Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3

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 sanctification and everlasting life, Gen. 17.1, &c. Gal. 3.15. Rom. 4.3. John 8.56. On Abraham 's part the substance of the covenant was to believe the promised Messiah, to walk before God with a perfect heart, to serve God according to his revealed will, to instruct his family, &c. Gal. 3.16. Gen. 17.1. & 18.19. Gal. 3.17, 19. In which passage I did conceive that Mr. M. meant by the substance of the covenant of grace the promise as it is purely evangelical, which I conceived to be the same with the new covenant mentioned Heb. 8.9, 10▪ 11, 12. & 10.16, 17. And this I was sure was not made with all Abraham's natural posterity, much less with any believing Gentiles natural posterity as such, but only so many of either as are elect and believe, as Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. Gal. 3.29. is determined, and so none of a believing Gentiles children are in this covenant, but they that are believers, or elected to faith in Christ. But then this would not serve Mr. Ms. turn. And therefore notwithstanding those words in his Sermon, yet in his Defense pag. 90. he saith, The covenant of grace contains not only saving grace, but the administration of it also in outward ordinances and Church-privileges: but in what sense he means it contains them he declares not. That which is contained in a covenant is either the promise or the condition. The seal, writing, writer, pen, and such like adjuncts are never called the covenant, nor contained in it, though they be instrumental to hold forth the covenant. Now where any promise is of outward ordinances and Church-privileges, or how they should be a condition of the promises I understand not. He distinguisheth pag 106. of the covenant of grace thus,

The covenant of grace is sometimes taken strictly, sometimes largely: as it is considered strictly, it is a covenant in which the spiritual benefits of justifification, regeneration, perseverance, and glorification are freely promised in Christ. Secondly, as the covenant of grace is taken largely, it comprehends all evangelical administrations, which do wholly depend upon the free and gracious appointment of God, and this administration is fulfilled according to the counsel of God's will; sometimes it was administered by his appointment in types, shadows, and other legal ordinances; this covenant of administration God said Zacharias 11.10. he did break with the people of the Jews, and at the death of Christ he did wholly evacuate and abolish, and instead thereof brought in the administration we live under, where also he rejected the Jews, or broke them off from being his people in covenant, and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramorum defractorum locum, into the place of the branch, and broken off as yourself, pag. 65. do with Beza rightly express it.

But herein Mr. M. confounds what in his Sermon he distinguished the covenant of grace and the administration of it. He saith, The covenant of grace largely taken comprehends all evangelical administrations; and saith, This administration is fulfilled. By the evangelical administrations he means the old legal ordinances afore Christ's death, and the administration we live under which is baptism and the Lord's Supper, pag. 120. he saith, Our Divines own the outward administration of the covenant under the notion of foedus externum, the outward covenant.

Now if there be sense in these passages, I must needs charge myself with dullness, who cannot discern it. Is it sense to call that a covenant without a Trope, which is neither a promise nor a condition of a covenant? to say that the covenant contains or comprehends evangelical administrations, and yet to call it the administration itself? to say, this administration was administered, and not something by the administration administered?

But let us considee what others make of this distinction of covenant strictly and largely taken, or which is all one, the inward and outward covenant. I have met with none that speaks more distinctly than Mr. Anthony Burgess in his Book entitled Spiritual Refining, Sect. 8. Serm. 64. pag. 393. who was one of the Assembly.

The external covenant is that whereby in an outward visible manner God doth own a people, add they externally profess their owning of him; but yet in their hearts and souls they do not steadfastly cleave unto God, and faithfully keep this covenant in the conditions thereof. The internal or inward covenant is that whereby God doth in a spiritual powerful manner take a people to him working in their hearts all those gifts and graces promised in the covenant as regeneration, remission of sins, adoption, and the like. And in this sense only the truly godly are in the covenant, and they are only God's people, and he their God. This distinction of a covenant into outward and inward is not a distinction of a genus into its species, so much as a distinction of a thing into the several administrations and dispensations of it.

In this passage there is want of clearness as well as in M. Marshals. He tells us negatively, that it is not a distinction of a genus into its species, yet with some mincing of the matter (so much) as if it might be the distinction of a genus into its species, though not so much, which is an expression of a man who would say somewhat but cannot well tell what to say. But if it be not a distinction of a genus into its species, what distinction is it? Is any man the wiser for a mere Negative? It is, saith he, a distinction of a thing into the several administrations and dispensations of it.

But this tells us not what sort of distinction this is, whether nominis of the word or rei of the thing. If he had meant to be a distinction of the word he should have shown where the word is so taken, if of the thing, what kind of division or distribution it is. To me it seems against all Rules of Logic to divide thus. A covenant is either the outward or the inward administration and dispensation of it or the inward, which without Trope of speech (which should be absent from men that should rationally explain things) is non-sense, affirming one covenant to be one administration and another another, whereas the covenant is one thing and the administration another thing. But his meaning is this, one covenant is outward being outwardly administered, or administering outward things, another inward administering inwardly or inward things. But neither is this right since the covenant doth not administer but the covenanter, nor doth he do it by the covenant but by some other act according to the covenant, the covenant is only an ag • eement and promise to do it, the administering is the keeping of the covenant, not the covenant itself.

But let that be yielded that the covenant doth administer, yet the description of the external covenant as made by Mr. Burgess doth not include administration. For God may in an outward visible manner own a people, and they externally profess their owning of him, and yet neither administer one to another anything promised, or if the owning be administration, the people administer to God as well as God administers to them. Besides his description makes an external profession of owning God requisite to the external covenant. If that be right, no infant is in the external covenant till it profess owning God, and in what outward visible manner God doth own infants except by baptizing them (which God doth not but the Minister, nor ever commanded or declared his approbation of i • ) I know not, and then the outward covenant is nothing else but baptizing, and an infants being in covenant is his being baptized or to be baptized, and the argument from the covenant comes to this ridiculous tautology, all infants of believers are in the outward covenant (for they dare not say they are all in the inward) that is, they are in the outward administration, which is no other than baptism, and so the antecedent is equipollent to this, they are or are to be baptized; and the conclusion is, ergo, they are to be baptized.

But Mr. Marshal it seems conceives the outward Covenant, as he describes it, meant Zach. 11.10. where the Prophet saith, And I took my staff even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my Covenant which I had made with all the people. And he interprets it thus, that at the death of Christ God brake his covenant with the Jews, wholly evacuating and abolishing the legal Ordinances, and bringing in the administration we live under.

But if this be the sense, then this Prophesy doth not foretell anything penal to the Jews; for the abolishing of legal ordinances was a mercy to them, they being a yoke intolerable, Acts 15.10. whereas the Text speaks of it as an evil that should befall them.

Piscator in his Analysis, Eventus fuit desertio Judaeorum, v. 9, 10, 11, & 14.

Diodati and after him the New Annotations in Zech. 11.10. My Covenant] the peace which I had granted to my Church, that she should not be assaulted no more, nor be molested by any strange Nation, which was verified from the Maccabees time, until a little before the coming of Christ.

Grot. Annot. in locum. Abstuli protectionem illam specialem. Irritum facere foedus suum Deus dicitur, cum ruptis a populo foederis conditionibus, ipse quoque a sua par • e promissa non implet.

Mr. Ms. conceit is, as if by the Covenant were meant legal Ordinances, and so the breaking off is meant either de jure only, and then it is not a Prophesy of what should happen; or else de facto, in the event, but then it is not true; for the Jews retained the legal Ordinances of the Covenant he made with them, and do still at this day even circumcision, and as many other of the legal Rites as they can in their present dispersion. It is true, God brake o • the Jews from being his people in Covenant, and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramorum defractorum locum, and how this is to be understood I have shown before at large in the first part of this Review. But without a Trope to call outward Ordinances God's Covenant is without example of Scripture (the Covenants Rom. 9.4. say Beza, Piscator, New Annot. &c. are the Tables of the Covenant) and can hardly be acquitted from non-sense. Only perhaps it seems Mr. M. for a shift, as v. g. pag. 103. he saith, God makes good his promise sealed in baptism in which he engageth himself to be the God of believing Christians and their seed; which in his Sermon pag. 10. he makes the promise of saving grace, yet when it is proved that cannot be true of Gentile believers and their children he runs to this vain shift, that the outward Covenant belongs to them (which is nothing to the promise Gen. 17.7. in which outward administrations are not promised) though not the inward. Nor is it Mr. Ms. manner alone but the common course of Paedobaptists in their writings to play fast and loose with the ambiguity of the term Covenant and Covenant of grace, as hath been formerly shown, and may appear more in that which follows. But to keep to Mr. M.

He tells me, If the Covenant of grace be in substance the same, though you should reckon up a thousand accidental and local differences it were nothing to the purpose.

To which I reply; Though I grant the Covenant of grace be always the same in substance, meaning thereby that the elect are saved in all Ages by the same promises of evangelical grace, that is righteousness, regeneration, adoption in Christ, and the promise Gen. 17.7. hath an evangelical sense, which is this, that God will be a God to Abraham and his spiritual seed by election and faith, and am unjustly charged of spoiling all infants of all interest in the Covenant of grace, and confining the Jews promises to earthly and temporal blessings, of which I have acqui • ted myself in my Letter to Mr. Bailey, Sect. 1.2. yet I never granted that the Covenant with Abraham did contain no other than evangelical promises of grace in Christ, nor that these very promises Gen. 17 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. were all evangelical promises, nor any of them in that sense, which is obvious to the understanding, according to common Rules of Grammar, but only according to the Apostles Exposition, who never so expounded the promise, Gen. 17.7. as if it were made to any man's seed but Abraham's, not to every believing Gentile and his natural seed. And certainly this difference between the covenant Gen. 17. and the covenant of grace will be much to the purpose to show the Covenant, Gen. 17 not to be to a believing Christian and his seed; and that though circumcision of male infants should have its reason barely from the interest of the circumcised in that Covenant; yet such a Covenant-interest not belonging to our children who are of the Gentiles cannot be a reason to entitle them to baptism though it should be granted (which is not) that our baptism succeeds their circumcision, and seals the covenant of grace as theirs did that made with Abraham.

This mixture of the Covenant, and the inference thence, that Circumcision did not belong to all believers and their children, but as in Abraham's family is observed by Mr. Allen and Mr. Sheppard in their Defense of the Answer to the nine Positions, chap. 8. and because their words are apposite to my purpose, though otherwise applied by them, I shall recite them.

Now that we hold the right proportion in the persons may appear, first, in that (as was granted) Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant, but this Covenant was not simply, and only the Covenant of grace; but that whole Covenant that was made with Abraham, whereby on God's part they were assured of many special blessings (whereof Lot and others not in this Covenant with Abraham were not capable) and whereby Abraham and his seed, and family were bound for their part to be a people to God, and to observe this sign of the Covenant, which others in the Covenant of grace were not bound to. Secondly, (as is granted) it was Abraham and his household and the seed of believing Jews that were to be circumcised, and therefore not visible believers, (as such) for then Lot had been included; so by right proportion not all visible believers as such, but such as with Abraham and his family are in visible Covenant to be the people of God, according to the institution of Churches when and to which the seal of Baptism is given; and therefore as all family-churches but Abraham's being in a new form of a Church were excluded, so much more such a • are in no visible constituted Church at all.

In which it is expressly yielded, that the Covenant with Abraham was mixed in my sense, that Circumcision did not belong to all visibly in the Covenant of grace, that it belonged peculiarly to the Church in Abraham's family, that Baptism follows the Christian Church constitution (which sure is much different from the Jewish) and therefore not the Covenant made with Abraham. But Mr. M. seems to be sensible of this, and endeavors to p • event it in that which follows.

But, saith he, the first doth almost recall it, wherein you charge me to carry the narration of the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. as if it did only contain the Covenant of grace in Christ; whereas it is apparent (say you) out of the Text, that the Covenant was a mixed Covenant consisting of temporal benefits, the multiplying of Abraham's seed, possession of Canaan, the birth of Isaac, besides the spiritual blessings.

To which I reply, I meant so indeed, and so I plainly expressed myself, that all the difference betwixt the Covenant then made with Abraham, and the Covenant made with us, lies only in the manner of administration of the Covenant; and not in the Covenant itself. The Covenant itself in the substance of it holds out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to them and to us.

Answer. By mixed Covenant I mean a Covenant consisting of some temporal blessings proper only to Abraham's natural posterity and some spiritual blessings common with him to all believers whether Jews or Gentiles. And I say, those promises of temporal blessings were of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham, that they cannot in any fit sense be called the manner of the administration of the Covenant, that the Covenant itself in the substance doth not hold out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to them, and to us. And all these things I thus prove.

1. Those promises were of the substance of the Covenant, which are in Scripture called the Covenant itself, without mention of the spiritual promises; but this is true of the promise of the Land of Canaan, &c. Psalm 105.8, 9, 10, 11. Nehem. 9.8. Gen. 26.3. & 28.3, 4, 13, 14. 1 Chron. 16.15, 16, 17, 18, &c. In which places the Text expressly saith, God made a Covenant with Abraham ; and then recites the Covenant, that it was to give the Land of the Canaanites, &c. which were temporal mercies not now promised or performed to us. Ergo, To deny those promises to be of the substance of the Covenant, and to call them administrations, which the Scripture calls the Covenant itself so often, if it be not to thwart the Scripture, sure it is unwarrantably to alter its expressions: God himself so expressly calling the giving of Canaan his Covenant, Exod. 5.45.8. refutes this conceit.

2. Those promises are of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham, which are integral parts of the Covenant. But those promises of temporal blessings are integral parts of the Covenant made with Abraham. Ergo, the major is in itself manifest, for the Covenant is nothing but a promise or an aggregate of promises; and so if a Covenant have any substance in it, it must be the integral parts. The minor is apparent from the very words, Gen. 17.4, &c. where God having in general terms told Abraham, My Covenant is with thee, he expresseth to the 9. verse, wherein his Covenant was with him, and that is set down in those peculiar blessings to Abraham's natural posterity, Verse 6.8.

