minister of our call is If you had proved that God had repealed his Law which is the Charter of Church membership then you had said something else you say nothing to the purpose Answ. I neither attempted nor needed to prove the essence nature or essential constitution of the Jewish Church to be altered and therefore if the different call I assign prove it not yet what I was to prove that the Church constitution in respect of the integral parts and consequently of infants being included is altâ—red might be and indeed is firmly concluded from thence For as Alsted suppl Chamier de naturae Eccl. ch 2. § 3. The matter of the Church are men called Mat. 20.16 The form is the call it self and that is either simple that is either externâ—l onely or internal onely or conjunct that is external and internal together § 7. The inward call is that in which God calls inwardly by his spirit the outward in which he calls outwardly by the ministery of the Church And this is the call of the Church which as it is the action of God calling is in God himself but as it is received of the Church is it's form Or as Ames med Th. l. 1. c. 31. § 6 7. That first thing which in act constitutes the Church is calling whence also it receives it's name and definition For the Church is a company of men called 1 Cor. 1.24 with 10.32 And Cameron in his praeiect of the Church in his definition of the Church makes it to be a society of men called by the ministery of the word and saith called and believers are the same in Scripture Mr. B. confes of Faith pag. 284. The Church is Caetus vocatorum vel fidelium If then infants be not called by the word which is the onely way of calling into the Christian visible Church nor believers then they are no part of the visible Church Christian and consequently the Church constitution is altered and the Law of visible church membership of infants if there were such a Law is repealed And this argument is powerfull enough if there were no more to venture upon to unchurch though I like not the expression all the infants of the world that is to prove none of them to be members of the visible Church Christian. That which Mr. B. objects doth not invalidate the consequence For the consequence is not grounded on this onely that the Magistrate called then and the Minister now then all together now here one and there another but on this the Magistrate did it then by his authority though without perswading one after another but in the Christian Church the Minister doth it by preaching the word teaching and perswading one after another as the word takes and not by any commanding power or outward force or legislative or coercive vertue And this is sufficient to alter the constitution of the Church in this respect because if none be called but those that receive the word and none be members of the Church but the called and infants be uncapable thereof they are not members of the visible Church Christian. And therefore Mr. Bs. frivolous questions all run upon the mistake which out of negligence he runs into as his own words shew as if I had argued onely from the different persons and their different office and not also from the different way manner or sort of call whereas he acknowledgeth that my speeches do drive at this that my meaning was of the species or sort of ministerial call and so I might answer them all negatively and graâ—t what he would have me and yet my proof stands good And for what he saith that the â—fficient cause enters not the essence I find to the contrary in Keckerm syst log l. 1. par 2. c. 2. That in the definition of accidents the notion of distinction or the difference is taken from the subject efficient end and object Yet this if true were nothing against me who do not make the Messenger or Minister of our call of the essence of the Church no nor of the existence though the Apostles woâ—ds Rom. 10.14 speak near to it But this is that which I hold no person is ordinarily a member of the visible Church Christian but who is called by the outward preaching of the word who ever be the Messenger or Minister of the call and sith infants are not so called they are not members of the visible Church Christian. Mr. B. adds 2. I utterly deny that there is any more truth in the Antecedent then in the consequent God hath not altered the nature of the call in any substantial point but in meer circumstances Answ. What Mr. B. means by the nature of the call and what points he makes in the call substantial what near circumstances is not easie to tell but that God hath so altered the Jewish Châ—rch call as to exclude infants from the Christian visible Church is so apparent that I know not how to conceive of the denial of it but as a fruit of oppositeness without reason For all the way that John Baptist Christ the Apostles and other teachers took and appointed to be taken for gathering the Christian visible Church was by preaching the Gospel to all that would hear it to make them disciples or believers and so by baptism to joyn them to the Church But that the Jewish Church call was different is apparent in that there were no such teachers sent out to unite them but that by the authority of the Magistrates whether houshold or national they were imbodied Rightly