Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 29
SECT. XXIX. The Allegation of Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, Matth. 3.7, 8, 9. to prove that the seed to which the promise Gen. 17.7. as Evangelicall belongs, are true believers, or the elect onelyonly, is vindicated from Mr. Blakes Answer Vindic. Foed▪ ch. 36. and Mr. Sidenhams Exercit. ch. 6.
TO my Allegation of Rom, 9.6, 7, 8. in my Examen, part 3. sect. 4. Mr. Blake undertakes to give an answer, Vindic. Foed, ch. 36. And first having belied me as borrowing from Stapleton the Jesuit, and learning to a …air to follow him, though to my remembrance I never read that passage in him, which he allegeth, nor made any use of his exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, or any other of his works in that Book of mine, he proceeds thus in his scoffing calumniating fashion, like a Satyrist rather than a Disputant. We have drunk up the Protestants poyson, and Mr. T. his great care is, to preserve his party by the Jesuits Antido…; be is wholly beholding to them for the Receipt. Which is Mr. Blakes manifest calumny, as the quotations in my Examen part 3 sect. 4. in which he might see that I received it from the most eminent Protestants, and alleged but one Papist, and he no Jesuit, but one of the better note, and since, the quotations in the foregoing Section do fully prove, and it were easie to produce treble the number if need were. But I find it in vain to endeavour the satis…ying of such eager and through prejudice selfe-blinding Antagonists, as Mr. Blake is, I could (if I liked such Arts as Mr. Blake useth) tell Mr Blake he borrows from the Jesuit Bellarmin, who against Peter Martyr saying the promise Gen. 17.7, is not universall concerning the children of beleivers, but hath place onelyonly in the predestinate, replies, This is said without proof, for the words of the Scripture are absolute, nor is there any mention of predestination in that whole chapter. But Mr Blake promiseth me square dealing in the examining my Argument, and sets down my words at length, and then in stead of answering it, puts divers Quaere's to me, yeelding first to me, that the Text Gen. 17.7. was in that place Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, brought into question by the Apostle. 1 saith he, How Bain and Ame… come to the name of Remonstrants? I had thought they had been on the party that are called Contra-remonstrants? Answer. And so a…so did I, and therefore called them the answerers of Arminius, and the cited Remonstrants, not Remonstrants, as Mr. Blake not heeding my words suggests, as one not willing to omit any thing whether right or wrong which may render me odious or contemptible.
2. saith he, Where it appears that Arminius conceived that the Covenant there spoken to was the word of the Law and not of Promise, I am sure in his Analysis on this chapter to the Romans (of which Mr. T. should not be ignorant, little lesse than vapouring of his examination of it in Oxford Apolog. page 131.) he spake in another manner, even in Mr. T. his own Dialect, as though the ones Comment had been spit out of the mouth of the other. The sons of the flesh with the Apostle (saith he) are those who by the works of the Law follow after righteousness and salvation. The so…s of the Promise are those that seek after righteousness and salvation by faith in Christ, and he thus frames the principall Syllogism of the Apostle for confutation of the Jewes arguing from the rejection of the Jew…s, Gods failing in his promise. If the word of God comprehend onelyonly the sons of the promise, shutting out the sons of the flesh, then it follows that the word of God doth not fail, …hough the sons of the flesh be rejected: But the word of God comprehends onelyonly the sons of the promise, shutting out the sons of the flesh: Therefore the word of God doth not fail though the sons of the flesh be rejected. Armin. Anal. cap 9. ad Rom. pag. 781, Let any now judge whether he can interpret this of the Law and not of the Promise.
