Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 48
SECT. XLVIII. The 35th. and 37th. Chapters of Mr. Bls. Vind. Faed. are examined, and his Arguments concluding the natural issue of believers to be taken into Covenant, are answered.
HE intitles thus ch. 35. Arguments concluding the natural issue of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to be taken into Covenant; which he may prove and not oppse me, who grant, that God promiset… Gen. 17.7▪ to be a God to the natural seed of Abraham, inheriting in domestick and political benefits: From whence he falsly infers▪ that I cast out all the natural seed of Abraham from any title to that Covenant, save in domes…ick and political benefits; and then undertakes this Position in full opposition, That Covenant▪ in those words exprest Gen. 17.7. in their fullest latitude, as they are spoken in the largest comprehension (which according to Scripture they can be taken,) are entred with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. So that if to be a God, Gen. 17.7. to Abraham and his seed, comprehend Evangelical benefits of regeneration, justification, eternal life, his position is, That the Covenant is entred in respect of these benefits, with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob; which can be meant no otherwise then thus, God had promised, Gen. 17.7. these benefits to th…m all: For the Covenant could be no otherwise entred with them, Isaac and Jacob being not then begotten, nor in being, and therefore the entry into Covenant could not be mutual. Here then the Question between us is not, Whether the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob were taken into Covenant? Gen. 17.7. for I grant that God there promised to be a God to them by domestick and political benefits, to wit, by setting up his worship more peculiarly in that nation, by raising up the Messiah out of them, by giving them peculiar Laws himself, raising up Judges and Governours for them, vouchsafing them peculiar protection which he vouchsafed not to other p…ople, directing them by his Oracle when they enquired of him, &c. And these benefits he promised to them all conditionally if they adhered to God: But the Question between us is; Whether Gen. 17.7. God have promised to all the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob, the Evangelical benefits of regeneration, justification, and eternal life, supposed to be meant in the words, to be a God to thy seed? This I deny, and Mr. Bl▪ should prove, if he dispute in opposition to me. However let's view what he writes.
My first argument (saith he) is taken from the addition annexed to this Covenant in the words immediately following v. 8. That seed of Abraham ▪ that had possession of the Land of Canaan through the gift and by vertue of the promise of God, is the seed here taken into Covenant to have the Lord for their God. This is so plain, that nothing can be plainer to any that read the words; but the natural seed of Abraham, all the seed of Jacob in their several Tribes (according as God set them their bounds) inherited the Land of Canaan, which is called the Land of their inheritance, and not onelyonly the spiritual seed regenerate, they that onelyonly sojourned in Canaan, Heb. 11.13. and were never possessed of it, had title to it: It was theirs in reversion, though they never came into actual possession.
Answ. 1. The major is not true, if the subject of the Proposition be understood exclusively, or universally, and the phrase in the predicate [to have the Lord for their God] be meant in respect of the Evangelical benefits of regeneration, justification, and eternal life. It is not true, that God hath covenanted to be a God in respect of these benefits to all, or onelyonly to that seed of Abraham that had possession of the Land of Canaan through the gift, and by vertue of the promise of God: nor doth the Text at all make it plain. For though it prove that the seed of Abraham meant in the fore-part of Gen. 17. v. 8. were also meant v. 7. yet it doth not prove that all, or they onelyonly that had the promise of Canaan, had the promise of being a God to them in Gospel grace. The minor is granted, [all] being meant, as they speak in Logick, distributively in genera singulorum, that is, of any sorts of them, but not in singulos generum; and with limitation to certain times fore-appointed of God, not in all times. All sorts inherited, but some were not to inherit till a certain time, and for a certain time; A bastard, Mamzer, Deut. 23.2. was not to enter into the congregation of the Lord, and so not to inherit regularly till the tenth generrtion. But were Mr. Bls. conclusion granted, it proves not what I deny, that to all, and every Israelite God promised Evangelical benefits, Gen. 17.7. or visible church membership and initial seal at all to any in that promise, Gen. 17.7.
