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
their Seed are incapable of what Abraham and his natural Seed were capable of 't is strange how it is possible for any man to conceit such a difference either in the capacity of Parents or Children or in the dispensation of God that Believers under this present dispensation should be wholly deprived of that part of the blessing which Believers formerly injoyed and shall again injoy at the call and conversion of the Jews And for the latter Let any revelation of the will of God be produced whereby he hath withheld this part of the blessing from Believers and the controversie is at an end Till then we shall take it for granted that the blessing of Abraham is in this extent and latitude in and by Christ come upon believing Gentiles And though it is granted the direct design of the Apostle in this place is not to assert the latitude and extent of Abraham's blessing yet the indefiniteness and universality of his expression is a sufficient warrant for our interpreting the blessing in this latitude and extent pleaded for CHAP. VI. The fourth and last way of the second subordinate Propositions confirmation prosecuted Where several passages in the New Testament are considered Five Conclusions deduced from them The third principally insisted upon Where it is proved that the Promise of Salvation appertains to the Houses of believing Parents as such without consideration had to the personal Faith and Repentance of any in or of their Houses besides their own by two Arguments Objections against each Argument answered FOurthly The truth of what we affirm in this second Proposition may be further evidenced from several passages and expressions in the new Testament plainly declaring that the Infant-seed of Believers under the Gospel administration are included and taken in as joynt Subjects with their Parents of the Covenant and Promise thereof and that by vertue of their Parents relation to Abraham as his Seed Now this last way of evidencing what is pleaded for though it might require a very large discourse yet I shall but briefly touch upon it partly because the truth pleaded for is as I conceive sufficiently evidenced from what hath been already spoken and partly because others have already fully handled and improved these passages and expressions I have reference unto for the vindicating and establishing this truth I in common with them contend for that to add any thing more especially there being so little or rather nothing at all replyed to any purpose by our Opposers may seem wholly superfluous and therefore I shall only produce those passages and expressions in the new Testament and shew what evidence they give into this second Proposition in several Conclusions necessarily flowing from or grounded upon them as taken together and compared one with another The Passages and Expressions I have reference unto are these five The first is that of Christ Mark 10.10 The second is again that of Christ Luke 19.9 The third is that of Peter to the trembling Jews Acts 2.38 39. The fourth is that of Paul to the Jaylor Acts 16.31 The last is that of Paul to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 7.14 From all these Scriptures as laid together and compared one with another these five Conclusions do necessarily follow First That upon Parents believing in Christ the Promise of salvation belongs not only to themselves but to their respective Houses sayes the Apostle to the Jaylor Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thine House where we see the Apostle proposes it as a motive and incouragement to him to believe in that upon his believing not only himself but his house should be saved that is both he himself and his house should come under the promise of salvation or as the Apostle Peter expounds it The promise of salvation should be to him and his house he and his house should have salvation setled upon them by promise according to the true tenour of the promise which as it did not secure salvation to the Jaylor himself absolutely but upon condition of his perseverance in faith and obedience He that indures to the end shall be saved Be faithful unto the death and I will give thee a Crown of life saith Christ to that Church Rev. 2.10 from which and the like Scripture it appears that the promise of salvation that Believers themselves are under is not absolute but conditional and the same must be understood of the promises as made to their houses which through their Parents believing they are brought under And as the Apostle promises salvation to the Jaylor and his house as a motive and incouragement to him to believe so Christ tells Zacheus that upon his believing salvation was come to his house that is he and his house were now under the promise of salvation As for that conceit of some that by salvation here Christ himself should be intended as it is wholly groundless so an evident perverting of the words of Christ For first Let it be shewed where Christ is ever called salvation simply and absolutely 't is true he is called Gods salvation and Believers have appropriated him to themselves as their salvation but that is as he is Author or Essicient of Salvation This term Salvation when used simply and absolutely signifies Salvation properly and literally taken Secondly It is evident that Salvation here is said to be come to Zacheus his house as a peculiar good accrewing to him upon that very ground and vouchsafed to him for that very reason because he was now a Son of Abraham and consequently was a good common to all of whom the same ground and reason might be predicated or spoken and peculiar and proper to them as such Now as Christ did not come to all their houses who were the Children of Abraham whether natural or mystical so he might come to their houses who were not the Sons of Abraham in the one or the other sence Thirdly The Apostle doth clearly expound the meaning of Christ Salvation was come to his house that is as the Apostle expounds it He and his house were under the promise of Salvation Now did not men too wilfully shut their eyes against the light of Scripture they would not affix a sence upon the words of Christ no where warranted from any other parallel Scripture but contrary to the design of Christ in them when they have a plain Exposition made by the Holy Ghost himself we see what Christ saith of Zacheus's house and the Apostle promises the Jaylor with reference to his house that is said and promised upon one and the same ground viz. the Father of both Christ saith Salvation is come to his house he now believing the Apostle saith his house shall be saved upon condition of his believing And who can imagine but that they both speak of salvation in one and the same sence and consequently that the Apostle expounds what that salvation was that Christ saith was come to Zacheus upon his believing 't was
