upon him in his single capacity so his performing that duty incumbent upon him as a parent in reference to his Seed was absolutely necessary in order to his enjoying the good promised with reference both to himself and his Seed The truth of this Proposition is evident from these two places of Scripture compared together Gen. 17.1 and Gen. 18.19 Walk before me and be thou perfect There was Abraham's duty in reference to himself as a single person with whom the Covenant was entred For I know him that he will command his Children and his Houshold after him and they shall keep judgment and justice that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him that is that he may be a God to him and his Seed after him There was Abraham's duty as a Parent and Master of a Family and under this term Command all other duties subserving or referring to their walking in the way of the Lord were implyed and comprehended Now saith the Lord Abraham will thus command his Children and Houshold that the Lord may bring upon him what he hath spoken of him Whence it appears that Abraham's performance of his duty towards his Children and Houshold was a necessary condition of Gods bringing upon him or making good to him what he had promised in reference to his Children and Houshold and that without the performance of that duty he could not expect according to the true intent and meaning of the Promise that God should bring that good upon him or do that good to him and what is said of Abraham is true of all his Seed supposing them under that double capacity Abraham was to be a pattern to all his Seed both in priviledges and in duties Thirdly That whatever was the condition or restipulation of the Covenant as made with Abraham was the condition or restipulation required of his natural Seed and to be actually performed by them in their own persons so soon as they came to that maturity of age as rendred them capable thereof and that as indispensably necessary to the compleating and continuance of their covenant relation with God into which they as Abraham's natural Seed were admitted in their infancy though God was pleased to enter covenant not only with Abraham himself but with his Seed together with him and his accepting of the Covenant for himself and them constituted a covenant relation between God and Abraham and his Seed and that covenant-relation was continued during his Seeds infant capacity upon Abraham's account yet when they grew up to a capacity of a personal ingaging with God in a Covenant way and performing the restipulation required Now the continuance of that covenant-relation between God and them indispensably required their personal accepting of and performing that restipulation or condition that Abraham in their infancy had accepted for them and their non-acceptance or non-performance of that condition did ipso facto disanul the Covenant or forfeit their right to and interest in it and the promises of it God stood the longer by vertue of that Promise obliged to be a God unto them and for them to have supposed the continuance of that covenant-relation between God and them into which they were afore admitted and upon that account expected the good promised without their personal performance of the duty the Covenant did oblige them to had been a groundless presumption The truth of this Proposition is evident in part from what hath been already said and will more fully appear when I come to the proof of my second Proposition Abraham's commanding his Children and Houshold to keep the way of the Lord in order to that end namely their enjoying the good promised necessarily supposeth it for why should he command them to keep the way of the Lord in relation to such an end if their keeping that way had no necessary reference to that end but the end had been attained without their keeping that way besides were not this true there could have been no such thing as breach of covenant found among any of Abraham's natural Seed as will be obvious to every ordinary capacity Before I proceed further let me note by the way that this Covenant now established with Abraham and his Seed in their generations implyed a twofold condition necessary to be observed in order to Gods making good the promises of it referring to his Seed First There was a condition incumbent on Abraham himself there was something of duty required of him with reference to his Seed viz. that he command them to keep the way of the Lord as is observed in the foregoing Proposition Secondly There was a condition incumbent upon the Seed as grown up and become capable of understanding and performing it that is That they walk in the way of the Lord and supposing that either Abraham had failed in his duty or his Seed in theirs God had been acquitted of any charge of unfaithfulness to his promise though the good promised with reference to his Seed had never been given in God promiseth to be a God to Abraham's Seed as well as to himself yet with this condition that he instruct and command his Seed and that they accept of and perform the duty ingaged to by covenant Fourthly That Ishmael's breach of covenant did neither proceed from a failure on Gods part in making good the Promises made to him nor consist in his own loosing or falling from inherent Grace but did wholly lye in his non performance of that duty required as indispensably necessary to the compleating and continuance of that Covenant-relation he was admitted into with God and transgressing those Commands he was obliged to the observation of in brief he fell from a Covenant-state but not from Covenanted-grace for that he never had an actual possession of so that to affirm that Ishmael was in the Covenant now established with Abraham and his Seed and that that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace that Believers are sâ—ill under notwithstanding his breach of Covenant in the sence now opened is no way inconsistent with what is affirmed concerning the immutability of the Covenant of Grace we freely grant and our Opposites must grant it too unless they will admit of the absurdities aforementioned verse 12. that persons may be in an external Covenant state God ward and yet want the truth of Grace may loose a Covenant-state though not loose Covenanted-Grace or fall from a state of Grace But not to leave any doubt that may a rise in the minds of any about what hath been said unsatisfied I am aware of one Objection and that not without a seeming weight and strength in it will be made against what hath been said and that is this Object It will be said Doth not the Scripture plainly intimate it not positively offer â— That the Covenant of Grace cannot be broken no not in the sence in which it is now supposed Ishmael did break it and is not that at least one