Answer 1. The mention of my examining of Arminius his Analysis of Rom. 9. is little less than vapouring, as Mr Blake in his spitefull fashion terms it, but a necessary allegation with modesty to clear my self from his false charge, That I had lately preached this as a Gospel …ruth, that this is one of the promises of the Covenant of grace, that God will be the God of beleivers and their seed, and that now I was suddenly otherwise perswaded. If the Reader view my words, he wil discern a spirit of malice or waywardness in Mr Blakes misrepresenting of my actions, 2. To his Quaere I answer, That I have not now Arminius his book, to discern whether it was Arminius his conceit or not, nor need I prove it was, not alleging it as of my own search, but upon the credit of Bain and Ames. And I find in that Edition I have of Bain on Ephes 1. Anno 1618. pag. 134. on vers. 5. that he saith, that Arminius was deceived in this among other things, that the objectors whose objection Paul preventeth vers. 6. do by the word of God conceive the word of the Covenant legall, which he refutes 136 as one of those mistakes which did mislead Arminius: Nor doth Mr. Blake at all acquit Arminius from this mistake which Mr. Bain charged him with. For Mr. Bain did not charge him with that mistake in the framing of the Apostles principal Syllogism for confutation of the Jewes arguing from the rejection of the Jewes Gods failing in his promise, but in the framing the objection v. 6. as if the Jewes objection, That if they were rejected who by the works of the Law sought righteousness, then Gods word in the Legall Covenant to take them to be his people who kept the Law, did fail: which Mr. Bain refutes, and shewes, That the objection did arise concerning Gods word about their naturall descent, as being Israel and Abrahams seed, which is the same which I alleged. And the same is the observation of Ames concerning the cited Remonstrants, Animadv. in Remonstr. script Synod. de praedest. ch. 8. sect. 4. where he hath these words, Remonstr. autem pro confesso & concesso habent, agi hic de sermone legis, sicut apparet ex illis verbis: Si legem Moses non violarint; qui legem sequuntur. Sed in textu agitur de sermone promissionis, qui efficax est in populo praecognito▪ de quo praecip…e glori…bantur Judaei, semetipsos Abrahae filios, & haer…des promissionis ipsi factae jactitantes, sicut ex Pauli responso patet. So that if the Reader do conceive that Arminius in the words cited by Mr. Blake, meant by the word of God the word of Promise not of the Law, yet Arminius might conceive the word of God in the objection of the Jewes to be the legall Covenant or word of the Law, in which Mr. Bain, and I after him, took him to be deceived.
3. Whereas he saith, That Arminius speaks in mine own Dialect, as though the ones Comment had been spit out of the mouth of the other, alleging Arminius his words, and af…er his third Quaere is, when he affirms, that to be born after the flesh is all one with the Apostle with legal Justiciaries, Apolog. pag. 114. (which is Arminius his interpretation) how then can he by that distinction of children of the flesh, and children of the promise, shut out the naturall seed of Abraham? Are the n…urall seed of Abraham and legall justiciaries one and the same? He continues his spitefull language and calumniating course. For 1. though it is true that Apol. pag. 114. I s…y one born after the flesh…s all one with the Apostle as legal justiciaries, yet I limit this speech to the Apostles speech, Gal. 4.22, &c. And therefore it is a meer calumny that in the explication of Rom. 9 6, 7, 8, I sp…ke in Arminius his Dialect, as if my Comment had been spit out of his mouth. Yea it might easily have been deprehended by Mr. Blake, that I rejected Arminius his explication of children of the flesh, and children of the promise, Rom. 9 8. in that I excepted Exam. part 3. sect. 2. against this very thing in Arminius his exposition, & did recite Mr. Bains words, who grants, that elsewhere sons of the flesh are put for legal justiciaries, yet denies it of the phrase Rom. 9.8. where he proves it notes barely natural descent from Abraham, page 138, 139.
2. To this question I answer, 1. I shut not out the naturall seed of Abraham universally from the promise, but only do not include them universally & this I do from the Apostles distinction not understood in Arminius his sense. 2 To his second question, Are the naturall seed of Abraham and legall justiciaries one and the same? I answer, No. for saith Mr. Blake, if the Apostle exclude all the naturall seed of Abram from this covenant of God with Abraham, (as Mr. T. from Stapleton argues) and take in onelyonly his spiritual seed, how can he be reconciled to himself?
Answ. There are divers untruths in this passage: First, it is untrue that I do argue that the Apostle excludes all the natural seed of Abraham from this covenant of God with Abraham. 2. That I argue this from Stapleton, which I am sure is most false, nor would have been said by Mr, Blake if he had any care to refrain from calumniating me. 3. Nor do I think by Mr. Blakes own allegation of Stapletons wor…s in this chapter, from whence he imagines I borrowed my arguing that Stapleton himself did so argue, but Mr. Blake misreports him also. My assertion is, and if Stapleton do agree with me, I like it not the worse, that in the promise Gen. 17.7. as it is Evangelical assuring regeneration, justification, and life eternall, all the naturall seed of Abraham are not included, but grant that many have been and shall be included, yet say, that as they are his naturall seed so they are his spirituall seed by believing or election, and that to the elect onelyonly that promise as Evangelicall is made by God, and that this the Apostle determines and proves, and no where gainsays.
But saith Mr. Blake, In the words immediatly before this objection, he speaks of the Jewes (as his kinsmen according to the flesh▪ which were the naturall seed of Abraham) and saith, to them pertain the adoption, the glory, and the Covenants, &c. How then can his distinction be interpreted to throw them out of Covenant, when in express terms he had affirmed that they were in covenant? How can he deny that these are children, v. 7, when he had affirmed that to them pertaineth the adoption v. 4.
