Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 27
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 shewed.
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 finde 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 onelyonly this to say, that they can finde 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 wilfully) and throughout all my writings, that a man can hardly conceive but that he shamelesly vented these things against his own knowledg. 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 finde to be meer fallacies, and have, and doubt not with divine assistance to shew 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 honoureth me I will honour, this promise doth suppose it a duty to honour 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, sith the institution of Baptism is not to whom God hath promised to be a God, for that is according to his election which is unknown, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. but to them who are Disciples or believers in Christ, Matth. 28.19. Mark 16.15, 16. There are ambiguities in the speeches that commands in the Gospel do suppose promises, that promises made to persons do include commands, that all the New Testament Ordinances are annexed to promises, which would be too tedious and unnecessary to unfold, it is sufficient to shew they will not serve Mr. Sidenhams turn in the sense they are true, and will as well serve to prove infants right to the Lords Supper, as to Baptism.
That which he saith, We have as much in the New Testament to prove infant-baptism, from the true principles of right to Ordinances, as they have for those whom they baptize; for they baptize grown persons on such and such considerations; and we shall hereafter shew we baptize on as strong and equivalent grounds, is notoriously false: for we baptize according to the qualification required in the institution of Christ, and the Apostles and other Preachers baptizing and directing the use of Baptism in the New Testament which are acknowledged the true principles of right to Ordinances, and it is acknowledged even by Paedobaptists that they have neither precept nor example in the New Testament of infant-baptism, and therefore cannot have as strong and warrantable grounds as we who are Pistobaptists, that is, baptizers of believers. Nor is it true that it is requisite we should shew them 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 authentique repeal is easily shewed Acts 15. and elsewhere.
In the rest Mr. Sidenham shews not why infants should not have been baptized at first, as well as grown men if it had been Christs minde; Ishmael and all Abrahams males were circumcised the self same day in which Abraham was, Gen. 17.26, 27. and therefore if Paedobaptists Hypothesis were right, infants as well as persons of years should have been baptized by the Apostles▪ which they did not, for in that it is not exprest, it is enough to shew it was not done, unless we make the Spirit of God defective in what was needfull to have been set down, and to say as Mr. Sidenham doth, There is enough to shew it was done though not written, is with the Papists to maintain unwritten traditions▪ Rule …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 savours of this corrupt principle, that what we conceive fit in Gods worship is to be accounted his minde. This is enough in answer to the first Chapter.
In the second he saith untruly, that the Covenant Gen. 17. was first made with Abraham and his seed in the name of all believers and their seed, both Jews and Gentiles; nor is it true that if he should finde the same Covenant reaching Gentile believers and their children as Abraham and his they cannot be denied the new external sign and seal of the same Covenant, that is, Baptism.
And for what he saith, the Covenant Gen. 17. was a Covenant of pure grace, I grant it so far as it was Evangelical, but deny it to be a pure Gospel-covenant, nor do any of his Reasons prove any more than I grant, that there were Gospel-promises meant by God under promises of temporal mercies proper to Abraham and his natural posterity, and those that joyned with them in their policy; which I have proved before, out of Scripture to be termed the Covenant it self without a Metonymy, and God is said to keep that Covenant by establishing the Israelites in Canaan, and therefore it is but vain talk that the promise of Canaan was but an additional, appendix, added ex super abundanti, if he mean it of the Covenant Gen. 17. if he mean it of the Gospel-covenant it is more true that was added to the other as a more hidden sense under the promises of civil and domestick privileges. I do not make a mixture in the Gospel-covenant, but in the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. nor by mixture do I understand any other than a composition of various parts, not a mixture in the nature of it, or substance or circumstances: but that the Covenant made with Abraham had promises of two sorts, some promises in the first obvious sense of the words proper to Abrahams natural posterity, some spiritual common to all believers in the more hidden sense of the words, which with what hath been said before is enough to answer that Chapter a…so, proceeding upon mistakes of my meaning in the term [mixt] in many passages, and the rest if not answered before, I let pass, because dictates without proof.