My next argument, saith he, is drawn from the seal that is annexed in the words immediately following this additional promise, v. 9,10, 11. They that had the sign and seal of the Covenant, that had it by Divine appointment they were a people in Covenant. This is so plain, that nothing can be more plain; God doth not enter Covenant with one and give the sign and seal to another: But all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob had the seal, viz all the males, those that were in a c…pacity of it; it was not limited to the spiritual seed. There had been no place for that distinction, of circumcision in the flesh, and circumcision of the heart; if none must be circumcised in the flesh, but those that are circumcised in heart.
Answ. 1. Waving my exception against the title of seal of the Covenant, not given to circumcision, or any other Rite in the Scripture, and inconvenient as is before proved, and putting in [Circumcision] instead of it; I deny the major, if understood universally: nor is the major plainly true, but plainly false, it being manifest in that very Covenant, that God entred it not with Ishmael and others whom he appointed to be circumcised. Nor is any thing more plain then the contrary to what Mr. Bl. asserts. For God did enter into Covenant with th… natural seed female inheriting of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob, according to Mr. Bl. himself; the daughters of Zelophehad were in Covenant, and yet he did give the sign of the Covenan… to others, and not to them. Nor is the minor true; for the males of seven days old were in a capacity of circumcision, yet they had it not. I grant that circumcision was not limited to the spiritual seed▪ yet conceive Mr. Bls. proof of no force: For though it had been so limited, yet there had been place for the distinction of circumcision in the flesh, and of the heart, sith things may be distinguished▪ which are not separate. But were the conclusion granted, it fails as the former in proving what I deny.
My 3d. argument, saith he, is drawn from the Comment that God himself makes of th…s Covenant, holding it e…ery where out in this way of tenure to Abraham and his natural issue, as before, Exod. 20.2. Deut 5.6. All that whole people he owned as his, all of them being Abrahams natural issue; yet all of them were not spiritual. Exod. 5.1. Deut. 14.1, 2. Amos 3.1, 2. is very full to our purpose. Every one that descended from Jacob, the whole of the family that came out of Aegypt, were a select people to God in Covenant; he was according to the terms of that Covenant, their God. There is not a place where God calls them by the name of his people (which are almost endless) but there we have this confirmed, t…at that people were the Lords by vertue of this grant made to Abraham and his seed.
Answ. This last speech might be granted, and what else Mr. Bl. infers from the Text; yet he attains not his end, unless he prove that by vertue of that Covenant all the Israelits by natural discent we…e God… regenerate, j…stified people; for the thing he should prove against me, is, that Gen. 17.7. God promiseth to be a God in respect of Gospel benefits to all Abrahams natural issue by Isaac and Jacob. Yet I conceive there are places wherein the Israeli…es were termed Gods by vertue of the Covenant of the Law Ezek. 16 8. & 20.5. &c. without mentioning the Covenant Gen. 17.7 which the Apostle conceives differently of, Gal. 3.16, 17. And the spee…hes Exod. 20.2. Deut. 5.6. Exod. 5.1. Deut. 14.1, 2. though spoken of the body of Israel, yet may and are to be understood, at least in some senses of them, not of every individual: Surely he was not God Evangelically to those that believed not, nor were they his people, nor legally, so as to afford them that protection, and tem…oral blessings which are promised in the La…, Deut. 28. &c. to Ahab, Achan, Korah, and such like. But in the Evangelical sense the denomination is from the better part, the people he fore knew, as the Apostle himself expounds it, Rom. 11.2, 5. and in respect of political blessings according to the Covenant of the Law, to the obedient to the Law, as of long life to dutifull children▪ safety▪ whi…e they kept the Solemn Feasts. Exod. 20.12. & 24.24. Nor doth Amos 3.1, 2. which he saith, is full to his purpose, say, that God was a God to that whole family which he brought out of Aegypt by vertue of the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. much less to every one of them Evangelically, nor doth he say he had known them …ll Evangelically, but had known them onelyonly, that is, had distinguished them from other people by giving them his Laws, &c. which makes nothing to prove according to Gen. 17.7. God took every descendent from Jacob into Covenant in respect of Gospel benefi…s.