speaks not at all of the Subjects of Baptism but of the issue of the Apostles discharging their whole Commission both in respect of preaching and baptizing in respect of those towards whom they should discharge it in case they should receive the Gospel preached or through the preaching of the Gospel should believe and were baptized then they should be saved but though they had the Gospel never so faithfully preached to them yea though they might so far imbrace it as to submit to Baptism yet unless they believe they should notwithstanding that be damned Thirdly It is yet further urged that in case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them did refer unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nations without any limitation then this Commission would warrant the baptism of any Person or Nation in the world whether taught or no which it is rightly said we our selves acknowledge ought not to be To this the answer is at hand 'T is true it would do so in case there were no other directions in any other part of the Scriptures for the Ministers of the Gospel to regulate themselves by in the discharge of this Commission but this supposed evil consequence is sufficiently obviated in other places of Scripture where the right Subjects of Baptism are sufficiently declared viz. grown persons in case they were not afore baptized upon their faith and repentance and with them their Infant-seed and this I conceive is the very design of Christ in this Commission to authorize yea enjoyn the preaching of the Gospel and administration of Baptism to the whole world by persons duly called to administer Gospel Ordinances unto men yet so as to regulate themselves in respect of both the one and the other by such directions and limitations as himself had or should give in relation to a due administration of both Ordinances and that the Disciples and Ministers of the Gospel were and are to regulate themselves in the dispensing the Gospel unto men as well in the administration of Baptism by other Rules afore or after given by Christ is sufficiently evident throughout the new Testament so that notwithstaning what it urged to the contrary I conceive it is fully evident that them in this Commission specifying the Subjects of Baptism refers to Nations not to Disciples as its Antecedent Now having discovered the uncertainty yea falsity of this first Principle asserted and laid as a foundation to the Objection proposed the Objection is so far enervated as that little need be added to the other two things from which in conjunction with this it receives the whole of what strength it hath And therefore secondly as to what is asserted in the second place viz. That Infants neither are nor can in propriety of speech be called Disciples it concerns not me it is enough as to my present purpose that they may be comprehended under that phrase All Nations I shall therefore only say that I cannot but conceive that will men judge impartially suppose we should grant that them in this Commission of Christ doth refer to Disciples and not to Nations and consequently that Disciples are the proper Subjects of Baptism yet they must acknowledge that what hath been said by others to prove that Infants may and ought according to Scripture account be numbred among the Disciples of Christ renders this Objection wholly insufficient to counterballance the evidence produced from other Scriptures for the establishment of the practice now pleaded for which is all at present I contend for And therefore thirdly As for that Assertion That this Institution or Commission is to be understood exclusively and consequently that none are to be baptized but such whose baptism is in express terms warranted by it I shall only say it is true we ought so to understand it in case we had no other Scriptures for our direction in the administration of Baptism but take this Commission or Institution absolutely in it self and the not including Infants in it is not an excluding of them out of it We see here Christ speaks immediately and directly to his Disciples Go ye therefore c. none besides them are expresly included in it and shall we say therefore that this Gommission only concerned them Surely no it is a Commission for all that at that time or in after Ages should be called forth by Christ to minister in the Gospel so it will not follow suppose Disciples be the Antecedent to them that therefore none else are to be baptized As for what Instances are brought of Commands exprest only positively yet interpreted by all Interpreters exclusively as 1 Cor. 11.28 and the like the Reason is because no other Scriptures allow any others but such there spoken of to partake of that Ordinance there spoken of otherwise the bare commanding persons to examine themselves in order to their due receiving of that Ordinance doth not of it self exclude all others from it that do not or cannot examine themselves so that I say the Institution or Commission as abstractedly taken doth not exclude all from the participation of this Ordinance of Baptism who are not in express terms comprehended in it which is all that I contend for and as I have said I suppose will be granted on all hands so that should we grant that them is to be referred to Disciples included in that Verb and that Infants are not Scripture Disciples neither of which notwithstanding all that is said by our Opposers is granted our Proposition may stand firm for though Infants are not expresly included in the Commission yet they are not excluded out of it therefore their Baptism must stand or fall by the evidence of other Scriptures and we having sufficient evidence from other Scriptures that it is the will of Christ that they should be baptized their not being expresly mentioned in the Commission ought to be no Remora in the way of our thankful imbracement of what light he hath elsewhere given of his mind and will in this matter Object 3. There is an Objection or Argument which some seem to conceive to have a very great strength in it yea to be unanswerable which is carried on gradually to this issue say the Framers of it Seeing there is no express Command requiring the Baptism of Infants the practice must needs be deduced only in a consequential way from the Scriptures Now to prove that it cannot be rightly and duly deduced from any Scripture in a consequential way so as that the omission of it should be a sin in the Parents and their sin it must be if it be a sin at all against any Law of Christ it is thus argued If the omission or neglect of the Baptism of Infants were a sin chargeable upon their Parents as being a transgression of some Divine Law then some one or other at one time or other would in Scripture have been commended for the practice of it or blamed for the neglect of it But no one at any time whatsoever is in