3. The promise of Canaan can be called no other way the administration of the Covenant of grace than in that in the hidden sense under that promise spiritual good was intended to be shadowed. But this very thing shows that the promise of an earthly inheritance was in the first place thereby intended to Abraham's natural posterity, and the other only as an additament or appendix to the promise in its first meaning. Now then if the promise of Canaan in the first sense be not of the substance of the Covenant, neither is the promise only implied mysteriously in the more hidden sense, which is but an appendix to it, of the substance of the Covenant.

4. The Covenant made with Abraham, holds not out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to Abraham's natural posterity and to us. Ergo, there is more difference than in the administration. The Antecedent is apparent; for the promise of the Land of Canaan, the birth of Isaac, Christ to come of him according to the flesh, &c. are not made to us. Ergo,

But Mr. M. thinks to prevent this by telling us, Godliness having all the promises both of this life and that which is to come; and that they and we have our right to all these promises upon the self same condition.

Answer. Thess things are manifestly false; for though godliness have the promise of this life and that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4.8. yet the promises, Levite. 26.6, &c. are not made to every godly man, that he shall lie down and none shall make him afraid, that he shall chase his enemies, &c. but rather assurance is given that he shall be persecuted, 2 Tim. 3.12. Mark 10.29, 30. Nor have they promises upon the same condition; for Exod. 34.24. it is promised, that none should desire the Israelites Land while they did appear thrice in the year before the Lord, but to us there is not that promise nor upon that condition.

But, saith he▪ earthly things indeed were to them promised more distinctly and fully, heavenly things more generally and sparingly than they are now to us; and on the contrary, spiritual things are more fully and clearly promised to us than to them; and earthly promises more generally and sparingly.

Answ. This is not all the difference; for I have shown that to us an earthly rest is not promised at all, but the contrary assured to us, to wit, suffering persecution.

Mr. M. adds, And that these temporal benefits which you mention, viz. multiplying of Abraham's seed, the bitth of Isaac, and possession of Canaan, were all of them administrations of the Covenant of grace, they were figures, signs, and types of spiritual things to be enjoyed both by them and us. These things I not only asserted, • ut proved in my Sermon. If you mean no more than this, that all these temporal blessings were promised and given as flowing from the promise of Christ, and were subservient to it, or were types and shadows of it, you mean no more than what we all grant, who yet deny anymore mixture in the Covenant made with Abraham for the substance of it, than there is in that made with us; and that the difference lies only in the manner of administration.

Answer. I deny not but that the possession of Canaan, birth of Isaac. multiplying Abraham's seed were figures, signs, and types of spiritual things to be enjoyed by elect▪ Jews and Gentiles according to the mystical hidden • sense of the words; nor do I deny that they were subservient to the promise of Christ, whether it be to be said they flowed from the promise of Christ, or tended to the fore-signifying of Christ to come, the grace of the Gospel, and the heavenly inheritance and rest is a doubt. Surely they flowed from God's special love to Israel above any other people, Deut. 7.6, 7, 8. And I grant that Circumcision ratified spiritual blessings chiefly, that is as the chief thing promised; yet in the sense in which I think Gameron meant it, Thesi 78. de triplici foedere primarily, that is according to the first and manifest sense of the words it sealed earthly promises peculiar to Abraham's natural posterity, and that Ciacumcision of infants was specially for that reason, to wit, the peculiar promises to Abraham's natural posterity; nor do I see cause to mislike Grotius his speech Annot. in Luc. 1.59. Infantium autem circumcisio ostendebat foedus esse gentilium.

And this mixture of the Covenant with Abraham, to wit, that it contained not only promises common to all believers, but also promises so peculiar to Abraham's natural posterity, that all of them were not according to the Law to be made good to any Gentile though a Proselyte circumcised, namely, the inheritance of the Land of Canaan, of which none but the natural progeny of Israel were to be inheritors, is so manifest, that the denial of it I can hardly impute to anything but dullness or mere pertinency. Yet why these promises so peculiar to them should be denied to be of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham, I see no reason they being integral parts. Christ it is true is the substance of the things promised as they were Types; yet the things promised in respect of their natural being had a substance besides, and in relation to the Covenant were as much the substance or substantial parts of it as the spiritual promises; yea, since those spiritual promises (if I may so speak) did subsist in the expressions of temporal blessings, it follows in my apprehension, that if the promises of the spiritual blessings were of the substance of the Covenant, then surely the promises of temporal blessings, which those very promises did express, and under the shadow of which they were made should be much more of the substance of the Covenant. Nor do I conceive any grosness in it to imagine of God, that he should in a Covenant of grace founded in Christ intend in the seal of it to ratify temporal blessings, when he intended to assure spiritual blessings under the covert of words in the first sense importing only temporal. As for the terming of the administration of the Covenant of grace it is neither according to Scripture, nor is it very handsome sense, specially according to Mr. Ms. doctrine, who calls Circumcision the old administration of the Covenant, and if it were an administration of the promises, which were administrations of the Covenant of grace, then Circumcision was an administration of an administration.

But Mr M. speaks to me thus. I desire to know of you what Scripture ever made circumcision a seal of Canaan; we have express Scripture that it sealed the righteousness of faith whereby he was justified, but I nowhere read that it • ealed the Land of Canaan.

Answer. To gratify him I tell him, that I read Circumcision called a token of the Covenant, Gen. 17.11. which Covenant was the Covenant mentioned before in that chapter, and in that v. 8. the promise of the Land of Canaan is made, and Acts 7.8. Stephen calls it The Covenant of Circumcision, which he shows not how it was otherwise fulfilled in that speech but by bringing them out of Egypt, and placing them in Canaan, in which he fulfilled his promise to Abraham, verse. 6, 7, 16. It is true, the Apostle calls Abraham's Circumcision A seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised, Rom 4.11. But I find not this said of any ones Circumcision but Abraham's: surely it cannot be said truly of any ones Circumcision but a believers. As for what he saith, That we have now carnal promises, and therefore our covenant may be as well mixed as that with Abraham.

I answer it is true, We have promise of the life that now is and that which is to come ; and so our Covenant is in a sort mixed of spiritual and temporal promises: but these promises are common to all godly persons both Jews and Gentiles, not proper only to Abraham's natural posterity inheriting, in which sense I called it a mixed Covenant, Exercit. pag. 2. Sect. 1. I grant, we have outward privileges and ordinances, as Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and that many now are members of the visible Church, and partake of them who are not elect nor true believers. But none but elect persons have the promises of the new Covenant made to them; none but an elect person hath the promise, that God will write his Laws in his heart, be his God, &c. And therefore none but such in truth are in the covenant of grace, though others may be in show in it and accounted so by us.

Mr. Josiah Church in his Book forenamed pag. 41. interposeth thus, 1. Spiritual and temporal promises may be said to make a mixed Covenant, but not a mixed Evangelical Covenant; for a mixed Gospel Covenant is a Covenant partly of works, and partly of grace, and the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament was not mixed after that manner; for the Law was not given until four hun • red and thirty years after i • , and then it was not mixed with it, but only annexed to it, Gal. 3.17.

Answer. Mr. Church his Confession, that spiritual and temporal promises may be said to make a mixed Covenant, is as much as I need to justify my speech Exercit. pag 2. who did not call the Covenant made with Abraham mixed in any other sense.

But, saith he, • ▪ the difference was only in the dispensation, and not in the substance of the Covenant: the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament was as p • rely Evangelical as this, whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament: for the Gospel is said to be preached unto them as well as to us, and the temporal promises were Evangelical and belonged to believers, as such; for because of unbelief many obtained them not, Heb. 3.19. Also there are temporal promises in this dispensation, and the people of God have Christ and all other things by the same charter, Matth. 5.5. & 6.33. Rom. 9.32. Ezek. 36.25, 30.

Answer. If there were difference in the promises, there was difference in the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham and ours. It is proved from Gal. 3.8. that the covenant made with Abraham was Evangelical, but not purely Evangelical. It is not true, that the temporal promises Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. belonged to believers as such. For though many through unbelief entered not into C • naan, Heb. 3.19. yet neither all nor only believers entered in. The Gospel was preached to them as well as to us, Heb. 4.2. but not either by so purely Evangelical a covenant, nor in so perspicuous a way. We have temporal promises now, but not the same, nor by the same charter.

As for what he adds, that the promises sealed in the former dispensation were principally spiritual. I grant it, but deny it any absurdity, to say, that no promise was sealed to many circumcised infants, that their souls were not profited, nor any benefit to them by circumcision, though there was profit by it attainable and attained by many; more than which to the present purpose is not gathered from Rom 2.1, 2.

I return to Mr. M. I take his grants pag. 99. That Circumcision was comprehended in his, &c. as belonging to the manner of administration af the Covenant together with sacrifice • , and that the Covenant of grace was administered by sacrifices and other types before Circumcision was instituted ; and so blot out my second exception against his first conclusion▪ only it is to be observed that pag. 187. he doth cross himself. For whereas here he grants it to belong to the manner of administration, not to the substance of the covenant, there he will have it to belong to the substance of the Covenant not as a part of it, but as a means of applying it. And this is in effect all one as in his language to say, it belongs not to the substance of the covenant, for of it only are the parts, but to the administration. For how doth it administer it but as a means of applying it?

But my third Exception requires more reviewing. Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 14. had mentioned besides Christ and true believers a third sort of Abraham's seed not born Jews, but made Proselytes, who were Abraham's seed by profession who sought justification by the works of the Law did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God ; and alleged • all. 4 29. for it.

Against this I excepted 1. that I thought he could not show where in Scripture such are called Abraham's seed.

To this he replies, 1. That he named not Proselytes to add any strength to the argument, it had been enough for his purpose to have said, Some in the Church of the Jews were visible members, yet not inwardly godly, and these were called Abraham's seed as well as others.

Answ. I should have yielded to call such, if they were Jews by birth or nature, Abraham's seed; but not so of any Proselyte, and so Mr. M. had not his purpose, of applying the term [ Abraham's seed] to Gentiles who were believers only in profession, much less to Gentiles who did not so much as profess faith in Christ, but sought righteousness by the works of the Law.

2. He saith, He never expected to have met with a quarrel for calling them, who joined to the Church by that cowmon name whereby the Church-members were called, viz. the seed of Abraham or the children of Israel.

Answer. There was no quarrel in my words: but if Mr. M. did not expect that, his sayings in that Sermon would be sifted to the bran; it was his oversight. They that doubted of the divine warrant of Paedobaptism had very great cause to discuss that Sermon being preached and printed at that time by such a man, and taken to be the sense of the Assembly of Divines then • itting at Westminster.

He says, The seed of Abraham or the children of Israel were the common name by which Church-members joined to the Church of Israel were called: but he proves it not, and till he do prove it, I reject it.

3. Saith he, And could no place of Scripture be produced where Proselytes are expressly called by this name, the matter were no • Tanti.

Answer. It would follow then that the promise Gen. 17.7. of being God to Abraham 's seed is not meant of Gentile Proselytes, who were only by profession God's people, not in reality; much less of their natural seed, and this would make most of the infants baptized unbaptizable by Paedobaptists own p • inciples; for sure the do not take the natural infant children of them that are not Abraham's seed to be in the covenant, Gen. 17.7. and therefore must confess them unbaptized.

4. Saith he, But if it were a thing of any m • men • , it would be no hard matter to produce evidence sufficient to prove that Proselytes were called Israelites and the seed of Abraham, as Acts 2.10. & 22. compared Acts 13.26. compared with v. 43. but I forbear.

Ans. Of what moment it is, hath been said. I think it would be a very hard matter out of those Texts to prove any Proselytes, much less such as were only visible Church-members of the Jews, seeking justification by works, not submitting to God's righteousness, Abraham's seed. In the former of the Texts is not the term Abraham's seed, which was the term in question, nor do the Verses compared prove that the Proselytes mentioned v. 10. are called v. 22. Men of Israel, anymore than Men of Judea and dwellers at Jerusalem, v. 14. nor doth it appear they were called Men of Israel, v. 22. in any other sense than as Israelite by generation.

The later Text mentions the children of the stock of Abraham, v. 26. but so called by natural generation opposite to the Gentiles, as v. 46. shows, not Proselytes called Abraham's seed, though self-justiciaries and God's people only, so far as outward profession, yea, children of the stock of Abraham are there distinguished from those among them that feared God, that is, Proselytes.

I told Mr. M. that he joined with Arminius, in calling self-justiciary Proselytes Abraham 's seed: which Mr. Bayn denied.

He saith, He joined not with Arminius, that I mis-allege Arminius, join with Servetus.

To which I reply no more than I have done in my Apology, pag. 22. Sect. 5.

To acquit himself from what I charge him with, that Mr. Bayn opposeth him, he brings words six lines before of Mr. Bayns, that say [children of the flesh] in some other Scripture doth note out justiciaries, and that these words clear him, and that I was guilty of negligence or falsehood.

But sure I must continue still this charge against Mr. M. and add further an imputation of negligence at least, if not of falsehood, who heeded not that the words of Mr. Bayn which I alleged say as much, that the term [children of the flesh] elsewhere signified self-justiciaries though not there; yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoined is never so t • ken. Now I did not charge with this that he had no Scripture to prove self-justiciaries to be called children of the flesh; but that he had no Scripture to prove self-justiciary Proselytes called Abraham's seed, which M • Bayn saith, is never so taken, and therefore Mr. Bayns words clear him not but condemn him.

Mr. M. says, I speak of Abraham 's seed by calling, and that the promise [I will be the God of thy seed] was made good in the calling the Gentiles, all which were not partakers of an inward calling, and therefore yield a seed of Abraham only by profession. But that which I say I mean not of a mere outward calling, nor of all the Gentiles who are outwardly called.

I excepted also against Mr. Blake for making some Abraham 's seed in the bosom of the Church now, who are born after the flesh, and thereby have a Church-interest or a birth-right to Church-privileges: and that he grossly alleged for this Gal. 4.29.

And Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 14. saith, We have also some (meaning in the Church) who are only a holy seed by external profession, Gal. 4 29.