saith Mr. Hudson vindic ch 4. sect 5. pag. 94. Gods method of conveying Church-priviledges used in the national Church of the Jews being in populo Israelitico must needs differ from the method in populo Catholico And the same is true of Gods call But what need we any other to shew the proper call of the Christian Church visible then Mr. B. himself in his Saints Everlasting rest part 2. ch 6. sect 1. Edit 1. pag. 223 224. he is so ample and his words so plain that I think if there were no more to shew his perverse stiffness in this thing it were enough I will transcribe some passages Consider in what way Christ spreads his Gospel to bring men in from the world into his Church from Paganism Turcism or Judaism to Christianity he never gave the sword any such Commission he never levied an army to advance his dominion nor sent forth his followers as so many Commanders to subdue the Nations to him by force and spare none that will not become Christians He will have none but those that voluntarily list themselves under him He sent out Ministers and not Magistrates or Commanders to
but hereby is not proved that any infants were visible Churchmembers but in the Congregation of Israel but rather the contrary Sith they were become Jews that is of the Congregation of Israel 8. Saith Mr. B. The scattered and captivated Jews themselves were from under the Government of Abrahams successors and yet were to Circumcise their children as Churchmembers Answ. Though they were from under the Government of Abrahams successor in respect of all power and command yet they were under their Government so far as they were permitted the exercise of the Mosaick Lawes and were of the Congregation of Israel and were Circumcised as members thereof and therefore no infants yet proved visible Church-members out of that Congregation 9. Saith Mr. B. When Jonas preached to Ninive it was all the race of man among them without exception from the greatest to the least that was to fast and joyn in the humiliation Ergo all even infants as well as others were to partake of the remission If you say the beasts were to fast too I answer as they were capable in their kinde of part of the curse so were they of part of the benefit but their capacity was not as mans They fasted to manifest mans humiliation And if by the humiliation of the aged the beasts sped the better in their kinde no wonder if infants sped the better in theirs and according to their capacities and that was to have a remission suitable to their sin Answ. All this is quite from the business for it proves not that either the aged or the infants were visible Churchmembers out of the Congregation of Israel If the fasting prove the visible Churchmembership it proves the visible Churchmembership of the beasts as well as the infant-men If the repentance bee alledged to prove it I hardly think such a sudden quickly past repentance will prove any of them visible Churchmembers of Christ any more then the Mariners prayer fear sacrificing making vowes Jonah 1.14.6 If it do yet it proves onely the aged who turned from their evil way Jonah 3.10 to be visible Churchmembers there 's no proof yet of an infants visible Churchmembership out of the Congregation of Israel 10. Saith Mr. B. What I have said of Sem and many others and their posterity already I shall not here again repeat and more will be said anon to the following questions Answ. What is said shall be answered in its place Mr. B. goes on thus The 2d proposition to be proved is that the Israelites children were members of the universal visible Church of Christ as well as of the Congregation of Israel But this you did heretofore acknowledge and therefore I suppose will not now deny I suppose it past controversie between us 1. That Christ had then a Church on earth As Abraham saw Christs day and rejoyced and Moses suffered the reproach of Christ Heb. 11.26 and the Prophets enquired of the salvation by Christ and searched diligently and prophesied of the grace to come and it was the spirit of Christ which was in those Prophets signifying the time and testifying before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow 1 Pet. 1.10 11. So were they part of the Church of Christ and members of the body of Christ and given for the edification of that body Though it was revealed to them that the higher privigledes of the Church after the comming of Christ were not for them but for us 1 Pet. 1.12 2. I suppose it agreed on also between us that there was no true Church or Ecclesiastical worshipping society appointed by God in all the world since the fall but the Church of Christ and therefore either infants were members of Christs Church or of no Church of Gods institution Moses Church and Christs Church according to Gods institution were not two but one Church For Moses was Christs Usher and his ceremonies were an obscurer Gospel to lead men to Christ And though the foolish Jewes by mis-understanding them made a separation and made Moses Disciples to bee separate from Christs Disciples and so set up the alone shadowes of things to come yet the body is all of Christ Col. 2.17 and by so doing they violated Gods institution and unchurcht themselves 3. I suppose it agreed also that Christs Church