In the third, after he hath allowed the distinctions of Abrahams seed into carnal and spiritual, natural and believing, he sets down six considerations.
1. That Abraham's spiritual seed were as much his fleshly seed also, Isaac as Ishmael except Proselytes and Servants: which may be granted with these limitations.
1. That it be not understood universally, for Christian believing Gentiles… neither Proselytes to Israel, nor servants to them, are Abrahams spiritual seed, yet not at all Abrahams fleshly seed.
2. That Isaac was as much Abrahams fleshly seed as Ishmael according to the meaning Rom. 9.8. as fleshly seed is called from natural generation simply considered: but not as Gal. 4.23. it is meant of fleshly seed called so from natural generation in some respect, to wit, as begotten in a baser way.
The second consideration of Mr. Sidenham is this, [The Covenant was administred to all Abrahams natural and fleshly children, as if they had been spiritual, and before they knew what faith was, or could actually profess Abrahams faith.]
If he mean by the Covenant onelyonly Circumcision I grant it of all Abrahams natural male children: if he mean the covenant of grace which is Evangelical, though I deny not that it was administred by the mediation of Christ, and the work of the Spirit, to many elect infants afore believing, yet I deny that it ever was or shall be administred to any but the elect of God, who have the denomination of Abrahams spiritual seed. For I know not how the Covenant which promiseth remission of sins, justification, regeneration, adoption▪ eternal life is said to be administred but by giving these, which are given onelyonly to the elect, not to Abrahams meer natural or fleshly seed. Meer outward Ordidances and outward gifts and privileges as they are not promised in the Gospel-covenant, which we call the covenant of grace, either as made to Abraham, or confirmed by Christs bloud, so neither are they administrations of it, but arise from Gods command or providence without the Covenant as Evangelical.
His third consideration is, It's no contradiction in different respects to be a seed of the flesh by natural generation, and a childe under the same promise made with the parent; for they both agreed in Abraham's case: which I grant, if meant of Isaac and Jacob, and such other Heirs of the promise, as the Scriptures term them. But I reject that which follows, that none was a childe of promise, but as he came of Abraham's flesh: for believing Gentiles are children of the promise though they come not of Abrahams flesh, yea it is not onelyonly true to the contrary, but expresly avowed Rom. 9.8. That none are children of the promise as they come of Abraham's flesh. Nor is it true, that as he came from Abraham's flesh, so every one had the seal of Gods Covenant on his flesh ▪ for this is not true of males under eight days old, or females, and therefore this inference is vain: Thus a spiritual promise was made with Abraham and his carnal seed.
His fourth consideration is, There was no distinction of Abraham's fleshly seed and his spiritual seed in the Old Testament, but all comprehended under the same Covenant, untill they degenerated from Abraham's faith, and proved themselves to be meer carnal, and rejected the promise.
But this is manifestly false, Esau was Abrahams fleshly seed, but never his spiritual seed. The Apostle determines Rom 9.11. afore he had done good or evil he was rejected, and with the Apostle a childe of the promise, and an elect person are the same. No man is Abrahams spiritual seed but an elect person, or true believer: Scripture makes none else his seed spiritual Rom. 4.12, 16. & 9.7, 8. Gal. 3.29. John 8.39. This very Authour makes the distinctions of fleshly and spiritual, believing and natural taken out of Rom. 9.7, 8 Gal. 4.23. & 3.16. most true. And if a person may be Abrahams spiritual seed a while, then the degenerate the elect, and true believers may fall away finally and totally, and if they that be Abrahams fleshly seed be under the same covenant with the spiritual till they degenerate, then a person may be in the covenant of grace, and be meerly carnal, having not the Spirit of God, then a man may be in the covenant of grace and not abide in it, then the covenant of grace may be defective, mutable, and if there be no distinction of Abrahams fleshly seed and his spiritual in the Old Testament, untill they rejected the promise, then there is no distinction of elect and reprobate till in time they embrace or reject the promise contrary to Rom. 9.11. He that holds this position must become an Arminian.