What Mr. Blake replied hereto in his Answer to my Letter is answered in the Postscript to my Apology, Sect. 5. what he hath said in his Vindic. Foed. cap. 41. is answered in the second part of this Review Sect. 18.

Mr. M. wonders at my calling those passages very gross, and tells me,

1. That it is apparent Ishmael and the civil justiciaries, of which he was Type, had a visible standing in the Jewish Church, and were the same of whom Paul speaks, Rom. 10.3. and that in the same place Paul himself saith, Even so it is now (even in the Church of Galatia it was so) and Paul by his doctrine labored to make them better) I see not why Mr. Blake might not use this as an argument, that some have a visible Church-membership, and ought to partake of outward Church-privileges, notwithstanding they will not have the inheritance of children unless they repent.

Answer. If this had been all Mr. Blake inferred from Gal. 4.29. I should have granted the conclusion, though I deny his Exposition, and the proposition he raiseth from the Text.

But it is another thing that Mr. Blake and Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 14. would have. Mr. M. that Gal 4.29. There is mention of some who are only a holy seed by external profession, and here expounds [even so it is now] in the Church of Galatia, there is a different seed of Abraham, one which is holy only by external profession, seeking righteousness by the works of the Law, and have thereby a visible Church-membership, and ought to partake of outward Church-privileges, which is clean besides the meaning of the Apostle, who doth not say, Even so it is now in the Church of Galatia, but simply [ Even so it is now ] that is, it so happens in the world, they that seek the righteousness by the works of the Law persecute them that are born after the spirit, that is, who through the spirit do wait for the hope of the righteousness which is by faith ! which was true in the Jews, who persecuted the Apostles and other Christians out of zeal for the Law. Now these had no visible standing in the Christian Church, nor is the term [ born after the flesh ] taken in the better part so as to import a privilege a holy seed by external profession, but in the worser part, for an unholy seed by external profession and practice persecuting the Christian faith and hope.

Mr. Blake exponds [ being born aft • r the flesh ] as if it imported a privilege, whereas it imports a cursed estate opposite to [ being born after the spirit ] and would have derived a title to Church-interest of some in the bosom of the Christian Church, particularly believers infants: whereas to be horn after the flesh is applied there to persecuting unbelievers, who were not in the Church, but cast out, nor had any Church-interest by virtue of being born after the flesh, but had an opposing enmity to it thereby. Nor is it said of infants that they were born after the flesh, but of such as persecuted them that were born after the spirit ; nor is there a word intitling them that were born after the flesh in that respect Abraham's seed, though Ishmael their Type, and the Jews his Antitype were Abraham's natural seed. So that M M. is mistaken in conceiving that which offends me in Mr. Blake's expression is, that he thinks there is a fleshly seed of Abraham; for I grant the Jewish self-justiciaries were such. But I conceive a gross absurdity in Mr. Blake, that he takes [ being born after the flesh ] in the better part, as importing the privilege of Church-interest to infants of believers, and calling such as are born after the flesh Abraham's seed by way of privilege derived from that birth, importing the seed of such to be visible members in the Christian Church, of which I still conceive I passed a right censure in my Examen for the Reasons given, however Mr. Blake and his Seconds take it.

SECT. XXVI. The mixture of the Covenant Gen. 17. as by me asserted is vindicated from Mr. Blake 's Exceptions, Vind. Foed. c. 26.

BUt I am necessitated to have mo • e work with Mr. Blake, of whom I may say, (whatever his worth be, and how excellent soever his Treatise be accounted of by those who have commended it in their Epistle, and others in other respects) that not only in his Preface to the Reader he doth unchristianly accuse me of scorn, and disrespect, of falsifica • ions such as a man might th • nk I had at once cast off all regard either of conscience or reputation without either cause or show of proof, but also of a high spirit, of bloody revenge, of uttering reviling words against the Church of Christ, having the same spirit with the Jesuits, from those things which were innocent of any such spirit, and one grain of charitable candour with a little heed of my carriages and speeches might have freed me from, who do not anywhere charge him or my Antagonists with such kind of accusations, though I censure their arguings somewhat more freely than they think meet, who are not to be judges in their own cause.

And for the Book throughout there are so many misconstructions of my words, and so many satyrical quips and taunts instead of any clear disputing, that I can discern little or nothing of any brotherly affection to me, or study of truth in that part of his Vind. Foed. wherein he opposeth me. In his Preface to the Reader after those hard speeches of me forementioned, after his venting his conceit, as if that wherein he opposeth me were of least use in regard that point to great satisfaction hath been spoken to at large: of which I wish he had told in what part, and by whom such satisfaction is given, that I might have found it in his, Mr. Bs. or others writings, who yet find no cause to recede from this opinion, that they have perverted the truth, and insufficiently handled the argument of infant-baptism) and having contemptuously mentioned me; As one generally looked upon low enough under hatches, saith thus, I must assert the spirituality of the old Covenant, and maintain that the Gospel was preached as well to them as to us, that they a • e the same spiritual meat and drank the same spiritual drink, and here by him I am opposed.

To which I answer, In this charge I may say truly in words of meekness, having answered this very crimination in my Addition to my Apology in answer to Mr. Bailey, Sect. 2. that I am impudently belied, supposing that by the old Covenant he means the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. which is termed the promises, the Covenant that was confirmed of God in Christ before the Law four hundred and thirty years after, and distinguished from it Gal. 3, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. And this Mr. Blake might have discerned, yea, I conceive did discern, when he from my words Exercit. pag. 2. conceived my meaning to be that Abraham had promises of bliss and in reference to eternal salvation, Vind. Foed. cap. 26. pag. 181. But that I may vindicate myself and the truth more fully from Mr. Blake's injurious dealings I shall take a view of that Chapter.

First, Mr. Blake saith falsely of me, that I am loath to yield to so much truth as to confess the old Covenant (meaning that Gen. 17.) to be a Covenant Evangelical, when as I grant Exercit. pag. 2. some of the promises were Evangelical, and that the Covenant hath denomination from the promises. Then he calumniates me in his spiteful fashion to make me odious and my writing suspected, as if I went in company with Jesuits, whom he calls my old Friends, and saith untruly I glean so much from them in this controversy ; and adds tha • I cast infants out of the Covenant and Church-membership, and so exclude them from Baptism: whereas I have often acknowledged they are many of them in the Covenant of grace truly so called, and the invisible Church of the elect, which Protestants assert against Papists to be most properly termed the Church of Christ; nor do I exclude infants from baptism because they are cast out of the Covenant and Church-membership, but because they are not Disciple • whom Christ appointed to be baptized, Matth. 28.19.

Next he excepts against me for saying, The Covenant made with Abraham is not a pure Gospel-covenant, but mixed; concerning which, 1. Mr. Blake saith, This expression of Mr. T. is very untoward, and such that will bear no fai • sense without the utter overthrow, even of that difference between the Covenants, which he would build on this distinction. The untowardness is in denying purity of Gospel the first Covenant and affirming a mixture. That which is not pure but mixed, is a compound of pure and impure; such that hath some ingredients such as they ought, and others such that make all adulterate; as silver mingled with dross, or wine with water, Isai 1.22.

Answer. Mr. Blake me thinks should know that there are mixtures which do not adulterate. There's a natural mixture defined by Aristotle, The union of bodies miscible altered, as in mixed bodies compound of the four Elements reduced to a just temperament, without adultetating all. There's an artificial mixture in Medicines, of Wine and Sugar, of divers Metalls in Bells cast, in which and many more there's no such impurity as that there are some ingredients, such as they ought, and others such as make all adulterate; and therefore there's no untowardness in the expression; yea, the expression is so usual in morality, as when voluntary is divided into purely voluntary and mixed, in Divinity the state of grace is either pure or mixed, &c. that I presumed none would have quarrelled with it, if my meaning be right. Let's see what Mr. Blake saith of my meaning.

He tells us, that the false Teachers (St. Paul 's Adversaries) preach such a mixed Gospel, a compound of that which was pure and impure; when they urged with such vehemency a mixture of works. But do I call anywhere the Gospel mixed? or do I preach any such mixture? Mr. Blake himself acquits me, when he saith, This sure is not his meaning. What then doth Mr. Blake take my meaning to be? I will set down his own words, that the Reader may judge of his dealing with me. What then can be his meaning but that Abraham had promises, not only of bliss, and in reference to eternal salvation; but he had premises also of earthly concernment, as that of the Land of Canaan, and his plantation there? This seems to be his meaning by the words that presently follow: The Covenant takes it • s denomination from the promises, but the promises are mixed; some Evangelical, belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth; some are domestic or civil promise • , specially respecting the house of Abraham, and the policy of Israel, to this I readily agree.

Answer. If Mr. Blake readily agree to that which in his own conceit seemed to be my meaning, with what conscience or with what face could he so falsely charge me, as opposing him in these things, that spirituality of the old Covenant, the preaching of the Gospel as well to them as to us, their eating the same spiritual meat, and drinking the same spiritual drink, as he doth in his Preface, and here of untowardness in my expression, and such as will bear no fair sense without the overthrow, even of that difference between the Covenants which I would build on this distinction. But let's consider his Reason of this last Speech.

To this, saith he, I readily agree, and then his distinction falls to nothing.

Answer. I should rather have imagined that the contrary follows, that if Mr. Blake do readily agree to my explication of the mixture of the Covenant, that my distinction comes to something, being confirmed by Mr. Blake's suffrage, unless he take it for nothing.

But let's follow Mr. Blake, Seeing in Gospel-times, in New Testament days, this will denominate not a pure but mixed Gospel, we are under such a Gosp • l.

Answer. 1. Mr. Blake alters the term distinguished. I did not distinguish of a pure Gospel and a mixed Gospel, as he intimates I did, but of a pure Covenant and a mixed Covenant, and asserted not the Gospel preached to Abraham to be mixed, but the Covenant made with Abraham. 2. It is false, that we are under such a mixed Gospel, as he imagined I asserted; but Mr. Blake confirms his Assertion thus.

I know not how we could pray in faith, Give us this day our daily bread; in case we were without a promise of these things, or how man could live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, in case we had no word from God.

Answer. A believer may pray for daily bread in faith trusting on God's goodness, as he is a Creator, as our Savior argues Matth. 6.26. as he is a Father in Christ, Matth 7.11. as he hath made general promises, Mark 10 30. Matth. 7.7, 8. as he hath made special promises, Prov. 10.3. Psalm 34.10. confirmed by constant experience, Psalm 37.25. by the great assurance of the gift of Christ, Rom. 8.32. though the special promises domestic or civil specially respecting the house of Abraham and the policy of Israel, belonging not to him The word, De • t. 8.3. I take to be his word of power or command, such as that Psalm 33.5. not his word of promise; yet if it be meant of his word of promise, there are other promises by which the Patriarchs afore Abraham, and the believers since have lived without the domestic or civil promises specially respecting the house of Abraham, and the policy of Israel.

But Mr. Blake adds, The Apostle tells us, Godliness hath the promise of this life, and that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4.8. It would trouble many a perplexed man in case he could not make good, that those words, Verily thou shalt be fed, Psalm 37.3. did not at all belong to him. There is no believing man in any relation but he hath Gospel-promises in concernment to that relation, as appears in that speech of Paul 's encouragement of Servants, Ephes. 6.8. It were ill with all sorts, had not they their domestic relation-promises.

Answer. All this is true, and yet it is true also that the special promises domestic or civil specially respecting the house of Abraham and policy of Israel belong not to every believer.

Mr. Bl. saith, I place great confidence in my proof this mixture of the Covenant. And sets down my words Apolog. 127. averring my proof so full as that I wonder Mr. M. Mr. Blake, and others, are not ashamed to except against it, that what I deliver is plain according to Scripture, that there were some peculiar promises made to Abraham, Gen. 17. which are not made to every believer, that the words 1 Tim. 4.8. is not to the present purpose, for it doth not follow therefore that godliness hath the promise of the Land of Canaan, or that Christ should be every godly man's seed. And then adds, I think I shall more gratify the Reader in leaving this to his smile, than in giving any refutation of it; if he could assume that there is no earth but that of Canaan, or at least that no other promise of earth but that will serve to make a mixture, then he spake somewhat to the purpose; otherwise it will be believed, that our promises under the Gospel of things of earth as well serve to make up a mixture as Abraham 's promise of the Land of Canaan.

Answer. Whether Mr. Blake's talk or mine be ridiculous the Reader may judge. My speech is to purposes aimed at by me, to wit, the enervating the arguings from Abraham's Covenant and Circumcision for infant-baptism, by showing that the Covenant Gen. 17. was not a pure Gospel-covenant, that is, having no promises but what belongs to every believer, and consequently Baptism not sealing the same covenant every way which circumcision did, and therefore there is not the same reason from the covenant why infants should be baptized though they were circumcised. And this purpose I doubt not to attain though I grant there is other earth than that of Canaan, and that there may be other promises of earth besides▪ that which will serve to make a mixture, and yet the promises of things of earth as now extant under the Gospel do not as well serve to make up the mixture I assert in Abraham's covenant, promising the Land of Canaan to be in the covenant of pure Evangelical grace as now it stands, since those promises of earth and this life are made to every believer or godly man now, whereas the promises of Canaan and other things specially respecting the house of Abraham and policy of Israel Gen. 17. and elsewhere were not made to L • t and other godly believers it is likely then living, nor to Gentile-believers now under the Gospel. Mr. Bl. goes on thus.

2. As his expression is untoward, so taking him at the best his proof is weak, that the Covenant takes its denomination from the promises; but the promises are mixed. The most eminent promises (which contain the m • rrow of all) give the denomination, and not such that are annexed as appendants to them.

Answ. Though the most eminent promises may give the denomination of the covenant to be an Evangelical covenant, yet to denominate it a pure Evangelical covenant it is necessary that not only the most eminent, but also that all the promises be Evangelical: as though a man may be termed a Saint from the habitual purpose and bent of his heart, and the constant course of his actions, yet he is not denominated purely a Saint but from the entire and universal purpose, bent, inclination of his heart, and entireness of holiness in his actions without the least inconformity to it.