Infant-baptism FROM HEAVEN AND NOT OF MEN. OR A moderate Discourse concerning the Baptism of the Infant-seed of Believers Whereunto is prefixed A large introductory Preface preparing the Readers way to a more profitable perusal of the ensuing Treatise By Joseph Whiston 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 3.16 LONDON Printed for Henry Million at the Bible in Fleet-street 1670. THE PREFACE TO THE READER Christian Reader IT is an old and true saying Veritas non quaeris Angulos Truth is neither afraid nor ashamed to be seen though thereby she be exposed to the severest and most critical tryals and examinations of men neither is she at all desirous to appear in such a dress as that thereby she may insinuate her self into the affections of men for this end that through their interest in and byassing influence upon the understanding it may be bribed to a partiality on her side her evidence and power is such as makes that needless Magua est prevalebit In the ensuing Treatise thou hast a Doctrine and practice maintained which I doubt not will be owned by our Lord Jesus Christ in the day of his appearing to be part of that Faith once delivered to the Saints for which it is his will they should earnestly contend which Doctrine and practice as I have endeavoured to present to thy view in the sole light of Divine evidence rationally deduced from that great Luminary of the Scriptures without immixing any thing of humane Eloquence for the bribing the understanding by subtle insinudations upon thy affections a course which as my natural Genius leads me not unto so my indigency as to abillities prohibits my my attempting of so the forestalling thy Judgment by any subtle artifices of one kind or another is none of my design in the present Preface There are only three things I conceive necessary to be done to prepare the Readers way to a more profitable perusal of the Discourse here tendered to him First That I should indeavour to remove at least allay that prejudice that may possibly arise in the minds of some against it as coming abroad at such a time as this is whereby they might be kept from that due perusal and through examination and weighing of what is here tendred to them as is necessary in order to their reaping that benefit designed to them by it and thus though there are several prejudices may possibly arise in the minds of men according to their previous perswasions relating to the practice here pleaded for yet I shall only take notice of that which may arise from the seeming unseasonableness of sending forth a Discourse of this nature at such a time as this is and as affairs now stand with the parties between whom this controversie hath of late years been more especially agitated possibly thou mayst think the Author rather deserves a Censure of at least indiscretion than the Discourse it self a serious perusal and examination And it cannot be denied but that an undertaking of this nature at such a time doth carry and that in several respects a very great shew of unseasonableness in it and had not the sence and apprehension of the present state of affairs detained me under an irresolution as to its publication this Discourse might have seen the light much sooner than now it doth and yet had I not had the approbation of those whose Judgments I had reason to attend unto it had not now no nor ever for ought I know appeared in so publick a way as now it doth But seeing it is thus come abroad let me in brief give the Reader an account of the ground of my proceedings herein Yet I conceive it unnecessary to trouble the Reader with an account of the several occasions through which my thoughts came at first so to be engaged and after to be carried on in a more thorow search into this Controversie I shall only give him an account of the ground of my sending abroad this Discourse wherein he will find the result of that search I have made at this time And in general take it thus Upon further and more serious advisements with my self and consultations with others I could not conceive how the sending of it abroad though at such a time should be justly accounted so unseasonable as upon the first view it may and for a while to me it did seem to be When the practice here pleaded for by the unanimous consent of all parties lyes from among the Fundamentals of Christian Religion and consequently supposing the worst it should at last be found to be unscriptural the contrary whereunto I am most confident of whether groundless or no let the intelligent and impartial Reader judge yet the conscientious imbracement of it cannot be destructive to the Souls of men when nothing is brought to light beyond what was of publick and general cognizance before when the judgment and practice of the contrary minded is no way concerned in the sufferings they are subject or liable to and consequently the detection of their error cannot be rationally supposed to further their sufferings when no new Controversie is started and consequently no new rents or divisions like to be made beyond what have been of so long continuance how the appearing in publick of such a Discourse upon this Subject should at this time or any other time be accounted much unseasonable I could give no rational account either to my self or to others As for the manner of handling it I am not conscious to my self of having given any just cause of offence unto any what thou wilt meet with here is argumentative not invective aiming at thy information and confirmation in what I verily judge to be the Truth not thy prejudice either in temporals or spirituals In a word unless the naked proposal of my own perswasion relating to the Controversie here debated with the Scripture evidence captivating my understanding into that perswasion can be grievous or offensive unto any I cannot conceive how the ensuing Discourse can be But it may be it may be said There is yet a double inconvenience or a twofold ill consequence may arise from the publication of a Discourse of this nature at such a time First The minds of Christians will be in danger to be diverted from what is more properly their work and about which they ought more especially to be taken up To that I answer I wish the ensuing Papers may find the minds of Christians so well imployed as that such a divertion would be indeed prejudicial to them but be it so as in respect of some I hope it may be yet the exercise of a little prudence will prevent that inconvenience and let me here caution the Reader to take heed that he do not by this or any other Controversie divert his mind from the more weighty concernments of his Soul take heed thou do not so apply thy mind to nor suffer thy thoughts to be taken up with any matters of