evils inconveniencies and disadvantages supposed by them to follow upon the granting unto them such a Covenant-interest and application of Baptism upon the ground thereof But now all that I shall say to this is as for the good benefit and advantage arising to the Infant-seed of believing Parents from both their Covenant-state and Baptism as applyed unto them thereupon 't is exceeding great as will I hope through Divine assistance be made to appear if Providence disappoint not my present purpose At present let this be considered as for their Covenant-interest and state a double benefit ariseth to them thereby First They are as distributively taken under a Promise of God being their God in the sence declared in the insuing Discourse Secondly They are as collectively taken as Members of the visible Church under an indefinite Promise supposing them grown to years of maturity of being to taught of God as savingly to know him How far the certainty of their future Salvavation supposing them to dye in their infancy may be concluded from their interest in these Promises I shall leave to the judgment of the judicious Reader This I doubt not will be found true at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ when these Secrets shall be made manifest that vastly the Major part of the Seed of Believers and that by vertue of these very Promises made unto them will be found the heirs of that Inheritance prepared for the Saints in light mistake me not I do not say the major part of the Seed of each particular Believer but the major part of the Seed of Believers generally taken or as taken one with another But however methinks it should not be accounted a small matter to be brought in any sense though it be never so little nigher the Promises of Salvation and into a nigher capacity and probability of injoying the good promised than the rest of mankind are in and that they must sure be acknowledged to be by that their Covenant-state and interest in the Promises And as for Baptism the good and benefit of that is hinted in the close of the insuing Discourse and is more fully to be declared if the Lord will As for the evils and mischiefs supposed to follow upon our Doctrine and practice they are really none at all whatever evils may be observed at any time to follow they are only accidental and will be found to have some other Original and not be the natural and necessary fruits and consequences of either the Doctrine or practice of Infant-Baptism Fifthly That which is of a like importance with what hath been hitherto mentioned is peoples placing at least too much of their Religion in an external way mode or form attended with an easiness and facility to be drawn into this or that way by unsound and groundless motives and inducements too many think that if they are but of such a way they are good Christians and secured as to their eternal states hence through the subtlety of Satan and deceit of their own hearts they overlook and neglect the main things wherein the power of Religion doth indeed consist and betake themselves to and fall in with this or that way as supposing themselves thereby insured for Salvation and wanting judgment to discern between Truth and Error fall in with the Judgment and practice under consideration as led thereunto meerly by some unsound and groundless motive and inducement and though it is true truly conscientious Christians cannot satisfie themselves in a bare way or form neither will they be led by any motives or inducements without any regard at all had to the Word of God yet even in respect of many of them especially such who are of weaker Judgments some unsound and groundless motive and inducement hath no little interest in their imbracing this or that way rather than any other and thus the motives and iuducements leading Professors into a complyance with the way or judgment and practice lying opposite to what we have here pleaded for are exceeding various all which to enumerate would under me over tedious all that I shall say therefore is If we would come to a right understanding of the mind and will of our Lord Christ place Religion where it ought to be placed and then setting all such motives and inducements aside weigh impartially the Scriptures and Arguments grounded thereupon readily giving up our Judgments and practices to the guidance of the light and evidence of those Scriptures and Arguments Sixthly and lastly The perswasion and practice here opposed have prevailed so far among Christians in a great measure through their preposterous enquiries after the will of Christ relating to the practice here pleaded for taken in conjunction with the products of those inquiries in and upon their own minds and the preposterousness of their inquiries lyes more especially in these two things First In their inquiring after the will of Christ as to the Baptism of Infants before they have sought after or found out the proper uses and ends of Baptism in the general and the true notion under which it was instituted and commanded by Christ Secondly In their inquiring after the will of Christ relating to this practice without any precedent consideration had to his will relating to the interest of the Infants of believing Parents in the Covenant and Promises thereof by these preposterous inquiries men put themselves under a threefold disadvantage as to their finding out that will of Christ they are inquiring after First They terminate and limit their inquiries to the Scriptures of the new Testament as supposing the whole will of Christ relating unto Baptism it being a new Testament Ordinance must needs be contained in them Secondly Which follows hereupon They search not after nor attend unto the Tenour of the Covenant as at first established with Abraham the Father of the Faithful nor attend to the various Scriptures contained in the old Testament opening and confirming that Tenour of the Covenant as so established with him Thirdly Which follows from both They loose the benefit of those several Inferences that may rationally and according to Scripture warrant be drawn from interest in the Covenant for the determining and concluding what is the mind and will of Christ concerning the application of Baptism But now would people begin their inquiries where they ought to do and proceed regularly therein they would find the mind and will of Christ to appear with much more clearness of evidence on the side of the practice we plead for would they make their first inquiries after the proper uses and ends of Baptism and the true notion under which it is instituted and then proceed in an impartial search after the Tenour of the Covenant and here again begin where they ought to do viz. at the first establishment of it with Abraham the Father of the Faithful and so proceed regularly as the Covenant hath been continued from one Generation to another to Abraham's Seed whether Natural
incline the heart of the Seed of Believers to a right and willing complyance with that Obligation put upon them by it and by this little hint we may easily perceive that God had weighty ends in injoyning the application of Baptism the present Token of the Covenant as well as Circumcision of old the then Token of the Covenant to the Infant seed of his People and that the application of it is of admirable use and benefit unto them when duly improved by them and certainly then it must needs be not only highly injurious to the Seed of believing Parents to withhold the Token of the Covenant from them they being thereby deprived of a special means subservient to their preservation in their Covenant-state and injoyment of all the good of the Covenant but exceeding prejudicial to the interest of Christ in the world the Tabernacle of David as we have before proved is raised up and upheld among the Gentiles by Gods taking Families into Covenant with himself Now to neglect a special means that God hath appointed subservient to the preservation of these Families in their Covenant-state must needs directly tend to the ruine and overthrow of the interest and Kingdom of Christ in the world But not to inlarge upon this at present From this little that hath been said we may easily perceive that the application of Baptism to the Infant seed of Believers is no such vain or useless thing as it is by two many supposed I have only a few more words to add as a Coronis to the whole foregoing Discourse and I have done That it is the will of our Lord Christ that the Infant-seed of one or both believing Parents should be baptized is to me upon the grounds afore laid