Mr. Bl. proceeds thus, Such as is the promise of the Land of Canaan, an appendant to the great Covenant made of God with Abraham, as Chamier with good warrant from the Text Gen 17.7, 8. calls it lib. de baptis. cap. Sect. The Covenant being made of God to be a God of Abraham and his seed (which might have been made good wheresoever they had inhabited or sojourned) the promise of Canaan is over and above added to it. The reason given by M. T. for his dislike of Chamier 's expression, calling it an Appendix to the Covenant, is little to purpose, Psalm 105.10, 15. The gift of the Land of Canaan is called a Covenant, and therefore not an appendant to it. By the same reason Circumcision must be the Covenant, and not a seal appendant to it; seeing Circumcision is called a Covenant, Gen. 17▪10. Mr. T. is not ignorant of th • se Scripture Metonymies▪

Answ. I find Chamier lib. de baptis. cap. 10. Sect. 23. saying, That the promise of Canaan is not the Covenant, but an Appendix to the Covenant.

But I find not that he produceth any warrant from the Text Gen. 17.7, 8. to call it so, nor that he doth any other way go about to prove it, but that the words Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God and of thy seed. Which he calls the covenant, is ill explained of earthly happiness, either as the chief or only happiness, there meant which he proves from Matth▪ 22.32. Nor is there any force in this Reason, The promise of Canaan is added, v. 8. over and above the promise v. 7. therefore it was an appendix and not the covenant. For if this reason be good, it might be said, The promise v. 7. is not the covenant, but an appendix to it, cause it is added over and above the promise, v. 4. Add as for me, behold my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many Nations, which is termed God's covenant with him, Gen. 18.8. yea, me thinks the argument is good to the contrary, the promise Gen. 17.8. was added over and above the promise v. 7. and closed with this Epiphoneme, And I will be their God; therefore it was a part of the covenant, yea a main part of it. Nor because the promise v. 7. might have been made good wheresoever they had inhabited or sojourned. Doth it follow that the promise v. 8. was not a part of the covenant, for by the same reason neither the promise v. 4. that Abraham should be a father of many Nations, had been a part of the covenant, since the promise v. 7. might have been made good though he had been father of one Nation only.

Mr. Blake doth not rightly form my Reason from Psalm 105.8, 9, 10, 11. thus, The gift of the Land of Canaan is called a covenant, and therefore not an appendant to it, but thus it is in my Examen part 3. Sect. 2. the Psalmist calls the promise of Canaan the covenant made with Abraham, Psalm 105.8, 9, 10, 11. therefore it is a part of the covenant, and not only an appendix. Nor doth it follow that then circumcision must be the covenant, for it is confessedly called the covenant Gen. 17.10. by a Metonimy, and v. 11. shows it where it is said, And it shall be the token of the covenant between me and you. But it cannor be expounded by a Metonimy Psalm 105.8, 9, 10, 11.

For, 1. The gift of the Land of Canaan was not a sign of the covenant, nor can with any good sense be called the covenant according to any other sort of Metonimy besides that of the thing signified for the sign.

2. If it could, yet the phrases used show it cannot be understood Metonimically; For it is called as well, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations, the covenant which he made with Abraham, the oath unto Isaac, which he confirmed to Jacob for a Law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant; and when it is recited the Psalmist prefixeth v. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which our Translation read, saying, Junius, Piscator, dicendo, which doth directly tell us wherein it was that the covenant he made did formally consist, which he is said to remember v. 8. which thing is so clearly expressed Nehem. 9.8. Gen. 26.3. & 28.3, 4, 13, 14, &c. that I should wonder Mr. Bl. should persist in this wrangling course to question a thing so plain, but that I see him tenacious of absurdities he vents though never so gross, as from his exposition and inference from Gal. 4.29, and other passages hath been made appear.

Mr. Bl. adds, 3. As his proof is weak, to make the covenant not a pure Gospel-covenant, but mixed; so in the third place, he is not constant to himself, pointing that out which he makes pure Gospel, (Gen. 17.5. Gen. 12.3. Gen. 18 18. illustrated by some New Testament Scriptures Rom. 4.17, 18. Gal. 3▪ 8, 9, 16. Acts 3.25.) he observes yea it is to be noted, that those promises which were Evangelical according to the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost, do point at the privileges of Abraham's house in the outward face of the words, and thereupon raises a doubt, whether any covenant made with Abraham be simply Evangelical? And so he can find out Evangelical promises in the inwards of that covenant, which is non-evangelical in the outward face; so Bellarmine, with whom he so much (to speak in his own language) symbolizeth, can find out spiritual Evangelical promises in that which he concluded to be of another nature; denying that the promise made to Abraham in the letter, was any promise of forgiveness of sins, but of special protection and government, and earthly happiness; yet confesseth that in a mystical sense they were spiritual promises, both of pardon of sin and life eternal, and that they belong to us, Bellar. de Sacram. Bapt. lib. 1. cap. 4. whereof Chamier observes, that which is promised mystically God in covenant doth promise; but Heaven is here promised mystically; therefore in this covenant here is a promise of Heaven; so the inward and outward face will be all Evangelical.

Answ. Mr. Bl. mis-recites my words; 1. in saying, That I point out in the Texts Gen. 17.5. & 15.5. & 12.3. & 18.18. that which I make pure Gospel; for my words are, that was Evangelical which we read Gen. 17.5, &c. not that it was pure Gospel.

2. That I raise a doubt whether [any] covenant made with Abraham be simply Evangelical? whereas my words are, whence it may be well doubted, whether [this] covenant made with Abraham may be called simply Evangelical, not whether [any] which is the same with that speech forecited Sect 25. of Mr. All • n, This covenant was not simply and one • y the covenant of grace. But what inconstancy to myself giving and taking, not knowing what to determine, is in those speeches, or in that other which he most excepts against: yea, it is to be noted, &c. I am yet to learn. Do I ei • her by saying that the promises were Evangelical say that they were purely Ev • ngelical not mixed) or by doubting whether they may be called simply Evanglical revoke what I said, that they were Evangelical? I think Mr. Blak • will as soon extract water out of a Flint as such inferences from my words. Young Legicians do know that to argue a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter is • allacious. As for my speech which he saith symbolizeth with Bellarmine, if it be true, it is not the worse for that: nor did I blame Mr. M. for symbolizing with Arminius in a truth, but for agreeing with him in that explication which doth undermine the true explication of Rom. 9.8. which the Contraremonstrants prove from the Text. If Bellarmine did by mystical sense mean the same which I did by the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost, and by the Letter what I express by the outward face of the words, I see not that either Chamier or Mr. Bl. have or can prove it false. The sense in the outward face of the words I call that which a Linguist who knows what words signify would conceive upon reading without any other revelation from the Holy Ghost. But I cannot believe that any Linguist without other revelation than what the bare words hold forth would ever have understood these promises, A father of many Nations have I made thee, I will be a God to thee and thy seed. Thus Gentiles as well as Jews shall believe in Christ, I will justify, raise thee up, and all that are my Elect, or who believe as thou dost to eternal life. I grant Chamiers conclusion, In this Covenant here is a promise of Heaven, and yet deny that the outward face of the covenant Gen. 17. is all Evangelical, nor is there a word in Mr. Blake's that proves it.

Mr. Blake proceeds thus, Lastly, Mr. T. yet knows not how to bring anything home (were all granted) to serve his interest. And then sets down what he conceives to be my meaning, which he thus opposeth.

First, that orthodox Divines both ancient and modern have made Circumcision to be of the same signification and use as Baptism, and till Anabaptists closed they had no Adversaries, but Papists, who to advance their opus operatum in the Sacraments of the New Testament will have them as far to exceed the Old, as Heaven doth Earth, and the substance doth the shadow ; and then cites a speech of Chamier Panst. Ca • h. tom. 4. lib. 2. cap. 9. sect. 58. and prosecutes his calumnies of my borrowing my weapons I use against infant-baptism from the Jesuits, to all which I answer.

1. That I grant that Circumcision and Baptism are in part of the same signification and use, nor did I ever deny it; but in as many and more things they differ, which I have shown Exercit. Sect. 2. Examen part. 3. Sect. 9. in this part of the Review, Sect. 11. and those disparities I prove out of Scripture and the best learned and approved Protestant Writers. Nor do I agree with the Jesuits in holding Baptism to confer grace ex op • re operato, nor do I undervalue the Covenant with Abraham and his seed as no Gospel-covenant, nor do I deny Circumcision to have been the seal of a Gospel-promise. As Mr. Blake doth calumniate me, and to make odious doth fa • sly and injuriously suggest I took from the Jesuits. But this I confess I hold Exercit. Sect. 1. that there is not the same reason of Circumcision and Baptism, in signing the Evangelical Covenant; nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like manner of administering the other, of both which speeches I have given an account in that place which I find not yet invalidated; and if they hold, the analogy between infant-circumcision and infant-baptism is evacuated, there being difference between the covenant made with Abraham and the new covenant though both be in some sort Evangelical; and therefore the mixture of the covenant will serve my interest in this point.

2. It is false which Mr. Blake saith, That my conformity with the Jesuits about the difference between Circumcision and Baptism to maintain the opus operatum of the one to the disparagement of the other, as if Baptism exceeded Circumcision as far as the substance the shadow, did put me upon it to affirm, that what all Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable is no undeniable axiom: for neither do I conform to Jesuits in • that point, nor was such conformity any reason of that speech, but the words of Mr. M. in his Sermon, as the reading of the words of my Examen pag. 113. show. And I say still that speech is a truth, and necessary to be avouched by all those who ascribe only authentic authority to the holy Scripture. Nor is it reasonable to require that I should show any such error as is maintained by all Protestant Divines against Papists.

For, 1. it is not possible for me to show what all Protestant Divines hold against Papists.

2. Nor is it necessary to verify my speech which avoucheth not any such error in act, but only the possibility of it, which is sufficiently made good by p • oving them not infallible.

And to the demand how Popery should be known if that be no: Popery which all Protestant Divines defend against the Papists.

I answer. 1. it may be counted Popery and yet perhaps a truth which all Protestant Divines oppose.

2. What is Popery which we have engaged ourselves to extirpate is better known in the ways I set down Ap. p. 133, 134. Sect. 13. than in Mr. Blake's way.

For, 1. it is not possible for any man no not the greatest Reader in Controversies to know what all Protestant Divines defend against Papists.

2. If that be the Rule to know Popery by, many things will not be taken for Popery which are, there being many Tenants which are counted Popery which Protestants Divines and those of good note have not opposed, but have granted many things favourably to them, as not only the Collections of Brerely and such like Papists, but also the Treatises of the Cassandrian writers, and late Episcopal Protestant do show, which yet I do not approve of.

I agree with Mr. Blake that there is less likelihood that the truth should be with the Papists than with the Protestants, and yet there may be some truth which some Papists may discern which many Protestants do not. It is the saying of Doctor Twisse Vind. Grat. lib. 1. part. 2. sect. 25. digress. 8. num. 3. But I would not that those things should be rejected of us, because the Schoolmen hold them; for neither do the Cretans fain all things. Augustine's judgment was esteemed better than the Pelagians as being the oracle of his time, yet he is censured as the hard father of infants for maintaining their damnation if they died unbaptized. Calvin was in high esteem as the great Light of the Protestant Churches, who have many of them followed him in the point about usury, yet the Popish and Prelatical Divines are generally counted by our most zealous Preachers more right in that point than the transmarine Calvinists.

It is a wicked calumny which Mr. Blake vents whe he saith of me, that I 〈◊〉 in upon the party of these sons of Anak, meaning the Jesuits. Had he any other than a malignant spirit towards me, he would have judged that not to side with Jesuits, but to keep my Oath which I took in the solemn Covenant I did oppose infant-baptism, in maintaining of which he and the rest of the Paedobaptists have broken the covenant, whereby they bound themselves to reform the worship of God after the Word of God. And for what he chargeth me with, that I borrow my weapons from the Jesuits, though my denial is enough to acquit me from it, there being none but knows my actions better than myself, and with men not malevolent to me I think my words at least deserve as much credit concerning my own actions as Mr. Blake's, yet as I said so I repeat it, it appears to be a loud calum • y in that all along in my Examen, and now in my other writings almost in every point I produce Protestants of good note concurring with me, not only in the point about the extent of the covenant Examen sect. 4. part. 3. and the holiness of children, 1 Cor. 7.14. Exam. part. 3. sect. 8. Exerc. sect. 5. Review part. 1. sect. 22. but also about the institution, Mat. 28.19. Review part. 2. sect. 5. even in this point of the mixture of the covenant in the Section next before this. Yea, the Principle upon which I found all my dispute is that which Mr. Cotton in his Preface to his Dialogue for infant-baptism confesseth to be a main principle of purity and reformation. And though Protestant writers do many of them oppose my conclusion, yet they do agree with me in the premisses on which I build it, to wit, that Baptism is to be after the institution, and that neither the institution nor practice in the New Testament was of Paedobaptism, and all Paedobaptists whether Presbyterians or Independents who do hold that inf • nts belong to the visible Church as the posterity of Abraham to the Jewish Church • o injuriously keep them whose Baptism they avouch to be good, and to be vi •• ble Church-members, from the Lord's Supper for want of knowl • dg; as for what he tells me, He can trace me out of some Jesuit in what I de ••• er • bout the Covenant and Seal, though I do not yet believe it, yet there is no reason therefore to reject it, as Doctor 〈◊〉 saith truly.

Bishop Morton in his Apology hath produced Popish writers and many of them Jesuits who deliver the same things which the Protestants do; yet this is so f • r from discrediting their cause that it is justly counted a good plea for them, and why should not the like plea be good on my behalf, since Jesuits are Adversaries to me, as well as others? But enough if not too much in answer to these calumnies sufficiently answered before, Postscript Sect. 13.