yet would I be understood as though I did suppose that this evil were only to be found among the persons we now speak of no I fear the same evil prevails too far in many of those who yet imbrace yea stand up in the defence of the practice of Infant-baptism and though it doth not appear the same way yet other wayes it doth Instances evidencing this are too obvious than here to need a recital the Disease is Epidemical though appearing in some one way and in others another way but this I say I do verily judge that the so universal prevailing of this same evil in this latter Age of the world will be found to have been one thing giving rise to and furthering the success of the opinion practice here opposed let but Parents get a due tenderness of affection towards their Children and a right apprehension and due sense of the worth and excellency of spiritual priviledges and their minds will be much disposed to an impartial weighing what if offered on the behalf of this practice of Infant-baptism I am aware it will be retorted by my Opposers That it is a fond foolish and irregular affection towards Children that hath bribed our understanding and byassed us to a perswasion that the Scripture holds forth some benefit or priviledge to them beyond what indeed it doth our mistakes arise from the byassing influences that these affections have upon our understandings and judgments But to this I shall only say That it is not altogether unworthy our Observation that Providence should call forth such to appear in defence of this practice Mr. Baxter Mr. Cooke when they wrote and my self at present being Batchelors who cannot be rationally supposed to have lain under the byass of any such irregular affections and as for others who it is true might more rationally be supposed to lye under the force of such a byass yet their Writings sufficiently declare they had judgment as well as affection and their lives and conversations evidence they had conscience as well as judgment their Writings shew they had ability to discern truth from error and their lives shew their affections could not byass them to practice but according as their judgments by Scripture evidence were convinced There is then no rational ground for any to suppose that our imbracement of and appearing for the practice under consideration hath been or is from any such irregular workings of affection as is suggested the danger lyes on the other hand If then we would understand the mind of Christ in reference to this practice here contended for labour to get a due tenderness of affection towards Children with a right apprehension and due sense of the worth and excellency of spiritual priviledges a due and a regular working of the affections towards any good rendered in the Covenant of Grace hath a special subserviency to our receiving of light from God through the Scriptures in and about his will concerning our duty relating to our enjoyment of that good Secondly That which hath contributed not a little to the giving rise to and furthering the prevailing of the opinion and practice here opposed hath been and is the confounding some either supposed or real irregularities in or attending the administration of Baptism to Infants with the practice it self to mention these two things First The manner of its administration Secondly The Subjects it hath been and frequently is administred unto For the first How oft is it found that persons of weaker judgments are prevailed with to reject the practice of Infant-baptism it self by a specious Argument that yet only lyes against the way and manner of its administration among those who hold and maintain that practice hence it may be observed how that way and manner is pitched upon and pleaded against that to the outward appearance seems and is supposed by the persons making use of this plea to have the least countenance from Scripture and thus the way and manner pitched upon is that of sprinkling which way and manner of administration though disused by many if not generally by all that with the greatest strength of Scripture Arguments have asserted the practice it self yet is urged by the contrary minded as though the only way and manner of its administration among the Pedobaptists hence are those frequent invectives against Infant-sprinkling scattered up and down in the Writings and too common in the mouths of our Opposers and for the later how apt are people being told and perswaded that themselves or others as the Seed of unbelieving Parents had no right to Baptism to be induced to believe that no Infants let the Parents be what they will have any better right than themselves or others born of such Parents had and hence perceiving the undueness of their own Baptism in their infancy are easily brought to believe the undueness of the Baptism of Infants in the general And it is true there are some other things the irregularity of which as I shall not deny so their refutation comes not within the compass of my present business appertaining to the administration of Baptism to Infants as by some it is administred that give a like advantage to the success of the opinion and practice here opposed But now whether the Infant-seed of believing Parents ought to be baptized is one Question How or after what manner they ought to be baptized is another What Parents may be reputed to be Believers so as that their Infant-seed may upon their account be baptized is a third Now it is the first of these Questions only that is discussed in the insuing Treatise neither is it at all necessary that either of the two latter should be taken notice of or touched upon in order to the finding out the mind and will of Christ relating unto this Errors and irregularities supposing them to be really so in or attending the administration of Baptism ought to be reformed and not pleaded against the practise it self All therefore that I shall say to this is let none confound what ought to be distinctly considered labour first to find out the mind of Christ as to the practise it self as abstractly considered without consideration had to those various Questions the determination of which is of no use at all for the right determination of this and having found out the mind of Christ relating to this first Question then the consideration of the other will be more proper and seasonable the right methodizing of things highly conduceth to a right understanding the mind of Christ respective to our duty when the confounding or jumbling things together that are of a distinct considration subjects to great mistakes Thirdly That which hath had and hath a a considerable interest in the giving rise to and furthering the success of the opinion and practise here opposed is the taking up particular Instances and Examples of persons baptized in the primitive times upon their personal profession of Faith and Repentance without
