p V
£*
A3
dl
•5-
.5
•Sf
1c
3
5
4)
J5
IE
r***
hi
Q.
.£*
to
to
*o
^
w
$
O
to
0)
c
w
O
bfl
rs*
§
Eh
H
O
<
Hi
Z3
to
£
,«o
M
CO
Mr*
P4
l"
^
2
>*
-Q
^
^
-a
^
^
c
<3
V*
0)
&
r
'**)
CL
J3
^
u
/n
1
< Mri?/ i
X
■V »\ -W/'s/rsif
5/>'A
Infant-baptifm
F R. O
HEAVEN.
AND NOT OF
MEN-
OPv,
A moderate Difcourfe con-
cerning the Baptifmof the Infant-
feed of Believers.
Whesreunto b pre fixed,
A large introductory Preface ,' preparing
the Readers way to a more profitable perufal
of the enfuing Treatife.
By Jofeph^W'hifton.
£ XK&pl h&vU *v<rsu to? \puo9 vi t vsjWtye«7»p d<jix,d\rK$
vast; 3 -tt'.-i Iv vv&pan a^Uo ^ <nv(i, Lu^^.id
LO KB 0 AT,
Printed for Henry Million at the Bible in
Fleet.jheet. i 6 7 o.
#-
THE fe
PREFACE
-TO THE
READER
Cbrifthn Reader,
IT is an old and true faying, Veritas non
qu&rit Angiitis , Truth is neither afraid
noraftiamed tobefeen, though thereby
(he be expo fed to the feverert ahd moft
critical tryals and examinations of men,
neither is (heat all defirous to appear
in fuch a drcfs,'as that thereby (he may infinuate
her (elf into the afledtjons of men for this end,
that through their intertft in , and byafling in-
fluence upon the undemanding, it may be bri*
bed to a partiality on heiiide ; her evidence and
power is.fuch, as makes that needlefs, Mjgna eft
& previleb t : fn the enfuing Treatife thou haft
a Doctrine and practice maintained , which, I
doubt not , will be owned by our Lord»Jefus
Chrift in the day of his appearing , "to bep3rt
of that Faith once delivered to the Saints , fojr
A z which
Ihe Treface.
which it is his will they mould earnefxly con-
tend > which Dodhine and practice , as I have
endeavoured to prefent to thy view, in the fole
light of Divine evidence, rationally deduced
from that great Luminary of the Scriptures,
without immixing any thing ot humane E]o
qu t the bribmg the undtritandii.g by
ions upon thy afLttions , (a
courfe7 which as my natural Genius leads mc
not unto, fo my indigency, as to abillitksprohi-
bit3 my attempting of) fo theforeftalling thy
Judgment, by any fubtle artifices of qne kind
or another, is none of my detign in the pre-
fent * Preface. There ate only ' three things,
I conceive neceiTary to be done , to prepare the
Readers w^y tu a more profitable perufalof the
Pitcourfc here tendered to him,
Jirft, That J (hould indeavour to remove, ^at
.kilt allay- that prejudice that may poffibiy arife
hi the minds of icmcagainit it, as coming a-
. broad at fucua time as this is , whereby they
might be kept from that due perufal and
through examination and weighing of what is
here tendred to them,as is neceiTary, in order to
their reaping that benefit deiigned to them by
jti and thus, though there arefeveral prejudi-
ces may poffibiy arile in the minds of men , ac-
cording to their previous perforations, relating
to thepradice here pleaded for, yet i (hall only
take^otice of that, which may arite trom the
Teeming unfeafonabknefs , of fending forth
V Difcourfe rf this nature at fuch a time as this,
The Preface.
is, and as affairs now ftand with the parties, be-
tween whom this controverfie hath of late
years been more efpecially agitated , poflibly
thou mayft think the Author rather defervesa
Cenfureof, at leaft, indifcretion, than the Di-
fcourfe it felf a ferious perufal and examina-
tion.
And it cannot be denied , but chat an under-
taking of this nature, at fuc'h a time, doth car-
ry , and that in feveral re(pe<Ss , a very great
(hew of unfeafonablenefs in it, and hid not the
fence and apprehenfion of the prcfent (late of
affairs detained me under an irrcfolution as to
its publication , this Difcourfe might have teen
the light much fooner than now it doth i and
yet had I not had the approbation of thofc,
whofe Judgments I had realbn to attend unto,
it had not now, no nor ever, for ought I know,
appeared in fo publick a wa) as now it doth :
But feeing it is thus come abroad, let me in
brief give the Reader an account of the
ground of my proceedings herein : Yet I con-
ceive it unneceffary, to trouble the Reader with
an account of the feveral occa lions, through
which my thoughts came at firif fojo be enga-
ged , and after to be carried on in a more tho-
row fearch into this Controvert^ > I flull only
give him an account of the ground of my fend-
ing abroad this Difcourfe ( wherein he will rind
the refult of that fearch I have made ) a: t'ras
time. And in general take it thus :
Upon further and more ferious advifements
with my felf, and confutations with others,
A 4 I
The Prefaee
I could not conceive , how the fending of it a-
broad, though at fuch a time, fhould be juftly
accounted To unfeafonable,as upon the firft vie w
it may , and fora while to me it did feem to be.
When the practice here pleaded for3by the unani- I
mous confentof all parties,lyes from among the
Fundamentals of Chriftian Religion, and con-
fequently, fuppofing the worit, it fhould at laft
be found to be unfcriptural \ the contrary
whereunto I am mod confident of ( whether
groundlefs or no, let the intelligent and impart
tial Reader judge ) yet the confcientious im-
bracement of it cannot be ddhu&ive to the
Souls of men, when nothing is brought to light,
beyond what was of pubjick and general cogni-
zance before,when the judgment and practice
of the contrary minded is no way concerned in
the furTerings they are fubject or liable to , and
confequently, the detection of their error can-
not be rationally fuppofed to further their fuf*
ierings , when no new Controverfie is ftarted ,
and confequently , no new rents or diviiions
like to be made , beyond what have been of fo
long continuance v how the appearing in pub*
lick of fucha Difcourfe upon this Subject (hould
at this time> or any other time, be accounted
much unfealotjable , I could give no rational
account, either tp my felf or to others : As for
the manner of handling it , I am not confcious
to my fe}f of having given any juft caufe of
offence unto any>what thou wilt meet with here,
is argumentative, not inve&ive, aiming at thy
information and confirmation , in what I verily
'the Preface.
judge to be the Truth , not thy prejudiceeither
in temporals or fpirituals : In a word y unlefs
the naked propofal of my own perfwafion, re-
lating to the Controvertie here debated, with
the Scripture evidence, captivating my under-
(landing into that perfwaiion , C3ii be grievous
or orTentive unto any, I cannot conceive how the
enfuing Difcourle can be.
But it may be it may be faid , There is yet a
double inconvenience, or a twofold Ji confe-
quence may arife rrom the publication of a Di-
lcourfe ot this nature at fuch a rime.
Firil , The minds or Christian* will be in
danger to be diverted from what is more pro-
perly their work , and about which they ought
more efpeciaily to be taken up.
To that I anivver, I wim the enfuing Papers
may find the minds of Chrimans fo well im-
ployed, as that fuch a divertion would be indeed
prejudicial to them-, but be it fo, a: in rtfpeft
of fome, I hope, it may be, yet the exercifc of
a little prudence will prevent that inconveni-
ence i and let me here caution the Reader to
take heed, that he do not by this, or any other
Confrovertle, divert his mind from the more
weighty concernments of his Soul, take heed
thou do not fo apply rhy mind to, nor tufferthy
thoughts to be taken- up with any matters of
controvertie, as ro neglect thy growth in Grace,
and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour
JefusChrilt, but, 1 fiy, a little Chriiiian pru-
dence will direct in this, and obviate the incon-
venience fuggelted,
But
The frefaee.
But fecondly, It will be faid, The appearing
thus in publick may occafion the revival of
thcfc Controverfies, which feem now almoft
laid .iideand forgotten among the People of
God,and confcquently may renew, heighten and
increafe thofe divilions , which heretofore have
been of fuch fad confequence, as to their unani-
mous and concordant practice of the main
things of Religion.
To this i (hall anfwer, I am not altogether
without hope of the quite contrary? viz. That
it may. be of fome ufe for the obtaining and
promoting union among them,
There is a double union that the People of
God are to labour after.
Firft, An union of judgment and practice,
that they may think, fpeak, and do the fame
things.
Secondly, An union in heart and arTtdlion,
that wherein they do differ in judgment and
pra&ice, they may bear with, and forbear one
another in love.