Mr. Blake proceeds thus, Secondly, if Circumcision have respect to those promises that were no Gospel-mercies, but civil, domestical, restrained to Jews, and not appertaining to Christians; How could it be a distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion, it might have made a civil distinction, and the want of it have been an evidence against other Nations, that they had been none of the multiplied seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and that their interest had not been in Canaan. But how could it have concluded them to have been without Christ, strangers from the Covenant of promise, having no hope and without God in the world, as the Apostle determines upon their uncircumcision▪ Ephes. 2.11, 12. cannot be imagined.

Ans. 1. Circumcision did not make such a distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion, as that every circumcised person was of the Jewish Religion: for if the posterity of Ishmael and Esau were not circumcised as Mohammedans at this day (which some Historians say of them at least for a time that they were) yet Ahab and other worshiperps of Baal were of the posterity of Jacob, and the Samaritans, as Mr. Mede in his Discourse on John 4.23. were circumcised, yet were not of the Jewsh Religion, or at least there was a distinction in Religion between them John 4.22. No • everyone that worshipped the same God with the Jews was circumcised. Cornelius and many other Proselytes of the gate owned the God and spiritual worship, and moral Law of the Jews, though they were not circumcised, as Mr. Mede proves in his Discourse on Acts 17.4. nor doth the Apostle Ephes. 2.11, 12. determine upon their uncircumcision, that is, conclude them without hope, without God, barely from their uncircumcision, as if he held all uncircumcised were without hope, without God: but he only sets those things down as concurrent, not one the certain cause or sign of the other.

2. Circumcision did distinguish between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion, not because it sealed Gospel-mercies, nor because it sealed promises of civil or domestic benefits▪ but because it bound to the observance of the Law of Moses, in respect of the observation of which the distinction in Religion was known by Circumcision not by its sealing the covenant-promises, either Evangelical, or civil and domestic.

3. If the distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion were made by Circumcision as sealing the covenant, Gen. 17. it might have made a religious distinction by my Tenet, who hold it signed the spiritual promises, though not them only, as well: as by Mr. Blake's.

The next thing which Mr. Blake urgeth against me from Jerem. 4.4. Rom. 2.28. Deut. 10.16. Deut. 30.6. Ezek. 44.9. is that Circumcision had relation to promises spiritual, which is not denied, nor anything against the mixture I hold in the covenant, nor to evacuate any inference I make from it.

In like manner the fourth tends to prove that Circumcision did not respect alone the civil interest of the Jews, which I grant. But the fifth thing urged by Mr. Blake needs some examination.

Fifthly, saith he, How is it that the Apostle giving a definition of Circumcision refers it to nothing rational, civil or domestic, but only to that which is purely spiritual, speaking of Abraham, he saith, he received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised? The righteousness of faith is a promise purely Evangelical, Rom. 3.22. & 3.30. & 10.3. Phil. 3.8. and this Circumcision sealed, the self-same thing that our Sacraments seal.

Answer. The Apostle doth not give a definition of Circumcision, Rom. 4.11, 12. For, 1. that which is to be defined is, say Logicians, a common term, but Circumcision Rom. 4.11. is not a common term, but a singular, or individual, to wit, that which Abraham had in his own person, it is that which he received, and the time is noted to be after he had righteousness by faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised, for a singular privilege to be the father of believers.

Ergo 2. There is no genus, nor difference of Circumcision from other things, therefore no definition. No genus, for the term [seal] cannot be the genus, it being a mere Metaphor, and so not declaring what it is, but what it is like, in respect of the use. Besides, Circumcision is an action, but Seal is in the Predicament of relation, as being a sign, or a figure in the Predicament of quality, or an aggregate compound of a material substance, having a figure for signification. But the genus is in the same Predicament with the species, and so is not [Seal] with [Circumcision] Ergo. For doth Seal of the righteousness of faith agree to all Circumcision, nor difference it from the Spirit of God; nor according to the Paedobaptists Hypothesis, from the Pass-over, Baptism, or the Lord's Supper.

Mr. Blake adds, So that their extraordinary Sacraments are expressly affirmed to be the same with ours by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10.3. They eat all the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink, so are their appointed established Sacraments, Circumcision and the Pass-over.

Answer. 1. The extraordinary Sacraments are said to note the same thing with ours, not expressly affirmed to be the same with ours.

2▪ It is nowhere said in Scripture that Circumcision and the Pass-over did note the same thing with our Sacraments, much less that they are the same Sacraments with ours.

Mr. Blake adds, Will Mr. T. with his old friend Bellarmine lib. 1. cap. 17. de Saramentis in genere, and Mr. Blackwood in his Reply to the tenth Objection, deny that Circumcision was an universal seal of faith, but was only an individual seal of the undividual faith of Abraham, and so all falls to the ground which is spoken from that Text of the use of Circumcision to the Jews. All that is there spoken, having reference only to Abraham in person.

Answer. Mr. Blake tells me of an old friend of mine whom I never knew, and have hitherto made him mine adversary, although perhaps we may agree in some things, and I think Mr. Blake and he agree in more than I do with him. It seems not to me to be Bellar. opinion, or Mr. Blackwoods that circumcision was only an individual Seal of the faith of Abraham, but Bellarmine's opinion is, that his circumcision did testify not his individual faith, but his individual privilege to be father of the faithful, which Mr. Blake agrees with him in, when he saith, This priority of receiving the faith and the sign and seal, is proper to Abraham· And then he is as much his old friend as mine.

Mr. Blackwood in his Reply to the second part of the Vind. of the Birth-privilege, pag. 47. saith thus, So that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness which Abraham had, not in persona propria, but in persona relativa, it sealed unto him not his own personal righteousness, which he had long before, but the righteousness of all believers. In which I dissent from him, conceiving it sealed both: however his opinion seems to be otherwise than Mr. Blake represents it. For myself I do not make it any seal of faith either universal or individual, nor know I well what sense to make of either, but this is my opinion, that Abraham's individual Circumcision, and no others is made Rom. 4.11, 12. the seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham as the father of believers, and to all believers of all Nations as his seed. Now to this opinion of mine I find nothing opposite, but against another point that Abraham's Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith and of the Covenant to him only, which I disclaim, and therefore let his arguments pass without gain-saying, only I request the Reader to take notice that Mr. Blake hath many ways mis-represented my opinion in this Ch. but hath not at all overthrown the mixture in the Covenant Gen. 17. which I assert; but where he sets down my opinion rightly saith pag. 181. To this I readily agree, nor hath at all so much as brought one reason to show that my distinction shows not my turn for which I bring it, which he undertook to do, but leaves that thing and runs out in calumnies of me, and proving that which I deny not.

SECT. XXVII. The four first Chapters of Mr. Sidenham 's Exercitation are examined, and his vanity in his conceits about consequences proving Infant-baptism, the purity of the Covenant Gen. 17. Infants of Believers being Abraham 's seed and in Covenant, is shown.

I Think it necessary for many Reasons afore I review the dispute about Mr. Ms. second conclusion to consider what Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham hath said in the four first Chapters of his Exercitation.

1. He forestalls his Reader with things palpably false, that there is nothing in all the New Testament against the baptizing of Infants, not one hint from any express word dropt from Christ or his Apostles; not one phrase, which though never so much strained doth forbid such an act. The contrary whereof is abundantly proved in the second Part of this Review, Sect. 5. &c. nor can any Paedobaptist find so much against infant-communion, Bell-baptism, baptizing of dead persons, Baptism of Midwives, the Cross in Baptism, and many other Prelatical and Popish usages as there is in the New Testament against infant-baptism.

2. That all his Opposites have only this to say, that they can find no syllabical precept or word of command in terms, saying, Go baptize Infants, or any positive example where it is said in so many words Infants were baptized, all that they say besides is to quarrel with and evade their arguments, and that this argument is built on this false principle, that no direct consequences from Scripture are mandatory: the contrary whereof is so manifest out of my Examen part. 3. sect. 12. Apol. sect. 11. (which Mr. Sidenham often quotes, and therefore cannot be ignorant of unless willfully) and throughout all my writings, that a man can hardly conceive but that he shamelessly vented these things against his own knowledge. And therefore I need not answer his Reasons to prove the use of consequence. Let any Paedobaptist give me one good consequence whereby infant-baptism is proved, and I shall yield▪ the consequences of Mr. Baxter and others I find to be mere fallacies, and have, and doubt not with divine assistance to show them to be so.

That which he saith, pag. 6. That where we have a promise laid as the foundation of a duty that is equivalent to any express command; for as commands in the Gospel do suppose promises, to encourage us to act •• em, and help us in them; so promises made to persons do include commands, especially when the duties commanded are annexed to the promises, as all New Testament Ordinances are as well as old ; is ambiguous, and in what sense, it is true it serves not Mr. Sidenhams turn to prove infant-baptism. By foundation of a duty may be understood either a motive to encourage to a duty named, as when it is said, Him that honoreth me I will honor, this promise doth suppose it a duty to honor God, and is a motive to encourage to it, and so is a foundation in that sense of the duty: o • 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, since 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 show they will not serve Mr. Sidenhams turn in the sense they are true, and will as well serve to prove infants right to the Lord's 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 show 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 show them express • 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 authentic repeal is easily shown Acts 15. and elsewhere.

In the rest Mr. Sidenham shows not why infants should not have been baptized at first, as well as grown men if it had been Christ's mind; Ishmael and all Abraham's 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 expressed, it is enough to show it was not done, unless we make the Spirit of God defective in what was needful to have been set down, and to say as Mr. Sidenham doth, There is enough to show it was done though not written, is with the Papists to maintain unwritten traditions▪ Rule • 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 administration • 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 savors of this corrupt principle, that what we conceive fit in God's worship is to be accounted his mind. 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 find 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 anymore 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 joined with them in their policy; which I have proved before, out of Scripture to be termed the Covenant itself 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 domestic 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 Abraham's 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 a • so, proceeding upon mistakes of my meaning in the term [mixed] 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 Abraham's 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 Gentiles • neither Proselytes to Israel, nor servants to them, are Abraham's spiritual seed, yet not at all Abraham's fleshly seed.

2. That Isaac was as much Abraham's 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 administered to all Abraham's natural and fleshly children, as if they had been spiritual, and before they knew what faith was, or could actually profess Abraham's faith.]

If he mean by the Covenant only Circumcision I grant it of all Abraham's natural male children: if he mean the covenant of grace which is Evangelical, though I deny not that it was administered 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 administered to any but the elect of God, who have the denomination of Abraham's spiritual seed. For I know not how the Covenant which promiseth remission of sins, justification, regeneration, adoption▪ eternal life is said to be administered but by giving these, which are given only to the elect, not to Abraham's mere 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 Christ's blood, so neither are they administrations of it, but arise from God's 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 child 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 child of promise, but as he came of Abraham 's flesh: for believing Gentiles are children of the promise though they come not of Abraham's flesh, yea it is not only true to the contrary, but expressly 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 everyone had the seal of God's 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, until they degenerated from Abraham 's faith, and proved themselves to be mere carnal, and rejected the promise.

But this is manifestly false, Esau was Abraham's 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 child of the promise, and an elect person are the same. No man is Abraham's 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 Author 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 Abraham's spiritual seed a while, then the degenerate the elect, and true believers may fall away finally and totally, and if they that be Abraham's 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 merely 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 Abraham's fleshly seed and his spiritual in the Old Testament, until 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 acknowledge, as well as Infants; so are the most visible Professors 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 Professors 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 opp • 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 Abraham's 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 Abraham's carnal seed who are also his spiritual, as Isaac, Jacob, Christ ; some • 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 Professors of faith of the Gentiles, who are no way Abraham's seed, nor ever called his carnal seed in Scripture.

There are but two places I know in which the term of Abraham's fleshly seed or child 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 Abraham's faith, being descended from Abraham by natural generation, are as properly termed Abraham's carnal seed as those Israelites that did backslide.

I grant, Abraham was a natural father to many of th • 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 until they rejected themselves, is in no part true: not the former, for Ishmael was never under the Covenant, whether it be meant of the spiritual promises or temporal, unless Mr. Sidenham means by b • i • ng under the Covenant being circumcised, which is all one with having the seal, and then he useth an inept tautology in his speech without good sense. Nor is the later true of females and males under eight days old.

I grant that both Abr • hams natural and spiritual children were circumcised, which Mr. Sidenham means when in the Paedobaptists gibberish he saith, The promise took in both relations, as to outward administration: but Rom. 3.1, 2, 3, 4. speak • •••• ing of the spiritual child of Abraham but the natural.

And for what Mr. Sidenham saith, And if men truly state things, you may argue as much against Abraham 's natural seed from enjoying these privileges, as believers natural seed now, and with as much evidence of truth.

I know not what he means by truly stating things, the privileges mentioned Rom. 4.1, 2, 3, 4. are Circumcision, and the commission of the oracles of God to them, and this later is reckoned as the Jews advantage; and though it be true, that we have the benefit of the oracles of God, yet it is not true of our children in infancy, nor of any of us or our children, that to them were the oracles of God committed as to the Jews. And for Circumcision it is true, we may argue as much against Abraham's natural seed from enjoying it as believers natural seed now, and with as much evidence of truth, since Christ is come, Circumcision the shadow is to cease, both to Jews and Gentiles: and me thinks Mr. Sidenhams arguing should be the same with ours if he were a Christian (as I doubt not he was) and not a Jew. But that which Mr. Sidenham would have is, that a believers natural child should be Abraham's seed, and this is the true stating of things, which perhaps he means. But afore I state things after Mr. Sidenhams mind, I must see some proof, as yet I see no one proof to make good any of his (inconsiderate) considerations.

He takes upon him to weigh the Scriptures brought by his opposites to prove, that they only are Abraham's seed meant in the Covenant as it was Evangelical Gen, 17.7. to be true believers or elect persons.