His fifth is, There is a carnal and spiritual seed of Abraham, even under the New Testament, as our Opposites must acknowledg, as well as Infants; so are the most visible Professours which they baptize; which may have no grace; and many prove carnal indeed, through the predominancy of their lusts and corruptions.
Answer. It is ackdowledged that there is a carnal seed of Abraham under the New Testament in the Jewish Nation: but visible Professours of the Gentiles which are baptized although they be many of them carnal men (and so are many of the congregational Churches not baptized) yet they cannot be termed the carnal seed of Abraham, being not his seed either by nature or by believing as he did.
His sixth is, when there is mention of Abraham's carnal seed in 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 Abrahams carnal and spiritual seed is as the distinction of the Church into visible and invisible, in which the members may agree to the same persons, though on the other side also they may not agree. The same persons may be of the Church visible and invisible, and yet some persons may be of the Church visible who are not of the invisible, and some of the invisible who are not of the invisible: so some are Abrahams carnal seed who are also his spiritual, as Isaac, Jacob, Christ; some …re his spiritual seed but not his carnal, as Gentile believers; some his carnal seed but not his spiritual, as unbelieving Jews; some neither his carnal nor spiritual seed, as unsound Professours of faith of the Gentiles, who are no way Abrahams seed, nor ever called his carnal seed in Scripture.
There are but two places I know in which the term of Abrahams fleshly seed or childe is used Rom. 9.8. Gal. 4.23. in both which is meant of his seed by natural generation, though in the later in a worse way. In the former way, those that embraced the Covenant without degenerating from Abrahams faith, being descended from Abraham by natural generation, are as properly termed Abrahams carnal seed as those Israelites that did backslide.
I grant, Abraham was a natural father to many of 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 untill 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 childe 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 Abrahams 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 childe should be Abrahams seed, and this is the true stating of things, which perhaps he means. But afore I state things after Mr. Sidenhams minde, 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 onelyonly are Abrahams 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 reade [to whom pertains the adop…ion and the glory, not as Mr. Sidenham, the adoption of glory] yet the Greek being foreign, 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, sith 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 ancestours, 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 injoyed 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 Gods peculiar respect to them should not be broken off from the Olive-tree, rejected from being Gods people, and hardned in unbelief.
Mr. Sidenham thinks this Text a weapon whose edg… 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 minde. For the reason, as he makes it, must either refer to his trouble or their rejection. If it refer to Pauls trouble, the sense is, that Paul was troubled because of the Covenant, &c. But this should be a matter of rejoycing 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 stedfast 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 Pauls 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 finde a Teacher of a Church pretending so much zeal for truth to vent in print such a ridiculous conceit, as if Pauls 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, vers. 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 colour 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 Gods 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 shewing that the saving mercies in those promises were not assured to every natural childe 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 Gods 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 Gods people. It is therefore expresly 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 meerly out of the absolute liberty of Gods will, v. 18. which the Apostle proves in the rejection of Esau vers. 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 expresly 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 Gods 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 mans will and not Gods.
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 summs 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 any more 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 childe, sith it was not made to all Abrahams 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, untill the calling shews 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 edg of our weapons against our selves, when the Antagonist must yield him what he would have; and me thinks he should have brought some Expositour or some argument for him, and not so pitifully beg what he should prove. To the contrary I urge that by [Christ Gal. 3.16.] is meant either Christ personal or Christ mystical, or both, and not as the Head of a visible Church.
1. That the promises said to be made to Abraham's seed, that is, Christ are of the blessing of Abraham, which is righteousness and the spirit, Gal. 3.8, 9, 14. the inheritance v. 18. life v. 21. not bare outward privileges. But these things belong onelyonly to Christ and his mystical body, not his meer visible Church. Ergo, they are not the seed there meant.