Now what means can have a more diredt
tendency, or be more effectual ( will the Lord
pleafe to concur with nib blcffing ) for the ob
raining and promoting either of thcfc kinds of
union x than the holding forth with a Spirit of
meekncfs what light is received from the Scri-
ptures, about the things, wherein the difference
and difigreement is >
As for the farmer , 'tis utterly impoffible ever
to be attained among thofe, who dare not, as
we ufe to fay , pin then faith upon other mens
llecvcs,
The rreface.
ileeves, or pradtice hand overhead, whatever is
piopofed to than, by any means exclulive of
thisi and with what confidence foevcr any
attempts ' may be made to effect this union any-
other way , they will be found utterly unavail-
able , and probably iiTue in the quite contrary
event to what is aimed at. m If
But fuppofe this rir(t and moit excellent kind
of union, which we ought ultimately to aimat
and endeavour, (hnuld nut be afTiiucd, the fame
differences in judgment and pndhce (hould yet
remain , yet methmks 1 may, yea, I cannot but
rationally cxp.dfc, that rhe latter, viz. of heart
and arTcdiion, will be fo far from being impeded
andobrtruded , that it will be confiderably ad-
vanced ar.d promoted, though diffenters may not
com(;over to my judgment and pradtife by what
is here orur, d , yef lure I may promife my fclf,
without concurring the cenlure of being over
confident ot tne Truth alTcrted, or the itrcngth
and validity of the Arguments produced tcr its
confirmation, that it will be granted thac in cafe
I do err, it \%cnm ratione^ml that I have Co much
ground from Scripture to bottom my judgment
and pradtice upon , as may accjuit me , in the
judgment of Charity, without (tretchmg it be-
yond the bounds allowed in Scripture and war-
ranted by Reafon , fiom a wiHul perltfting in er-
ror i and 1 hardly know anything more effe-
ctual for the maintaining love and friendship
among dillenting Chriltians, then for them to be
mutually fatished in each other , that they do
not diiTent upon any other account then their
refpedtive
the Preface.
refpecUve confcientioufneis of their duty to-
wards God , which iatisfa&ion can hardly be
given in a more efTc&ual manner, than by hold-
ing forth and declaring each toother the light
they have received from the Scriptures of truth,
•captivating their judgments to the imbrace-
ment a^jfcgra&ice of what they do differently
imbrace and pra-dtree-j fpthat i cannot but hope
the fending abroad theenfuing Difcourfe , will
be fo far troiril&wing a Controverde, almoft
laid alleep and Ifegotten , to the difuniting^bf
C hriitians.and heightening their differences and
divifions , that ir may be of fome good ufe for
the promoting the quite contrary end, fi^their
uniting ,if not in judgment,that they may be as
the ApofHe fpeaks, i Cor. i. 10. Kjmj7J*j*swi &
tdJ <L\n$ tft> xj lv •»« av7a yvap* ; Perfectly joyntd
together in one mind and judgment i yet they may
live together, dti%Qiidr»! ttfttom bt «yax*, Epbejl
4.2. tor bearing one another in love : And yet
further let me add one thing more , which ha-
ving its due conlidcration, may, if not wholly
remove, yet much allay what prejudices of this
nature may arife in the mind^ of men , and it is
this** Times of afflictions , whether coming
immediately from the hand of God , or medi-
ately from the hand of man , are fpecial times
for every lone to take a more through and impar-
tial review of their refpedrive wayes and pra-
dfcifes, the Rod hath a v«,ice which all are com-
manded to here i Hear the Rod, and who bath
appointed it, Micah 6 9. What its voice is, or
what it calls for at our hands, ray be gathered
partly
Ihe Frefacc.
putty from what the God of Wifdom , Gr the
only wife God declares to be his expectation,
from thofe either over whom it is lift up in tfte
threatning, or upon whom it is laid in the exe-
cution, and partly from what the men of wif-
dom, as the Prophet there fpoaks , have done in
anfwer to this voice, what are Gods expectati-
ons he tells us, Jer. 8.6. 1 faith the Lord bear-
k^ned and beard , but no man Jpakf aright » and
wherein they failed in fpeaking aright he tells
us,«o man /aid, what have I done , or which is
of the fame 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
felves to an impartial account , wherein we
have either come fliort of,or exceeded th3t Rule
we ought to walk by , what men of wifdom
have done in anfwerto this voice of the Rod,
fee in that Lam. 3. 40. Let us fearcb our veayts
andturnuntQ the Lord ; when God is fearching
after our fins,efpecially when the fearch is made
by afflictions, when God hath us upon the rack,
as Job feems to allude, Jobio.6. fureitisour
concernment to make a through and impartial
fearch too : God threatens to fearch Jerufalew
with Candles, Zepb. 1. 12. if is meant of his
fearching by afflictions : now God feems to
have his Candle in his hand , he is fearching
England with Candles, he is in fpecial fearching
the proftffing party in England with Candles i
now it is an excellent obfer vat jpu of that wor-
thy Expofitor upon Job, faith he, Troubles are
4S fo many Candles that God fetttth up to feirch
w
"he Preface.
US byy and they rpill be asfo many firef irikitidled
to confume us w\tb , in csfe tve fearcb not our
felves i but yet let me fay, it is not the bare light
of atfh&ions > without the concurring light of
the Word and Spirit ,. that can difcover to any
their fin > hence when God holds out the light
of his Candle, it mult needs be a very feafonable
time to hold forth the ligfvt of the Word,
which being attended with the internal illumi-
nation of the Spirit , may difcover that to be a
iin, which would not be owned foto be at ano-
ther time i from what hath been (aid, I cannot
but hope, that what is hereprefented to^publick
view, will by coniiderate perfons be fo lar from
being accounted unfcafbnable , that it will be
accounted in lome fort the more efpecialiy fear
fonable at fuch a time as this. But fuppofe,
notwithftanding what hath been faid, the (end-
ing abroad of thefe Papers at [his time , (hould
by any be judged unfeafonable , I have three
things yet further to otfl-r. for my vindr-r
cation .
Firlt, I confidered, that for the Mind to
hang in fufpence , and lye under thepreiTure of
fluctuating uncertainties about the mind and
will of Chrilt, relating to the difcharge of duty,
is at any time grievous , but mere efpecialiy
when the hand of God is lift up , and that I
know is the cafe of fome truly confeientious
Chriilians , in reference to the practice here
pleaded for, arid I judged it my duty to yield
unto them what relief my mean ability would
reach unto.
Secondly?
The Treftce.
Secondly , I confidercd that faying of the
"Wife man , He that obfervetb tbe Wind jb all not
f)jy , and bttbat regardetb tbe Clouds jb ail not
reap, Eccief. 11,4. And whether i might live
to fee a more feafenabie time was altogether
uncertain unto me, and for me to obfervethe
Wind,ar.d Hand gazing on the Clouds, till over-
taken by the night of death, where no man can
work, and laid to llecp 'in the duft, and thereby
have, loft my feafon for the fowing the Seed,,
that Seed, of which I may and muftfayitis,
Mcjbec as that word, 'Pfal. 126. 6. is ren- '
dred by Junius and fome others, it is, Semtn
acqmjitum , Semen aliunde comparatum , Seed
that I have through Grace obtained from ano-
thers ftore,I hope I may truly fay from his, who,
as the Apoftle faith] Minijiers feed to tbe fotver,
and breadto tbe eater ; and that to ufe the Au-
thor aforementioned his words, Frece & fret is ^
yet not fo much of Silver and Gold, as of that,
which by the Teftimony of the Holy Ghoft
himfelf is the iflfue of much ftudy, viz. weari«
nefs,and I may add, wearing away of the fkfh ;
I was faying, mould 1 have obferved the Winds,
and flood gazing on the Clouds, till loft my
feafon to fow. this fame Seed contained in the
enfuing Treatife , I could not have expe&ed to
reap when the Harveft comes , what now
through Grace I can in fome meafure live in the
comfortable expectations of, feafons loft, though
fomething unfeafbnable prove a lofs to jhe Hus*
bandman when the harveft comes.
Third if ,
The Preface.
Thirdly, The fending forth ehefe Papers wa$
necciTary to prepare a way to, and lay a founda-
tion for a few practical fheets, which, if the
Lord vouchfafe life and opportunity , may fol-
low, wherein I intend, as the Lord (hall affilt, to
make a more full enquiry into theie four
things. .
Firlt , What are the Reafons of Gods ap-
pointing the application of the Token of
the Covenant to the Jnfant feed of his peo-
pie.
Secondly, What are the benefits and advan-
tages ariiingto them thereby,
Thirdly, What is the duty of Parents to-
wards their Children , as incorporated by Bap-
tifm into the Myftical Body of Chriit, asvi-
fible.
And fourthly, What is the improvement that
Children themfelves may and ought to make of
their Baptifm , applyed unto them in their in-
fancy , as they grow up to years of maturity
Which things I could not fitly fpeak unto be-
fore their Covenant-intertft and right t© the
Sign and Token of the Covenant arifing there-
from was proved > fo that the appearing thus in
publick ,in the defence of the practice of Infant*
baptifm, was in iome fort necefliry unto
me.
Secondly, Another thing 1 conceive neceiTary
for the preparing the Readers way to a more
profitable perufal of the infmng Trcatife, is, to
make fome enquiries , what may have had, and
ftill hath too great an inttrcii in the fo far pre.
vailjag
The Vrtfacee.
vailing of the judgment and pra&ice of lying
oppoilte to that here pleaded for *, 'tis, I confefs,
fomething ftrange to me,whence it (hould come
to pafs, that fo many, and thofe,at leaftmany of
them, truly confeicmious Chriftians, (hould at
Co eafie a rate part with, and give up their Chil-
drens priviledge, as to intereft in the Covenant,
and the Token thereof, and fo readily take up
an opinion and practice divefting them there-
of. •
Three things have often occurred to my
thoughis , as rendring this matter of wonder
unto me.
Firft, The plain evidence , as to my under-
handing, given in by the Scriptures to that their
priviledge.
Secondly , The utter illence of the Scrip-
tures, as to any exprefs, yea, or plainly deduced
confequential denial of it to them.
Thirdly, "that tendernefs of affe&ion natu-
ral C and fure Grace deitroyes not Nature^ to
Parents towards their Children.
Hence notwithftanding what is urged orx
their parts from the Scripture , yet I cannot but
conceive there is either (orne thing wholly ex-
centrical to the Question iifelf, or fome irregu-
larity in the management of their enquiries , in
reference chereunto,that hath had, and tiillhath
a confiderable intereft,at lcalt, in manyes rejecti-
on of the Truth pleaded for , and their imbr,a-
ring the opinion and practice oppofite there-
unto.