Answer. If the Apostle had affirmed those Jewes his kinsmen after the flesh, that they were in covenant, Gen. 17.7. and adopted, for whom he sorrowed so much, v. 2. he had plaid the hypocrite, expressing his sorrow for them as not included in the covenant, who he knew were in it, he had trifled in raising an objection from thence and answering it, yea he had contradicted himself, who v. 6. saith, All are not Israel that are of Israel, and v 7. that because they were the seed of Abraham, they were not all children, v. 8. that the children of the flesh are not the children of God, opposing the children of the promise to the children of the flesh. And it will concern Mr. Blake to reconcile the Apostle to himselfe, if he should mean as Mr Blake expounds him, Nor do I know how he could with any shew of truth affirm these men to be in covenant with God, to be his children who did obstinately oppose Christ, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, were not subject to the righteousness of God, Rom. 10.3. but were broken off for unbelief, Rom. 11.20. It is true it is said, Whose or of whom are the adoption and the covenants. But doth he say this of the Israelites then living whose case he bewailed? I conceive not, but of their ancestors. For the speeches were not true of them, that of them was Christ according to the flesh,, or theirs the giving of the Law, yet I deny not it was their honour and priviledge in some sort, that God vouchsafed these things to their ancestors and nation, and it did affect Paul much, that the people which were so much dignified by God, should now be rejected. But were it that of those persons it were said, that to them pertained the covenants, and the adoption, yet were it not true which Mr. Bl. saith, that Paul in express terms affirmed that they were in covenant, or were children of God. For if it be true that by the Covenants were meant the Tables of the Covenant, as Beza conceives, or the Covenants of Adoption, in respect of outward legall priviledges, which are onelyonly there mentioned as proper to the Jewes, the adoption and covenants might be said to pertain to them, and they neither in covenant, nor children of God Evangelically. But of this Text I have before spoken, Sect. 27, &c. Mt Bl adds, wh…ch may be confirmed by abundant other texts of Scripture; Ye are the children of the Lord your God, Deut. 14.1. Out of Egypt have I called my Son, Hos. 11.1. It is not meet to take the childrens bread and cast it unto Doggs, Mat. 15.26: where all that were no… Gentiles, all to whom Christ was sent are called Children: Ye are the children of the Prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your Fathers, Acts 3.20. Doth the covenant appertain to them, and they stiled the children of the covenant, and yet are they out of covenant? Are they children to whom the adoption pertains, and yet no children? When Mr. T. hath given any fair answer to these Quaere's, especially the two last, we shall conceive some probability of truth in his gloss on the Apostles words; in the mean time we cannot but look upon it in full opposition and contradiction to that which the Apostle expressly delivers.
Answ… 1. Non… of all the passages call those brethren of Paul whose case he bewaileth verse 3. Children of God, his Son, Children, Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant. 2. The speeches being of a people mixt of good and bad, and the speeches being indefinite, may be true if meant of some onelyonly of those people: yea in the Apostles sense they cannot be true of all that were not Gen…iles, all to whom Christ was sent, that they were the children of God. For many are termed by the Prophet Isai. 57 3. the sons of the Sorceresse, the seed of the adultresse and the whore, by John Baptist, Matth. 3.7. Generation of vipers, by our Lord Christ Matth. …3 15. Children of hell. 3. Sometimes the term of Children is meant as the term righteous is, Luke 15.7. of one that is so in reputation though not in truth, as the children of the Kingdom, Mat. 8.12. must be meant of them that were so in reputation, though not in truth: For had h…y been so in truth they should not be cast out into utter darkness. 4. By the children of the covenant Acts 3.25. is not meant that they were then in the Evangelicall Covenant as made to th…m: For at that time they had not repented, but were exhorted thereto, v. 19 But they are called the children of the Covenant, because they were the posteri…y of those Fathers with whom first the covenant was made, as they are called children of the Prophets, because th…y were the posteri…y of that people to whom the Prophets were first raised and sent, as is shewed before Sect. …7. out of which there is a fair answer to Mr. Blakes Riddles without an Oedipus, that first the Covenants and Adoption, Rom. 9.4. are not said to pertain to those Israelites for whom Paul mourned. v. 3. but to their ancestors. 2. If they did, yet not in Mr. Blakes sense,, but in the sense fore-given. 3. That those Israelites for whom Paul mourned, Rom. 9.3. are not stiled children of the covenant. Acts 3.25. 4 Nor though i… be true of those for whom Paul mourned, is it any thing to Mr. Blakes purpose, but hath another meaning foregiven. And thus there is a sweet harmony be…ween my gloss and the Apostles expressions.
