Certain disputations of right to sacraments, and the true nature of visible Christianity defending…

The fourth Argument is from Rom 4.11.¹ Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith therefore so is Baptism; therefore so is the Lords Supper; therefore it belongeth only to justified Believers. To this Mr. Blake answereth, 1. Then Ismael and each male were justified. Rep. 1. He whom you answer spoke only of the Adult: and then you should have said only then Ismael and all the males that had true right to Circumcision, were either justified believers, or the children of such, or (as to Church right) of those that Professed themselves such. And that is true. 2 And it is lis sub judice yet, whether the Synod of Dort, Davenant, &c. or Mr. Gataker were in the right, and so whether all the seed of justified persons have an Infant justification with them, or not?

1. 1Galaspie's Argum. 4. denfeded.

You add that, [Abraham's Circumcision there is not made a proof of h•s justification.] Repl. He that maketh it the Instituted Nature or use of Circumcision to be a Seal of a Righteousness of Faith which the person had before, doth make his Circumcision a proof of his foregoing Righteousness of faith. But so did Paul concerning Abraham: therefore, &c. 2. Paul may give us a full proof of it, though he spake those words to another intent.

You add that, [Abrahams Circumcision there is not made a proof of h•s justification.] Repl. He that maketh it the Instituted Nature or use of Circumcision to be a Seal of a Righteousness of Faith which the person had before, doth make his Circumcision a proof of his foregoing Righteousness of faith. But so did Paul concerning Abraham: therefore, &c. 2. Paul may give us a full proof of it, though he spake those words to another intent.