2. From the condition or means by which the promise is made good, and that is faith, v. 14, 22. But the meer visible Church may be without faith, therefore the promise is not made to it.
3. By the express determination of the Apostle v. 7. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham, vers. 29. And if ye be Christs (that is by faith, v. 26, 27.) then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise: which a man would think were enough to silence th…se that make the promises to belong to unbelievers as Abrahams seed.
4. The current Protestant interpreters of note, such as Beza, Piscator, Perkins, &c. go this way.
But Mr. Sidenham thinks to evince his purpose from v. 14. where the blessing of Abraham is said to come on the Gentiles through Christ, and this blessing of Abraham was not personal, but to him and his seed, this very blessing is come on Gentile believers, as on Abraham; therefore it must come on believers of the Gentiles and their seed. For it cannot be called Abraham,s blessing, except it come on the Gentiles according to the substantial terms of Abraham's Covenant: now this was the absolute form of Abraham's blessing, I will be a God of 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 it self: and it must needs be a very uncouth saying to all judicious ears, to say, that Abraham's blessing is come on the Gentiles by Christ, as it was on the Jews by Abraham, and to exclude half the subjects at once from any right to it; for so you must, if you cast out the seed of Gentile believers.
To which I answered, that had not the Assembly at Westminster, Confession of Faith, chap. 28. art. 4. cited Gal. 3.9, 14. with Gen. 17.7, 9. to prove infant-baptism of a believing parent, I should not have transcribed so much of this arguing. The blessing of Abraham must come on the Gentiles, saith he, according to the substantial terms of the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. Ergo, on Gentile believers and their seed. Now what is the blessing of Abraham? and what the substantial terms of the Covenant? and what seed of Abraham did it come on? and how?
1. The blessing is plainly expressed v. 8.9. to be justification v. 14. to be the receiving the promise of the spirit. The same Apostle Rom. 4▪6, 9. placeth the blessedness of Abraham in the imputation of righteousness through faith, Beza Annot. in Gal. 3.14. Et spiritus nomine benedictionem aeternae spiritualis vitae intelligo. Perkins Comment. on Gal. 3.14. That the blessing of Abraham, that is, righteousness and life everlasting, Piscat. Schol. in Gal. 3.14. Ut benedictio 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 Gods part was to be Abraham's God, and the God of his seed, to be an all-sufficient portion, an all-sufficient reward for him, to give Jesus Christ to him, and righteousness with him, both of justification, and of sanctification, and of everlasting life. On Abraham's part the substance of the Covenant was, to believe in the promised Messiah, to walk before God with a perfect heart, to serve God according to his revealed will, to instruct his family, &c. Not one that I know that makes the blessing or the substance of the Covenant to be an initial seal, visible Churchmembership and such like meer Ecclesiastical privileges.
3. The seed of Abraham to whom the blessing is promised is his spiritual seed, and it onelyonly. Diodati Annot. on Gal. 3.14. of Abraham] namely, promised to Abraham, and to his spiritual posterity onelyonly. Trapp. Comment on Gal. 3.14. v. 14. The promise of the spirit] that is, the spiritual promise made to Abraham, and his spiritual posterity. The Text it self …al. 3.7. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
4. The means is through faith, Gal. 3.14. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham, vers. 9. From which I infer, that he that would conclude from hence that the blessing of Abraham comes upon the 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 meer Ecclesiastical privilege of right to an initial seal, which is not at all meant Gal. 3.14. by the blessing of Abraham, nor ever meant by the Covenant Gen. 17.7. nor would the promise be true, if meant of it; for many of Abrahams seed had no right to Circumcision or visible Church-membership. Surely according to Paedobaptists Hypotheses all the posterity of Abraham by Ishmael, the sons of▪ Keturah, Esaus were excluded; and therefore the word of Gods promise so expounded had been false.