In the 4th place, saith he, I argue from the practise of the people of God, making this Covenant of God entred with Abraham and his seed, a Plea to obtain mercy from God for all Israel, the worst of Isra…l, in their lowest state and condition, Deut. 9.26, 27. If this Divinity had been th…n known, Moses might have been sent away with this answer; That he spake for dogs, and not for children; not for Israel but for Aliens and strangers to the Common-wealth of Israel. But as this an… the like requests of the people of God were made in faith, so they prevailed with God; Moses there urgeth, they are thy people and thine ineritance, v. 39. as doth the Church, Isa. 64.9. and Moses petition takes, as the History shews, Exod. 32.14. Yea, when God vouchsafes mercy to his people thus in Covenant, Levit. 26.42. it is upon this account of the Covenant. And appearing for the deliverance of Israel out of their hard and pressing bondage, he saith to Mose…, Exod. 3.6. and that to stay up his faith in confidence of deliverance.
…nsw. Tha… which Mr. Bl. should prove, is, That Covenant exprest in those words Gen. 17.7. in their fullest latitude as they are spoken, in the largest comprehension (which according to Scripture they can be taken) are entred with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. And in his answer to my Letter, ch. 10. pag. 55, 56. he urgeth Exod. 32.13. Deut. 29.27, Levit 26.42. Exod. 3.6. to prove that Gen▪ 17.7. was a promise of grace and mercy to Jacobs posterity, such as of which Circumcision was a seal, Rom. 4.11. which he saith is no other then a Covenant of grace, and saith Circumcision did seal that Covenant, to be the God of believers, and their seed, Gen, 17.7, 10. But not one of the petitions or speeches alledged do prove either the former, or this last assertion. The petition of Moses, Exod. 32.13. was upon occasion of the making of the golden Calf, & Gods speech to Moses concerning the consuming of them for it, and making Moses a great Nation: Moses to divert God from this thing, alledgeth, 1. That they were his people which he brought out of Aegypt with great power, and a mighty hand; and if he should consume them, the Aegyptians would reproach him, as intending mischief to them when he brought them out of Aegypt. Where it is true, God calls the body of them his people: But this must be understood, if Evangelically, in respect of the better part onelyonly; if Legally, either de jure because they ought to have been his people, being delivered from Aegypt, and having engaged themselves Exod. 19.8. to obey God; or de facto, because he had done so great things for them, and thereby owned them in respect of his actings for them above other people. 2. He presseth God with his Oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But the Oath he mentions is concerning the multiplying the seed of Abraham, Isaac▪ and Jacob as the stars of heaven, and giving the land of Canaan to them, and that they shall inherit it for ever ▪ not a word of being God to all the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in respect of Evangelical blessings, nor a word tending to shew the extent of th… promise Gen. 17.7. in respect of gospel grace. The same answer I give to his allegation of Deut. 9.26, 27, 28, 29. And to Mr. Bls. flirt I answer, this Divinity was then known to God, and God might have sent away Moses with this answer, That he spake for some who were dogs, or reprobates, and not children of God according to the election of grace, which is the Apostles Divinity, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. 1 Cor. 10.5. Heb. 3.10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19. and that they were strangers from the Co…monwealth of Israel, that is, of the Israel of God, Gal▪ 6.16. And t…is is also the Apostles Divinity, Rom. 9.6. and therefore I count this no absur…ity. But I grant they, even the worst of them were not dogs, but children, and of the Commonwealth of Israel political, in respect of their outward state, and in that respect holy, and different from other people. To the other I answer, it is true, Moses prayed in faith, and was heard; but there is no mention in the places alledged of his praying for spiritual Evangelical grace for every particular Israelite, but for the preventing an utter destruction of them: Nor doth he at all express any such faith, whereby he believed God had promised to be a God to all the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in respect of Evangelical benefits. but that God would not destroy them, in which respect he was heard. And in like manner the Covenant upon the account of which God did vouchsafe mercy, is that of giving them Canaan, which Mr. Bl. will not have the Covenant it self, but an Appendix to it; and yet Exod 32.13. that is it which is pleaded, and Levit. 