Mr. Bl. next gives his Analysis of the Apostles words, in which he grants v. 7. a numerous company by Ishmael to be excluded (who were Abrahams seed after the flesh) which evinceth what I contend for, that Gods promise Gen. …7.7. was not made in any sort to Ishmael though he were the child of a beleiver and circumcised, therefore that covenant is not made to every believers naturall child, nor was the reason of circumcising this or that person, taken from the persons interest in the covenant, for Ishmael was circumcised though not in covenant. Then Mr. Bl. adds, As then there was a distinction of seed, so also now, one member he had laid down before, viz. Israelites according to the flesh rested in all those priviledges there reckoned up, v. 4, 5, these they pleaded, the Apostle yelds them: and Mr. T, (according to the discovery of these times) denies them, The second member he after falls upon; the eternally beloved and chosen of God, and largely amplifies. In these Abrahams seed may continue; though the other be cast off,, to whom yet God hath continued (in successive generations) a God in covenant, and continued to them the priviledges of being his people, though now he was upon the rejection of them.
Answer. I should hardly have thought a sober minded man, much less a man reputed an ancient grave Divine, would so slightly have handled such a Scripture in which he saith is my triumphing argument, but that I meet with this passage defective in what was to be done, and made up of flirts, falshoods, impertinencies, … opposite to the Apostle▪ It is defective … main things, first, in applying the distinction of the Apostle to the … of the objection▪ by shewing how the word fa…ls no…, if …he one sort of seed of Abraham be rejected. 2. In not shewing any invalidity in my deduction of my Conclusion thence, that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. …7.7. as Evangelical is made, are onelyonly the elect. His …irts are at me, … denying the Israelites according to the discovery of these times, what the Apostle yeeld…. Falshoods, that the Israelites according to the flesh pleaded all those priviledges reckoned up, v 4, 5. For they were so far from pleading it as a priviledge, that Christ came of them according to the flesh, that they abhorred and accursed him. 2. That I deny the priviledges which the Apostle yeeldeth them. Which also are meer impertinenc…es to the solution of the objection, and to the distinction of the Apostle, who doth not at all in the expression af Children of the flesh mention those priviledges, nor mentions Children of the flesh, as importing an investiture into those priviledges, as Mr. Bl. seems to have conceived, but barely by that term notes their naturall descent from Abraham, insomuch that Ishmael is meant as a Child of the flesh, who was no way vested in those priviledges v. 4, 5 In stead of telling whether the eternally chosen and beloved of God were the seed meant Gen. 17.7. and …o the word of God f…iled not, he onelyonly tels us, In these the seed of Abraham may continue though the other he cast off, which is impertinently and doubtfully exprest, as if there were not a certainty but onelyonly a possibility of the seed of Abraham continuing in the eternally beloved and chosen of God. It is in like manner impertinent to the business, to tell what God hath done in successive generations, when the objection is of the inconsiste…cy with his doings and his promises concerning the present generation. Lastly, it is directly against the Apostle, who opposeth the children of the promise to the cast off, to say, that he hath continued a God in covenant to them whom he hath cast off, and continueth …o them the priviledges of his pepole though he was upon the rejecting of them. And it is a strange expr…ssion, when there is speech of rejection opposite to eternall love and choice of God, to say, God is now upon the rejection of them, which intimates a beginning of a rejection. But Mr. Bl. thinks to satisfie all by the words of Gomarus, which having set down at large, he then saith, In which we have these three things, 1. Mr. T. his objection wholly solved. 2. The Apostle reconciled to himself. And 3. the doctrine of Covenant holinesse from the Apostle fully established, which when Mr. T. hath well considered with that which was spoke before (having the whole current of the Scripture against him) he will have little list to make this one Scripture his asylum.