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
entred with Abraham and his natural Seed as such which according to the letter and outward face of the words did intend and point to a meer temporal good did yet according to a more inward sence and meaning of the Holy Ghost in it intend a spiritual good typified by that temporal good then that Promise which according to the letter and outward face of the words did intend and point to a spiritual good must needs be understood of that spiritual good which according to the letter and outward face of the words it did intend and point to and consequently that Covenant must needs be a Covenant of spiritual blessings but the former is true therefore the latter For the Consequence in the Major Proposition of the Prosyllogism I suuppose it will not be denied by any that are Masters of their own Reason if that promise of the Land of Canaan which in the letter and according to the outward face of the words intended only a temporal good for Canaan according to the letter was but a temporal good Now if that Promise according to a more inward sence of the Holy Ghost intended a spiritual good surely that Promise of Gods being a God which in the letter and according to the outward face of the word intends a spiritual good must needs be understood of that good it did in the letter and outward face of the words intend and for the antecedent that I suppose will be denied viz. that that promise of Canaan did according to a more inward sence of the Holy Ghost intend and point to a spiritual good but this is so evident that it doth indeed admit of no contradiction from those who will not professedly set themselves to oppose the Scriptures See Heb. 11.9 10. He looked for a City whose Maker and Builder is God By what warrant did he look for this City Doubtless by the warrant of this Promise of the Land of Canaan but for this see Mr. Carter in his Abraham's Covenant opened page 23 43. See also Mr. Tombs his Exercitation page 2. Now then both parts of the Prosyllogism being true it will undeniably follow that this Covenant as made with Abraham and his natural seed was a Covenant of Grace or did consist of spiritual Promises and in particular that that Promise wherein God ingaged himself to be a God to Abraham and his Seed was a Promise of saving Grace The fourth Argument That this Promise of the Covenant in particular wherein God ingaged himself to be a God to Abraham and his Seed as it did respect his natural Seed as such did intend and import a spiritual good or was a Promise as some speak of saving Grace that is did intend such a spiritual blessing as had a direct reference to future salvation I prove thus viz. Because it did as it doth respect or was made to Abraham's mystical Seed intend as is confessed by all a spiritual good whence we argue If all Promises made in the same words terms and expressions to divers persons severally and particularly considered do alwayes signifie and intend one and the same good as made to one that they do as made to another unless God himself hath some where or some way declared his sence and meaning in them to be divers as made to one from what it is as made to another and this Promise in particular be made in the same words terms and expressions to Abraham's natural Seed that is is as made to his mystical Seed and God hath no where or no way declared his sence and meaning in it as made to his natural Seed to be divers from what it is as made to his mystical Seed then it must needs intend and signifie one and the same good as made to the one that it doth as made to the other and consequently it signifying and intending a spiritual good as made to his mystical Seed must needs intend a spiritual good as made to his natural Seed But the former is true therefore the latter That the Promise was made to Abraham's whole Seed whether natural taking that phrase in the sense before opened or mystical hath been sufficiently proved already and that it did intend a spiritual good or was a promise of saving Grace as made to his mystical Seed is not denied by our Opposers Now let it be either shewed where or by what way God hath declared his sence and meaning in it as it was made to Abraham's natural Seed to be diverse from what it is as made to his mystical Seed or let it be proved that the Promise made as before expressed may carry a sence and signification as made to one different from what it doth as made to another This latter I judge will not be attempted the attempting of it will be but an attempt to raze the foundation of all the comfort of Christians and whether God hath any where or any way declared his sence and meaning in it as made to Abraham's natural Seed to be diverse from what it is as made to his mystical shall be considered by and by in the mean time we may evidently see that this Covenant as made with Abraham's natural Seed and that as such was a Covenant of Grace or did consist of Promises of spiritual and saving blessings and from what hath been said it evidently appears there is no such real and specifical difference between that Covenant made with Abraham and that Believers are under as this Objection doth suppose and take for granted it evidently appears they are not specifically two Covenants but quoad substantiam one and the same Now the foundation of this Objection being removed the Objection falls to the ground and hath no weight in it Secondly That this Covenant now made with Abraham and his Seed is one and the same for substance that Believers under the Gospel administration are under This I evidence by these two Arguments First If this Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed was not disanulled either by the Law or by or together with any change or alteration God hath made in his administrations with reference to his Church in after times then it was never disanulled but is still in being and consequently the same in substance with that Covenant according unto which God doth dispence and give out his saving mercies and blessings to believing Gentiles in the times of the Gospel but the former is true therefore the latter Certainly it cannot be denied but that this Covenant is still in being and in force yea is that very Convenant according to which God doth dispence his blessings and mercies to believing Gentiles in the times of the Gospel in case it was never disanulled unlesss any shall say there is a twofold Covenant of Grace still in being one a temporal Covenant another a spiritual Covenant which is not affirmed by any that I have yet heard of or met with and therefore the consequence in the Major proposition will not I judge