The first is Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. in the setting down of the occasion of which words he saith, Here (Rom. 9.4, 5.) is a catalogue of high privileges which belonged to the Jews, which they acre to be cut off from, which l • y on Paul' s heart, and was like to sink him. But this is a frivolous conceit, for the privileges there reckoned are all or most of them of things already past, such as they could not be deprived of, for that which is already done cannot no not by God himself be not done, for it would imply a contradiction: so those that were Israelites, whose were the fathers, who had the giving of the Law, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, could not be cut off from these privileges which were things past, yea to imagine that the Jews should be deprived of those privileges is to overthrow the faith of the Christians, who believe that Christ came of the fathers of the Israelites according to the flesh, of which the Jews could not be deprived but by making it false. And for the rest of the privileges though our Translators read [ to whom pertains the adop • ion and the glory, not as Mr. Sidenham, the adoption of glory ] yet the Greek being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which leaves out the Verb to be supplied, it is clear that it should be read whose were the adoption and glory, and the Covenants and the giving the Law, and the service and the promises, and v. 5. whose were the fathers, as well as it is read from whom Christ came, though the Verb be not expressed, since otherwise the speech were not true. For to the present Israelites did not pertain the adoption, as if they then living were adopted or to be adopted children of God: for the Apostle bemoans their rejection and cutting off. And the glory being meant of the Ark, 1 Sam. 4.21. or the cloud that covered it Ezek. 10.4. long before lost, and the Covenants meant of the two Tables of the Law, being lost, and the giving the Law, to wit, the judicial Laws being an act cannot be expounded but of the time past, and so the service, to wit, the ceremonial worship now Christ was come was no privilege to the present Jews, but a heavy yoke, yet it was a great privilege to their ancestors, and the Verb is to be read in the Praeter-tense, and in like manner the promises were the Israelites, that is, they had them first given to them, and had the benefit of them, and accordingly it is to be expounded thus, whose, that is, to which Israelites were the promises fi • st made, and they enjoyed the benefit of them The thing then that afflicted Paul was, not that the present Jews were to be cut off from those privileges, but that the people who had formerly so great tokens of God's peculiar respect to them should not be broken off from the Olive-tree, rejected from being God's people, and hardened in unbelief.

Mr. Sidenham thinks this Text a weapon whose edge • is turned against these that count it their own.

1. Saith he, The Apostle is sadly troubled for his kinsmen after the flesh, for their rejection; his reason is, because of the Covenant and the promises made to them, because they were the natural seed of Abraham; which holds forth that the promises and privileges of the Covenant were indefinitely to all the Israelites.

Answer. It is true, the Apostle was sadly troubled for the Jews rejection, but rhe reason given is such as is scarce competent to a sober mind. For the reason, as he makes it, must either refer to his trouble or their rejection. If it refer to Paul's trouble, the sense is, that Paul was troubled because of the Covenant, &c. But this should be a matter of rejoicing to him, not of trouble, unless he were troubled that God brake his Covenant with them, because they were the natural seed of Abraham ; but sure God never brake his Covenant with them for that reason, nor is it to be imputed to God without imputing unfaithfulness to him, which were blasphemy to affirm. If it be referred to the Jews rejection, then the sense is, they were rejected because of the Covenant, &c. But sure they were not rejected because of the Covenant made to them, but because of their unbelief in not being steadfast in the Covenant, Rom. 11.20. There's the like wit in the illation.

For, 1. how were the promises made indefinitely, and yet to all the Israelites? [all] is not an indefinite note but an universal.

2. What is the meaning of that expression, the privileges of the Covenant were made to all? The making of privileges is somewhat an uncouth phrase.

3. What were the promises and privileges made to all the Israelites, he tells us not, and so the Reader is left to guess.

4. How Paul's trouble or the reason given should hold that forth is another Riddle which needs an Oedipus, if such nonsense scribbling be counted worth ones study to unfold it.

2. Saith he, That it's a most sad thing to be excluded from the outward and general administration of the Covenant. Why should Paul thus break out in his affections, for the loss of outward privileges, if it were not such a mercy to be under them?

Answer. It is I confess a sad thing to be excluded from any mercy of God, much more to be excluded from though but an outward administration of the Covenant of grace. But it is a sad thing to me that I find a Teacher of a Church pretending so much zeal for truth to vent in print such a ridiculous conceit, as if Paul's great sorrow and continual pain in his heart, by reason of that, for the remedy whereof he could wish himself accursed from Christ, were for the exclusion from outward privileges, which they might have and yet be damned, and might want and yet be saved. If the outward privilege were Circumcision they had it, if Baptism they might have it, and yet be damned. And shall we think the Apostle so foolish as to be thus troubled for such a loss?

3. Saith he, The Apostle holds forth, that persons may be under the outward administration of the Covenant, and yet not get the efficacy of it, verse. 6. They are not all Israel that are of Israel; the Covenant was with Abraham and his seed, all that were of him; and yet all were not Israel, that is, partakers of the inward life and efficacy of the Covenant.

An. That which the Apostle holds forth is not, as this man dotingly scribles, that persons may be under the outward administration of the Covenant, that is, circumcised, &c. and yet no • get the efficacy of it, that is, have the Circumcision of the heart, justification and eternal life: for though this be a truth, yet there's not a word in the Apostles answer v. 6, 7, 8. which gives any color for such a Paraphrase, there being no mention of Circumcision or any such rite as they call the outward administration of the Covenant, nor any words equipollent thereto. For to be of Israel is to be descended of Jacob by natural generation, as in like manner v. 7. to be the seed of Abraham, and v. 8. the children of the flesh: nor could such an Answer have met with the Objection, which was not, if the Jews were deprived of the outward administration, how could God's word stand to be a God to Abraham and his seed? But thus, if they were not his people to be justified and saved by Christ, how could the word of God stand, Gen. 17.7. Jer. 31.36, 37. which seemed to promise they should be his people to be justified and saved by Christ? And therefore to answer, they had the outward administration, though not the inward efficacy is to confirm the Objection, which is, that they had not that inward efficacy which the Covenant promised: nor doth the Apostle deny that those saving mercies were in the promises, nor think the promises salved by alleging that all had outward privileges though not saving mercies; but by showing that the saving mercies in those promises were not assured to every natural child of Abraham, or of Israel, but to the choice seed distinguished from the rest by promise, and peculiar calling according to election, whether of Jews or Gentiles, and thereby made the Israel of God, v. 7, 8, 11, 24. and so God's words of promise stands firm to that seed of Abraham and Israel to whom it was made, though the natural seed of Abraham, and Israel be rejected from being God's people. It is therefore expressly cross to what the Apostle saith v. 7. which Mr. Sidenham saith, that the Covenant was with Abraham and his seed, all that were of him.

And that which he saith, And so though they were under the outward dispensation of the Covenant, yet God was not mutable, nor his promise, though he rejected them because of their own degeneration ; is directly contrary to the Apostles determination that they were rejected merely out of the absolute liberty of God's will, v. 18. which the Apostle proves in the rejection of Esau verse. 11, 12, 13. afore he had done good or evil, yea, afore he was born, and the speech to Moses, v. 15. and the hardening of Pharaoh, v. 17. And indeed if this Paraphrase of Mr. Sidenham were good then the Arminian doctrine of conditional reprobation were here expressly taught, that their rejection was because of their own degeneration, and consequently the election of the other, to wit, the Gentiles must be, because of their own believing, and God's promise to be a God to them must presuppose their believing as the reason of his promise to them, which is the very dregs of Pelagianism founding the difference between the called and rejected in man's will and not God's.

What Mr. Sidenha • saith, that the Covenant was made in general with Abraham 's seed, to all that came from him, meaning by natural generation, is contrary to the Apostles resolution v. 6, 7▪ 8. and would make God a breaker of his promise, (which was not of outward privileges, but of saving grace) and supposes the Covenant and the election not commensurate, contrary to the Apostle, yea, to Mr. Sidenhams own words where he sums up the Apostles resolution, when he saith, that none are the children of the promise (to whom the Covenant was made) real saints but those that have the true effects of the Covenant in their hearts.

And what he saith, to all children of believers the promise visibly belongs to them • s to Abraham and his seed, it's a piece of non-sense gibberish, such as Paedobaptists use, according to their false Hypotheses, no whit agreeing either with the promise Gen. 17.7, or the Apostles determination Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. so often refelled by me, that it is superfluous to say of it anymore now.

As for what he adds, But here is nothing at all to demonstrate that infants, because children of the flesh, are not under the promise.

I g • ant it, but say, there is enough to demonstrate that the promise of being a God Gen. 17.1. is not made to every believers child, since it was not made to all Abraham's natural seed, but to the elect of them, which is enough for our purpose.

Mr. Sidenhams proceeds to the Text Gal. 3.16. which he grants not to be meant barely of Christ personal, if, saith he, the promises were to Christ mystical, then to all the elect as in him, and so to infants as well as grown persons, [which I grant] but thus the promise is conveyed under ground as it were, none knows the veins of it, which I also grant, until the calling shows who were elect, nor do I count it any absurdity to yield it.

But, saith 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 edge of our weapons against ourselves, when the Antagonist must yield him what he would have; and me thinks he should have brought some Expositor 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 only to Christ and his mystical body, not his mere 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 mere 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, verse. 29. And if ye be Christ's (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 th • se that make the promises to belong to unbelievers as Abraham's 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 th • 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 G • ntiles and their seed; else it will neither • e Abraham 's bl • ssing in the form nor fa • ness of it ; Abraham 's blessing will descend on the Gentiles clip • half off, not like itself: 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 ill • Abrahae promissa (de qua supra v. 8.) ad Gentes perveniret in Christo; quatenus nimirum illae Christo inseruntur per fidem, Di • 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 God's 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 mere Ecclesiastical privileges.

3. The seed of Abraham to whom the blessing is promised is his spiritual seed, and it only. Diodati Annot. on Gal. 3.14. of Abraham] namely, promised to Abraham, and to his spiritual posterity only. 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 itself • all. 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 faithful Abraham, verse. 9. From which I infer, that he that would conclude from hence that the blessing of Abraham comes upon the G • 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 mere 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 Abraham's 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, Esau's were excluded; and therefore the word of God's 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 believers, not as father of men, but it comes on no Gentile as father of believers, but as Abraham's child by faith.

The next also may be retorted, if the blessing come on the Gentiles according to the substantial terms of Abraham 's Covenant, then not in a mere outward Ecclesiastical privilege, for that is no part of the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. much less the substantial term of it, it is neither Abraham 's blessing in the form nor fatness of it ; yea, if it be meant by Abraham's blessing it, is clipt half off not like itself, it's made an empty thing, a mere outward privilege without salvation, and so is in a manner reduced to nothing, and half the seed of Abraham, all the females and many more are excluded from any right to it. For they had no right to the initial seal, to wit, Circumcision.

And to his question, And to what end should the Apostle say, The blessing of Abraham, and not the Promise or Covenant is come to the Gentiles, but that he intended it to the Gentile believers and their seed, as formerly it came to Abraham and his seed?

I answer, he saith, The blessing of Abraham (not the Promise or Covenant of Abraham ) because he in the Chapter before mentioned it, and it was the proper eff • ct of Christ's being made a curse for us, though he after mention the Covenant and Promise according to which it is bestowed. But that the use of that term of [ the blessing of Abraham] should intimate an outward privilege of an initial seal to Gentile believers and their natural seed is such a reason a • I am out of hope ever to understand. Me thinks the use of that term verse. 14. compared with v. 7, 8, 9. doth overthrow the fond conceit of the Assembly and Mr. Sidenham, and is so plain a determination, that the Promise of being God to Abraham 's seed, is meant only of true believers of the Gentiles, and not their natural seed, that if there were no more Texts, it seems enough to me to overthrow their interpretation of Gen. 17.7. and the inference they make thence.

And in this I commend Mr. Sidenha • s wit and the Assemblies, that they let pass Gal. 3.7. without mentioning, finding perhaps that it is expressly contrary to their conceit of Gentile believers children being reckoned for Abraham's seed.

I think it not amiss to add the word of Mr. Stalham Vindic. Redempt. against Otes, Gal. 3.13▪ 14. Behold here a Gospel-blessing comes upon all those who are freed from the legal curse, and if then▪ the non-elected by this man's doctrine have the one, he must yield the other also; if freed from the curse they are blessed, justified, and saved ones; this is worse than non-sense, even impure blasphemy against the truth ▪ which shows all these to be connex to be freed from the curse, to be blessed with Abraham's blessing, to be justified and saved, and therefore cannot be interpreted of a mere outward privilege belonging even to believers children who may be, as Esau was, non-elect.

There's another Text which Mr. Sidenham takes upon him to turn the edge of it against Antipaedobaptists who produce it against Paedobaptists, and he speaks thus, But in Ga • . 3.29. the Apostle (say they) describes who are the seed; if you be Christ 's, then you are Abraham 's seed, and heirs according to promise; so that now no children born of believing parents can be the seed; for they must be Christ 's, according to that in v. 26. we are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Answer. This Text is clear not to prove (as Mr. Sidenham represents ou • conclusion) that now no children born of believing parents can be the seed, but that none of the Gentiles are Abraham's seed but those who are Christ's by their • aith or election, and adoption to be the children of God, for such are all that are Christ's, and heirs according to the promise. But the children of believing Gentiles are many of them not such, nor any of them in that he is the child of a believing Gentile ▪ therefore all the children born of believing parents are not Abraham's seed, as Paedobaptists suppose.

To this Mr. Sidenham opposeth, 1. That the Claromont Bible hath it, if ye be one in Christ, then are ye Abraham 's seed, and that the Apostles endeavor is to take away all difference between Jew and Gentile, and to hold forth their unity in Christ, where there is no distinction as formerly: but now the Gentiles being one in Christ are Abraham 's seed as well as the natural and believing Jews.

Answer. It is granted, that the Apostle takes away the difference between Gentiles and Jews who are in Christ, and asserts that now the believing Gentiles being one in Christ arc Abraham 's seed as well as the natural and beli • ving Jews. But this makes for our purpose; for as none of the natural Jews but the elect and believing were Abraham's spiritual seed, so it is concerning the Gentiles, none of them either of their children are Abraham's seed in the sense in which the Gentiles may be termed Abraham's seed but the elect and believing.