The Preface.
Now it may not be altogether unprofitable to
make ion e inquiry what that (hould be , that fo
the- Read. r ^cing forewarned may difintangle
himfelf, and have his mind more free to attend
to,and impart rally weigh what is here tendered,
to htm, and upon a ferious enquiry, I conceive,
thcfc fix things may be affigned,as cf the im-
portance" rfkTiiioned,
FiriV I cannot but think it muft in part be
imputed to a want of that tendernefs of aiFt&i-
on towards Relations , attended with the want
of a right apprehenfion and true fenfe of the
worth and excellency of ipi rlt ual BldTings , and
Covenant-priviledges that Chriftians ought to
labour afters the Apoftle mentions it as one of
the evils of the laft times, That men (hall be
without natural affe&ion.
Now though this evil prevail not in the
hearts of truly gratious Souls to a predominan-
cy , as it may and doth in the hearts of fuch,
who have only a form of Godlinefs > yet it is
too uiitally found , that truly gracious Souls are
more or le[s corrupted by the Epidemical evils
of the times and piaces where they live , in in-
fectious times their blood and humors may be
vitiated and corrupted, to the producing of fome
evil fymptomes , upon whom yet the infection
prevails not , to the breaking out into a Dif-
eafe, to the taking away of their lives. Tims I
cannot but think that this evil, of the want of
natural affections, too far prevails in, though it
prevails not over truly gracious Souls , to the
giving a very great advantage to the Co far
fpreading
the Preface.
fpreading of the opinion and practice afore-
mentioned > yet I do not fay , neither would I
be undcidood, as though I did fuppofe that this
fame evil hath been , or is the cauie or occafion
of all their reje&ion of the practice pleaded for,
and complying with the oppoflte opinion and
pra&ice,who yet do reject the one and imbrace
the other : I do not doubt, bu1: there are many
among the contrary minded, who are perfons of
much tendernefs of affedtion towards their
'Children, and have in a good meafurea right
apprehenfion and due fence of the worth and
excellency of fpiritual Elefllngs and Covenant-
priviledges i nor yer would I be underftood, as
though I did fuppofe that this evil wereonlyto
be found among the perfons we now fpeak of,
no, /fear the fame evil prevails too far in many
of thofe. who yet imbrace, yea, (land up in the
defence of the practice of Infant-baptifin, and
though it doth not appear the fame way, yet
other wayes it doth ', Inftances evidencing this
are too obvious than here to need a recital , the
Difcafc is Epidemical, though -appearing in forhe.
one way, and in others another way '•> but this
I fay i I do verily judge , that the (6 univerfal
prevailing of this fame evil, in this latter Age of
the World will be found to have been one thing
giving rife to, and furthering the fuccefs of the
(pinion <k pracbee here oppofed; let but Parents
get a due tendernefs of affection towards theie
ehildren,and a right apprehenfion and due fenfe
of the worth and excellency of fpiritual privi-
ledges , and their minds will be much difpotcd
i i to
Iht Preface.
to an impartial weighing what is offered on the
behalf of this pra&iceof Infant- baptifm.
I am aware it will be retorted by my Oppo-
fers, That it is a fond, foolifh and irregular afle-
(ftion towards Children , that hath bribed our
underftanding , and byaiTed us to a perfwaiion,
that the Scripture holds forth fome benefit or
priviledge to them beyond what indeed it doth,
our miltakes arife from the byafling influences
that thefe affections have upon our underftand-.
ingsand judgments.
But to this I (hall only fay , That it is not
altogether unworthy our Oblervation , that
Providence* ihould call forth fueh to appear in
defence of this practice ,
Mt.BaxterMt.Coofy, wno cannot be ratio-
fcnt being Batehe. lam under the ^yafs of any
Ion* fuch irregular affections j
and as for others, who, it is
true, might more rationally be fuppoled to lye
under the force of fuch a byafs|, yet their Wri-
tings fufficiently declare, they had judgment as
well as affection, and their lives and converfati-
ons evidence they had confeience as well as
judgment ; their Writings (hew they had ability
to difcern truth from error, and their lives (hew
their affections could not byafs them to pra-
ctice, but according as their judgments by
Scripture evidence were convinced : There is
then no rational ground for any to fuppofe,that
ourimbracement of, and appearing for the pra-
ctice under confideration, hath been, or is from
any
The Preface.
any fuch irregular workings of affection as is
fuggetted ; the danger lyes on the other hand:
Ii then we would underftand the mind of
Chrift j in reference to this practice here con-
tended for > labour to get a due tendernefs of
affection towards Children , with a right appre-
henfion and due fenfe of the worth and excel-
lency of fpiritual privileges:* due and a regular
working of the affections towards any good
tendered in the Covenant of Grace, hath a fpecial
fubferviency to our receiving of light from God
through the Scriptures , in and about his will
concerning our duty relating to our enjcyment
of that good.
Secondly, That which hath contributed not
a little to the giving rife to , 3nd furthering the
prevailing of the opinion and practice here
oppofed, hath been and is the confounding fome
cither fuppofed or real irregularities in or
attending the administration of Bapfifm to In-
fants, with the practice it fclf, to mention thefe
two things.
Firft, The manner of its adminiftrati on.
Secondly , The Subjects it hath been and
frequently is adminiflred unto.
tor the fir(t, How oft is it found,that perfons
of weaker judgments are prevailed with to
reject the practice of Infant-baptifm it fclf, by
a fpecious Argument that yet only lyes againrt
the way and manner of its adminiflration
among thofe , who hold and maintain that
practice > hence it may be obferved, how that
way and manner is pitched upon and pleaded
a 3 againft,
Ifce Vrefaee.
againft , that to the outward appearance feem£>
and is fuppofed by the persons making ufe of
this plea , to have the leaft countenance from
Scripture > and thus the way and manner
pitched upon is, that of fprinkling, which way
and manner of adminiftration3 though difuied
by^any, if not generally by all, that with the
greateft ftrength of Scripture Arguments have
afTerted the practice it felf ; yet is urged by the
contrary minded , as though the only way and
manner of its administration among the Pedo-
baptifts 5 hence are thofe frequent inve&ivcs
againlt Infant- fprinkling fcattered up and
down in the Writings , aud too common in the
mouths of our Oppolers i and for the latter,
how apt are people , being told and perfwaded,
that themfelves or others , as the Seed of unbe-
lieving Parents, had no right to Baptifm, to be
induced to believe, that no Infants , let the
Parents be what they will, have any better right
than themfelves or others, born of fuch Parents,
had > and hence perceiving the unduenefs of
their own Baptifm in their infancy, areeafily
brought to believe the unduenefs of the Baptifm
of Infants in the general: And it is true,tV*e are
fome other things ( the irregularity of which
as I fhall not deny, fo their refutation comes not
within the compafs of my prefent butinefs )
appertaining to the adminiftration of Baptifm
to Infants, as by fome it is adminiftred , that
give a like advantage to the fuccefs of the opi-
nion and practice here oppofed.
But
7 he Preface.
j*But now whether the /nfant-feed of be-
lieving Parents ought to be baptized , ib one
Queftion.
How or after what manner they ought to be
baptized is another.
What Parents may be reputed to be Believers,
fo as that their Infant-feed may upon their ac-
count be baptized, is a third.
Now it is the tirit of thefe Queftions1 only,
that is difcuflcd in the mfuing Treatifc i nei-
ther is it at all neceiTary , that either of the two
latter ihould be taken notice of, or muched
upon, in order to the finding out the'mind and
will of Chriit relating unto this; Errors and
irregularities, fuppoiing them to be redly fh, in
or attending the adminiftration of Baptifrn ,
ought to be reformed , and not plead cg ag1
the pra&ife it felf : All therefore tfia't 1 (hall
fay to this is , let none confound what ought to
be diftin&ly confidered i labour rirrf to find out
the mind of Chrift , as to the pradtife it felf , as
abfiradily coniidered, without conlidcratiori had
to thofe various Queftions , the determination
of which is of no ufe at all for the right deter-
mination of this ; and having found out the
mind of Chrift relating to this firit Queftion,
then the confideration of the other will be
more proper and feafonable "> the right metho-
dizing of things highly conduceth to a right
underiianding the mind of Chriit, refpedfrve to
our duty, when the confounding or jumbling
things together, that are of a dininct confidera-
tion, fubjedts to great miftakes.
a 4 Thirdly^
Ihe Prefaee
Thirdly, That which hath had, and hatha
a confiderable intereft in the giving rife to , and
furthering the fuccefs of the opinion and pra-
ftife here oppofed , is the taking up particular
fhfhncesand Examples of perfons baptized, in
the primitive times, upon their perfonal profefli-
on of Faith and Repentance , without regard
had to the cafe and condition of the perfons Co
baptized, antecedent to their Baptifm, and con-
sequently without confidering the true rcafon
and ground of their Baptiimeat that age , and
upon iuch a profeflion and taking them as a full
explication of that Commiffion of Chrift ,
Warranting the application of Baptifm, under
the. new Teftamcnt adminiitration , as well ne-
gative, (hewing who ought not to be baptized,
as pofitive,(hewing who ought to be baptized.
And hence two things are inferred and con-
cluded.
Firft, That a (blemn profeflion of Faith and
Repentance ought to precede the application of
Baptifm.