To which I answer, first there are many things in the words of Gomar…s liable to exception, as …, that …e saith, The Jewes great priviledges mentioned … objected. But the thing that was objected was not those priviledges, but the word of God concerning Israel and Abrahams …ed. 2. That …. That th…se priviledges are attributed by the Apostle to the unbelieving Jewes. Which is not true in the sense he … present unbelie…ing … … attributed by the Apostle to the unbelieving Jewes by vertue of their outward …all, because salvation is revealed and offered to them under condition of obedience, and that offer sealed with circumcision ▪ wherein 1. he saith, the offer of salvation under condition of obedience, was sealed with circumcision But I had thought the thing Pedobaptists would have sealed with circumcision; had not been the offer of savation upon condition of obedience, but the covenant of God, Gen. 17▪ which is another thing than the offer of salvation which is by men indeed according to the covenant: but it is not the covenant, for that is Gods act, and is presupposed to the other. Besides, there are some promises at least in the covenant absolute, not upon condition, as the promise of regeneration, in respect of which the covenant cannot be conditional, and therefore the offer and the covenant are not to be confounded, nor do I think Pedobaptists will like this, that that offer was sealed with circumcision. Besides, there was no offer made to the Jewes of salvation under condition of obedience. An offer is made by pre…ching, circumcision was on the eighth day: was there any that pre…ched at circumcision salvation under the condition of obedience to the circumcised, and then circumcised the child to seal that off…r? Nor did the Iewes use circumcision to seal the off…r of s…lvation under condition of obedience to Christ, but to bind them to keep the Law of Moses in expectation of righteousness, as appears from Acts 15.1.5.9, 10. Gal. 5.3. Rom. 2, 25, &c. 2. Nor do I see any truth in that which he saith, That those priviledges are attributed by the Apostle to the unbelieving Jewes by vertue of their outward call, because salvation is …ealed and offered to them under condition of obedience, and that offer sealed with circumcision. For neither do Church-priviledges belong to persons barely by re…son of an outward call, which is but an offer of salvation, no man is accounted a Church-member, having right to the seal, as they term it, because salvation is offered without some consent, nor did those priviledges in any sort accrue to the Iewes upon an outward call by which salvation was offered to them upon condition of obedience, the proceeding of Christ from them, their having Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, for their fathers, their having the Law given them, &c. were not upon such an outward call, but Gods respect to them, Deut 7.6.4. It is not true that from thence all Israelites are promiscuously called children of the Covenant, as Acts 3.25. For it is true onelyonly of them that were after the Prophets as well as the covenant, sith they are called children of the Prophets as well as of the covenant, and neither Title is given to them because of the outward call alleaged, but because they were the posterity of those to whom the Prophets were sent, and the covenant exhibited. 5. It is not true that the Apostle affirmes that the unbelieving Iewes are Abrahamites and Israelites; not onelyonly by reason of their birth after the flesh, but also by reason of acceptance of the covenants and promises: For neither is it true they did accept of the covenants and promises, sith they rejected Christ to whom the promises were made, Gal. 3.16. Nor doth the Apostle say, They accepted of them, nor at all give that as a reason of their being Abrahamites or Israelites. Yea, they were Israelites or Adamites antecedentally to some of those recited priviledges. 6. Nor doth the Apostle s…y, The Fathers and Adoption, and Covenants, and Promises, belong to all the Israelites: yea he denies the promises to Israel and Abrahams seed to belong to every one that is of Israel and Abrahams seed, v. 6, 7, 8. 7. Nor doth he make any such distinction of promise in respect of the efficacie of it, and collation belonging to some, and tender or offering of the covenant of grace: For neither doth the Apostle at all mention the offer of the covenant of grace with condition of duty to be performed, nor doth he make the promise to belong to any who have not the efficacie of it: yea, to say the promise belongs to any, and yet he not have the efficacie, is to make the word of God fall, which the Apostle disclaims as a thing by no means to be imputed to God, for thereby he should be charged of unfaithfulness in not keeping his promise. 8. Neither doth the Apostle make that answer which Gomarus sets down, that though the priviledges v. 4, 5, belong to all the Israelites, yet all are not therefore true children beca…se the priviledges are attributed to them by reason of their outward call, not by reason of their inward. For the objection was not thu…, To the Jewes belong those priviledges, therefore they must be true children and heirs of salvation: But thus, Gods promise or covenant was with Abraham and his seed to be a God, therefore either God must be a God of the Jewes who are Abrahams seed, and they his people contrary to what your sorrow intimates, v. 2 or else the word of God hath fallen, Now Gomarus sets down another objection than that which the Apostle answers, and another than that which the Apostle makes, as may appear by what I have said before. And for the three things Mr Blake gathers from Gomarus, the first is not true, that my objection is wholy solved: For there is not a word in Gomarus that