26.42, the Covenant it is plain is that he made concerning their seating in Canaan, for it expresly saith, and I will remember the Land, and v. 44. I will not utterly destroy them. The Church it is true, saith, Isa. 64.9. We are all thy people; but if this Church be meant of all and every Israelite by natural descent, then all and every of them were a praying people, which is not to be said, and therefore is to be understood of the believing remnant onelyonly, or else that they were Gods people in the sense before given of Exod. 32.12, 14. Deut. 9.29. Exod. 3.6. It is true, God saith to Moses, to stay up his faith in confidence of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, that he was the God of his Father, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and Jacob, and it is …rue, our Lord Christ hence proves the resurrection of the dead, Luke 20, 37, 38. and therefore it proves eternal life included in the promise, Gen. 17.7. but this is so far from proving God to be a God in respect of Evangelical blessings meant Gen. 17.7. to every Israelitte, or to be a God to believers and their natural seed, that it is a good argument to the contrary; for this absurdity would follow, That every one of them are certainly saved, if he were a God to every of them in the sense, Luke 20.37, 38.
Mr. Bl. next excepts against me for censuring of Chamiers calling the promise of the Land of Canaan an Apenpendant to the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. And saith, The thing is so clear in the narrative of it, Gen. 17, that nothing can be more evident. The Covenant is full, v. 7. To be a God to Abraham and his seed; and this he might have been, had he pleased, in the Land of Ur of the Caldees, or in any L…nd whatsoever that his seed had been planted…: But when the Covenant is thus made, there is added; v. 8. And I will give unto thee, &c.
Answ. My censure of Chamier was no more then this, I like not, and I say the same still, that the promise of the land of Canaan Gen. 17.8. is not a meer appendant, but as truly a part of the Covenant God made with Abraham Gen. 17. as v. 7. And to Mr. Bls. strong conceit I oppose my strong conceit of the evidence to the contrary (being backed by the Scripture) as sufficient of countervail his saying; And for his reasons. 1. God might have been a God to them in Vr▪ Ergo, the promise of Canaan is but an appendix, not a part of the Covenant. I answer, 1. by the like reason it might be said, thou shalt be a Father of many Nations, is but an appendant to the Covenant, contrary to Gen. 17.4. because God might be a God to him, though father of one Nation onelyonly. 2. By denying the consequence, which is in my slender conceit a baculo ad angulum ▪ The other (if it be a reason and not a dictate) is, the Covenant is full, v. 7. but when the Covenant is made there is added, v. 8. I answer. 1. By like reason it might be said, The Covenant is full▪ v. 4, 5, 6. but when the Covenant is made v. 4, 5, 6▪ there is add…d v. 7. ergo, v. 7. is n… part of the Covenant, but an appendant to it. 2. It is not proved that at v. 7. the Covenant is full, yea v. 8. being as Mr. Bl. himself stiles it, an additional promise, it is proved, that the Covenant is not full without it being added as a promise, and so a part of …he Conant.
I said the Holy Ghost me thinks speaks otherwise Postscript. §. 12. Mr. Bl opposeth. The force of this argument must needs be this. That which is any where called a Covenant, that is not an appendant to a Covenant. But the giving of the land of Canaan to the seed of Abraham is there called by the name of a Covenant. Mr. T. sure will not say that Circumcision is the Covenant between God and his people, he will not deny but it is a signe and seal annext to the Covenant; and yet Gen. 17.10. it is called a Covenant. Mr. T. well enough knowes a Metonymy of the adjunct and the common use of it in Scripture; but that it is his wisedome for his advantage to conceal it.