down unquestionable how far it will be so to others I cannot say only this I know that whatever light is held forth by man for the discovery of the mind and will of Christ relating to any practice yet unless he who is the great Prophet of his Church shall vouchsafe to open the eyes of the mind and prevail upon the heart to imbrace and submit unto that light held forth the holding of it forth will be wholly insignificant as to any benefit accrewing therefrom unto men Man may according to what assistance is vouchsafed from Christ hold forth light discovering the way he would have his People walk in but 't is wholly in his own power whose Prerogative it is to lead into all Truth to inlighten the mind and cause that Soul to walk in that way Leaving therefore the whole of what hath been said in his hand and to his blessing I shall wind up all with a threefold advice according to the various sentiments of men about and their various concerments in the practice I have contended for First As for such who have been and notwithstanding what is here offered or hath been by others shall still remain to be so far dissatisfied about the practice we plead for as wholly to omit it and walk in that way that lyes in a direct opposition thereunto let me advise and in the Spirit of meekness earnestly beseech them to carry it under their present perswasions and practise with a holy fear and trembling The grounds held forth in the foregoing Treatise and by several others pleading for the same Truth seem so full and clear yea to me so convincing that I can hardly fear being accounted over confident though I take it for granted that the most confident and resolved of our Opposers must needs acknowledge that our doctrine and practice of Infant baptism stands upon the same level of probability if the advantage be not on our side that the opposite Doctrine and practise doth and that upon supposition of our Doctrine and practice being found agreeable to the mind and will of Christ the opposite Doctrine and practice must needs be highly prejudicial to the comfort of believing Parents the good of their Seed and which is most of all eo the supportation and propagation of the interest and Kingdom of Christ in the world And let me add that when the consequences of refusing or claiming a priviledge are of an even size the refusing such a priviledge suppose it be indeed granted and ought to be accepted of is a greater sin and more displeasing unto God than the claiming and appropriating of it supposing it be not granted nor that claim really warranted by Scripture is as is evident to every considerate person we see how much God was offended at Ahaz his refusing a Sign when offered to him how much God was displeased with Moses for neglecting to circumcise his Child therefore I say walk with a holy fear and trembling lest as some will meet with a Who required this at your hand so you shall meet with a How durst thou refuse this priviledge at my hand Secondly As for such whose judgment and practice agree with and answerably are confirmed by the foregoing Discourse especially such to whom God hath vouchsafed that blessing of Children let me advise and importunately intreat them yea in the Name of our Lord Christ command them that they satisfie not themselves in the bare discharge of their duty in regard of the application of Baptism to their Seed in their infancy know that your work is not done when you have brought yours within the verge or under the bond of the Covenant you will find in the foregoing Papers that your Seeds inheriting the good which in common with you they are Heirs unto depends much upon your faithful and wife discharge of your duty towards them as growing up to years of maturity Abraham must command his Houshold that they keep the way of the Lord and that to this end that God might bring upon him the good promised with reference to his There is hardly any thing a greater discouragement to Ministers in pleading for an administring Infant-baptism than the great neglect of Parents towards their Children when baptized and grown up to a capacity of understanding and improving their Baptism afore administred to them therefore seeing you lay claim to Abraham's blessing as his Children walk in Abraham's steps both in respect of your own personal faith and holiness and also in instructing and commanding your Children that they may keep the way of the Lord In particular let them know their priviledge and the danger of forfeiting of it by breaking that Obligation put upon them by Baptism thirdly and lastly As for such who are the Seed of believing Parents and who by Baptism have been dedicated and given up unto God in Christ and incorporated into his my stical Body as visible Let me advise perswade and charge them that they lay no more weight upon their Baptism in relation to their eternal happiness than the nature of the Ordinance and the end of Christ in appointing the application of it will warrant Baptism abstractly taken infallibly secures Salvation to none neither can Baptism of it self be laid as a sure ground to bottom a plea for Salvation upon He that beliveth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not however baptized shall be damned is one of those unalterable Decrees laid up in the Records of Heaven In respect of which we may say as Job in another case of God He is of one mind and who shall that is none shall turn him Job 23.13 Your abiding in and injoyning the benefits of the Covenant into which 〈◊〉 as the Seed of such Parents you were admitted in you infancy undispensably requires your personal faith and obedience therefore be faithful in the discharge of your duty and in so doing you may upon sure grounds apply and improve your Baptism as Gods Seal infallibly securing your injoyment of the good promised FINIS
controversie as to neglect thy growth in Grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ but I say a little Christian prudence will direct in this and obviate the inconvenience suggested But secondly It will be said The appearing thus in publick may occasion the revival of these Controversies which seem now almost laid aside and forgotten among the People of God and consequently may renew heighten and increase those divisions which heretofore have been of such sad consequence as to their unanimous and concordant practice of the main things of Religion To this I shall answer I am not altogether without hope of the quite contrary viz. That it may be of some use for the obtaining and promoting union among them There is a double union that the People of God are to labour after First An union of judgment and practice that they may think speak and do the same things Secondly An union in heart and affection that wherein they do differ in judgment and practice they may bear with and forbear one another in love Now what means can have a more direct tendency or be more effectual will the Lord please to concur with his blessing for the obtaining and promoting either of these kinds of union than the holding forth with a Spirit of meekness what light is received from the Scriptures about the things wherein the difference and disagreement is As for the former 't is utterly impossible ever to be attained among those who dare not as we use to say pin their faith upon other mens sleeves or practice hand over head whatever is proposed to them by any means exclusive of this and with what confidence soever any attempts may be made to effect this union any other way they will be found utterly unavailable and probably issue in the quite contrary event to what is aimed at But suppose this first and most excellent kind of union which we ought ultimately