2. Saith Mr. Sidenham, The Apostle here hath no intent to show the distinction of Abraham 's seed as the subject of the outward privileges, and administrations of ordinances, but to show that none are spiritually and really Abraham 's seed and heirs of promise, but such as are Christ 's, one in him with Abraham: for if this should be the distinction of seed as the subject of outward ordinances, it would be as much against professing believers as infants; for there is a carnal profession as well as a fleshly generation, the former more abominable.

Answer. I confess it is not the Apostles intent to show the distinction of Abraham 's seed as the subject of the outward Privileges and administration of Ordinances: for neither doth he make there any distinction of Abraham's seed, there being in that passage no seed of Abraham mentioned but such as are spiritual, nor doth he mention Abraham's seed as the subject, meaning the adequate subject of outward Ordinances and Privileges, there being many that were not Abraham's spiritual seed, who might be circumcised, baptized, admitted to the Pass-over and Lord's Supper, and at least in some of these many who were might not, though v. 26, 27. compared together show who were wont then to be baptized, to wit, believers, and such as at least in profession put on Christ. And I conceive Paul's intent was to show, that none are spiritually and really Abraham 's seed and heirs of promise, but such as are Christ 's, one in him with Abraham▪

Now this manifestly proves the thing we would have, that none of our children are Abraham's seed in the Gospel-sense according to which the promise Gen. 17.7. is to be understood, but elect and true believers, and so not in that Covenant, and consequently not by virtue of interest in that Covenant baptizable, as Paedobaptists would have it. But I know not any who 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 since the Minister of Baptism cannot distinguish between a believer in reality and one in profession he is without fault in baptizing a believer only 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 allotted to any for its natural birth though of a believer. So that I need not answer Mr. Sidenhams arguments to the contrary, since I do not assert that none but Abraham's 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 Christ's, yet we have not the same evidence that they are Christ's which we have of grown persons, whose words and actions show that the Spirit of God dwells in them. Nor would God have us 1 Cor. 7.14. to account the children to be holy as visible professors 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 judge better of a believers infant than of a visible professor, 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 judge a visible Professor Christ 's or Abraham 's seed, or a subject of Baptism ▪ since the words and actions of such a one do show more of Christ's 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 upon 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 judgment or any probable likelihood of an infants being Christ's, 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 Jews are Abraham's fleshly seed, though they be not visible professors of faith in Christ, no mere Gentile visible professor is Abraham's seed, nor any true believers natural seed as such, nor doth the covenant make every believer in reality, 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 Abraham's 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 Abraham's seed, nor is there in the word of God one passage either in the old or New Testament either of those alleged 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 mere visible professors be Abraham's 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 ways, 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 God's 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 mere 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 God's 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 administered 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 shown we have certain evidence of visible professors being in covenant, for we hear their profession and see thei • actions, and their rule by which baptism is to be administered, 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 only in Gospel times. Nor doth anything Mr. Sidenham hath said answer that which he saith is the great question I and we all urge, that if God made the Covenant with believers and their seed, they must be all saved, &c. But instead of answering me poseth me thus, doth God make the covenant of salvation with every visible professor whom they baptize • or with every visible Saint. Answ. No; Or do they baptize them out of Covenant? Answ. Yea; If by being out of Covenant be meant, that the Covenant of salvation is not made by God to them; then how come any to fall off and be damned? Answ. None of those God made the Covenant of salvation with fall off and be damned, others though baptized rightly and were visible professors, yet fall off and are damned, because the Covenant of salvation was never made • y God to them, Or what rule have they to baptize by ? Answ. That which is, Mat. 28.19. Mark 16.15, 16. Acts 2.38, 41. and 8.12, 37, 38. Why should it be thought more hanious to set a seal on (i. e. baptize) infants, as in the covenant, then on these professors which afterwards prove not to be in Covenant. Ans. because infants are not Disciples of Christ, when visible professors are, though they be not in covenant with God by his promise of saving-grace. The being or not being in Covenant is not the reason of the baptizing or not baptizing of them, but their being or not being Disciples of Christ, or do they baptize because that persons are in the covenant? Answ. not because they are in the covenant that is God's covenant to them, but because they covenant to be Christ's by their own Declaration and promise, which is certainly known upon hearing their words and seeing their actions, nor is it any trick to evade, but a clear truth, that it is not being in covenant (by God's promise of saving grace to us) but being an actual believer, gives right to baptism; Nor doth it follow if the covenant be the ground (i. e. the object) of faith, it may well be the ground (i. e. adequate reason on the baptizer and the baptizeds part) of an outward privilege i. e. baptism, for the institution is not to baptize men in covenant by God's act of promise, but Disciples or persons in covenant by their professing of faith. Nor is there danger of separating the Covenant from the conveyance of actual privilege ; for the Covenant of itself, till it is fulfilled by the making a person a known Disciple of Christ, doth not give right to baptism anymore then to the Lord's supper. Nor is there reason why infants without faith should now be baptized because they were circumcised, the institution of the one being different from the other, neither do we account Simon Magus, &c. Abraham's spiritual seed, nor deny elect infants to be so, if God doth administer all his graces by covenant, yet not all outward ordinances by the persons interest in it, and if he did, then infants by this reason should have the Lord's supper as well as baptism. The invisible design of God may be known to us, and is carried on secretly in an outward visible dispensation▪ and some may be condemned by an outward rule, and yet persons not admitted into or ejected out of the Church by their being or not being in Covenant through God's act of promise to them, but by their profession and practice we say not, none are to be baptized but real believers, the spiritual seed, nor that none are the spiritual seed but visible believers, nor do we conceive infants no spiritual seed of Abraham because no visible believers; But we deny that an infant of a believer is as visible by promise as a believer by profession. For on the one side no infant is of the visible Church barely by God's promise of regeneration, justification, salvation.

1. Because that promise is according to God's election, which is secret, so as that no man can know who are they to whom the promise pertains, till it appear by some others declaration then the promise or act, an infant can ordinarily perform.

2. That which makes a thing or person visibly must be something existent in act, for then a thing or person is visibly when it is the object of sense, but sense is only of singular things actually existent. But persons may have a ptomise afore they are in being, as Isaac was in Covenant afore he was begotten or born, yet not a visible Church-member, therefore an infant is not visible by promise.

3. On the other side profession makes a person manifestly visible, and therefore Mr. Sidenhams speech is palpably false, that an infant is as visible by promise, as a believer by profession.

SECT. XXVIII. It is proved from Luke 1.54, 55. and 19.9. John 8.39. Rom. 4.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Gal. 3.7, 16, 29. and 4.28. Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. Mat. 3.9. That the seed of Abraham to whom the promise as Evangelical is made, Gen. 17.7. are only true believers or elect persons.

TO those texts in the foregoing Section alleged to prove that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise, Gen. 17.7. as it is Evangelical belongs, are only true believers or elect persons, which have been vindicated from Mr. Sidenhams answers, I shall add some more in the New Testament.

1. In Mary's song, Luke 1 54.55. It is said, He hath holpen his Servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy as he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed forever.

That seed of Abraham is only meant in the promise, Gen. 17.7. As it was evangelical which he hath holpen by Christ in remembrance of his mercy; this is manifest from the text. But they are only true believers or elect persons. Pisc. Schol. in Luk. 1.55. Semini. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 id est posteritati nempe spirituali, id est electis; sive sint ex judeis, sive ex gentibus, ut docet Apostolas Rom. 4. v. 16. and ch. 9. v. 8. New annot on Luke 1.55. to his seed forever, that is to the faithful and holy. See Gal. 3.16.26, 27, 29. They only are holpen by Christ in remembrance of his mercy, which is confirmed from the words of Zacharias, Luke 1.71, 72, 73, 74, 75.76, 77, 78. wherein the holy Covenant and Oath God sware to Abraham was, that he would grant them that is (Abrahoms seed) salvation, deliverance, to serve god in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of their life, the salvation is expressed to be by remission of sins, through the tender mercy of God, whereby the day Spring from on high visited them, which shows, the Covenant as it was Evangelical, promised not outward privileges but saving graces, which are not promised to any but elect persons, therefore by Abraham's seed in the promise, Gen. 17.7. As it was Evangelical are, meant only elect or true believers.

2. It is said of Zacchaeus, Luke 19.9. This day is salvation come to this house, for so much as he also is the son of Abraham, for the son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost ; In which words the term [ son of Abraham] is made to infer salvation, and Zacchaeus in that he was the son of Abraham, proved to be one that the son of man came to seek and save which can agree only to elect persons, therefore the term [ seed of Abraham] equipollent to [ son of Abraham] as Evangelically such notes only elect persons or true believers. Piscat. Analys. Luc. 19.9. Electio Dei patris significatur v. 9. his verbis, eo quod ipse quoque filius Abrahae est, ubi intelligitur non simpliciter filius secundum carnem, sed filius secumdum promissionem Dei, qua promiserat ipsum futurum patrem credentium, schol. filius Abrahae, nempe filius secundum promissionem, id est electus, vide, Rom. 9. v. 7. and 8. New Annot on Luke 19.9. Is the son of Abraham, to be a son of Abraham is to be chosen freely, Rom. 9.8. To walk in the steps and faith of Abraham. Rom. 4.11, 12. And generally to do the good works of Abraham, John 8.39. Whereby we moy be assured of Election to eternal life, Rom. 8.29, 30. 2 Pet. 1.10. Trap come, in Luke 19.9. He also is a son of Abraham that is freely elected, Rom. 9. A follower of Abraham's faith, Rom. 4.12. And a doer of his works, John 8.39.

3. It is said by our Lord Christ, John 8.39. If ye were Abraham's children ye would do the works of Abraham, he granted them ver. 37. To be Abraham's seed by nature, but not the seed of Abraham according to the Covenant Evangelical, because their practice was unlike Abraham's. Whence I infer, they Only Evangellically are Abraham's children or seed even of those who descended from Abraham by generation who are like unto Abraham in their Actions. But such only are true believers or elect persons, therefore true believers or elect persons only are Abraham's children or seed Evangelical. Diodati. Annot. on John 8.39. children, namely true and lawful imitators • f Abraham's faith: Father of all believers; wherein consists the true meaning of this name of children of Abraham, Rom. 4.16. and 9.6, 7. Gal. 3.7.

4. With our Lord Christ's words accord the words of Paul, who doth plainly determine that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise, Gen. 17.7. That God would be the God of Abraham's seed, as it was Eavngelical belongs, are believers or elect persons and no other, Rom. 4.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Is so plain to prove it that the very reading the words is enough to clear it to a heedful reader. For therein the Apostle doth show how the promises, Gen. 17.7. Are true of the Gentiles as well as the Jews. in that Abraham is considered therein as the father of believers, v. 11. And the father of circumcision, that is as Beza of the circumcised, yet not a father to all of them, nor to them only, but to those circumcised ones only, and with them to all other that believe, or walk in the steps of that faith, which our father (of us believing Gentiles) Abraham had being yet uncircumcised, v. 11.12▪ Now if Abraham be considered in the promises as Evangelical only as the Father of believers of either sort circumcised, or uncircumcised, then the seed of Abraham are only believers or elect persons. And to this purpose doth Master Dickson paraphrase the words thus. Abraham received from God the sign of circumcision to seal the Covenant of grace, or the righteousness of faith, which • e had uncircumcised to that end, that he might be father of uncircumcised believers▪ and in like manner of circumcised, to wit, who are both sons of the flesh, and sons of the faith of Abraham. Therefore the righteousness of faith is common to the circumcised, and uncircumcised believers, or them that follow the steps of the faith of Abraham not yet circumcised. But Abraham is said to be the father of believers, in that he is the first eminent example of faith, and of righteousness imputed by faith, and by his example an Author to all that they may believe. Beza in his note on Rom. 4.12. For as speaking of the uncircumcised, he said not simply that Abraham was the father of them all, but of them only who should believe, he also hath deservedly kept the same distinction in the Jews, because (as I said before) it is not simply the Apostles purpose to teach Abraham to be the father of both the uncircumcised and the circumcised, but also especially by what reason he is the father of both, which is his scope. For to be a child of Abraham before God, and to be justified by faith cohere, Again v. 13. shows the same. For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham, or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. I shall use the words of the same Authors. Dickson thus paraphraseth, v. 13. He proves Abraham to be Father not but of believers only, uncircumcised alike and circumcised, and together adds a third argument. The promise made to Abraham and his seed, that he should be heir of the land of Canaan in time, and of the world and heaven in truth, came not to him by the law, or by the condition of works, but happened to him by an absolute promise to him already justified by faith, and having the righteousness of faith. Therefore his sons are not they which are of the law seeking to wit righteousness by works, but they only who are by faith, seeking righteousness by faith, that is all and only believers, circumcised alike and uncircumcised, to whom equally the common righteousness of faith and the inheritance is promised. The argument is of force, for if father Abraham be not the heir of the world, nor have righteousness but by faith, certainly none are his sons but believers, who have righteousness by faith, and by righteousness the inheritance. Beza Annot. ad Rom. 4.13. But in these words there is a continuation of the former conclusion, the application of the example of Abraham neither to the circumcised, neither to the uncircumcised, otherwise not availing unless two things be shown: to wit that God made that Covenant not with Abraham alone, but with his heirs also, and that under the name of his posterity, any who shall believe that covenant like Abraham are understood. Therefore Paul conjoins the promises of God made to Abraham, as it were into one body, and when he had taught all believers whether cicrumcised, or uncircumcised to be Abraham's sons, he verily deservedly calls Abraham the heir of the world, by the term world understanding all Nations, and therein following the Lord's st • ps. For when the Lord had said to Abraham that he would be the God of him and his seed, after he expounded what he understood by the term seed; to wit all the nations of the earth, when he said that it should be, that in him he would vouchsafe them all his grace. The next v. also confirms it, v. 14. For if they which are of the Law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect, 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 only. 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 only 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 very counsel God appointed that the inheritance should be of faith; that it might agpear to be of grace or by grace. Therefore only 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 • eed, not only to that which is the seed of Abraham by the law of nature and hath faith also, that is the circumcised Jews believing▪ but also to that seed which is not by the law of nature or the flesh, but only 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 only believers circumcised and uncircumcised, are heirs by faith with father Abraham, who according to faith is father of all us believers of Jews 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 engrafted into his seed, and so in virtue 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, • 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 Abraham's 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 follows 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 follows, we are justified by faith only. And so Mr. Dickson conceives that the Apostles argument is, Gal. 3.7. They only 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 Jews, which are borne of him, or joined to him by circumcision, and by professing of their ceremonies; but all such as according to Abraham's example do renounce all confidence in their own proper works, and put it wholly in God's 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 come. 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 Abraham's 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 alleged texts do. Now we Brethren as Isa • c was, are children of the promise, that is we of whom the Jerusalem which is above is mother, that is as Beza Annot. add v. 26. we who embraced Christ, add v. 27. he shows the true sons of Abraham are born spiritually by the Gospel, add 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 Abraham's seed there meant.