Answ. Mr. T. well knows, that Mr. Bl. useth artifices to elude, when he should answer. The words of the Psalmist were alledged as a plain testimony, which need not be formed into an argumen…, but if it need forming, I should not form it as Mr. Bl. forms it (that he may the eas…er slight what he cannot answer) but thus. That promise which is called Gods Covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations, which he made, was his oath, confirmed for a Law and everlasting Covenant, decl…red by saying in words what God would do, that is a Covenant, at least in part, and not a meer appendant. But such is the promise of the land of Canaan, Gen. 17.8. and elsewhere, ergo. The major might be proved from the definition of a Covenant, which is either a promise or an aggregate of promises single or mutual. The minor is the very text. And to Mr. Bls. shift I reply. I knew well enough a metonymy of the adjunct or signe to beuied Gen 17.10. But I withal knew it would have been my folly to have expounded the term [Covenant] Psal. 105.8, 9. by a metonymy like that Gen. 17.10. For I should have made the Psalmist speak non-sense, and perverted his plain meaning if I had thus expounded, he hath remembred his Covenant, that is not his promise it self▪ but the signe and seal of it, which he made, sware, said And I think it had been Mr. Bls. wisedome to have concealed this shift, and rather have let it pass without saying any thing to the objection.
Mr. Bl. adds his fifth and last argument, from Texts in the N. T. which interpret this Covenant thus en…ered with Abraham in that latitude as extending to his natural issue, and not with limit to his spiritual seed; and that not barely in domestick civil, but in spiritual promises; so that this one hath many in the bowels of it.
Answ. Abrahams spiritual seed are true believers as he was and elect persons, spiritual promises are so called from th… things promised, called Ephes. 1.3. spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ, such are regeneration or circumcision of the heart, remission of sins, justification, adoption, eternal life. If Mr. Bl. holds the Covenant with Abraham extending to his natural issue, and not with limit to his spiritual seed in spiritual promises, he holds r…generation, remission of sins, justification, adoption, eternal life, to them who are neither true believers nor elect persons. Let's view his proofs.
First, saith he Rom. 9.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The Apostle aggravating his sorrow for Israel, not respective to civil or domestick but higher concernments for the whole body of Israel, he reckons up their priviledges, the priviledges of all that according to the flesh were Israe…ites; priviledges formerly enjoyed, but now lost, nine …n number. Here sure is enough to conclude them of the seed thus in Covenant t… be of Gods adopted seed under the promises.
Answ. He might more truely have said, here sure is nothing (as it was printed) to conclude all the natural issue of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to be of Gods ad…pted seed under the promise of spiritval blessings in the Covenant Gen. 17.7. as it contained Gospel grace. The priviledges could not be o… all that according to the flesh were Israelites, for of them all as concerning the flesh Christ could not come, now were all (if any of them) priviledges Evangelical from spiritual promises in the Covenant of grace, but rather all of them Domestick or civil priviledges which believers of the nations had not. Nor were the priviledges to the Israelites at all times, but at some times. And therefore this text is impertinent to Mr. Bls, purpose, yea this Scripture and that wh…ch followes put together, are an antithesis to his thesis.
Secondly, saith he, Rom. 11. The Apostle speaks of the casting off of Gods people. Those that are cast off from being a people of God, were once his people; those that are put out of Covenant, were a people in Covenant: but the natural issue of Abraham (called natural branches, v 21. being by right of birth of that Olive) are there broken off, cast off; therefore the natural issue were the seed in Covenant.
Answ. The conclusion is granted, the natural issue of Abr…ham who were also the spiritual seed were the seed in Covenant, and such were a great part of the Jews in former ages, but those broken off, were never in the Covenant of grace; Nor is it said they were put out of the Covenant of grace, or broken off from the Olive in which they were in their persons, but in which their progenitors were; nor are they said to be natural branches v. 21. because by right of birth of that Olive, but by reason of their descent from Abraham they are natural branches of that Olive which at first was by natural as well as spiritual descent from him, but never by right of birth. It is false if meant of casting off from being his people, as it is meant Rom. 11.1, 2▪ that those that are cast off from being a people of God were once his people, understanding it in their own persons. But of this text, and this argument, more hath been said in the first part of this Review, and more will be, if the Lord permit, in that which follows.