to aim at and endeavour should not be attained the same differences in judgment and practice should yet remain yet methinks I may yea I cannot but rationally expect that the latter viz. of heart and affection will be so far from being impeded and obstructed that it will be considerably advanced and promoted though dissenters may not come over to my judgment and practise by what is here offered yet sure I may promise my self without concurring the censure of being over confident of the Truth asserted or the strength and validity of the Arguments produced for its confirmation that it will be granted that in case I do err it is cunt ratione and that I have so much ground from Scripture to bottom my judgment and practice upon as may acquit me in the judgment of Charity without stretching it beyond the bounds allowed in Scripture and warranted by Reason from a wilful persisting in error and I hardly know any thing more effectual for the maintaining love and friendship among dissenting Christians then for them to be mutually satisfied in each other that they do not dissent upon any other account then their respective conscientiousness of their duty towards God which satisfaction can hardly be given in a more effectual manner than by holding forth and declaring each to other the light they have received from the Scriptures of truth captivating their judgments to the imbracement and practice of what they do differently imbrace and practice so that I cannot but hope the sending abroad the ensuing Discourse will be so far from reviving a Controversie almost laid asleep and forgotten to the disuniting of Christians and heightening their differences and divisions that it may be of some good use for the promoting the quite contrary end viz their uniting if not in judgment that they may be as the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 1.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perfectly joyned together in one mind and judgment yet they may live together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 4.2 Forbearing one another in love And yet further let me add one thing more which having its due consideration may if not wholly remove yet much allay what prejudices of this nature may arise in the minds of men and it is this Times of afflictions whether coming immediately from the hand of God or mediately from the hand of man are special times for every one to take a more through and impartial review of their respective wayes and practises the Rod hath a voice which all are commanded to here Hear the Rod and who hath appointed it Micah 6 9. What its voice is or what it calls for at our hands may be gathered partly from what the God of Wisdom or the only wise God declares to be his expectation from those either over whom it is lift up in the threatning or upon whom it is laid in the execution and partly from what the men of wisdom as the Prophet there speaks have done in answer to this voice what are Gods expectations he tells us Jer. 8.6 I saith the Lord hearkened and heard but no man spake aright and wherein they failed in speaking aright he tells us no man said what have I done or which is of the same importance what have I not done what have I omitted and neglected that I ought to have done the Rod calls to us to call our selves to an impartial account wherein we have either come short of or exceeded that Rule we ought to walk by what men of wisdom have done in answer to this voice of the Rod see in that Lam. 3.40 Let us search our wayes and turn unto the Lord when God is searching after our sins especially when the search is made by afflictions when God hath us upon the rack â—s Job seems to allude Job 10.6 sure it is our concernment to make a through and impartial search too God threatens to search Jerusalem with Candles Zeph. 1.12 it is meant of his searching by afflictions now God seems to have his Candle in his hand he is searching England with Candles he is in special searching the professing party in England with Candles now it is an excellent observation of that worthy Expositor upon Job saith he Troubles are as so many Candles that God setteth up to search us by and they will be as so many fires inkindled to consume us with in case we search not our selves but yet let me say it is not the bare light of afflictions without the concurring light of the Word and Spirit that can discover to any their sin hence when God holds out the light of his Candle it must needs be a very seasonable time to hold forth the light of the Word which being attended with the internal illumination of the Spirit may discover that to be a sin which would not be owned so to be at another time from what hath been said I cannot but hope that what is here presented to publick view will by considerate persons be so far from being accounted unseasonable that it will be accounted
not Isaac been intended not exclusive of others but inclusive of himself the Promise could not have received its accomplishment in him but had failed in the ejection of Ishmael and hence the Apostle tells us That Abraham sojourned in Canaan as a Stranger in a strange Land with Isaac and Jacob heirs with him of the same Promise Of what Promise Surely of that wherein God engaged himself to be a God to him and to his Seed and to give him and them the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession both these Promises are joyned together as one Promise Gen. 17.6 Now of this Promise Isaac was an heir with Abraham and therefore must needs be included in it as one of the Subjects of it Secondly That Ishmael was intended as part of Abraham's Seed in this Promise is evident by this one Consideration Not to multiply where truth is sufficiently evident viz. His ejection out of Abraham's Family and his being disinherited of the Covenant and Promise thereby It 's true his bare ejection out of Abraham's Family would not demonstrate his being in Abraham's Covenant and under the Promise thereof while in his Family he had Servants in his house who yet might be after cast out but that would not conclude them to have had an interest in his Covenant but now as by that his ejection out of Abraham's Family he was disinherited of or disinteressed in the Promise or was divested of his right and title to it doth undeniably evidence his right and title to it antecedent to that his ejection for he could not be divested or disinherited of that he never had or was never an heir unto Now that Ishmael with and by means of his rejection out of Abraham's Family was divested of a right and title he afore had to the Covenant and to the promises thereof is evident by these two Reasons First Because his ejection was typical of their ejection out of the Gospel Church and rejection from the benefits and blessings of the Covenant of Grace who under a Profession of Christianity or of being the Covenant-people of God do adhere to the Law for Righteousness and Life That Ishmael's casting out of Abraham's Family was thus typical is expresly affirmed by the Apostle Gal 4.30 compared with the foregoing Context Now his bare ejection out of Abraham's Family could not have made him a proper type of the persons beforementioned in as much as then there had been no direct Analogy or proportion between the type and antitype How his meer casting out of Abraham's Family should represent or foreshew and predict the ejection of the persons forementioned out of the Gospel Church and divestment of all title to the benefits and blessings of the Covenant of Grace cannot be imagined for as much as others might be cast out of Abraham's Family whose ejection was not of any such typical signification Secondly