Secondly 5 That none ought to be bapti-
zed but upon the precedency of fuch a pro-
feflion.
gut now let the cafes and conditions of the
perfons, whole examples are produced, be conh>
dered,and let the true reafon and ground of their
JBaptifm at fuch an age, and. upon fuch a pro-
feflion,beih quired into : and thus we (hall rind,
that the perfons we are now fpeaking of , wete
cither fuch as were Members of the Jewifli
Church, as the natural Jews, and Gentile Profe-
„ '■ • lites,
Vthe Preface.
Iites, orelfe they were fuch, who, were con-
verted from among the Gentiles. As for
the cafe of the Gentiles s the reafon and
ground of their Eaptifm at fuch an 33c , and
upon fuch a profeflion, is obvious :o ail, and
when any are mil converted from among the
Heathens, and brought over to the imbracement
of Christianity, 'tis readily granted they are to
be baptized according to the inlhnces produ-
ced > but from thence it cannot with any (hew
of reafon be concluded , tl at fuch a profeflion
muft univerfally antecede the application of
Baptifm j and as for the cafe of fne Jews and
Profelytes , who before were Members of the
Church , and anfwerably had no need of any
new admiflion into if, the Church ixill remaining
one and the fame, the cafe and condition of
none , fince the defolution of xhe Jewim
Eccleliaftical Polity can pcflibly be imagined
to an fwer thereunto, or correfpond therewith,
and therefore the Inftances produced , either of
Jews or Gentile Profelytes being baptized af
age, upon- iheir perfonal profeffi p of Faith and
Repentance , ought not to be made the pattern
of Baptifm , as adminiitred to or among the
Gentiles i neither can any fuch alteration in the
Subjects, receptive of the Sign and Token of
the Covenant , be concluded from thefe In-
itances as is pretended ; the reafon of their
Baptifm, upon their perfonal profeflion, was, not
becaufe under the new TcftamentaJminiftrati-
on fuch aprokflion is conftantly and univerfally
to antecede the application of Baptifm, But the
Reafon was evidently twofold. Firit,
ihe Preface.
Firft, Beeaufe no>v a new Sign and Token of
the Covenant was inftituted and appointed by
Chrift, which Abraham's Seed, in their Genera-
tions, were under an Obligation, by vertue of
that firft Command, to keep; and hence, as
during the continuance of the rnft Token, viz.
Circumcifion, they were, as, to be incorporated
into the Church, or vifible Body of Chrift ,
under an Obligation to receive and bear that i
fo upon the inftitution^of a new Token, viz.
Baptifm, rhey were ftill, fuppofing the continu-
ance of their Memberfhip in the Church, ob-
liged to receive and bear that > and hence ,
though they were duly admitted into the my-
ftical Body of Chrift, by Circumcifion applyed
to them in their infancy , and had no need of
another admiffion , yet when another Sign or
Token wa^appointed , though by the ceilation
of Circumcifion , their Memberfhip in the
Church was not nulled or broken off, yet it
was neceffary they mould receive and bear that
other Sign or Token now inftituted by Chrift,
and that, that they might continue their obedi-
ence to that rirft Command, to keep the Cove-
nant.
Secondly, Eecaule the continuance of their
Memberfhip did indifpenfably require as a
reformation in their judgments and pradifes,
which was to be begun in Repentance , fo they
were to believe a new Article of Faith, viz.
2 bat that individual V erf on , the Ma,n Chrift
Jefus^ was the Son of (jod,. thepremifed MeJJiab
and Saviour of the World > which Repentance
and
The Treface.
and Faith were vitlbly to be profcifcL.
to their vifible continuance in the
myiiical Body of Chriii > hence it w.
antecedent to their Baptifm , the new T\ 6
the Covenant,they were to maKe that prof . 1
of their Faith and Repentance , Iromwhu' c
appears, that their Baptifm up-ui their perl I
proftffion of Faith and Repentance, n
concludes themfclves antecedently not to
Members of the fame Church, o* myft
of Chriti , that Baptifm admits into, fc<
that a viilble prordiion is indjipenfabi
ceflary , antecedent to the application ot
tifm.
Secondly, The other thing inferred from the
forementioned Jnllances and Examples, and
which follows upon this, is , That none ought
to be baptized, but fuch as are capable of making
fuch a Proftflion : but now it will not follow,
that becaufe fome Inftances are left upon record,
of perfons being baptized at age upon their
perfonal Faith and Repentance , that therefore
none may be baptized but upon fuch a profcfli-
on i thefe Initaoces (hew us what we may and
ought to do, when a futable cafe occurs , but
declare not what we ought to do, when cafes
are no^way parallel > hence though we have ki8
expieis mention made of the Baptifm of Infants,
in totidem verbis , yet having fufficient difcove-
ries of the mind of Chrift as to that matter, the
want of fuch exprefs mention ought to be no
let in our way* as to the application of Baptifm
unto thera > therefore if we would come to the
knowledge
the Preface.
knowledge of the will of Chrift , relating to
the pra&ice under debate , take heed we do not
ftumble at this ftone , do not take up with the
bare Instances and Examples of perfons bapti-
zed in primitive times , as though the full ex-
plication; both negative and pofitive , of the
Commiflion of Chrift, for the adminiftration of
Baptifm , were to be deduced from them , but
take en and improve the whole of what Chrift
hath left us in his Word, whether in the Old or
in the New Teftament, for the rinding out of his
mind and will relating unto this pra&ice : And
thus,I hope,Reader,thou wilt find in the infuing
Treatife, that he hath given us f ufficient difeo-
veries of his mind and will.
Fourthly, That which hath given no little
advantage to the opinion and pra&ife here
oppofed is,the comparing the fuppofed littlenefs
of good, and fmalneisof advantage accrewing
to the Seed of Believers, by the utmoftof what
we contend for on their behalf, fuppofing that
were granted to them , with the fuppofed
greatnefs and variety of inconveniencies, and
ill confequences arifingfrom the granting of it
unto them.
Hence we may obierve, how our Oppofers,
with all their might, endeavour to diminjlh the
good, pleaded by us to redound to the Seed of
.Believers, by their intereft in the Covenant and
Baptifm , fuppofing the one fhould be granted
as therr priviledge , and the othec applyed unto
them, and on the other hand, aggravate and
fet forth the variety of evils, inconveniencies
and
Ike Freface.
and di fad vantages, fuppofed by them to follow
upon the granting unto them fuch a Covenant-
intereft and application of iSaptiim upon the
ground thereof.
£ut now all that I (hall fay to this is, as for
the good benefit and advantage arifing to the
Infant* feed of believing Parents, from both
their Covenant-Hate and Baptifm , as applyed
unto them thereupon, 'tis exceeding great, as
will, I hope, through Divine afliftance, be made
to appear , if Providence difappoint not my
prefent purpofe : At prcfent let this be confi-
dered , as for their Covenant- interest and,
ftate, a double benefit arifeth to them there-
by.
Firft, They are, as diftributively taken,
under a Promife of God being their God ,
in the fence declared in the infuing Dim
fcourfe.
Secondly, They are, as colle&ively taken, as
Members of the vifible Church , under an in-
definite Promife, fuppoling them grown to years
of maturity , of being fo taught of God , as
favingly to know him.
How far the certainty of their future Salva-
vation, fuppofing them to dye in their infancy,
may be concluded from their intereit in thefe
Promifes, I (hall leave to the judgment of the
judicious Reader : This, I doubt not, will be
found true at the appearing of our Lord Jefus
Chriifc, when thefe Secrets (hall be made mani-
felt , that vaftiy the Major part of the Seed of
JBelkvers, and thaX by vertue of thefe very
Promifes
Ihe Preface.
Promifes made unto them , will be found the
Heirs of that Inheritance prepared for the Saints
in light \ miftake me not, I do not fay, 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 mould not be account-
ed a fmall matter , to be brought in any fen fe,
though it be never Co little nigher the Promifes
of Salvation , and into a nigher capacity and
probability of injoying the good promifed than
the reft of mankind are in , and that they muft
fure be acknowledged to be , by that their
CovtruuMtate and intereft in the Promifes :
And as for Baptifm , the good and benefit of
that is hinted in the clofeof the infuing Di-
fcourfe, and is more fully to be declared, if the
Lord will: As/or the evils and mifchiefs,fuppofed
to follow upon our Do&rine and practice, they "
are really none at all 5 whatever evils may be
obferved at any time to follow , they are only ,
accidental,and will be found to have fome other
Original, and not be the natural and necefTary
fruits and confluences of either the Do&rine
or practice of Infant- Baptifm.
Fifthly, That which is of a like importance
with what hath been hitherto mentioned is,
peoples placing, at Ieaft , tco much of their
Religion in an external way, mode or form,
attended with an eafinefs and facility to be
drawn into this or that way by unfound and
groundlefs motives and inducements j too many
think, that if they are but of fuch a way they
are
The Treface.
are good Chriftians , and fecured as fo their
eternal ftates ; hence through the fubtlety of
Satan,and deceit of their own hearts, they over-
look and negled the main things wherein the
power of Religion doth indeed coijtirt , and
betake thetnfelves to, and fall in with this or
that way , as* fuppoting themfeives thereby
infured for Salvation, and wanting judgment to
difcern between Truth and Error , fall in with
the Judgment and practice under coniidt* ition,
as led thereunto meerly by I un found and
groundlefs motive and inducement i and though :
it is true , truly confeientious Chriftians cannot
fatisfie themfeives 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 i yet even in refpedfr of many of them,
efpecially fuch who are ot weaker Judgments,
fome unfound and groundlefs motive and in-
ducement hath no little intereit in rhcir im-
bracing this or that way rather than any other h
and thus the motives and iuducements leading
ProfefTors into a complyance with the way , or
judgment and practice > lying oppofite to what
we have here pleaded for , are exceeding vari-
ous , all which to enumerate would r aider me
over tedious ', all that I (hall fay therefore is,
If we would come to a right undemanding of
the mind and will of our Lord Chrilt , place
Religion where it ought to be plac.d , and then'
^fctting all fuch motives and inducements ailde,
weigh impartially the Scriptures , and -Argu-
ments grounded thereupon, readily giving up
our
The Preface.
our judgments and pn&ices to the guidance of
the light and evidence of thofe Scriptures and
Arguments,
Sixthly and laftly , The perfwafion and pra-
ctice here ©ppofed, have prevailed fo far among
Chriftians, in a great meafure, through their
prepofterous enquiries after the will of Chrift,
relating to the practice here pleaded for, taken
in conjunction with the produces of thofe
inquiries in and upon their own minds ; and the
prepofteroufnefs of their inquiries lyes more
efpecially in thefe two things.
