Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 25
SECT. XXV. Mr. Marshal's Reply to my Examen about his first Conclusion is reviewed, and the Covenant Gen. 17. still maintained to be mixt, and that Gentile self justiciaries though reputed Christians are not termed Abraham's seed, nor Gal. 4.29. proves it, and that the distinction of outward and inward Covenant is not right.
I Now reassume the Review of Mr. Ms. Reply to my Examen of his Sermon; Next, saith he, come we to examine the truth of the Antecedent, which I manifested in those five Conclusions opened in my Sermon. But I supposed he had intended to prove by his five Conclusions not onelyonly his Antecedent, but also his Consequence. If I apprehend him rightly, there are none of his five Conclusions but the two first that are for proving of the Antecedent. But let's view what he writes.
The first whereof is this, That the covenant of grace for substance hath always been one and the same both to Jews and Gentiles. The first Conclusion you grant, and therefore there were no need to have stayed the Reader any further about it, were it not that some of your Exceptions do almost recall your grant. If it be in substance the same, though you should reckon up a thousand accidental and local differences, it were nothing to the purpose.
Answer. It is true, I granted this Conclusion understanding it according to the Explication in his Sermon, pag. 9, 10. in these words, That the new and living way to life was first revealed to Adam immediately after his fall, and that blessed promise concerning the seed of the woman often renewed, and the Patriarchs faith therein, and salvation thereby plentifully recorded in Scripture: But the first time that ever it was revealed under the express name of a League or Covenant was with Abraham; who because he was the first explicite Covenanter is called the Father of the Faithfull; and ever since clearly hath all the world been divided into two distinct bodies and families, the one called the Kingdom, City, Houshold of God, to which all who own the way of life were to joyn themselves; and th…se were called the children of God, the sons of Abraham, the children of the Kingdom; all the rest of the world, the Kingdom of the Devil, the seed of the Serpent, strangers from the covenant of grace, without God in the world, &c. The substance of this covenant of grace on Gods part was to be Abraham's God, and the God of his seed, to be an all-sufficient portion, an all-sufficient reward for him, to give Jesus Christ to him, and righteousness with him both of justification, and 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 Abrahams natural posterity, much less with any believing Gentiles natural posterity as such, but onelyonly 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 Defence pag. 90. he saith, The covenant of grace contains not onelyonly 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 Gods will; sometimes it was administred by his appointment in types, shadows, and other legal ordinances; this covenant of administration God said Zachary 11.10. he did break with the people of the Jews, and at the death of Christ he did wholly evacuate and abolish, and in stead 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 your self, 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 Christs death, and the administration we live under which is baptism and the Lords 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 my self with dulness, 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 it self? to say, this administration was administred, and not something by the administration administred?
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 Burges in his Book entituled 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 stedfastly 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 powerfull 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 onelyonly the truly godly are in the covenant, and they are onelyonly Gods 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 tels 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 meer 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 shewed where the word is so taken, if of the thing, what kinde of division or distribution it is. To me it seems against all Rules of Logick 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 administred, or administring outward things, another inward administring inwardly or inward things. But neither is this right sith 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 onelyonly an ag…eement and promise to do it, the administring is the keeping of the covenant, not the covenant it self.
But let that be yielded that the covenant doth administer, yet the description of the external covenant as made by Mr. Burges 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 any thing 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 Prophesie doth not foretell any thing 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, untill 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 onelyonly, and then it is not a Prophesie 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 shewed before at large in the first part of this Review. But without a Trope to call outward Ordinances Gods 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. OnelyOnly 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 shewed, 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 my self in my Letter to Mr. Baily, 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 onelyonly according to the Apostles Exposition, who never so expounded the promise, Gen. 17.7. as if it were made to any mans seed but Abrahams, 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 shew 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 Abrahams family is observed by Mr. Allen and Mr. Sheppard in their Defence 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 onelyonly the Covenant of grace; but that whole Covenant that was made with Abraham, whereby on Gods 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 houshold 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 Abrahams 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 expresly yielded, that the Covenant with Abraham was mixt in my sense, that Circumcision did not belong to all visibly in the Covenant of grace, that it belonged peculiarly to the Church in Abrahams 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 endeavours 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 onelyonly contain the Covenant of grace in Christ; whereas it is apparent (say you) out of the Text, that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant consisting of temporal benefits, the multiplying of Abrahams 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 my self, that all the difference betwixt the Covenant then made with Abraham, and the Covenant made with us, lies onelyonly in the manner of administration of the Covenant; and not in the Covenant it self. The Covenant it self in the substance of it holds out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to them and to us.