That Ishmael together with and by means of his ejection out of Abraham's Family was divested of a right and title which while in his house he had to the Covenant and promises thereof is evident because Sarah in her request to Abraham to cast him out proposed that as her end viz. That he might not iuherit with Isaac her Son Gen. 21.10 Cast out this bond woman and her son for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with my son even with Isaac And that it was the good promised in this Covenant that she desires his disinheriting of is evident by Abraham's griefs had it been only the temporal possessions of Abraham his not inheriting of which she proposeth as her end in desiring his ejection there had been no reason of Abraham's grief in as much as he was under the promise of outward blessings notwithstanding that his ejection Now there had been no reason for Sarah to propose that end in her request to have him cast out unless he had and would continue to have had during his abode in the house a like visible right and title to the Promise that Isaac had she might have desired his ejection for some other reason but for that that he might not inherit with Isaac she could not rationally do it would have been an impertinent reason for her to have desired his ejection that he might not inherit with her own Son in case he had no right nor title to the promised Inheritance whilst in the house For a woman to desire her Husband to cast out a Servant out of the family for that reason that he might not inherit with her own Children when as whether he should continue or be cast out of the family he could lay no claim to to the Inheritance would be ridiculous Hence Sarahs pleading that reason or propounding that end of her request plainly implyes that Ishmael during his abode in Abraham's Family had at reast a visible right and title to the inheritance promised which would be disanulled by that his ejection Hence it is evident Ishamel as well as Isaac was intended in that Promise and that both were joynt Heirs to or Subjects of that Promise as externally made to Abraham with reference to his Seed Now then seeing these two viz. Ishmael and Isaac were intended there can be no reason imagined why we should suppose Abraham's other Children to be excluded for they were either elected or not elected if they were their case was the same with Isaac's if not their case was the same with Ishmael's and therefore both Ishmael and Isaac being intended there is no shew of reason to suppose the other excluded but we may partly from the parity of their cases with the case of the one or the other of these two and partly from the evidence of the foregoing Arguments positively conclude that all Abraham's natural Seed according to the intendment of this first proposition were intended in this promise as the first and next subjects of it but let that suffice for the proof of the first proposition CHAP. III. Objections against the first subordinate Proposition considered and answered THus having seen somewhat for much more might be produced of that evidence the Scriptures give in for the confirmation of this first Proposition I shall now consider the Objections I have yet met with or can possibly imagine may be made that have any appearance of weight in them against the truth hitherto asserted and pleaded for That which I plead for is this That God in that grand Promise of the Covenant wherein he engaged himself to be a God to Abraham and his seed in their generations intended his natural Seed and that indefinitely one as well as another immediately proceeding from his own loins as the immediate and next Subjects of it Now at least some I suppose not all of those whose judgment and practice vary from the truth pleaded for will contend that this term Seed is to be understood in a restrained sense as only intended of one or more of Abraham's immediate Children to the excluding of
shews what their mistake was that did suppose the Promise would be made void in case the Jews should be rejected and shews this to be thier mistake That they supposed that this Promise as it was a Promise of saving Grace did appertain to the natural Seed of Abraham as such Now this mistake the Apostle rectifies and shews that as such a spiritual Promise it did not at all respect Abraham's natural Seed as such but was made only to the Elect they only were accounted for the Seed respective to this Promise as so understood To that I answer two things First Let it be observed that the present framers of this Objection in the sence now expressed do grant that the Promise in some sence did intend Abraham's natural Seed and that as such whence it will follow that if it be evident that it intended not only a temporal but a spiritual good as made to Abraham's Seed univerfally as well as to himself of which by and by then our first Proposition is true by the grant at least of some of our Opposers they granting that in a sence it did intend them But you will say Whatever Argument may be offered yet the Apostle shews plainly that as it was a Promise of saving Grace it was made only to the Elect for saith he taking the Promise in this sence The Children of the Promise are accounted for the Seed and we must believe the Apostle whatever Argument may seem to prove the contrary I answer to this Secondly Consider the Apostle doth no more restrain this Promise as a Promise of saving Grace to the Elect than the doth restrain it to them as a Promise of a meer temporal good if he doth not restrain it to them wholly and in an absolute sence he doth not restrain it to them at all for observe it in case he restrains it as a spiritual Promise and not as a temporal Promise to the Elect that limited restraint must be exprest either in the words themselves or inferr'd from the Context or the Apostles scope in them For the words themselves there is nothing intimating such a limited restraint for sayes he The Children of the flesh are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are accounted for the Seed He doth not say the Children of the flesh are not intended in that Promise as a Promise of saving Grace So the Children of the Promise are accounted for the Seed not are accounted for the Seed as that Promise was a Promise of saving Grace But it will be said When he sayes of the Children of the flesh they are not the Children of God 't is all one as if he had said they were not intended in that Promise as it is a Promise of saving Grace To that I answer 'T is not all one in as much as 't is possible that persons may be under a Promise of saving Grace as made conditionally to them and yet not be the Children of God in the sence of the Apostle nor ever become the Children of God in that sence So that unless it can be proved that none can be under a Promise of saving Grace as conditionally made or under a Promise of saving Grace as indefinitely made to some species or sort of persons collectively taken unless they are either at present the Children of God or shall infallibly become so for the future it cannot be said 't is all one to say that for the Apostle to deny the natural Seed of Abraham to be the Chilnten of God and to deny they are intended in that Promise as a Promise of saving Grace because they might be intended in that Promise and yet never be the Children of God Persons may be under a conditional promise or an indefinite promise of saving Grace and yet cannot be from thence denominated in an absolute sence to be the Children of God nor proved thereby that they should even become so so that such a limited restraint of this promise to the Elect only is not in the least intimated in the words themselves