is but one and that even those of all ages that are not at once visible yet make up one body 4. And that therefore whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal Though the Church was more eminently called Catholike when the wall of separation was taken down But I remember I have proved this in my Book part 1. chap. 20. and therefore shall say no more now Answ. I grant as I did heretofore that the Israelites children were members of the universal visible Church of Christ as well as of the Congregation of Israel or rather in that they were of the Congregation of Israel nor do I deny that Christ had then a Church on earth nor that there was no true Church or Ecclesiastical worshipping society appointed by God in all the world since the fall but the Church of Christ. But as for the third though I grant that Christs invisible Church is but one by unity of the same spirit and faith and that the visible Church is but one in some respect namely in respect of the profession oâ— the same faith and hope in Christ yet they are not so one as that whoever is a visible member of one particular Church is a member of each particular Church and though I yeild that whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal yet it follows not which is it that Mr. B. drives at and vainly talks of his proving it elsewhere as will be shewed hereafter that every one who was a member of the universal Church in that he was a member of the Jewish Church particular was a visible member of every particular visible Church of Christ nor that every one that was a member of the universal Church in that hee was a member of a visible particular Church of Christ was a visible member of the Jewish particular Church As for instance Cornelius and his house who feared God Acts 10.2 were visible members of that particular Church of his house and so of the universal yet were not visible members of the particular Church Jewish as may bee proved from their uncircumcision and shunning as unclean by the Jews Acts 10. 11.3 The reason is manifest For the universal hath not a distinct existence from the parts nor is any part existing in another part because it is part of the whole as the finger is not in every part of the body because it is in the body in that it is in the hand which is a part And therefore Mr. Bs. arguing which he confides so much in part 1. ch 20. of plain Script c. will appear to be vain that because infants
promise that the seed of Abraham should possess the gates of their enemies though his exposition be granted I see not what advantage it gives him for proof of infant Baptism and therefore let it pass onely I take notice that when p. 43. he makes the multiplying of the seed of Abraham and the conquest of the world to be a spiritual work to be effected by the sword of the spirit the word of God it follows that it is to be done by preachers rather then by parents and consequently not in that way Mr. C. imagines but in the way which Christ took by sending his Apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature What he saith p. 45. of the meaning of Gen. 9.26 hath been shewed before to be uncertain and to be proved false by the History of the Church in that in Affrica the posterity of Cham were in the Church of Christ as well as Shems and Japhets posterity and how Abrahams seed shall fill the world at last and rule over it is so doubtfull as that I conceive no certainty can be thence deduced The conceit of the four Kings Gen. 14. as if their people became afterwards the four Monarchies is such a fancy as a waking man that knows the distance between Rome Greece and Canaan and the voyage they must take by sea and other circumstances which the story Gen. 14. and other Histories suggest will take onely for a dream Mr. Cs. gloss p. 50. on the words of Christ Mark 10.15 Who soever shall not receive the Kingdome of God as a little child that is as a child receiveth it shall not enter therein whether he mean iâ— of the visible Church or Kingdome of glory it cannot be true For let the way of entring the Kingdome of God be by birth or Baptism or any other way yet a true believer by faith and profession may enter into the Kingdome of God in a way different from that a little child receives it in who hath no understanding of Christ And though both be passive in the first work on their souls yet believers of age are not meerly pâ—ssive as little children who have no understanding at all of Christ. But for the true meaning of Christ I need say no more but refer the Reader to Christs words Matth. 