Thirdly, saith he, Matth. 8.11, 12. whence he thus argues. Children of the Kingdome that are to be cast out, are in the Kingdome onelyonly upon an in…erest of Birth, for the fruition of the priviledges of Ordinances, and not upon any spiritual title, infallibly giving interest in salvation: But the children of the Kingdome were upon our Saviours sentence to be cast out, therefore they were in the Kingdome onelyonly on an interest of birth.
Answ. This argument 1 concludes not Mr. Bls. position, that the Covenant exprest Gen. 17.7. in the fullest latitude of the words as they are there spoken, in the largest comprehension (which according to Scripture they can be taken) are entered with all the natural seed of Abraham, by Isaac and Jacob. 2. It contradicts his own position, for if it bee as, he here saith, tha… they were not children of the Kingdome (though the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob) upon any spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation, and yet the Covenant Gen. 17.7. wherein God saith, he will be a God to Abrahams seed, comprehends such saving grace as creates a spiritual title, infallibly giving interest in salvation, as the Apostle Gal. 3.16, 17, 18, &c. expounds it, then the Covenant Gen. 17.7. is not entred with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob, in the fullest latitude of the words as they are there spoken, in the largest comprehension (which according to Scrip…ure they can be taken) therefore this argument overthrowes his own positi…n. 3. If by [being in the Kingdome] be meant being visible members of the visible Church Jewish, the conclusion is granted, but withal it is proved from the same text, that they were never in the visible Church Christian, but were opposite to it, in that they embraced not the Christian Faith, but opposed the Lord Jesus Christ, and so had no right to baptism, though they had circumcision, and did eat the passeover. 4 It is manifest from the text, and agreed upon by interpreters, that the Kingdome of Heaven in that place notes the Kingdome of glory, or the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaven, and not the visible Church onelyonly, or a being in it for the fruition of the priviledges of ordinances. For 1 the Kingdome of heaven is that wherein Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were then sate down, for it is said v. 1▪1. they shall sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob, in the Kingdome of heaven. But they were then sate down not in the visible Church onelyonly, nor had being in it for the fruition of …he priviledges of ordinances, but in the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaven, ergo ▪ 2. The Kingdome of heaven there is directly opposed to the outer darkness, where is weeping and gnashing of teeth v. 12. But that which is directly opposed to the outer darkness in which is weeping and gnashing of teeth, is the Kingdome of glory, or the state of eternal life and blessedness in hea…en, and not the visible Church onelyonly, or a being in it for the fruition of the priviledges of ordinances, ergo. 3. The scope of the speech of our Saviour is conceived by most interpreters, to be to abate the insolency and pride of the Jews, who contemned the Gentiles. Upon occasion of the Centurions faith v. 10. he tels them, though they now despised the Gentiles as not worthy to eat with them, yet they should come from East and West and should sit down with the best of their Ancestors, in the best, highest, and happiest place and condition. 4. Ex…ounding it of the visible Church it were not true which our Saviour speaks; For the Gentiles did never sit down with them in the visible Church for the fruition of the privi…edges of ordinances, such as C…rcumcision, the Passeover, Baptism, the Lords Supper, for some of these Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, did never partake of, nor ever shall, nor may the Gentiles with them, partake of circumcision, and the passeover, for that had been to have foretold that the Gentiles should have been circumcised with those Fathers, which had been to establish Judai…m, contrary to the Apostles decree Acts 15. to Pauls determination Gal. 2. & 5.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Yea, if it had been foretold that the Gentiles should come and joyn themselves to the visible Church Jewish, which began in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our Lord Christ had foretold that conjunction, which was so far from proving true in the event, that they who did come to Christ were persecuted and cast out of that Church Gal. 4.29. 