Secondly For the context and scope of the Apostle neither doth infer such a limited restraint of the Promise to the Elect only or a necessity of putting such construction upon the words this is evident from what hath been already said in explaining the sence and meaning of them The words as afore opened as fully agree to and answer the Apostles design and scope as if they were understood with a limited restraint they would do and do as fully answer and satisfie the Question or Objection he was to answer This is so plain that it would be superfluous to add any thing more than what hath been already said So that there is nothing in the words themselves or that can be deduced from the Context or the Apostles design and scope in them to necessitate our understanding the Apostle to intend any such limited restraint of this promise to the Elect only if it be not wholly and absolutely restrained to them it is not restrained to them at all for ought what appears from the Text of the Apostle Now our Opposers themselves grant That in some sence the promise was not restrained to the Elect but did intend Abraham's natural Seed as such and therefore we may conclude it was not at all restrained to them But it will be said secondly That though it be granted that this promise as intending both temporal and spiritual blessings did intend and was made to Abraham's natural Seed and that as such and consequently that the Covenant did take in Abraham's natural Seed under the first Testament as is affirmed in the first Proposition yet the Apostle here shews that now under the Gospel administration it should be so no longer Now the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God in any sence but the Children of the Promise that is true Believers are only accounted for Abraham's Seed To that I answer 'T is evident from the Context that the Apostle speaks not at all of the extent and latitude in which the Covenant should be made with or continued to Believers under the New Testament for the Question he is answering doth not all immediately and directly concern Believers under the New Testament but wholly immediately and directly concerns the Jewes And observe it What an answer should the Apostle return to the proposed Question according to the judgment of those that make this reply The Question was How could Israel be rejected and God remain true to his Word of promise made to Abraham their Father with reference unto them Now what doth the Apostle answer to this Question Why according to the Judgment of these men he answers That though the Covenant was made with Abraham and his natural Seed yet now it is only made with Believers themselves and extends not to their natural Seed as it did during the first Testament administration And what had that been to the purpose not only the Jewish
only Gods not performing to them what he had promised And if it should be said Though God did deny to give them in that very temporal good contained in the Promises of that Covenant yet they were infallibly saved and so had only an exchange of a temporal good for a spiritual though they had not that particular good covenanted yet they had a better good viz. the good of eternal life But to that I answer two things First Grant it be so yet they never had any benefit by this Covenant or the Promises of it the actual Subjects of which yet they were neither could they enjoy eternal life by vertue of that Covenant or any Promises of it according to the judgment of our Opposers in as much as it was according to their judgment only a temporal Covenant But some will say Though they had not salvation by vertue of this Covenant yet all Infants dying in their infancy before they commit any actual sin are infallibly saved and consequently those whose case falls under our present consideration were saved I answer Suppose it should be so yet Secondly I say That many thousands might live to commit actual sin and yet die before they come to enjoy any benefit by this Covenant and the Promises thereof supposing it be only a legal or temporal Covenant and consequently might not only be deprived of any benefit by this Covenant meerly through Gods not performing what he had promised to them but might through their own sin fall short of any higher good which may be supposed should have been given in lieu of the good of this Covenant But now for any to fall wholly short of that good promised to them especially when nothing is given in lieu thereof meerly through Gods not performing what he had promised to them is inconsistent with the truth and faithfulness of God who hath stiled himself A God keeping Covenant and mercy for ever and therefore this Covenant could not as made to Abraham's natural Seed be a meer temporal Covenant promising only a temporal good but must needs be a Covenant of Grace consisting of spiritual Promises as Justification Adoption the in-dwelling presence of the Spirit Life and Glory c. Secondly If God ingaged himself to be a God to Abraham's natural Seed by this Covenant and the Promises thereof and to have God engaged by Covenant to a people to be their God be a greater and more excellent good than it is to enjoy any meer temporal good whatever then this Covenant was made with Abraham's natural Seed as such was not a meer temporal Covenant nor the Promises of it Promises of meer temporal blessings But the Covenant was a Covenant of Grace and the Promises of it Promises of spiritual blessings But the former is true therefore the latter The Consequence in the Major proposition is undeniable unless any shall affirm that there may be a good greater and more excellent than any temporal good can possibly be which yet is no spiritual good or which may be given to men no way interessed in the Covenant of Grace if any such good can be found out that excels any temporal good whatsoever and yet is not a saving good hath no reference and relation to the salvation of those that enjoy it they will do something to the invalidating this Argument till then I shall take it for granted that no such good is imaginable And for the Minor proposition that is sufficiently evident from that Gen. 17.7 compared with Psalm 144. and the latter end We see from this Gen. 17. that God did ingage himself by the Promise of this Covenant to be a God to Abraham's natural Seed as such I will be a God to thee and thy Seed which Promise as hath been proved respects his natural Seed as such as the immediate and next Subjects of it besides according to the judgment of our Opposers the Land of Canaan was given to all Abraham's natural Seed immediately descending from him by Isaac and Jacob setting aside Esau and his posterity as the proper and special good intended in this Covenant as respecting them Now we see plainly as words can make any thing plain in the world God ingages by promise not only to give them that Land but to be a God unto them Gen. 17.8 And that to have God engaged by Covenant to be a God to any people is a greater and more excellent good than any meer temporal good is evident from that passage of the Psalmist where we see he plainly prefers this good above any temporal good whatsoever for having spoken of their happiness who have the enjoyment of temporal mercies and blessings he adds as preferring this above all Yea happy is that people whose God is Jehovah Now how could the Psalmist prefer an interest in God above the enjoyment of all worldly felicity in case it was but a temporal good it self or a good that only referred to mans temporal happiness and felicity or had no reference to any higher happiness than the things of the world have Yea let me say did this Promise import only a temporal