Firft , In their inquiring after the will of
Chrift as to the Baptifm of Infants, before they
have fought after, or found out the proper ufes
and ends of Biptifm in the general,and the true
notion under which it was inftituted and com-
manded by Chrift.
Secondly, In their inquiring after the will of
Chrift relating to this practice , without any
precedent confidcration had to his will, relating
to the intereft of the Infants of believing Pa-
rents in the Covenant and Promifes thereof: by
thefe prepofterous inquiries men put themfelves
under a threefold difad vantage, as to their find-
ing out that will of Chrift they are inquiring
after.
Firft, They terminate and limit their inqui-
ries to the Scriptures of the hew Teftament , as
fuppoling the whole will or Chrift, relating un-
to JBaptifm, k being a new Teftament Ordi-
£ance>xnuft needs be contained in them.
Secondly,
The Prefacee.
Secondly , Whiv.h follows hereupon , They
fearch not after, nor attend unto the ienour of
the Covenant , as at firii efhblifhed with Abr a~
ham the Farher of the Faithful", nor attend to
the various Scriptures contained in the old
Tefhment, opening and confti-ming that Te-
nour of the Covenant , as fo cftabhfhed with
him.
Thirdly, Which follows from both , They
loofe the bencnt of thofe feveral Inferences
that may rationally, and according to Scrip; are
warrant , be drawn from intereft in the Cove-
nant , for the determining and concluding what
is the mind and will of Chrilt concerning the
application of Baptifm
But now would people begin their inquiries
where they ought to do, and proceed regularly
therein , they would find the mind and will of
Chrift to appear with mucn more clearnefs of
; evidence on the fide of the practice we plead
for, would they make their firft inquiries after
the proper ufes and ends of Baptifm , and the
true notion under which it is inftituted , and
then proceed in an impartial fearch after the
Tenour of the Covenant, and here again begin
where they ought to do} viz. at the firft e-
ftablilhment of it with Abraham the Fa-
ther of the Faithful, and fo proceed regularly,
as the Covenant hath been continued, tVorn one
Generation to another,to Abraham's Seed, whe-
ther Natural or Myftical , ftill regulating their
judgments about the additions, alterations and
variations of the Covenant , together with the
h Sigpi
The Vreface.
Sign and Token thereof, by what the Scrip-
tures declare of Gods proceeding therein from
time to time , they would come to a more clear
underftanding what the will of Chrift, relating
to the practice under confideration is.
But when people flnll look upon Baptifm as
abftra&ed from its ufes and ends , and the no-
tion under which it is commanded , and then
limit and terminate their inquiries after the
Subjects it is to be applyed unto , to the Scrip-
tures of the new Teftament, overlooking the
whole of what God hath declared of his mind
and will, touching a right to, and intereft in the
Covenant , throughout the old Teftament, ha-
ving no regard to the ground , that intereft in,
and right to the Covenant gives t© the Sign and
Token of it , 'tis no wonder though they fall
under Co great miftakes , efpecially if we confi-
der, in the fecond place, the ufual iflue and
produces of thefe inquiries , as thus prepofter-
oufly managed in and upon the minds of men *
and that is a ftrong conceit , that becaufe they
find not in Co many exprefs words mention
made of the Baptifm of Infants in the new
Teftament , therefore undoubtedly it is not ac-
cording to the mind and will of Chrift , that
they fhould be baptized i and people having
their minds ftrongly poffelTed with this conceit,
are eafily perfwaded , that they have no intereft
in,or right to the Covenant or Promifes there-
of i whereas would they but, before their minds
are pofleiTed with fuch a prejudicate conceit,
fearch after the intereft of the Seed of delivers
in
The Frtfuce.
in the Covenant throughout rhe whole Scrip-
lures j I doubt not , but &s fh?. y *\ ouid plainly
difccrn that their intereA, fo t \ty woui« v-e
eaiily bet pe*fwaded of their right to g„ ... :aJj
the prclent Token of the * ovenant* tntrerore
if ever we would come to a deajr undemanding
of the mind and will of Cl.rift , rating f the
2>aptifm of Infants , let our inquiries after it be
regular. ,
Thefe things I could willingly ha vc ipoken
more fully to, but the Book fwelling co a bigger
* bulk than I had hoped it would have done, and
having ftaid fomething loag in the Prefs, theie
brief hints (lull fuffice. And therefore,
Thirdly, That the Reader efpecially that is
lefs able to pafs a Judgment upon an Argument,
may reap the full benefit defigried him by the
infuing Treatife , I (hall here give him a brief
Summary of what is more largely difcourfed
herein.
What I have adventured thus pflblickiy to
appear in the defence of>as the Reader will fee in
.the main Proposition, laid as a foundation to the
infuing Difcourfe , is > the Affirmative of that
fo long and fo much agitated Queition, con-
cerning the Baptifm of Infants : and all that
I have at prefent ingagedin the defence of is,
the Affirmative of that Queftion, as it refpe&s
the infant feed of Believers , whether both the
Parents, or only one be fo, and that as immedi-
ately proceeding from their own loins.
b 2 The
Ihe Preface.
The method I have proceeded in, the Reader
will fin din the fecond page ; the neceffity of
proceeding in that method I have already in-
timated,which I defire the Reader to take notice
of, that when he finds himfelf led into a large
difcourfe for the confirmation of the two for-
mer fubordinate Propofitions there laid down,
he may not fuppofe himfelf led out of his way,
as to the proof of the main Propofition •> thofe
that will find out the mind and will of our
Lord Chrift, concerning the Baptifm of Infants,
muft firft know his will concerning their intereft
in the Covenant and the Promifes thereof.
And thofe that will know the will of Chrift
concerning the Infant feed of Believers intereft
in the Covenant and Promifes thereof, muft
begin at the firft eftablifhment of it with
Abraham , the common Father of all Be-
lievers.
And that I might proceed with more clear-
nefs,and with greater advantage to the Reader,
I have indeavoured fully to explain , at leaft Co
far as my prefent deftgn did require , that grand
Promife of the Covenant, unto which the three
fubordinate Propofitions do refer* where the
Reader wW find , that though God in that term
Sied, did intend Abrahams whole Seed, or all
thofe he fhould fuftain the relation of a Father
unto \ yet according to the letter of that Pro-
mife , he had a diredt and immediate refpedt to
his natural Seed , yet after a different manner,
according to a twofold confideration they fall
under.
Firft,
The Preface.
Firft, As his natural Children, as immediate*
ly proceeding from his own loins.
Secondly, As his natural Race and Pofterity,
mediately descending from him in after
Ages.
Hence the Promife is to be confidered of, ei-
ther as a definite Promife made to his Seed, di-
ftributively taken , andfoit did teach to all his
Children, immediately proceeding from his own
loins, and as it did »xfpe& his natural Seed,only.
to them, or as an indefinite Promife made to his
Seed, collectively taken, and fo it did extend to
his whole natural Race and Posterity i my
meaning more plainly -is this, That this Promife
was either fo made to Abraham's natural Seed,
as that each of them , as Severally and parties
larly taken, had, as his Seed, ari actual in te reft
in it: Thus it was only made to his Children,
as immediately proceeding from his own tains,
or was fo made to his Seed , as though none in
particular had meerly, as his natural Seed, an
actual intereft in it : yet God did thereby ilgmT
fie and declare his will and purpofe , to vouch.-?
fafe unto them, more generally confidered, and
that as the Seed of Abraham , that privilcdge
of a Covenant-relation with himfelfi in defi-
nite Promifes God fpeaks to particular perfons,
in indefinite Promifes he fpeaks to none in par-
ticular , only declares his will and purpofe con-
cerning fuch a fort or fpecies of men. to whom
he makes good>-his Promifes , according to the
good pleafure of his own will, in a complyance
with his eternal purpofes and decrees.
b 3 Now
the Treface.
Now in my firft fubordinate Propofition,
where 1 fay , that God intended Abrahams
natural Seed , as the immediate and next Sub-
jtr&s of that Promife, I mean his Children, as
immediately proceeding from his own loins, and
take the JJraftiife as a definite Promife : This I
ha\re proved at large Chap. 2. and anfwered
what Cbj?&ions 1 could imagine might be
made again ft it Chap. 3. whether I mult refer
the Reader for full futisfaclrion.