answers this objection, Every child of Abraham was not a child of the promise Gen 17, 7, 8, as the Apostle determines, Rom. 9, 7, 8. None were his seed to whom the promise as Evangelical belongs, but the elect, therefore neither was the covenant Gen. 17, 7. as Evangelical, made to all the naturall children of Abraham, not they circumcised because the covenant was made to them, nor is the covenant made with every beleiver by profession, nor hath he right to Baptisme by vertue of that title, nor is the covenant made to every true beleivers infant or naturall child, there are none of them Abrahams seed but the elect, and therefore all the plea of the Paedobaptists from Gen. 17.7. to prove the right of every beleivers naturall child to baptism, is manifestly false, going on that supposition which the Apostle plainly contradicts. The second thing is frivolous: For there was no contradiction in appearance in the Apostles words, which need reconciliation, and therefore Gomarus and Mr Blake have taken upon them an unnecessary task: But the seeming opposition to be reconciled, is between Gods performing his word to Abrahams seed to be a God to them, and his rejection of them from being his people, which the Apostlee doth indeed reconcile righ…ly, but Mr Blake and Gomarus are both mistaken in the thing as hath been d…monstrated. Yet this I find, that Gomarus with the other four Professors of the united Belgick Provinces (of whom Gomarus is first) set down the same that I conclude in their Iudgement at the Synod of Dor… about the second Article of the Remonstrants, in which they say, That to the elect onelyonly the promises are made, is professedly proved by Paul Rom. 9, 7, 8▪ For onelyonly the sons of promise are counted for the seed to whom that word of the everlasting possession of the inheritance appertains. So that I have five more Suffrages together for me. And for the Doctrine of Covenant Holiness, I confess the Apostle establisheth this Doctrine, That all the spirituall seed of Abraham ▪ to wit, true beleivers, or elect persons, are holy federally as being those to whom God hath covenanted to be God: But Mr Blakes doctrine of Covenant holiness, that Gods covenant is to be a God to every beleiver and his seed, which is no other than his naturall seed (for infants are no otherwayes his seed) is so far from being established by the Apostle, that he determines the contrary, denying that all Abrahams children were children of the promise, and proving the elect onelyonly to be his seed to whom the promise Gen. 17.7, as it was Evangelicall was made by the state of Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob. And for this I am assured that I have the whole current of the Scripture for me, and feare not to make this Text my Asylum, still having considered what Mr Blake produceth both here and before: the frivolousness of which I hope by Divine assistance to shew in that which follows.
There is somewhat which Mr. Blake adds in that Chapter in answer to the Allegation of Matth. 3.9. in which as I shewed before, John Baptist rejects their claim to baptism, though Abrahams naturall children without repentance and faith, and asserts the onelyonly seed of Abraham in covenant to be his spirituall. Here to saith Mr. Blake, I answer, First▪ When those that were no better then th…se make the same plea, John 8.3…. We be Abrahams seed, and were never in bondage to any, Christ yeilds it, v. 37. I know that ye are Abrahams seed; he allowes all that upon this account they can claim. And for Pharisees he doth not barely yeld them to be Church members, but also Church teachers, Matth. 23.2.
I reply, Christs yeilds they were Abrahams naturall seed, but denies them to be Abrahams Children, verse 39. that is, to whom the promise Evangelicall belongs. The Pharisees were not yeilded to be Church-members in the Christian Church, nor were admitted by Iohn Baptist or Christs Disciples to baptisme without repentance and faith, nor were they teachers in the Christian Church, though among the Jewes they are said to fit in Moses Chair.
2. Saith Mr. Blake, Iohn Baptist doth not deny what Christ yeilds, but lets them know that this place wil not serve to avoyd wrath whilst they live in impenitencie; notwithstanding that this plea holds, they may perish, and yet Gods Covenant with Abraham hold; being able of stones to raise up children unto Abraham, to make good what in covenant he had said. He no where sayes that they are not intituled to priviledges of ordinances, and thereby interessed in the prerogatives of Gods visible people. What Paul Rom. 9.4, 5. so largely yelds them, Iohn Baptist doth not deny them, which also now they had in visible possession.
Answer. Neither Iohn Baptist, nor Christ, nor Paul, y…ilded them either to be in the covenant with Abraham (Mr. Blakes own words: notwithstanding this plea holds, &c. do plainly imply, that Gods covenant did not hold with them, and that by them God should not make good what in covenant …e had said) or to be Gods visible people, or to have right to the priviledge of baptism: but the contrary is declared by them. What Mr. Blake concludes the Chapter with, …s either but a dictate, that priviledg of ordinance (meaning of Baptism) is a Birth-inheritance, without either proof or shew of proof from Prov. 19.14. Rom. 3.1. so that I shall trouble the reader with no more of the fopperies of this chapter▪ onelyonly I desire the reader to observe, that whereas usually Paedobaptists grant that by birth a grown man is not intituled to the initial Seal without his own profession, Mr. Blake denies that Iohn saith, the viperous Pharisees and Sadduces, and unbelieving Jewes are not in…ituled to priviledges of ordinances and thereby interessed in the prerogatives of Gods visible people.