As for Mr. Sidenhams Reasons, there's no force in them. The first may be retorted, The first is come on Gentile believers, as on Abraham; therefore it must not come on believers of the Gentiles and their seed also universally, for it came not on Abraham and his natural seed universally, nor is it true this very blessing is come on Gentile believers as on Abraham, for it is come on Abraham not simply as a believer, but as a father of believers, not as father of men, but it comes on no Gentile as father of believers, but as Abrahams childe 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 meer 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 Abrahams blessing it, is clipt half off not like it self, it's made an empty thing, a meer 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 Christs 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 vers. 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 onelyonly 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 expresly contrary to their conceit of Gentile believers children being reckoned for Abrahams 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 mans 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 shews all these to be connex to be freed from the curse, to be blessed with Abrahams blessing, to be justified and saved, and therefore cannot be interpreted of a meer 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 edg 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 Abrahams seed but those who are Christs by their …aith or election, and adoption to be the children of God, for such are all that are Christs, 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 childe of a believing Gentile ▪ therefore all the children born of believing parents are not Abrahams 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 endeavour 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 Iews but the elect and believing were Abrahams spiritual seed, so it is concerning the Gentiles, none of them either of their children are Abrahams seed in the sense in which the Gentiles may be termed Abrahams seed but the elect and believing.
2. Saith Mr. Sidenham, The Apostle here hath no intent to shew the distinction of Abraham's seed as the subject of the outward privileges, and administrations of ordinances, but to shew 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 shew 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 Abrahams seed, there being in that passage no seed of Abraham mentioned but such as are spiritual, nor doth he mention Abrahams seed as the subject, meaning the adequate subject of outward Ordinances and Privileges, there being many that were not Abrahams spiritual seed, who might be circumcised, baptized, admitted to the Pass-over and Lords Supper, and at least in some of these many who were might not, though v. 26, 27. compared together shew who were wont then to be baptized, to wit, believers, and such as at least in profession put on Christ. And I conceive Pauls intent was to shew, 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 Abrahams 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 sith the Minister of Baptism cannot distinguish between a believer in reality and one in profession he is without fault in baptizing a believer onelyonly in profession, whom he takes to be a believer in reality.
If any say, Baptism knows no flesh, the meaning likely is that Baptism is not alotted to any for its natural birth though of a believer. So that I need not answer Mr. Sidenhams arguments to the contrary, sith I do not assert that none but Abrahams seed may be baptized.
Nor is it true, that we have the same ground of charity to act on infants of believers as on grown men. For though infants may be Christs, yet we have not the same evidence that they are Christs which we have of grown persons, whose words and actions shew that the Spirit of God dwels in them. Nor would God have us 1 Cor. 7.14. to account the children to be holy as visible professours are for the parents faith, but to be legitimate from the lawfulness of their generation. Nor can it be proved that any one infant of the most godly person is taken into the same Covenant with the parent: nor doth Christ's respect to infants when brought to him give warrant to any to judg better of a believers infant than of a visible professour, or to account of such an infant as baptizable.