And this firit Propofiuoh being clear,the way
lyes plain to the Second, it being a very rational
Suppofal, that what Privilcdge or Bkffing the
Father injoyed, (hould ( fuppofing it alike com-
petable to them as to him ) defcend to his Sted,
as his Heirs ; and that believing Gentiles Abra-
barn's mydical Seed , have this Promife of the
Covenant given to, and fettled upon them, and
that in the fame latitude and extent in which
it was given to Abraham himfelf, as a natural
Father of natural Children , only allowing to
him, as Father, that preheminence mentioned
page 65. is evident.
Firft, From the very Tenour of the Promife,
as at firfi made to Abraham , with reference to
his Seed \ it was made to his Seed in their Ge-
nerations, that is, to them and to their Seed, or
their Children, as immediately defcending from
them, forfo the Covenant was eftablifhed , not
only with Abraham himfelf, but with him and
his Seed, in their Generations > and in the fame
extent and latitude the Promifes of the Cove*
nant mull be interpreted and underftood , as the
Covenant
The Preface.
Covenant was eftablifhed with Abraham , and
his Seed in their Generations , fo the Promifes
of the Covenant were to him , and to his Seed
in their Generations > and anfwerably I have
fo expreft my felf throughout theenfuing Di-
fcourfe.
And here let two things be carefully ob«
ferved*
Firft, That the Promife is made to Abraham's
whole Seed, both natural and myftical, in one
and the fame tenour.
Hence fecondly, Look how the Promife was
to be underftood, as referring to either kinds or
fpecies, of his Seed, fo it is to be underftood, as
referring to the other > as it was to be under-
ftood , as referring to his natural Seed , fo it
it is to be underftood, as referring to his myftical
Seed.
Now that it was , as referring to Abrahams
natural Seed , to be underftood as including
Parents and Children , is evident , partly be-
caufe the Promife, as thus made, as referring to
them, will admit of no other (ence or meaning,
confident with the truth and taichfulnefs of
God in his Promifes, partly becaufe God by his
after dealing with the Jews, declares that to be
the fence and meaning ot it , and partly becaufe
the Prophets fo expound it as to be fulfilled in
Gofpel times.
'b 4 Now
The Prefaee
Now this Promife being fo to be understood,
as referring to Abrahams natural Seed , it muft
needs be (o underftood , as referring to his
myftical Seed.
Secondly, This fecond Proportion is further
evident from the Promifes and Prophtfies of the
old Teitament, relating to new Teitament
time j.
Thirdly, From the exprefs letter of new
Tefra merit , which affirms pofitively, that the
Blefllng . not this or that part of the Blefllng,
bur the Blefling (imply and abfolutely is come
upon believing Gentiles by Chrift.
Fourthly, From fcveral palTages in the new
Teftament, which though they do not in ex-
prefs terms hold forth this fettlement of this
Promife upon believing Gentiles, yet do plainly
imply it.
For fatisfa&ion in ail which things , I am ne-
ctffitated to refer the Reader to the Difcourle
iti'elf, where he will find them largely fpoken
to.
Thefe two former Propofitions being efta-
bliftied, the third, as I judge, willbequeltioned
but by femj audit is evident thus, for as Abra-,
ham's whole Seed are in their Generations, that
is, both Parents,and immediate Children, under
the Promife , fo they are under the Obligation
of
the Preface.
of the Command , to keep the Covenant , that
is^the Sign or Token of the Covenant j whence
its evident, that as the Covenant that Abra.
ham's Seed, in their Generations, then were,
or after mould be received into, had, and was
to have a Sign or Token annexed to the ad-
miniftration of it i fo that it alwayes was, and
is the duty of Parents in Covenant, as tore*
ceive and bear that Sign or Token themfelves,
fo to take care that their Infant-feed, as joynt
Heirs with themfelves of the fame Promifes,
(hould receive and bear it j and confequently
that believing Gentiles, they being the myftical
Seed of Abraham^ areftill under the Obligation
of this Command, and ought to be baptized
themfelves ( Baptifm being the prefent Sign
and Token of the Covenant , into which they
are received ) fo to fee that their Infant- feed
be alio baptized i and as the Promife and
Command are of an equal extent, fo intereft in
this Promife declares the perfon fo interefted to
have fuch a relation to the myftical Body of
Chrift, as is an undoubted ground of implanta-
tion and incorporation into that Body, as vifi-
ble , by Baptifm * the Promife is made unto
Chrift, and only to him, either perfonally or
myftically coniidered i hence whoever have an
intereft in this Promife, they muft undoubtedly
have fo far relation to Chrift , as will warrant
their implantation into him, as myftically con-
fidered, by Baptifm, that being the only means
appointed by Chrift , for the implantation of
any
The Preface.
any info his myftical Body : And further, we
find the Apoftle grounds his Exhortation to
Baptifm, upon intereft, either in this or fome
other equivalent Promife* which he would
never have done , had not intf reft in that Pro-
mife been a fufficient ground for the application
or reception of £aptifm , but I muft come to a
clofe.
And thus Reader f though there are fome
other things I would willingly have fpoken to,
yet I (hall only acquaint thee with two things,
and requett two or three things of thee, and
then difmifs thee, to the ferious perufal of what
is here tendered to thee.
Firft , That which I would acquaint thee
with is, That whereas there are feveral Scrip-
tures , ufually infifted upon , for the proof of
the lawfulnefs of this practice of Infant*
baptifm , which thbii wilt find in the infuing
Treatife, either not at all,or very little touched
upon, the reafon is , not that I judged them
impertinent or inefficient for the proof of that
pra&icei I judge they are full and pertinent,
and fome of them, efpecially that i Cor, 7; 1 4.
as managed in fpecial by Mr. Baxter , unan-
fwerable > but know, that I do but glean after
others , and therefore have efpecially infifted,
both in the Arguments I have managed , and
Objections I have anfwered , upon fuch
Scriptures as have been more briefly touched
upon
lie Preface.
upon by them ', and would defire the Reader,
as he hath oppgrtunity, to take what they have
laid from thofe Scripture , for his more full
confirmation ( fuppoiing any doubts may yet
remain in his mind ) in the Truth that I,
in common with them , have pleaded
for.
Secondly, Another thing ( Reader ) that 1
would acquaint thee with is this , That
whereas 'tis poffible thou mayeli have met with
iome Objections which are not here taken
notice of * the reafon is , becaufe 1 judged
them no way able to counter-ballance ( in the
judgments of an$ of a competent underftand-
ingj the evidence produced , in confirmation
of what I have affcrted , or elfe becaufe they
wholly concern others and not my felf, in the
way I have proceeded in,
That which I would *requeft of thee
is,
Firfi, That thou take the three fubordinafe
Propoiitiof>$ in that order I have hid them
down,and*ful!y weigh the rirft before thou pro-
ceed to the fecond , and then throughly weigh
the fecond before thou proceed to the third,
to be fatisfied in the truth of the firft will
conduce not a little to thy entertaining the
evidence produced for the confirmation of the
fecond i and to be well eftablifhed in thefe two,
will much facilitate thy imbracement of the
lait,
the Preface.
laft, wherein the main Truth contended for is
contained.
Secondly, Let me requeft a favourable con-
struction of what weaknefs appears in the
management of the whole Debate i thou wilt
foon find , that the Difcourfe here put into thy
hand comes abroad in a very mean drefs , and
not without many incongruities in expreflion,
and too many interruptions in the fence >, I am
unwilling to trouble tiiee with an account how
it is come thus to pafs , let me only fay t it
comes to thee, not only through the hands of
a Printer and Coxredfror , but of more than one
Tranfcribcrs : I have only to requeft on rny
own behalt , that thou wilt have fo much
Charity for me , as to judge , it went out of
my hands compleat , as to fence, though not
cloathed with fuch apt and fit expreffions as
it might have been i on their behalf I fhall
requeft, that thou wilt not lay the blame up-
on any one of them , they have all their re-
fpeclrive (hares in it: I hope thou wilt befo
ingenious, yea, fo wife for thy felf , as to look
at the- ftrength of the Argument, and not at
the defects of the terms.
Thirdly, I have only this further to requeft
of thee, That thou wilt joyn with me in fer-
vent prayers unto God , like unto whom none
can teach, that he will lead both thy felf and
me
Ihe Freface.
me into all truth , and through the true
knowledge and pradtice thereof, unto that
Aflcmbly of the Firftborn, among whom
no conteft, of what kind foever, have any
place.
Jan. 20.
167©.
Tbixe, in the Service
of the Goftel,
Jofeph Wbijton.
Reader,
Reader, leaft thou flhouldefr either not
underftand , or mifunderftand the Authors
fence in thefe paflages, wherein thefe Efcapcs
have ilipt the Preis ( which are fomewhat
more than is ufual in Co fmall a Treatife as
this is ) thou art defired before thou readeft
to correct them with thy Pen.
In the Preface, page 7. line ri. read incurring.
pAgs inline 1 .blot out, in aiter ages; p.i8.1. t4fbr that r.
thefe arc: p.ip.l.z^.put a full (lop after family ',9.42.1 1 ?.r»
indefinite: p.44-l.2o.beforetheaddall: p^.l.z.f. never
r.now: p. 49.F.ia.r.fr®ni: p.52.1.io.f party r parts: p.$$
l.zo.f.the r. no : ^$7.1.29. blot out verfe 12. p 68 1 18. r.
inconfiflent : p. 76.1,31- f.as r, it : p^ 78.1.2 4. f.wer. he :
p. 84.U7. blot out that ; 1. 14. r general : p. 87. l.i. f.l r . it 5
p P3.1 io.r.his : p.p4»isw: 108.I.10 f.father r.faith : 1.2o#
r.that; p ii2.1.i.bloiouthirafeif;p.ii3.1.i4:r.therhoufes:
p.i2?.1.28,blotoutone: p. 1 ^.1 24.r. concerns ; p. 142.
blot out part of the fecond and third li vie t p. 147.I n.blot
out to fay that; p. 1 49.I i9.blotoutall; p. 1 5;, 1. 2 j.r. care-
fully: p.i79.1.rx r.political : p. 184.I.9 f,wair.as: pipy
1.3i.f.butr. that ? p.zo3.1.ult.r. their : p.2i2.l.i7.r not : p,
2 1(5,1.28. r.offert: p,i4i.l.i7 r.when , fo p 245.I.24P.245
l.n f. generally r.Gentiles ; p, 24p4.p. f.or r.and ; p.258,
1. 18. r. contradiflincYion . p. 172. before only add not ;
p.273.f,therer.thefe ; p.20<5 1, 2.6. r. deduced.