But Mr. Sidenham in his Exercit. ch. 6. takes upon him to refell the plea from Matth. 3.8, 9. gathering that the pretence of being Abrahams children, could not give them a right to baptisme; and if John denied Abrahams naturall seed on that account, much more would he the adopted children. But herein I conceive he doth not rightly set down his adversaries collection: For the adopted children of Abraham I conceive are no other than beleivers, and surely Mr Sidenhams adversaries do not imagine that John denied th…m baptism. I for my part remember not my allegation of this Text afore the writing of this Book. But I find Mr. William Kay in his Baptism without Bason thus averring, 1. That Matth. 3.8, 9. is directly against Infant-baptism, in that none but such as have faith and repentance, must think to be baptized. 2. That the pretence or consequence from circumcision, and being Abrahams naturall children, to prove their title to Baptism. I add to the Covenant Evangelicall Gen. 17.7. is also condemned, in that he allows them not to think within themselves, We have Abraham to our Father, which is not meant simply as if they might not in any sort think Abraham to be their Father; for Christ acknowledgeth it, John 8 37. and they might lawfully think that to be so which was so but in some respect, and the respects are intimated in the Text, 1, In respect of baptism to which they come, but as Par…us Comment. in Matth. 3.7. John did not admit them as being unworthy. 2. In reference to the covenant▪ Gen. 17 7. which appears in that he adds, For I say unto you that God is able even of these stones to raise up children to Abraham, which can be understood no otherwise than of spirituall children, who are children of the promise, Rom. 9.8. which the Pharisees are not, 3. In respect of that which they imagined, that they should be s…cured from wrath to come, v. 7, in that they had Abraham to th…ir father. Now what saith Mr. Sidenham to this?
1. That they were of age, and men degenerated from Abrahams saith, that he did not refuse them because Abraham was their father, or upon that account that Abrahams seed had not right to the promise, b…t as onelyonly pretending Abraham to be their father, when they walkt contrary to the principles of Abrahams faith.
Answer. 'Tis true, he did not refuse them because Abraham was their Father, nor as onelyonly pretending Abraham to be their Father: Nor doth he deny that it was true that they had Abraham to their father in respect of naturall generation, but because though they had Abraham to their father in respect of naturall generation, yet they did not believe as Abraham, nor had right to the promise, which is enough to shew that the children of believers are to be refused and not admitted to Baptism till they become believers themselves.
2. Saith Mr. Sidenham, This is the same as to grown men professing faith, baptized, and then not admitted to the Lords Supper because carnall and Apostate, it …e said, You have cut off your own right by your contrary actings, which impeach not the truth of this position, That believers and their infants are in covenant, and ought to be judged so untill they manifest the contrary; or that if they belieued themselves afterwards the promise should not be to them and their children: And that the Text holds out no more than this, that when persons are grown up to years, and come to understanding, they must then stand on their right, and looke to make out personall qualifications for new ordinances.
Answer. 1, It is not the same: For such a speech should imply a former right now cut off, but John Baptists speech disclaims any right they ever had to baptism. 2. John Baptists speech proves, believers children as such are not in the covenant, for Abrahams children were not, and that they ought not to be judged so until they manifest faith and repentance, for Iohn Baptist denied them to be Abrahams children in covenant without them, and that the promise is not to their children because they believe; for the promise was not to Abrahams children by naturall generation though he were father of believers, and it proves that none of Abrahams children have right to baptisme without fai…h and repentance, and consequently infants no more than grown men. But Mr. Sidenham yet thinkes to avoid the inference from this text, thus.
3. This was at the first institution of the ordinance, when baptism was was newly administred: now new institutions require grown persons, and actuall visible bilievers to be the first subjects of them: they could not baptize their children first, for then the parents would be neglected: And the bringing in of a new ordinance requires renewing of speciall acts in those which partake of it. Now in the new Testament God renewes the covenant of Abraham, adds a new initiating seal to it: It was before entail'd in such a line which is cut off, i…'s now of the same nature, onelyonly every one must come in his own person first, as Abraham, and enter his own name, and then the promise to him and his seed. Thus it was in the former place, where when the Jewes came to be baptized, they were exhorted first to repent and be baptized themselves, then the promise is to you and your children.