good their happiness who had God as their God by vertue of it according to the terms upon which it was now given their happiness I say had been rather less than greater than the happiness of those whose portion wholly lyes in the things of the world so that the Psalmist might better have prefixed this yea to the happiness of others than to their happiness whose God is the Lord and might have said Happy is the people whose God is the Lord yea happy is the people who is in such a case in respect of worldly prosperity as is before expressed Object But it may be some will say This having the Lord engaged to be a peoples God of which the Psalmist speaks is meant of their having him engaged as their God by the Covenant of Grace and not of their having him engaged as their God by the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural Seed and so it is granted that to have a covenant-interest in God is a good vastly greater and more excellent than any temporal good whatsoever But to that I answer The Psalmist speaks of a covenant interest absolutely without distinguishing of the Covenant conveying that interest and where the Scripture doth not distinguish we ought not and consequently the Scripture preferring a covenant-interest in God above all outward and worldly felicity whatsoever we may and ought to conclude there is no covenant-interest but what doth so vastly excel any temporal good whatsoever and consequently that the interest the natural Seed of Abraham had in God was a good transcending any temporal good and answerably must needs be a spiritual good whence it will undeniably follow that this Covenant conveying this interest in God unto them was a Covenant of Grace and that this promise was a promise of a spiritual and saving good Third Argument If that Promise of the Covenant
Abraham with reference to his Seed as they are considered under that potion and consideration as his Seed Secondly Which follows from this that they are Heirs to that Promise or the blessing contained in that Promise made to Abraham with reference to his Seed which blessing as I have proved before was the same with that which Abraham himself was blessed with these two things cannot be gainsaid but must be granted by all that will not in express terms contradict the Apostle Now then let me a little argue with our Opposers thus either that Covenant entred with Abraham and entred with believeing Gentiles is one and the same or they are two Covenants specifically diverse the one from the other The first they deny the latter they affairm Well them the Promise contained in it was either a Promise of a meer temporal good or a spiritual good Yes say our Opposers it was a temporal good as the Promise was made to Abraham with reference to his natural Seed Well then the blessing or good contained in this very Promise as it was made to Abraham with reference to his spiritual or mystical Seed is either a temporal or a spiritual good the latter here must and I suppose will be granted by our Opposers themselves It is evident then according to the Judgment of our Opposers that the same Promise made to Abraham with reference to his natural Seed and as made to him with reference to them only importing a temporal good may be given to and set led upon believing Gentiles and that by the Covenant of Grace and that as given to and setled upon them may import and signifie a spiritual good but it is the Covenant of Grace that is made with believing Gentiles is agreed on all hands that believing Gentiles are Heirs to that Promise made to Abraham with reference to his Seed is expresly affirmed by the Apostle whence it will undeniably follow that either the Covenant must be one and the same and the Promises thereof intend one and the same good as made both with reference to Abraham's natural and also his spiritual Seed which is undoubtedly the truth or else that the same Promise made to Abraham with reference to his natural Seed according to that Covenant then entred with him and that as so made with respect to them may import only a temporal good may yet be given to and setled upon believing Gentiles by another Covenant and that as given to and setled upon them may import a spiritual good and consequently that the Promise may run in the same extent and latitude in which it was made to Abraham as now it is made to believing Gentiles though the Covenant in which that Promise was contained as made to Abraham was really and specifically diverse from that that Covenant in which that Promise is contained as made to believing Gentiles for if so be the same Promise as simply and absolutely considered may be given unto and setled upon believing Gentiles by a Covenant diverse from that according to which it was first given to Abraham why may not that Promise be given unto and setled upon believing Gentiles in the same latitude and extent in which it was first given to Abraham It the Promise be given to believing Gentiles why may it not be given in the full extent and latitude of it Certainly no rational account can be given And here let it be carefully observed that both we and our Opposers are agreed That Abraham's blessing or the good contained in that Promise wherein God ingaged tob e a God to him and his Seed is granted to believing Gentiles all the Question is whether it be given to them in the same latitude and extent in which it was given to Abraham and his natural Seed whence it lyes upon our Objectors to shew some Reason why supposing there should be such a difference between these two supposed covenants the Promise may not be continued in the same latitude and extent in which it was at first given as well as the Promise it self absolutely taken may be given or continued to believing Gentiles notwithstanding that difference they imagtne between these supposed distinct Covenants so that the granting the Covenants to be really and specifically diverse one from the other no more opposeth the truth of this our second Proposition than it doth oppose what the Objectors themselves do hold at least which they must hold unless they will expresly contradict the Apostle in what he expresly affirms and therefore I say upon the supposal of what the Objectors themselves must grant the affirming and maintaining the Promise to run in the same latitude and extent to believing Gentiles in which it ran in unto Abraham doth not necessarily require the affirming or maintaining that the Covenant is one and the same our Opposers must grant that the Promise made to Abraham either with reference to himself or with reference to his Seed and it is all one whether we take it the one way or the other is given to and fetled upon believing Gentiles we say it is given to and setled upon them in the same latitude and extent in which it was given to Abraham both in reference to himself and his natural Seed and now supposing the Covenant believing Gentiles are under should be really diverse from that entred with Abraham how that should contradict what we affirm more than it should contradict what the Objectors themselves must grant is impossible to imagine So that I say the Covenant is one and the same for substance but supposing it were not yet our Proposition might and would hold true Object It is objected by some That the Infant-seed of believing Gentiles cannot with any shew of reason be supposed to be taken in as joynt Subjects of the Covenant of Grace and the Promises thereof with their Parents meerly upon the account of their Parents faith in as much as we see plainly that the Jews themselves though they were the natural Seed of Abraham whose Seed in reason should have enjoyed as great priviledges as the natural Seed of any believing Gentile could not upon the meer account of their fleshly descent from Abraham be admitted into the Gospel-covenant but for their unbelief were rejected notwithstanding their relation unto Abraham as his natural Now say our Opposers if so be either the natural Seed of Abraham or the natural Seed of Believers had been or were to be received into the Gospel-covenant together with their parents meerly upon the account of their Parents faith and had had or have as the Seed of such Parents a right to the Ordinances and Priviledges of that Covenant then the Jews they being the natural Seed of Abraham had had a right to the Gospel-covenant and might yea ought to have been admitted into the Gospel-church by Baptism by vertue of that their Relation to Abraham as his natural Seed and could not justly have been refused for the want of a personal faith and