18.4 whence the meaning appears to be that no person not endued with that qualification of self-humbling of which a little child is a fit embleme Psal. 131.2 shall become an inheritour of glory Nor is there any proof made by Mr. C. of his dictate that because Christ would that little children also should be members of his Kingdome therefore hath he made it one branch of the Gospel of this Kingdome that the families of the righteous shall be blessed His reason he gives p. 51. is no reason for God might have gone further then ordinarily to cast elect children upon elect parents even to have done so universally and perpetually and yet we might no more have been sons of God by natural generation and as much by nature born children of wrath as now we are conceived Though God had not so far as Mr. C. imagines confined his choice to families kindreds and nations his elect had not been destitute of means of education sith God could have provided Catechists Preachers and others to that end in other families kindreds and naâ—ions Sure in some ages of the Church there was so little provision made to that end in families kindreds and nations that it appears that almost all the means of education was from Monasteries in Scotland and Ireland by the Histories that remain as may be seen by Seldens Epistle before the Histories collected by Twisden Ushers relation of the Irish Religion and elsewhere If it were the most natural and ready way to multiply the spiritual seed for the increase of Gods Kingdome by making believers a blessing to families and nations as Mr. C. saith p. 52. sure God by sending Apostles and not using Kings and Masters of families for that end omitted the readiest and most natural way and I see not why it should be judged the best way to propagate the Gospel to gather Churches out of Parishes and set Pastors over them or to send itinerant preachers but to reduce all Churches to family and national Churches and to make Kings and Masters of families Elders and Rulers over them Nor do I find that either God so casts the lot of his Saints together as Mr. C. imagines or that by that means the gifts of Gods people are improved and light increased but by raising up holy Teachers and Pastors and associating of the Saints from their several dwellings into a well ordered assembly If as Mr. C. saith p. 55. the Israelites destroyed the Canaanites not by common rules of righteousness among men but by special revelation and command from God then either they did it not by the promise Gen. 22.17 or that promise did not assure them of the possession of Canaan by common rules of justice as Mr. C. conceives That the people of God in the times of the N. T. may not make war against Antichrist or Babylon and their party as an Anathema but upon a natural and civil account for the just liberties opposed and invaded by them may be well doubted considering sundry passages which are Rev. 17.16 17. 18.6 24. That the dominion which the Saints shall at last obtain shall need no force either to get or maintain it but it shall naturally fall upon them as from other causes so also by reason of theâ—r number according to the law of nature and common rules of righteousness is not proved from Isa. 2.3 and how much it may tend to denying the lawfulness of Christians fighting in wars especially if the chief or onely cause be to preserve the Godly from oppressions in Religion is to be considâ—red And that power is naturally devolved upon the Saints because of their numbers as p. 60. is intimated seems to me an unsafe speech as resting on this position That power is naturally devolved on the greatest number It is enough that I have onely by the way noted these things that what men preach and print may be better considered I pass on to the examining of Mr. Cs. application SECT LXXIX Neither did Circumcision seal Mr. Cs. additional Promise nor was Abraham thence termed Father of Believers THe first thing Mr. C. observes is that in the promise to Abraham there 's an addition made to the former promise to Adam Gen. 3.15 which I grant but not such an addition as Mr. C. conceivs The next is that to this promise of making believers blessings to families and nations God made an addition of the seal of Circumcision and the application of this seal to infants is part of the seâ—l thereby signifying and confirming that promise of such blessing So Gen. 17.10 14. Had not the application of it to the infant been part of the token of the Covenant the childs
Gospel Covenant and that in him all nations shall be blessed and is directly for me for it asserts the Covenant and in that justification to the believing Gentiles not onely from Abrahamâ— promise but also a promise to them and their seed which plainly shews that he imagines Gal. 3.8 the Gospel Covenant to be a promise to believers and their seed who are their natural seed as in Abraham his seed is implied which conformably must be his natural And if Mr. Cr. did not in the dispute mean Abrahams natural seed he went from the point to be proved and by me denied that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 was not simply everlasting to the natural seed of Abraham sith they were dispossessed of Canaan His suggestions therefore of my using officious untruths and pious frauds are but the venome of his spirit which throughout his book he discovers and most pestilently in that Section for which the Lord rebuke him What he next saith that when I say the thing promised Gal. 3.8 was justification and that of the heathen and that through faith therefore this text proves not Abrahams natural seed in Covenant under the Gospel is As if all this might not be and yet some of the natural seed of Abraham be in covenant under the Gospel who professed were justified and had faith as well as the heathen which I grant but then they were not onely Abrahams natural seed but also his spiritual to which I grant the Covenant is made