Answer. By mixt Covenant I mean a Covenant consisting of some temporal blessings proper onelyonly to Abrahams 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 it self 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 it self, 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 expresly 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 it self so often, if it be not to thwart the Scripture, sure it is unwarrantably to alter its expressions: God himself so expresly 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 it self 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 apparant 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 Abrahams 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 shews that the promise of an earthly inheritance was in the first place thereby intended to Abrahams natural posterity, and the other onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 Abrahams natural posterity and to us. Ergo, there is more difference than in the administration. The Antecedent is apparant; 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, Levit. 26.6, &c. are not made to every godly man, that he shall ly 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 shewed 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 Abrahams 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 onelyonly 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 any more 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 onelyonly in the manner of administration.
Answer. I deny not but that the possession of Canaan, birth of Isaac. multiplying Abrahams 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 Gods 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 Abrahams natural posterity, and that Ciacumcision of infants was specially for that reason, to wit, the peculiar promises to Abrahams 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 onelyonly promises common to all believers, but also promises so peculiar to Abrahams 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 inheritours, is so manifest, that the denial of it I can hardly impute to any thing but dulness or meer pertinacy. 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, sith 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 ratifie temporal blessings, when he intended to assure spiritual blessings under the covert of words in the first sense importing onelyonly temporal. As for the terming of the administration of the Covenant of grace it is neither according to Scripture, nor is it very handsom 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 no where reade that it …ealed the Land of Canaan.
Answer. To gratifie 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 shews 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, vers. 6, 7, 16. It is true, the Apostle calls Abrahams Circumcision A seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised, Rom 4.11. But I finde not this said of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams: 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 mixt 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 mixt of spiritual and temporal promises: but these promises are common to all godly persons both Jews and Gentiles, not proper onelyonly to Abrahams natural posterity inheriting, in which sense I called it a mixt Covenant, Exercit. pag. 2. Sect. 1. I grant, we have outward privileges and ordinances, as Baptism and the Lords 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 shew 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 mixt Covenant, but not a mixt Evangelical Covenant; for a mixt 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 untill four hun…red and thirty years after i…, and then it was not mixed with it, but onelyonly annexed to it, Gal. 3.17.
Answer. Mr. Church his Confession, that spiritual and temporal promises may be said to make a mixt Covenant, is as much as I need to justifie my speech Exercit. pag 2. who did not call the Covenant made with Abraham mixt in any other sense.
But, saith he, … ▪ the difference was onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 administred by sacrifices and other types before Circumcision was instituted; and so blot out my second exception against his first conclusion▪ onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 Abrahams seed not born Jews, but made Proselytes, who were Abrahams seed by profession who sought justification by the works of the Law did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God; and alleged …al. 4 29. for it.
Against this I excepted 1. that I thought he could not shew where in Scripture such are called Abrahams 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, Abrahams seed; but not so of any Proselyte, and so Mr. M. had not his purpose, of applying the term [Abrahams seed] to Gentiles who were believers onelyonly 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 joyned 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 joyned 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 expresly 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 onelyonly by profession Gods 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 Abrahams 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 onelyonly visible Church-members of the Jews, seeking justification by works, not submitting to Gods righteousness, Abrahams seed. In the former of the Texts is not the term Abrahams 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, any more 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. shews, not Proselytes called Abrahams seed, though self-justiciaries and Gods people onelyonly, 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 joyned with Arminius, in calling self-justiciary Proselytes Abraham's seed: which Mr. Bayn denied.
He saith, He joyned not with Arminius, that I mis-allege Arminius, joyn 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 falshood.
But sure I must continue still this charge against Mr. M. and add further an imputation of negligence at least, if not of falshood, who heeded not that the words of Mr. Bayn which I alleged say as much, that the term [children of the flesh] elswhere signified self-justiciaries though not there; yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned 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 Abrahams 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 onelyonly by profession. But that which I say I mean not of a meer 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 grosly 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 onelyonly 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 apparant 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 laboured 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 bosome 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 Abrahams seed, though Ishmael their Type, and the Jews his Antitype were Abrahams natural seed. So that M M. is mistaken in conceiving that which offends me in Mr. Blakes 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 Abrahams 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.