that all the individual and particular persons whether grown up or Infants that are included in that Promise as made to Abraham with reference to his Seed make up but one Seed which saith the Apostle is Christ Now that the Infant-seed of believing Gentiles under the Gospel administration as well as the Infant-seed of the Jews under the first Testament administration are included with their Parents in that phrase Thy Seed in their generations hath been abundantly proved alreadly so that I say I grant yea affirm that the Infant-seed of believing Gentiles are to be reckoned of and numbred among Abraham's mystical Seed Object 1. First That the Scripture still makes Faith the condition or medium of Gentiles becoming Abraham's mystical Seed Rom. 4.12 16. Whence it seems evident that Abraham is a mystical Father to none but Believrs and his Seed are only such as are of the Faith Answ I answer The Scripture is not contrary to it self Now we have seen that under that phrase Thy Seed in their generations the Infant-seed both of Jews and Gentiles are included and that this Seed in their generations is but Abraham's Seed after him Whence it is evident the Apostle in saying that Abraham is the Father of them that believe excludes not but on the other hand include the Infant-seed of such as do believe as to be accounted with their Parents as making up but one Seed he is the Father of them that do believe whether Jews or Gentiles in their generations Obejct 2. Secondly It is objected That then we make three parties in the Covenant First Abraham Secondly His Seed Thirdly Their Infant-seed Answ In answer We make but two parties Abraham and his Seed the Infant-seed of Believers makes not a third party but stands in the same capacity respective to Abraham that their Parents do and he is to be looked upon as a common Father to Parents and their Infant-seed the several individuals whether Parents or infants are all but the several members or parts of that one totum that one collective body Abraham's Seed from all it appears that this Objection in part concerns not me and so far as it doth eoncern me is no way opposite to what I have affirmed but is granted without the least prejudice to the truth pleaded for Object 3. It is objected by some That Infants cannot be under the Covenant of Grace because the Covenant of Grace promiseth divine teachings to all that are under it the issue of which is the saving knowledge of God which as Infants for the present are incapable of so it is certain that many of the infants of Believres are never made partakers of now if they are admitted into Covenant and are actually under the Promises of it they must needs be taught of God and that so as to know him at least they would as they grow up to a capacity be so taught of God see the Promise Isa 54.15 Jer. 31.34 Heb. 8.10 Answ I answer This Objection hath been removed already but yet for further satisfaction I shall lay down these two Propositions Fiast That some may be actually in the Covenant of Grace who yet are not so taught of God as savingly to know him this might be evidenced from that distinction formerly laid down concerning an exterual and internal being in Covenant It is possible persons may be yea it is certain many are externally in Covenant who are not internally in Covenant the necessity of this distinction hath been already shewed and the absurdities that would follow in ease it should be dined declared Now in respect of such who are only externaly in Covenant it is certain though they are in Covenant and under the promises of it according to its true tenour as so externally made yet are not so taught of God as savingly to know him for then they would be not only externally but internally in Covenant Secondly That this Promise made to the Covenant-people of God assuring them that they shall be all from the least to the greatest taught of God so as savingly to know him doth not infallibly secure the good promised to every individual person to whom the promise as externally promulgated and declared doth in common with others appertain And for the proof of this Position I would argue thus If it do infailliby secure the good promised to every individual person to whom it doth externally appertain it must be either by vertue of the universality of the terms or by vertue of the nature and kind of the promise it self or by vertue of the nature of quality of the good promised That it is by vertue of the nature or quality of the good promised none can pretend and that it is neither of the former wayes I shall prove distinctly First That it cannot be by vertue of the universality of the terms in which the promise is exprest is evident thus because indefinite promises may be and many times are exprest in universal terms and then though the terms be universal yet the promises may not be made good to every individual person to whom in common wtth others they do appertain If I be life up saith Christ I will draw all men to me John 12.32 The terms are universal yet the promise is an indefinite promise he would draw many unto him So again Acts 2.17 I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh where we see again the terms are universal yet the promise is verified only in some particular persons But here you will say In this place the promise is exprest with a peculiar emphasis They shall all know me from the least to the greatest and therefore it must needs be understood universally To that I answer Whether we understand this phrase From the least to the greatest of age or state or condition is not much to our present purpose we find the very same phrase used when yet the sence is only indefinite thus Jer. 6.13 From the least to the greatest every one is given to covetousness which yet was not universally true of every individual person among that people whether Infant or grown person nor of every individual grown person it only notes the mighty and almost universal corruption of that people in point of Covetousness So that every individual person externally in the Covenant of Grace and so in common with others having this promise appertaining to them shall be savingly taught of God so as truly to know him cannot be inferred or certainly concluded from the universality of the terms it is expressed in Secondly Nor from the nature of the pormise for if the nature of the promise do infallibly secure the good promised to every individual person in covenant as before exprest it must be either as it is a conditional or as it is an absolute promise as it is conditional it cannot be pretended in as much as no conditional promises as such do infallibly secure the good promised to any to whom they do appertain it is
