Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 26
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 onelyonly 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 shew of proof, but also of a high spirit, of bloudy 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 any where charge him or my Antagonists with such kinde 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 finde 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 lookt 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. Baily, 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 my self and the truth more fully from Mr. Blakes injurious dealings I shall take a view of that Chapter.
First, Mr. Blake saith falsly of me, that I am loth 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 spitefull 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 controversie; 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 mixt; 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 mixt, 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 mixt 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 mixt, in Divinity the state of grace is either pure or mixt, &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 mixt Gospel, a compound of that which was pure and impure; when they urged with such vehemency a mixture of works. But do I call any where the Gospel mixt? 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 judg of his dealing with me. What then can be his meaning but that Abraham had promises, not onelyonly 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 mixt; some Evangelical, belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth; some are domestick 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 falsly 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. Blakes 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 mixt 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 mixt Gospel, as he intimates I did, but of a pure Covenant and a mixt Covenant, and asserted not the Gospel preached to Abraham to be mixt, but the Covenant made with Abraham. 2. It is false, that we are under such a mixt 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 Gods goodness, as he is a Creatour, as our Saviour 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 domestick 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 domestick 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 domestick relation-promises.
Answer. All this is true, and yet it is true also that the special promises domestick 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 mans seed. And then adds, I think I shall more gratifie 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. Blakes talk or mine be ridiculous the Reader may judg. My speech is to purposes aimed at by me, to wit, the enervating the arguings from Abrahams Covenant and Circumcision for infant-baptism, by shewing 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 Abrahams covenant, promising the Land of Canaan to be in the covenant of pure Evangelical grace as now it stands, sith 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 mixt. The most eminent promises (which contain the m…rrow of all) give the denomination, and not such that are annext 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 onelyonly 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 finde 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 finde 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 onelyonly 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 Gods 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, sith the promise v. 7. might have been made good though he had been father of one Nation onelyonly.
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 onelyonly 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. shews 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 shew 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. foreign which our Translation reade, 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 mixt; 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 Abrahams 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 finde 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 finde 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 reade 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 my self 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 mixt) 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 signifie 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 justifie, 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. Blakes that proves it.
Mr. Blake proceeds thus, Lastly, Mr. T. yet knows not how to bring any thing 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 shewed 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 administring the other, of both which speeches I have given an account in that place which I finde 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 axiome: 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. shew. And I say still that speech is a truth, and necessary to be avouched by all those who ascribe onelyonly authentick authority to the holy Scripture. Nor is it reasonable to require that I should shew any such errour as is maintained by all Protestant Divines against Papists.
For, 1. it is not possible for me to shew what all Protestant Divines hold against Papists.
2. Nor is it necessary to verifie my speech which avoucheth not any such errour in act, but onelyonly 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 our selves to extirpate is better known in the ways I set down Ap. p. 133, 134. Sect. 13. than in Mr. Blakes 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 Tenents 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 onelyonly the Collections of Brerely and such like Papists, but also the Treatises of the Cassandrian writers, and late Episcopal Protestant do shew, 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 Cretians fain all things. Augustines 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 my self, and with men not malevolent to me I think my words at least deserve as much credit concerning my own actions as Mr. Blakes, 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 onelyonly 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 Lords 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, sith 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 Mahometans 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… every one 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 onelyonly 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 domestick 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 domestick.
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 onelyonly, as wel: as by Mr. Blakes.
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 any thing 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 domestick, but onelyonly 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 meer 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 Lords Supper.
Mr. Blake adds, So that their extraordinary Sacraments are expresly 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 expresly affirmed to be the same with ours.
2▪ It is no where 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly an individual Seal of the faith of Abraham, but Bellarmines opinion is, that his circumcision did testifie not his individual faith, but his individual privilege to be father of the faithfull, 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 my self 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 Abrahams 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 finde nothing opposite, but against another point that Abrahams Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith and of the Covenant to him onelyonly, which I disclaim, and therefore let his arguments pass without gain-saying, onelyonly 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 shew that my distinction shews 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.