Nor is it true, that a general Scripture-assertion, and the ground of an indefinite promise, is more than all our Reasons to judg a visible Professour Christ's or Abraham's seed, or a subject of Baptism ▪ sith the words and actions of such a one do shew more of Christs spirit and faith than any speeches of God or promises do of infants now existent, and he that baptizeth a visible professor of faith, proceedeth uppon certain knowledge according to a certain rule of baptizing Disciples, which is more to assure the conscience in the doing the will of God, then any Charitable judgement or any probable likelyhood of an infants being Christs, or in covenant for the present, or certain revelation of the infants election and being in covenant, and so will be a believer hereafter can be to warrant a man to baptize it at this instant. Nor is it true that he that baptizeth a visible professor, goes by the purblind eye of his probable judgment. For he baptizeth upon an unerring rule of baptizing manifest disciples, according to an unerring knowledge, that those he baptizeth are such under the Gospel; the Jewes are Abrahams fleshly seed, though they be not visible professors of faith in Christ, no meer Gentile visible professor is Abrahams seed, nor any true believers natural seed as such, nor doth the covenant make every believer in reallity, or any, except Abraham, much less every visible believer a spiritual Father. I confess, the spiritual seed of Abraham takes its denomination from the covenant; I mean the future seed, and from their believing the actual, but the natural seed takes not its denomination from the covenant, but Abrahams begetting, nor is it true the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural seed, is renewed in the new Testament with believers and their seed, neither formerly nor now are infants of believers non-elect Abrahams seed, nor is there in the word of God one passage either in the old or new Testament either of those alleaged by Master Sidenham or any other, I know, wherein infants of believers are visibly owned as we own visible professors. There will be found visible subjects of baptism. though neither infants of believers, nor meer visible professors be Abrahams seed. I conclude my animadversions on this chapter of Mr. Sidenhams with these considerations, that none but elect or true believers of the Gentiles are the seed of Abraham with whom the Covenant Gen. 17.7. is made, nor are persons to be baptized for their interest in that Covenant, except it be made manifest by their profession of faith, and therefore neither can we say of any infant of a believing Gentile that he is in that covenant, nor if we could, were it to be baptized till by profession or other waies, its faith did manifest it to be a Disciple of Christ.
In the 4. chapter Mr. Sidenham tells us of a being in Covenant according to the purpose of election in Gods heart, which I allow, and of being in Covenant in the face of the visible Church by the persons own visible profession, which I deny not, but for the other sort of being in covenant with God as in a political moral consideration, as in the right of another through a free promise to him and his heirs, it's a meer figment, there being no such kind of being in Covenant in the time of the new Testament, nor doth Mr. Sidenham bring one text of Scripture to prove it: and for his reasons they prove it not, 1. Saith he, If men deny an external as well as internal being in covenant, none can administer an external ordinance an outward sign to any, for we must go by external rules in these actings. But this reason is nothing to prove a political moral being in covenant without any act of Covenanting by either of the parties in Covenant. I deny not, but that all the elect are in Covenant with God in his purpose and so infants are in Covenant with God by Gods promise, eiher to his son when he gave them to him, or at some other time. And I grant that visible professors of faith in Christ are in Covenant externally by their own act of covenanting, and such may be baptized they being Disciples of Christ. 2. Nor did I ever say that no Ordinance must be administred to these▪ which are not internally in Covenant. 3. Nor do I count it any absurdity to say we may set a seal to a blank (though I like not the expression) in this sense a man may lawfully be baptized to whom God hath not promised to be his God. 4. And I have shewed we have certain evidence of visible professors being in covenant, for we hear their profession and see thei… actions, and their rule by which baptism is to be administred, but of infants we have no evidence of their being in covenant by profession of faith, according to which we are to be baptized, yea we have evidence to the contrary, and their being in covenant according to election is uncertain, and if it were certain, yet till they be actual believers or Disciples of Christ we have no rule to baptize them by, nor is there a jot brought by Mr. Sidenham to prove they are in Covenant by their parents faith onelyonly in Gospel times. Nor doth any thing Mr. Sidenham hath said answer that which he saith is the great question I and we all urge, that if God made the Covenant with believers and their seed, they must be all saved, &c. But in stead 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 Gods covenant to them, but because they covenant to be Christs by their own Declaration and promise, which is certainly known upon hearing their words and seing their actions, nor is it any trick to evade, but a clear truth, that it is not being in covenant (by Gods 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 Gods 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 priviledge; for the Covenant of it self, till it is fulfilled by the making a person a known Disciple of Christ, doth not give right to baptism any more then to the Lords 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. Abrahams 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 Lords 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 Gods act of promise to them, but by their profession and practise 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 Gods promise of regeneration, justification, salvation.
1. Because that promise is according to Gods election, which is secret, so as that no man can know who are they to whom the promise pertaines, 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 onelyonly 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.