1 Thes. 2.15.5. Hence it follows, that the children of the Kingdome are not so called because they were in that▪ Kingdome of heaven which is there meant, for then they had never been cast out: but they are called children of the Kingdome, because as Diodati notes, by the prerogative of Gods Covenant the Jews seemed to be heirs of this Kingdome, or as the new Annot. as ch. 9.15. who were born of those parents to wh…m the Kingdome was promised, and by vertue of the Covenant Rom. ….4. it had still belonged to them, had they not forfeited it by their unbelief and wickedness. Pisch. sch. Filios verò regni] id est, Judaeos qui hacteni…s per aliquot saecula ad regnum illud coelorum vocati sunt & vocantur. Beza Annot. Filios regni, foreign, Id est, indigenas, quos vocant vulgò naturales subjectos. Intelligit autem Dei regnum, ad quod pertinebant in gener… quicunque erant ex Abrahae genere, cum longè alia sit ratio coram Deo censendi filios Abrahae, nimirùm ex fide. So that they were children of the Kingdome not before God in actual title or possession, but onelyonly in appearance to men, and likelihood, considering their descent and the first manifestation of Christ, and the Gospel to that people. 6. Out of this it appears that a man may be said to be …ast out of the Kingdome of heaven, who was never in actually, but onelyonly in possibility, according to what was apparent to men, and consequently Mr. Bls. propositions are not true in his precedent argument, Those that are cast off from being a people of God, were once his people; those that are put out of Covenant, were a people in Covenant; nor the argument good, Ishmael was cast out of Covenant, therefore once in. Nor is it seldome, that men are said to be brought up from the grave, as Psal. 30.3. and to be redeemed from the grave and hell, who were never in, but onelyonly in danger of it.
But Mr. Bl. hath yet a fourth text, which was his text in his Birth-priviledge, it is Gal 2.15. From whence after some explication given of the text he t…us argues, That which is a priviledge of nature or birth, belongs to the natural issue, that cannot be denied. But to be in Covenant with God as a people holy and exceeding others that are without as sinners, is a priviledge of nature or birth, therefore this priviledge belongs to the natural issue.
Ans. To be in covenant with God may be understood either in respect of the Covenant with Abraham Gen 17. or the Covenant at Mount Sinai Exod. 19. To be in the Covenant Gen 17. may be in respect of Evangelical benefits, or of domestick and political benefits or priviledges, as, to bee accounted members of the Israelitish nation and so of that church, to have the service of God among them, the law among them, education under it, freedome from idolatry, and other pollutions of the Gentiles. To be as a people holy, may be understood either of holiness by inward sanctification, called circumcision of the heart, or of outward holiness in being distinguished from other people, as set apart visibly for God, whether in reputation or truth, either by Gods distinction or by an outward signe, or by their own profession. I grant the minor of being in Covenant either Exod. 19. or Gen. 17. in respect of the domestick and political benefits, at least some of them, and to be a holy people exceeding others that are without as sinners, if understood of outward holiness in reputation or truth, by Gods distinction, and by the outward signe of Circumcision, was (I do not grant is) a privil…dge of nature or birth, and accordingly grant the conclusion, that this priviledge did (I do not say doth) belong to the natural issue (I do not say to all) of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob, and was proper to the Jews, and no more can be gathered from Gal. 2.15. there's not a word of the same priviledge as belonging to the natural poste…ity of believing Gentiles. But the minor is denied, if understood of Evangelical benefits and of holiness inward (of which alone the question should have been formed, his position being in full opposition to my words) nor is it proved out of the text, himself expounding Jews by nature, that is by birth and off spring of a nation that is holy though in themselves sinners, reputed an holy people, a people by covenant holy to the Lord, which they might be though to be in Covenant with God Gen. 17.7. and as a people holy and exceeding others that are without as sinners by inward holiness be not a priviledge of nature or birth.