6. I shall next add the consideration of that text, Rom. 9.6; 7, 8. Wh • 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 denied, that this passage is an answer to an objection occasioned by the intimating of the rejection of the Jews from being God's people, v. 1.2, 3, 4, 5. If any should deny it yet the matter and form of expression, v. 6. shows it to be opposed to something which might be objected against what was before implied. For the speech, the word of God hath not fallen, or not taken effect; intimates that there was some word of God which seemed to be without effect, or to fall if the Jews were cast off from being God's people. And it appears by the answer that the word of God was some promise concerning Israel as, v. 6. shows, and Abraham's seed as v. 7.8, 9. shows. The word of God concerning Abraham's seed which might be conceived to fall, appears upon inquisition to have been that, Gen. 17.7. either only or chiefly Piscat. Sch. in Rom. 9.6. that word of God, to wit that promise made to Abraham, I will be thy God and of thy seed after thee. Dickson expos. annaly • . Rom. 9.6. the word of God hath fallen, when he said to Abraham, I will be thy God and of thy seed, I conceive it needless to add anymore, it being so manifest and so conceived by interpreters of note. Hence it appears also that the objection answered by the Apostle is this, God promised to be a God to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations in an everlasting covenant, therefore if the Jews who are Abraham's seed are rejected, the word of God falls.

To this the Apostle answers. 1. By denying that every Jew who was descended from Abraham by natural generation, and so a child of the flesh is meant by the seed there named, who should be the child of God, and so the promise of being God to them is not meant of all Abraham's natural posterity.

2. By asserting that they who are counted for the seed and were children of the p • omise, that is those to whom that Evangelical promise, Gen. 17.7. belonged, were a peculiar number whether of Jews, or Gentiles, according to God's own choice and calling distinguished by no other discriminating reason but God's will, as he proves in Isaac and Ishmael, v. 9. Esau and Jacob, v. 10▪ 11, 12, 13. and otherwise in that which follows.

Whence it appears 1. That the promise, Gen. 17.7. was not made to Abraham's natural posterity as such, and if so, then it is not made to every child of a believer.

2. That only the elect whether of Jews or Gentiles are the seed of Abraham to whom the promise, Gen. 17.7. is made, and consequently to no other of a believers children, but the elect: nor any other in covenant with God by virtue of that promise but they.

This to be the Apostles determination I confirmed, Exam. part. 3. sect. 4. by the speeches of Beza, Twisse, Ames, Bayn, Walaeus, Dounam, new Annot, Ainsworth, Pareus, Estius (who though a Papist, yet is reputed more solid and right about the the point of grace, then the Jesuits are) and added in my Precursor pag. 36. the words of Mr. Rutherford of Scotland, and Mr. No • ton of New England. To which I have added more testimonies of Beza, Chamier, and the Belgic Professors at the Synod of Dort • n my Refutation of Dr. Savage his Position in Latin, Sect 5. And because Mr. Blake seeks so much to possess people as if I drew this from the Jesuits, I will add Mr Dicsons words on Rom. 9.7, 8. Neither doth it follow b • cause the Jews are the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, that therefore they are all sons in the Scripture sense or the seed promised. For so even the Issmaelites should be accounted for Ab • ahams seed contrary to Scripture, which hath restrained the right of sons to Isaac and his family, by saying, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. The sons of the flesh are to be distinguished from the elect sons of God, for this God would, when Ishmael being secluded, he called Isaac the seed of Abraham, that not all are the elect sons of God, but only the children of promise (or whom God determined of grace to make with Isaac sons of the faith of Abraham) are the children of God, and that seed to whom the promise is made. Dr. Owen of Perseverance, Chap. 5. Sect. 10. The Apostle, Rom 9 8. calleth the elect the children of the promises, or those to whom the promises to Abraham and his seed were made. Chap. 7. Sect. 23 The persons to whom this promise (Isai. • 9▪21. ) is made, are called thee and thy seed, that is all those and only those, with whom God is a God in Covenant. God here minds them of his first making of this Covenant with Abraham & his seed, Gen. 17.7. Now who are this seed of Abrhaam? Not all his carnal posterity, not the whole nation of the Jews. Our Savior not only denies, but also proves by many Arguments, that the Pharisees and their followers, who doubtless were of the nation of the Jews, and the carnal seed of Abraham, were not the children of Abraham in this sense, nor his seed, but rather the Devils, John. 8.39.40, 41. And the Apostle disputes and argues the same case, Rom. 4.9, 10, 11. and proves undeniably that it is believers only (whether circumcised or uncircumcised, whether Jews or Gentiles) that are this seed of Abraham and heirs of the promise. So plainly, Gal. 3.7. Know ye therefore that they which are of the faith, are the children of Abraham, and then concludes again as the issue of his debate, verse 9 So then they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. Mr. Marshal himself in his Defense, pag. 102. saith, secondly by the word [Seed] was meant the children of the promise, the Elect, Rom. 9 8. • s Mr. Bayne, nay Arminius himself confesses: only Arminius saith, that they were elected upon foresight of their faith. And indeed so far as I discern in the reading of Arminius his Analysis of the ninth of the Romans the cited Remonstrants Defense of their opinion at the Synod of Dort on the first Article, Mr. John Goodwin his late Exposition of the ninth to the Romans it is agreed, that in the mystical sense the promise Gen, 17.7. is determined by the Apostle, Rom. 9 6, 7, 8, to belong only to the elect, though the Remonstrants would have them elected upon consideration of believing, and the Contra-remonstrants, according to the Apostles determination, verse 11 &c. assign no other reason of the election of some & rejection of others, but God's will. All do agree that the Apostle determines, that every child of Abraham, much less of every believer, is not a child of the promse, or the seed of Abraham to whom the Promise is made, Gen. 17.7. but the elect or true believers, whether Jews or Gentiles.

7. It is proved that the promise Gen. 17.7. as it was Evangelical, or as the Apostle speaks, Gal. 3.17. the Covenant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , fore-confirmed of God unto Christ, was not to every believers natural seed, but to the true believers or elect persons, who are meant by Abraham's seed, because it can be true only of them. For in the Evangelical sense to whom God promiseth to be God he promiseth to justify them, to regenerate them, to raise them up to eternal life, as appears by our Savior's own reasoning, Luke 20.37, 38. where he infers from God's avouching himself 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 justify, 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 efficacy of it, is to make God a liar, whereas many children of believers are never justified, regenerated, nor shall be raised to eternal life. He performs it to all true believers and elect persons, and to none other, therefore none others are meant there by Abraham's seed in the Evangelical sense.

8 Lastly, the words of John the Baptist Matth 3.9. When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism saying to them, And think not so say within yourselves, 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 • that repenting and believing persons though raised by God of stones without natural generation, are the children of Abraham to whom the promise is made, Gen. 17.7. 2. That it was not their natural descent from Abraham without repentance and Gospel faith, which did entitle them to God's favor, or to his baptism, and therefore it follows thence, that the children of Abraham to whom the promise is, Gen 17.7. are only the elect or true believers. 3. That to be the child of a believer is not a sufficient title to God's favor, or baptism. To this purpose Pareus Com. in Matth. 3.9

This then is the constant Doctrine of the New Testament, that the promise Gen. 17.7. as Evangelical, is made only to the elect and true believers, that they only are Abraham's seed spiritual, and so only in the covenant of grace by God's promise, and therefore if it be true that they only 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 Evangelical belongs, are true believers, or the elect only, is vindicated from Mr. Blake's 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 • 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 Satirist rather than a Disputant. We have drunk up the Protestants poison, and Mr. T. his great care is, to preserve his party by the Jesuits Antido •• ; be is wholly beholding to them for the Receipt. Which is Mr. Blake's 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 easy to produce treble the number if need were. But I find it in vain to endeavor the satis • ying of such eager and through prejudice self-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 Bellarmine, who against Peter Martyr saying the promise Gen. 17.7, is not universal concerning the children of believers, but hath place only 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 instead of answering it, puts divers Quaere's to me, yielding 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 Ame • come to the name of Remonstrants? I had thought they had been on the party that are called Contra-remonstrants? Answer. And so a • 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 anything whether right or wrong which may render me odious or contemptible.

Answer 1. The mention of my examining of Arminius his Analysis of Rom. 9. is little less than vapouring, as Mr Blake in his spiteful fashion terms it, but a necessary allegation with modesty to clear myself from his false charge, That I had lately preached this as a Gospel • ruth, that this is one of the promises of the Covenant of grace, that God will be the God of believers and their seed, and that now I was suddenly otherwise persuaded. If the Reader view my words, he will discern a spirit of malice or waywardness in Mr Blake's 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 verse. 5. that he saith, that Arminius was deceived in this among other things, that the objectors whose objection Paul preventeth verse. 6. do by the word of God conceive the word of the Covenant legal, 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 Jews arguing from the rejection of the Jews God's failing in his promise, but in the framing the objection v. 6. as if the Jews objection, That if they were rejected who by the works of the Law sought righteousness, then God's word in the Legal Covenant to take them to be his people who kept the Law, did fail: which Mr. Bain refutes, and shows, That the objection did arise concerning God's word about their natural descent, as being Israel and Abraham's 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 sermon legis, sicut apparet ex illis verbis: Si legem Moses non violarint; qui legem sequuntur. Sed in textu agitur de sermon promissionis, qui efficax est in populo praecognito▪ de quo praecip • e glory • bantur Judaei, semetipsos Abrahae filios, & haer • 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 Jews to be the legal 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 af • 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 natural seed of Abraham? Are the n •• urall seed of Abraham and legal justiciaries one and the same? He continues his spiteful language and calumniating course. For 1. though it is true that Apol. pag. 114. I s • y one born after the flesh • 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 mere calumny that in the explication of Rom. 9 6, 7, 8, I sp • 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. Baines 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 natural 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 natural seed of Abraham and legal justiciaries one and the same? I answer, No. for saith Mr. Blake, if the Apostle exclude all the natural seed of Abram from this covenant of God with Abraham, (as Mr. T. from Stapleton argues) and take in only 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. Blake's own allegation of Stapletons wor • 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 eternal, all the natural seed of Abraham are not included, but grant that many have been and shall be included, yet say, that as they are his natural seed so they are his spiritual seed by believing or election, and that to the elect only that promise as Evangelical is made by God, and that this the Apostle determines and proves, and nowhere gainsays.

But saith Mr. Blake, In the words immediately before this objection, he speaks of the Jews (as his kinsmen according to the flesh▪ which were the natural seed of Abraham) and saith, to them pertain the adoption, the glory, and the Covenants, &c. How then can his distinction be interpreted to throw them out of Covenant, when in express terms he had affirmed that they were in covenant? How can he deny that these are children, v. 7, when he had affirmed that to them pertaineth the adoption v. 4.

Answer. If the Apostle had affirmed those Jews his kinsmen after the flesh, that they were in covenant, Gen. 17.7. and adopted, for whom he sorrowed so much, v. 2. he had plaid the hypocrite, expressing his sorrow for them as not included in the covenant, who he knew were in it, he had trifled in raising an objection from thence and answering it, yea he had contradicted himself, who v. 6. saith, All are not Israel that are of Israel, and v 7. that because they were the seed of Abraham, they were not all children, v. 8. that the children of the flesh are not the children of God, opposing the children of the promise to the children of the flesh. And it will concern Mr. Blake to reconcile the Apostle to himself, if he should mean as Mr Blake expounds him, Nor do I know how he could with any show of truth affirm these men to be in covenant with God, to be his children who did obstinately oppose Christ, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, were not subject to the righteousness of God, Rom. 10.3. but were broken off for unbelief, Rom. 11.20. It is true it is said, Whose or of whom are the adoption and the covenants. But doth he say this of the Israelites then living whose case he bewailed? I conceive not, but of their ancestors. For the speeches were not true of them, that of them was Christ according to the flesh, , or theirs the giving of the Law, yet I deny not it was their honor and privilege in some sort, that God vouchsafed these things to their ancestors and nation, and it did affect Paul much, that the people which were so much dignified by God, should now be rejected. But were it that of those persons it were said, that to them pertained the covenants, and the adoption, yet were it not true which Mr. Bl. saith, that Paul in express terms affirmed that they were in covenant, or were children of God. For if it be true that by the Covenants were meant the Tables of the Covenant, as Beza conceives, or the Covenants of Adoption, in respect of outward legal privileges, which are only there mentioned as proper to the Jews, the adoption and covenants might be said to pertain to them, and they neither in covenant, nor children of God Evangelically. But of this Text I have before spoken, Sect. 27, &c. Mt Bl adds, wh • ch may be confirmed by abundant other texts of Scripture; Ye are the children of the Lord your God, Deut. 14.1. Out of Egypt have I called my Son, Hos. 11.1. It is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it unto Doggs, Mat. 15.26: where all that were no • Gentiles, all to whom Christ was sent are called Children: Ye are the children of the Prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your Fathers, Acts 3.20. Doth the covenant appertain to them, and they styled the children of the covenant, and yet are they out of covenant? Are they children to whom the adoption pertains, and yet no children? When Mr. T. hath given any fair answer to these Quaere's, especially the two last, we shall conceive some probability of truth in his gloss on the Apostles words; in the mean time we cannot but look upon it in full opposition and contradiction to that which the Apostle expressly delivers.