or Mystical still regulating their judgments about the additions alterations and variations of the Covenant together with the Sign and Token thereof by what the Scriptures declare of Gods proceeding therein from time to time they would come to a more clear understanding what the will of Christ relating to the practice under consideration is But when people shall look upon Baptism as abstracted from its uses and ends and the notion under which it is commanded and then limit and terminate their inquiries after the Subjects it is to be applyed unto to the Scriptures of the new Testament overlooking the whole of what God hath declared of his mind and will touching a right to and interest in the Covenant throughout the old Testament having no regard to the ground that interest in and right to the Covenant gives to the Sign and Token of it 't is no wonder though they fall under so great mistakes especially if we consider in the second place the usual issue and products of these inquiries as thus preposterously managed in and upon the minds of men and that is a strong conceit that because they find not in so many express words mention made of the Baptism of Infants in the new Testament therefore undoubtedly it is not according to the mind and will of Christ that they should be baptized and people having their minds strongly possessed with this conceit are easily perswaded that they have no interest in or right to the Covenant or Promises thereof whereas would they but before their minds are possessed with such a prejudicate conceit search after the interest of the Seed of Belivers in the Covenant throughout the whole Scriptures I doubt not but as they would plainly discern that their interest so they would more easily be perswaded of their right to Baptism the present Token of the Covenant therefore if ever we would come to a clear understanding of the mind and will of Christ relating to the Baptism of Infants let our inquiries after it be regular These things I could willingly have spoken more fully to but the Book swelling to a bigger bulk than I had hoped it would have done and having staid something long in the Press these brief hints shall suffice And therefore Thirdly That the Reader especially that is less able to pass a Judgment upon an Argument may reap the full benefit designed him by the insuing Treatise I shall here give him a brief Summary of what is more largely discoursed herein What I have adventured thus publickly to appear in the defence of as the Reader will see in the main Proposition laid as a foundation to the insuing Discourse is the Affirmative of that so long and so much agitated Question concerning the Baptism of Infants and all that I have at present ingaged in the defence of is the Affirmative of that Question as it respects the Infant seed of Believers whether both the Parents or only one be so and that as immediately proceeding from their own loins The method I have proceeded in the Reader will find in the second page the necessity of proceeding in that method I have already intimated which I desire the Reader to take notice of that when he finds himself led into a large discourse for the confirmation of the two former subordinate Propositions there laid down he may not suppose himself led out of his way as to the proof of the main Proposition those that will find out the mind and will of our Lord Christ concerning the Baptism of Infants must first know his will concerning their interest in the Covenant and the Promises thereof And those that will know the will of Christ concerning the Infant seed of Believers interest in the Covenant and Promises thereof must begin at the first establishment of it with Abraham the common Father of all Believers And that I might proceed with more clearness and with greater advantage to the Reader I have indeavoured fully to explain at least so far as my present design did require that grand Promise of the Covenant unto which the three subordinate Propositions do refer where the Reader will find that though God in that term Seed did intend Abraham's whole Seed or all those he should sustain the relation of a Father unto yet according to the letter of that Promise he had a direct and immediate respect to his natural Seed yet after a different manner according to a twofold consideration they fall under First As his natural Children as immediately proceeding from his own loins Secondly As his natural Race and Posterity mediately descending from him in after Ages Hence the Promise is to be considered of either as a definite Promise made to his Seed distributively taken and so it did teach to all his Children immediately proceeding from his own loins and as it did respect his natural Seed only to them or as an indefinite Promise made to his Seed collectively taken and so it did extend to his whole natural Race and Posterity my meaning more plainly is this That this Promise was either so made to Abraham's natural Seed as that each of them as severally and particularly taken had as his Seed an actual interest in it Thus it was only made to his Children as immediately proceeding from his own loins or was so made to his Seed as though none in particular had meerly as his natural Seed an actual interest in it yet God did thereby signifie and declare his will and purpose to vouchsafe unto them more generally considered and that as the Seed of Abraham that priviledge of a Covenant-relation with himself in definite Promises God speaks to particular persons in indefinite Promises he speaks to none in particular only declares his will and purpose concerning such a sort or species of men to whom he makes good his Promises according to the good pleasure of his own will in a complyance with his eternal purposes and decrees Now in my first subordinate Proposition where I say that God intended Abraham's natural Seed as the immediate and next Subjects of that Promise I mean his Children as immediately proceeding from his own loins and take the Promise as a definite Promise This I have proved at large Chap. 2. and answered what Objections I could imagine might be made against it Chap. 3. whether I must refer the Reader for full satisfaction And this first Proposition being clear the way lyes plain to the Second it being a very rational Supposal that what Priviledge or Blessing the Father injoyed should supposing it alike competable to them as to him descend to his Seed as his Heirs and that believing Gentiles Abraham's mystical Seed have this Promise of the Covenant given to and settled upon them and that in the same latitude and extent in which it was given to Abraham himself as a natural Father of natural Children only allowing to him aâ— Father that preheminence mentioned page 65. is evident First From the very Tenour of the Promise