Gen. 17.7 and is everlasting and if he can prove infants of believers to be such there 's no question but they are in Covenant under the Gospel and to be baptized till then he can never prove either from Gen. 17.7 or Gal. 3.8 that Abrahams natural seed much less infants of believing parents to be in the Gospel covenant which whether hee had reason to bee ashamed of attempting the Reader may judge That the entring into Covenant Deut. 29.10 11. was a tranâ—â—unt fact and not a thing perpetually binding I had thought none would deny nor argue as Mr. Crag doth it was by command Deut. 29.1 they werâ— v. 29. to do the words of the Law and that was a command and the revealed things belong to them and their children for ever therefore the entring into Covenant v. 10 11. was a command perpetually binding under the Gospel which is too frivolous to spend time in answering and his argument that if wives and servants were in Covenant under the Gospel much more infants is alike frivolous â—ith he himself makes no other then believing wives and servants in Covenant under the Gospel which when he proves of infants their being in Covenant will not be denied This is enough in answer to that Section and most of the 8th and 9th Sections of the third part I said his allegation is vain of Heb. 8.6 to prove that if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospel whereas the meliority of the Covenant is not placed in the extent to the sort of persons He asks me what then will it follow if a Covenant was made to no more then before therefore not to all that were before Answ. No yet it will follow that the text is vainly alledged to prove the co-extension to persons that speaks not at all of that thing nor is it at all to the purpose that it is extended to more to wit to Gentiles For 1. however that text speaks not of it 2. It is extended to more nations of the world besides the Jews but to none but believers of those nations and consequently not to infants of believing parents as such That the new Covenant contains promises of better things then the old Covenant and differs more then in administrations is shewed before Sect. 43. and yet theâ—e is no such thing implied as if there were salvation in any other then Jesus Christ unless he could prove salvation were by the promises of the Law My third Paradox as he cals it that the promises of the Gospel are not to any other then the elect and true believers is proved before Sect. 33. That there are in the Gospel Covenant promises of external ordinances made to all visible members is more then Mr. Cr. proves or any other and therefore I count it a figment I know none but spiritual promises in it which Mr. Cr. grants are made absolutely and terminated or performed onely to the elect and invisible members which is the same with my Paradox but hath more assertors then his most gross speech that the meliority of the Covenant consists principally in outward ordinances manner of administration and dispensation extent and amplitude of the proposal not of grace and glory He adds of which there was alwayes the same reason Enoch Abraham Eliah Moses were as well justified by faith which is true but not according to the Covenant of the Law but by the Covenant of the Gospel which it seems Mr. Cr. understands not though he assume the title of a Preacher of the Gospel Mr. Cr. saith of me His last assertion is that because the promises of the Gospel are not to any other then the elect and true believers therefore they are not to infants as the natural seed of believers The antecedent is proved to be false for though the spiritual part of Gospel promises is absolutely performed and terminated to the elect yet they are conditionally proposed to all Professors and the external part which consists in administration of ordinances is equally belonging to all visible members But are the promises to all professors because they are conditionally proposed to them If so we may say the promises are to the most obstinate infidels to eveâ—y man in the world for to them they are conditionally proposed Sure this is not according to the doctrine of the Scripture which makes the promises to bee the believers inheritance 2 Cor. 1.20 2 Pet. 1.4 Gal. 3.16 4.28 Heb 6.12 17. according to the doctrine of Protestanâ—s the Saints Legacy yea Paedobaptists make them their priviledge Rom. 9.4 though the promises there were other promises As for an external part of Gospel promises which consists in administration of ordinances equally belonging to all visible members it is a mere figment no where in Scripture And the sayings of Mr. Cr. Part. 3. Sect. 11. p. 261. Christ is said Heb. 8.6 to be a Mediator of a better Covenant which could noâ— be if infants that were in covenant under the Law were out of covenant under the Gospel and is grounded upon this impregnable rock which the Anabaptists will never overthrow that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in visible covenant that the reason of baptizing or circumcising a person is their birth right tuition self-profession whereby they are visibly admitted into covenant that what he hath said Examen part 3. sect 1. Antipaed part 1. sect 5. touches not the true state of the Controversie but is a confused