There are,its true,fosne other miftakes of a lefs moment,
which the Reader will cafily perceive and reclifie as he
goes along, or if he difcern them not he is in nodangtr to
be prejudiced by them ; as fometimesthe plural number
put for thefingular, fometimesthe Angular for the plural.
The Reade s mufl alfo take notice of a miftake in the Fo.
lio'f,the Folio's from i5^.to 177. being wanting,where yet
nothing is wanting in the Book of what was intended.
Infant'
CO
Infant-Baptifm frortif Heaven,
and not of Men.
chap. r.
The main Vropofition^ dif cuffed in the en&
fining Treatijejaiddewn } in order to the
confirmation of which , three fub ordinate
Prop options prof oj ed. The grand Promt fe
rf the Covenant, wherein Godpromifed
to be a God to Abraham and his Seed in
their Generations largely explained. The
full mind and meaning of God in that
Fromife held forth in five Conclnfons.
The fence in which the fir fi fub ordinate
Propofition is to be under fiood^declared.
Propofition.
Hat it is the ttiU ef our Lord Jefui
Chrifk, that the Infant-feed of one of
both believing fartnts fhonld be baptU
zjed.
For the mote full evidencing the truth affirm-
ed in this grand Propofition, I (hall lay do wi
B and
CO
and fpeak t3 three fubordinare Propofitions ,
which being diftin&ly and fully proved, the
truth of our grand Proportion, will as certain-
ly and infallibly be inferred, and concluded from
th ern,as the falvation of any particular Believer
can be inferred and concluded from that univer-
fal Piopopolition ( viz.. ) He that believes fhaU
be favtd.
Thefe fubordinate Propositions are ,
Firft, That when Gody at his firjl entring Cove-
uant with Abraham, fromifedto be a Cod to
him and te his Seed, be intended bis natural
Seedy as the firft and next Subytts of that
Promife.
Secondly, That this Promife in the fence after
to bedeclar'd, is by God himfeif fettled upon
and confirmed u believing Gentiles.
Thirdly, lhat all thofe that are under , or are
the actual Subjeils of ihst Fremift, ought,
according to the will of Cbfiifti to be b*$*
tized.
To begin with the firft : Viz.
i. That when Ged at his firft entering Co-
venant with Abraham^ promifed to be a God to
him and to his Seed,he intended his natural Seed
as the firft and next Sub jeds of that promife.
Abraham's naturalSccd were intended as the im-
mediate Subjects of that Promife,as made to him
igjth icfcrcncc te bis Seed ; The Promife I hare
kru icferencc
C3)
reference unto,is that in Gen. 17.7. where note,
that I do not fay that they are the only, nor yet
the principal Subjects of that promife , but the
immediate and firft fubjedfrs , the promife in the
letter of it did immediately and primarily re*
fpeel them.
Now that the fence and meaning of this Pro-
poii tion may more fully appear, and all miftakes
about it be obviated and prevented , I frail en-
quire into three things with reference to that
Promife.
Firft, Who are intended in that term Seed,
according to the true and full acceptation of it
in that promife.
Secondly, Under what notion, or in what ca-
pacity Abraham is to be contldered as receiving
that promife, or having that promife made to
him by God.
Thirdly, What is the true intent of that pro-
n/iic , in regard of the extent, and latitude on
the one hand, and the limitations on the other.
For the firft, We may obfeive that theScri-
turc fpeaks of a twofold feed of Abraham.
1. There is his natural Seed.
2. There is his fpiritual or myftical Seed.
I (hall fpeak to this term Seed, in the lat-
tet notion of it , in the firft place , namely,
as it intends or fignifieth. Abrahams fpiri*
tual or myftical feed , and thus by feed we
are to undeiftand Chrift rnyftical , or whole
Chrift, as I! may fo fpeak, including both
£ z Chiilt
(4)
Chrift himfclf as Head, and the whole univerfal
Church, confifting both of Jews and Gentiles, as
the Body : Thus this term Seed is taken, Gal.%.
1 6. When God made promife to Abrabamfo faith
wtjo thy feeds ^ as of many, but to thy feed, which
is Chrifi * id eft, Chrift myftical ; and thus the
Gentile-Profelites under the firft Teftament,Ser-
vants bought with money,or born in the houfe,
were accounted for Abraham's feed \ all thofe
that were admitted into fellowlhip with the
people of God in the Covenant , and benefits,
bleflings and priviledges of it ,~ how or by what
means (bever they came to have their admiffion,
were accounted for Abraham % feed, and had the
aclrual enjoyment of the good of that Covenant
( I mean fo many as did a&ually enjoy it ) as
Abraham's feed , by vertue of this Promife , /
will be thy God, and the God of thy feed : So be-
lieving Gentiles, or any other, who with them
have admiffion into the Covenant, are accounted
for [Abrahams feed s all that inherit the good
promifed, inheriting of it, under that notion, as
his feed , by vertue of that forementioned Pro-
' mife ; and thus the natural feed of Abraham
in another fenfe were his myftical feeds the
whole myftical body of Chrift made up, as I
havefaidjboth of Jews ancNkruiles, is the teed
here intended: And this fpiritual or myftical
feed of Abraham falls under a two fold confide**
radon.
I. As vifible and denominative.
2« As in vifible and real*
The
C5)
The Apoftle gives us this diftribution of A*
brabams iced, Rom. 9. 6. AU are not Ifratlthat
are of lfrael,&c. that is, all that are of the my*
ftical body of Chrift as vifible, are not really
and truly of his body myftical as invifible i the
vilible body of Chrift is of a larger extent than
his invifible ; 'tis all one as if the Apoftle had
faid, fome arc vilible , and denominatively the
feed of Abraham^ who yet are not truly and in-
ternally his feed : That this is the meaning of
the Apoftle , is evident from the following ver-
fts ; of which place more hereafter. Hence this
term feed is to be underftood fometimes of his
feed as vilible and denominative, fometime of his
feed as invifible and real : in the former fence
we are to undeiftand it in the place forementi-
oned, Galat. 3. 16. Ey Chrift we arc to under-
stand the myftical body of Chrift as vifible, as is
evident, becaufe 'tis by Baptifm that the feveral
members are incorporated into, and united unto
the body of Chrift, as here fpoken of.
Now Baptifm doth not properly incorporate
into the body of Chrift as invifible , but as vili-
ble > in the latter fence we are to underftand it,
Rom.y.S. Seed here we are to. upderftand of the
ele&, and the meaning is, that all they that are
the children of the flefh are not elected, and in
that refpect net the Children of God, nor ac-
counted for the feed.
Some that are the children of the neffe are the
children of God, and are accounted for the feed,
but all that arc the children of the flefh arc not
the children of God, nor accounted for the feed ;
B 3 that
CO
that is in this (hid notion and confident ion of
this term feed , as it fignitieth the true internal
and invifible feed of Abraham.
Children of God and Seed here are , termini
convertibileS)Gor\vttt'\b\c terms : now as perfons
arc denominated the children of God, either in
regard of their vifible and external appearing fo
to be, or in regard of their really and intern jlly
being fuch j ( faith Chrift , %eIU not meet to takg
the children! bread and give it to dogs J it's
meant of the things of the Gofpel , primarily
appertaining to the Jews, as yet the Covenant-
people of God : Now Chrift calls them, indefi-
nitely considered, children, that is children of
God ; when as it appears by their io general af-
ter-reje&ion , but few of them were really and
internally the children of God.
So fome are the feed of Abraham, and fo to be
accounted , in regard of their vifible and out-
ward appearing fo to be, who yet are not really
and internally his feed.
Others ate not only vifibly, and in regard of
an external appearance the feed of Abraham^
but are internally and really fo: Of thefe lat-
ter, this term Seed, in this place, is to be under-
fiood -, the children of the promife are account-
ed for the Seed, that is, they, and they only arc
internally the Seed of Abraham, I mean his (pi-
ritual and onyftical feed , for in that fence this
term Seed is here to be taken.
Secondly, There is Abraham's natural Seed >
only for preventing miftakes. Note,
That though I diftinguifih between Abrahams
fpiiitual
(7)
fpiritual and natural Seed, yet the difference be-
tween them is only rcfpe&ive * thefamepcr-
ions might be,and in refpeel: ofmany were both
his natural,and alfo his fpiritualSeed i of which
more after: This being noted, I fay, there is
Abraham's natural Seed s and this phrafe y
Abraham's natural Seed, may be taken two
wayes.
i . As ilgnifying his Children defcending im-
mediately from his own loins j as it is faidof
lfhmad he was Abrahams feed, Gtn. 21.13. He
is thy feed, faith God to Abraham, fpeakmg of
lfljmatl ; and the like may be faid of all his other
children, they were his natural feed.