Answer. All this scr…bling is at random, and wi…hout any proof, or answer to the objection: It is quite beside the objection, which was not barely from John Baptists not baptizing their children, but from the reason of Iohn Baptists refusing to admit themselves to baptism. So that Mr. Sidenhams answer is onelyonly to the Consectary, infer'd from the Conclusion deduced, not to the premises, no nor the first conclusion it self. For the argument is this, If Abrahams natural children had not right to baptism without their own faith and repentance. But the Antecedent is true, Ergo the Consequent, and consequently no… infants to be baptized. Again, if Abrahams children were not in the covenant without fai…h and repentance, neither are ours, for we have no more priviledge for our children then Abrahams had: But the Antecedent is true, Ergo the Consequent, and consequently a believers child is not in covenant because a believers child. Yet once more, If persons circumcised and descendended from Abraham, were not therefore admitted to baptism, then the same thing doth not intitle to baptism which did intitle to circum…ision, nor the command of circumcision a command concerning baptism. But the Antecedent is true, Ergo the Consequent, and consequently infants are not to be baptized because they were to be circumcised. Now Mr Sidenhams answer is to the allegation of John Baptists not baptizing infants, not at all to any of these arguments drawn from his refusing the Pharisees, though coming to his baptism, and conceiving they might, having Abraham to their Father. Yet what Mr. Sidenham faith takes away the force of the argument if it had been thus made: Those we are not to baptize whom John did not baptize: but Iohn did not baptize infants, Ergo. Yea his answer strengthens the argument: For if Johns baptism were at the first institution of baptism, and infants were not baptized, then neither are they to be now. For the first institution is the rule of observing it, as the Lord Christ himself urgeth concerning marriage, Matth. 19.4. and Paul concerning the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. …1, 23. If baptism were a new institution, and did require actuall visible believers as the first subject of it, then it is not all one with circumcision, which admitted infants at the first institution, then such onelyonly are to be baptiz…d except some further Institution can be shewed, the institution for infan-circumcision is not sufficient for infant-baptism…, for that was in force as much at the first institution of baptism as after. It is false that they could not baptize their children first, that is, at the first institution, John Baptist and the D…sciples of Christ might have baptized infants at first as well as Abraham circumcis…d them, yea ought to have done it, If Paedobaptists say true, that the command of circumcision was the Rule in force concerning baptism: nor need the parents be neglected, no not though they had baptized the children first in order of time; yea the right of the child being contemporary with the paren…s faith, if they say true, they should have been baptized as soon as ever …he parent was a believer, or the child in covenant. Gods Covenant with Abraham was to him and his seed; but his covenant was never made to every believer and his seed. In the new Testament God renews the Covenant wi…h Abraham in respect of spirituall blessings, but for the promises domestick or civill▪ he doth not renew it. He adds to the new Covenant the s…al of Christs death, whose blood confirmed it, and the initiating seal of his Spirit, I know no other initiating seal added to it. It is not true that the …n…w covenant, or covenent of grace was entail'd before to a certain line, though the covenant with Abraham in respect of the civill domistick promises were entail'd to Abrahams naturall posterity, and is now cut off: Nor is the covenant every way of the same nature with Abrahams covenant, nor upon a believers entering his name is the promise to him and his seed, nor is it Acts 2.38, 39. said, that upon their repenting and being baptized themselves, that the promise is to them and their children, but the being of the promise to them and their children, is urged as a consideration fit to move them to repent and be baptizd.
He next sets down 4 affirmations, 2. That no man must be baptized, or receive an ordinance by any fleshly prerogative. Answer. Then no infant is to be baptized by vertue of birth from a believer, for that is a fleshly prerogative, as the birth of Christ was but a fleshly prerogative to David, the virgin Mary, though there were an entail of a promise to them of this thing, so is the imagined birth-priviledge of believers infants, and yet there is no promise to retain it to a believers child.
2. That no person grown up to years of udderstanding, hath right to a sealing ordinance, but upon his own personall qualification.
Answer. Then Mr. Blake did erre in intituling unbelieving Jewes to priviledges of ordinances▪ and thereby interessing them in the prerogatives of Gods visible people. 2. There is no other right to an infant to baptism, than what a grown person hath.
The third affirmation I grant, and the fourth too, if there were any such old priviledges of the promise to be conveyed to those which do really embrace the Gospel and their seed. And this grant that those Pharisees and Sadduces had demonstrated themselves to be onelyonly the children of the flesh, and not of the promise, and that they were excluded, shews the covenant as Evangelical not to be made to a believers naturall seed, nor they thereby have right to baptism.