commanded was designed or appointed to the term abstractly taken only expresses the general nature and design of that Ordinance but expresses not the various uses and ends it was in particular appointed to what these uses and ends are must be gathered from other Scriptures wherein God himself hath declared them of which I shall speak when I come to the fourth Particular But let that suffice in brief for the first particular to be spoken to Secondly That the Covenant that Abraham and his Seed in their Generations were or were to be received into alwayes had and was to have a Token annexed to it that is it had and was to have an outward Ordinance or Institution annexed unto the administration of it which though of various uses and serving to various ends not expresly declared in that term Token abstractly taken yet might be denominated the Token of the Covenant This is evident two wayes First A priore from the Command of God injoyning Abraham's Seed in their Generations to keep it Secondly A posteriori or de facto from the actual institution and appointment of such a Token For the first Let the words in Gen. 17.9 be diligently observed And God said unto Abraham Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations Now God would never have injoyned Abraham and his Seed in their Generations to keep his Covenant that is the Token of it had he not intended to annex a Token to it And observe it the Command lyes on Abraham's Seed in their Generations without any limitation and consequently is incumbent upon Abraham's Seed while he hath a Seed upon earth Hence it is evident that as God intended to annex a Token to that Covenant then entred with Abraham and his natural Seed so he intended to annex a Token to his Covenant whether the same or another it is all one as to our present purpose into which Abraham's spiritual Seed viz. believing Gentiles in after Ages should be received we see the Command lyes upon Abraham's Seed in their Generations unlimitedly Now Believers under the new Testament as hath been proved are Abraham's Seed and consequently must needs lye under the Obligation of this Command whence there must needs be a Token annexed to the Covenant into which they are received for otherwise they would lye under an Obligation to keep the Token of the Covenant and yet have no Token appointed them by God to keep which would be absurd And that this Command is obliging to Abraham's mystical or spiritual Seed is evident by this Argument The same persons intended in the Promises of the Covenant are intended in the Command injoyning the Token But Abraham's mystical Seed as well as his natural Seed are intended in the Promises therefore they are also intended in the Command We evidently see the Promises and the Command run in one and the same extent and latitude I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations to be a God to thee and thy Seed after thee there 's the Promise Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations there 's the Command Now if God hath not limited the Command to some of Abraham's Seed then we must not do it But God hath no where limited the Command to some of Abraham's Seed therefore must not we If any should say He hath limited that Command Let that limitation be produced and it shall suffice till then we shall conclude the Command is of an equal extent with the Promise Now there being a Command incumbent upon Abraham's whole Seed mystical as well as natural to keep the Covenant that is as God himself expounds it the Token of the Covenant there must needs be a Token to be kept Secondly This is evident de facto for the Covenant under the first Testament administration that will not be denyed and for the Covenant under the new Testament administration the truth of what I affirm will appear when I come to shew that Baptism is the present Token of the Covenant And therefore thirdly That this Command requiring Abraham and his Seed in their Generations to keep the Covenant obliges not only Parents to have the Token of the Covenant applyed unto themselves or themselves to receive and bear it but also to apply or take care that it be applyed to their Infant-seed The truth of this will again appear two wayes First From the Letter of the Command Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant thou and thy Seed in their Generations Now under this phrase thy Seed in their Generations both Parents and their Infant-seed are included they are both included in the Promise as hath been already proved and therefore must needs be both included in the Command injoyning the keeping of the Covenant Hence that the Covenant be kept by the Seed as well as by the Parents themselves is according to the express letter of the Command which duty of keeping as to be performed by the Infant-seed can only intend their reception and bearing of it and so far the Infant-Seed as well as the Parents are under the Obligation of the Command hence an Infant not receiving or bearing the Token of the Covenant is said to have broken the Covenant verse 14. because the Infants as well as the Parents are under the Obligation of the Command to keep the Covenant Now if so be the Covenant be to be kept not only by Parents but by their Infant-seed it will undeniably follow that Parents are to take care that it be kept by them in as much as they as such are incapable of taking care of it themselves the care must lye upon some body and upon whom if not upon their Parents We see that God hath throughout the Scripture made it the duty of Parents to take care of and see to the performance of his will relating to their children as might be evidenced in variety of instances were it needful Secondly The truth of this appears from the clear and express discovery that God made of his mind and will as to Circumcision the ancient Token of the Covenant and thus as God injoyned the token of the Covenant to be applyed to the Infant-seed of Covenant-parents so he imposed the care of the application of that Token unto the Seed upon the Parents Every man-child among you shall be circumcised verse 10. He that is eight dayes old shall be circumcised among you verse 12. The Child in the application of the Token was passive and though upon whom the care of the application of the Token to the Infant-seed was laid is not expresly declared in this place yet that it was upon the Parents is sufficiently evident throughout the Scripture We see how angry God was with Moses when the circumcision of his Child was neglected and in that God so fully declared his mind in respect of Circumcision the then Token of the Covenant it