But Mr. Bl. thinks my grant involves me in not a few contradictions. 1. To what I say Exercit. pag. 3. the natural seed inherit onelyonly domestick and civil benefits. But Mr. Bl. falsly chargeth me, the word [onelyonly] is Mr. Bls. addition not mine, as the Reader that shall read the words may perceive. 2. To what I am wont to deny, that birth entitles any to such priviledges as interest in Circumcision, and observance of Moses law. But this is another of Mr. Bls. forged calumnies: let him shew if he can that I say so any where, and he deserves some credit, if not let him suffer as a Calumniator. 3. That I deny the natural seed any promise of spiritual mercies, which is another forgery of his like the former. 4. That I say this was proper to the Jews in that Church state, who had prerogatives peculiar to them. And then saith thus. And here we urge it no further, and it fully concludes Mr. T. in a contradiction, that will have the natural seed of Abraham, and no other then his spiritual seed to be entituled to such priviledges. Here's more of his forgery, that I say no other then Abrahams spirit…ul seed are entituled to such priviledges as were proper to the Jews in that Church state, who had prerogatives peculiar to them. Let him shew any such thing in my writing, or let him, as he and his fellow Paedobaptist Mr. Robert Baillee (who hath in like sort wronged me) as they ought, testifie their repentance by righting me. Otherwise the Lord will to their shame discover their evil dealing, i… their own conscience be so blinde or so hard as to slight such a sin.
He concludes thus, Any one of these arguments severally, much more all …ointly, make good this position, that all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob, are in that great Charter (vouchsafed of God) taken into Covenant so as to be the people of God, and to enjoy all priviledges of his people in order (upon Gods termes) to everlasting salvation. But 1. not one nor all prove that God did promise to all Gen. 17.7. or any such outward priviledges as he means, to wit, to be circumcised, or right to it and the Passeover, nor that all enjoy them. 2. The promises of justification, adoption, eternal life, upon Gods termes, without the promise of regeneration and effectual calling, make no… a person to be in the Covenant, nor a people holy to the Lord Evangeli…ally. Now this promise Mr. Bl. hath not proved to be made to all the natural seed of Abraham, by Isaac and Jacob, and till he doth so, he proves nothing against my assertion Exercit. pag. 3 which he pretended fully to oppose, but hath failed to do it. His 36. ch. is answered before sect. 29. I pass on to ch. 37. which is thus entituled, The Covenant in New Testament times takes in parents with their children; This he sets himself to make good first by interrogatories, and then by Peters words Acts 2.38, 39. which is answered before sect. 21. A little o… his interrogatories.
To his first, if by the grant he mean the Covenant of grace Evangelical, I deny it to have been ever made to a beli…ver and all his seed, nor is it proved by Mr. Bl. If a Covenant of visible Church-membership and initial seal, I deny any such Covenant ever made by God to a believer and his seed, or the grant thereof to have been held by the Church of God in fee from Abraham to this present hour, and therefore need shew no reverse of such a grant.
To his 2d. demand, I grant a whole nation may enter into Covenant as Deut 29. nor do I restrain any from engagement of their infants and posterity unborn by an oath and curse to own God But I finde there no promise or grant of visible Church-membership and initial seal to believers and their seed, by vertue of such a Covenant. His other frivolous questions in that demand are answered often, that the difference ariseth f…om the different institution of Circumcision which is the rule of administring them, not interest in the Covenant if there were such.
To his 3d. demand, I know no scandal ever given or likely to be given to the Jews by not baptizing infants. His random talk of s…riking out of the Covenant infants, is shewed often before to be vain, as going on suppositions not proved. To his alleg…tions of Gen. 17.7. Ezek. 16.20. 1 Cor. 7.14. I have often answered before.
To his 4th. that the reason why in the Apostles dayes and the next age to them▪ no question was moved about the baptizing of infants, though infants were circumcised by the Jews is manifest, to wit, Christ had not appointed infants to be bap…ized, the Apostles and primitive Christians did not at all use it, it was contrary to the end and use of baptism as appointed by Christ, they knew not of the Paedobaptists doctrine, about the title to baptism from the Covenant, and its succession to circumcision.
But Mr. Bl. further refers me to Mr. Baxters Treatise of Infants Church-membership, proving that infants were sometimes Church members, pag 26, 27. that there is no repeal of this grant vouchsafed of God pag. 27, 28. waiting for some fair answer to the former demands Whereto I shall address my self, as being very desirous wi…h the assistance of the Lord to do my endeavour for the freeing of men from the delusion of that Book, wherewith a great number of Paedobaptists have been gulled.