persons upon the personal profession of their faith and repentance exclusive of all others which our Opposers themselves will hardly affirm that he hath done yet would have given in so full and clear an account of the Apostles practice in execution of their Commission To teach and baptize the Nations as should have evidently obviated all mistakes in a case wherein mistakes so probably would be when it is so evidently declared that under the first Testament upon persons taking hold of the Covenant both themselves and Housholds were admitted and incorporated into the Body of Christ by the then Sign and Token of the Covenant and then declared in the New that together with Parents upon their imbracement of the Gospel their Housholds were admitted and implanted into the same Body as the Apostle is express in Ephes 3.6 that the Body is one and the same by Baptism the present Sign or Token of the Covenant and no account is given of the personal faith and repentance of any in or of those Houses at least some of them as the ground of their baptism besides the Parents alone Sure none can deny but here is a rational ground to suppose at least very probably that the Covenant and together therewith the Sign and Token of it is of the same extent and latitude as it formerly was Now I say consider how extreamly improbable it is that the Holy Ghost should record the Baptism of whole Housholds taking notice only of the faith and repentance of the Parents without giving the least intimation of the faith and repentance of any in or of such Housholds thereby giving so clear a ground of mistake in case none under the new Testament administration ought to be admitted and incorporated into the mystical Body of Christ as visible but upon a personal profession of their faith and repentance Secondly Let it be considered how the Holy Ghost doth vary his manner of expression in his narrative of those primitive transactions when he speaks of the baptism of Housholds he tells us the Housholds were baptized together with their Parents not giving the least intimation of the faith of any in or of those Houses as the ground of their baptism but when he speaks of more general Assemblies or concourses of people he speaks more distinguishingly As many as gladly received the Word were baptized Acts 2.41 And why the Holy Ghost should speak so distinguishingly in one place and not in the other is hard to say unless it should be because in respect of such more general Assemblies and concourses of people consisting of grown persons the personal faith and conversion of each was necessary to their baptism but not so in respect of the Houses of believing Parents but that is for these Instances as taken abstractly in themselves But now compare one thing with another and the evidence is vastly more clear for as considering what hath been said to prove the interest of the Infant-seed of believing Parents in the Covenant and Promises thereof and what hath been said to evidence a right to Baptism to be of equal extent to interest in the Covenant and Promises thereof it is undeniable to me and I can hardly think but it will be so to others who will freely entertain Light when held forth unto them that these Housholds were baptized as the Houses of such Parents upon the account of their interest in the Covenant so on the other hand when we see what hath been before said concerning the interest of believing Parents in the Covenant and concerning their right to Baptism upon that account and then find whole Housholds baptized and that so very probably to say no more as the Houses of such Parents it may much more strongly perswade us of that their interest in the Covenant and Promises thereof and of their right to the Sign and Token of the Covenant But let that suffice for the proof of our third subordinate Proposition What Objections the Truth we have contended for will meet with from the contrary minded shall now be considered CHAP. XI Objections against the last Proposition answered The conclusion of the whole Object 1. NOtwithstanding all that hath been said for the confirmation of the three foregoing Propositions yet some may say That it is not the will of Christ that the Infant-seed of believing Parents should ordinarily be baptized may be at least very probably concluded from those various passages that do occur in the new Testament wherein such things are declared to have attended the administration of Baptism and such things are affirmed of and required from the baptized in the primitive times which cannot attend Baptism as administred unto Infants nor can be truly affirmed of or rationally required from them See 1 Cor. 12.13 21 25. Ephes 4.16 Gal. 3.26 27. Answ This Objection will soon vanish and appear to have no strength at all in it if we consider these three things which because they are so obvious to every one of a competent understanding and at all acquainted with the Scriptures I shall need do little more than mention First Consider that what in these or the like Scriptures is declared of or required from the Body of Christ or the several Members of that Body as united and incorporated by the means whether internal or external appointed for that end and purpose agrees to and equally concerns the whole Body of Christ and the several Members thereof simply and absolutely in all times and ages the Body of Christ is but one successively continued throughout all ages and hence it may as well be concluded from these Scriptures that Infants never were nor ever shall be admitted into this Body the contrary whereunto is most evident as that in the primitive times they were not by Baptism admitted into it as then existent in the world Secondly Consider that it is a thing of frequent occurrence in Scripture for things to be declared and spoken of or to whole Bodies or Societies and that in the most universal and indefinite terms which yet are to be understood and applyed variously with respect to the particulars according to their respective capacities and concernments in what is so declared or spoken See this abundantly verified in that Speech of Moses to the whole Congregation of Israel recorded in the twenty nine and thirty Chapters of Deuteronomy there are some things spoken as universally true of them all So their standing before the Lord in order to their renewal of their Covenant with him thus Dout. 29.10 11 12 there are other things spoken which were alone true of the grown persons among them and that but in part true of some of them in whole true of others Thus their seeing what God had done for them in Egypt and in the Wilderness some had seen both the temptations they had been tried with and the Signs wrought before them in the Wilderness but had seen nothing in respect of a personal sight of what God had done for