2. This phrafe may be taken as iignifying his
whole race or pofterity , or all thofe that did
mediately dtfeend from him in after ages : thus
Gen, 15. 18. Vnto thy feed , faith God , have I
givtn tbii land\ it is meant of his race or poite.
rity, or his feed mediately defcending from
him.
Secondly, Under what notion, or in what ca-
pacity Abraham is to be conlidered, as receiving
this promife from God.
1 a«fwer , That Abraham is to be coafidered
both as a natural and alio as a fpiritual father, or
both as a natural Father,and as the Father of the
faitkful. That God did look on Abraham as gi-
ving him this promife as the fathet of the faith-
ful, is evident from Rem. 4. 1 1, 12,13. and fomfr
have thought that he was eyed and looked upon
only under that notion and in that capacity » but
£ 4 that
(8)
"hat he was not only looked upon as the father
ci the faithful, but as a natural father, is evident
fry this Argument.
U Abraham's natural feed were intended as
the immediate and next fubje#s of this promife,
and that as fuch, then Abraham as receiving this
promife , or having this promife made to him
with reference unto them , mull needs be eyed
tnd looked upon as a natural father > but the
•ormer is true, therefore the latter » the confe-
rence in the major propofition , cannot be de-
fied ; for if God intended Abrahams natural
Teed as fuch, that is, as his natural feed, then he
rruft needs eye Abraham as a natural father , as
making this promife to him : Now that he did
ntend Abraham's natural feed, will, /doubt
not, be fufficiently evident by the proof of this
jtirft propofition ; and that they were intended
as his natural feed is evident , becaufe in refpeft
of fome of them, they could be looked upon un-
der no other notion , they could not be, looked
upon as his fpiritual feed , for fuch they were
not, whether we refped ele&ion or actual faith,
take it of IJhmael , he was neither eledted , nor
had a&ual faith > as for what fome think con-
cerning his future repentance 'tis wholly
groundlefs , we having, no intimation of it
throughout the whole Scripture > but the con-
trary is intiraated> or rather plainly implied in
X hat Rom. 9 . Now if he ( and 'tis like the fame
Was the cafe of fome at leaft of Abraham's Sons
t>y Keturah) could not be looked upon as Abra-
fam's fpiritual feed, he muft needs belooked up-
on,
en, under that very notion and confederation, as
his natural feed, and as fuch was intended as one
fubjedt of that promife : And whereas (bme
think that the Apoftle, Rom. 4. expounds this
promife as made to Abraham only as the father
of the faithful , 'tis a great miftake.
That he was eyed as the father of the faithful
is readily granted > but that he was eyed only as
fuch a father is denied, and is not in the lealt in-
timated by the Apoftle in that place : But not
to (lay on this, it is fufficiently'evident, that as
Ahrsbam fuftained that two-fold relation , viz.
of a natural and ot a fpintual father , fo he was
eyed under both notions , as receiving this pro-
mife , on the behalf or with reference to his
feed.
Thirdly, What is the true intent of this pro-
mife, in regard of the extent and latitude on the
one hand, and the limitation on the other.
Before Zanfwerthis Queftion, let me only
premife , that the true [determination of this
Queftion conduceth not a little ( if I miftake
not ) to the clearing up and determining the
truth pleaded for,as the not right underftanding
the true intent of this promife in the regards
mentioned , hath been one eonfiderable caufe of
fa many rejecting the truth we plead for , and
their too ready imbracing of the opinion we op-
pofe : Therefore I dellre, that what I have to
fay in anfwer to the Queftion, may be diligently
attended to.
Firft
(io;
Firft then, for the intent of this promife, in
regard of the extent and latitude of it, take it in
thefe two particulars.
I. That under this term Seed in this pro-
mife.the whole feed ot Abraham, whether natu-
ral or myitical, are comprehended : hence though
1 fay his natural feed, as afore exprtfTed , wcle
firftly and immediately intended as the hrft and
next fubje&s of this promife > yet not exclu-
ding any other, who according ro Scripture ac-
count were to be reckoned unto Abraham as his
feed : As we are not to interpret this term Seed
cf Chrift perfonally, fo as to exclude his myiti-
cal body \ nor ot his myitical body , invilibiy
and internally confidertd , fo as to exclude any
that are of his myftical body, as externally and
vifibly confidered > nor of his myftical body,
whether vifible or invifible, to the excluding of
his natural feed, whether immediate or mediate :
So on the other hand,wc rouit not limit it to his
immediate feed, to the excluding of his mediate,
nor to either, fo as to exclude his myitical feed,
but we are to underitand it in its full latitude
and extent, as comprehending and including his
whole Cccd.
That Abrahams natural feedvas immediately
proceeding from his own loins , were intended,
will appear by the proof of this iirft propofition,
and is the only thing there to be proved s that
his whole race and pofterity as mediately de-
fending from him , were is tended (hall be
granted*
That
That Abrahams- fpiritual or myftical feed
were intended is fuificiently evident, as from the
denomination they bear of Abrahams feed * (6
by their inheriting all the good of the Covenant
of Grace, as Abraham's feed, by vcrtue of this
very promife* as will more fully appear by the
proof of the fecond proposition * fo that, I fay,
this term Seed is to be underiiood in fuch an ex-
tent and latitucfe, as to take in and comprehend
Abrahams whole feed \ but this I fay , that his
natural feed were rkftly and immediately in*
tended,as the ririt and next fubjeds of that pro*
mife.
2. Which Idefirewith the like care may be
attended to : This promife, as made to Abra-
hams whole feed, was made to them in their re-
fpe&ive generations, under which phrafe, their
generations , we *nufl underftand Parents , and
their Children immediately defcending from
their own loins : fo that the promife runs to
A brahams feed in their generations, that is, to
all his feed, and to their refpe&ive natural feed
in conjunction with thcmfclves.
Secondly, We may confider the intent of this
promife, in regard of the limitations of it ; and
thus this promife had a twofold limita-
tion.
i. It had a limitation in regard of the pcr-
fons actually interefted in it.
2. In regard of the continuance of that their
intereft in> and their aftual poffeffion and injoy-
ment
(12)
rocnt of the good of the promife they were be-
fore interefted in.
1. Then I fay , this promife was given to
Abraham under a limitation , in regard of the
perfons adrually intereiGfcd in it > and thus it was
limited to Abrahams feed in their refpedtive
generations, including, as before, parents and
their immediate children \ my meaning is, that
this promife taken as a definite promife made to
Abraham , with reference to his feed dittribu-
tively taken, that is, as they were feverally and
each in particular intended in it, fo it did reach
to and take in only Abrahams fad in their re-
fpedive generations, they and their immediate
children.
It's true, as it was an indefinite promife made
to Abrahams natural feed, coile&ively or gene-
rally taken, fo it had refpedt vnto his whole race
and poftenty, whether mediately or immediate-
ly defcending from him > but I fay, take it as a
definite promife made to Abrahams feed , di-
fhibutively or particularly taken : fo it was
made only to each of them refpe&ively in their
generations i that is, ro them and their imme-
diate children. To explain my meaning , take
for inftance any parent that was related to A-
hraham as one of his feed » let Ifaac be the
inftance: Ifaac was one of Abraham's feed,
and as fo related to Abraham was under this
promile, That God would be a God to him in his
generations ; Now as in this phrafe, his genera-
tions, Ifaac , and his children immediately de-
fcending
(13)
fcending from him in afto ages, were perfonally
included, or particularly intended in it, it was to
Jfaac , as Abraham's feed, in his generations,
to him and to his immediate children : As this
promife is to be underltood in the extent men-
tioned, as including parents and children i Coit
is not to be inlarged beyond what was the
true intendment of God in it. Now though
God made it to each of Abraham's fed , whe-
ther immediately defcending from his own
loins,or otherwife ftanding related to him, as his
feed in their generations, yet his intendment was
not, that all that mould fucceffively, in follow-
ing ages,defcend from them re fpe lively, mould
be included as joynt fubje&s with them of this
promife, fo as to claim, by vertue of their rela-
tion unto them, a joynt right and title to the
ptomife with them i his intendment only was,
that his feed in their generations, that is, pa-
rents, and immediate children , mould be ac-
counted as joynt fubjeds of this promife > and
in this regard this promife was one and the fame,
or ran in one and the fame tenour to Abraham,
and to.his feed,only allowing to Abraham iome-
thing of preheminence ( hereafter to be explain-
ed ) above any of his feed > but otherwife the
promife, for the fubftance of it, was one and the
fame,or ran in one and the fame tenour to both i
for the promife was to Abraham and his feed i
which promife, as a definite promife made to
him, with reference to his natural feed, ditiri-
butively taken, extended no further than to his
natural feed , immediately defcending from his
own
Cm)
own loins , and was not to his whole race and
poftcrity, no not by Ifaac and Jacobs as many
feem to have very much miftaken, to the no lit-
tle obfcuiing the truth we now plead for : I ft ill
grant that the promife, as an indefinite promife,
had refped to his whole race and pofterity , and
that not only by Ifaac and Jacobs but Ijhmael
and his Sons by Keturah : but yet as a definite
promife, as before expreft, it extended no fur-
ther than to his own immediate children , even
jfas?£4rimfelf had not an a&ual intereft in this
promife in his infancy, as he was one of Abra-
ham's natural pofterity, but as he was included
in the promife as made to lfaac ( one of Abra-
ham's feed ) in his generations •, and in the very
fame tenour the promife runs to Abrahams
feed , That as God was a God to Abraham and
his natural feed, fo he would be a God to them
and their natural feed, that is, to them in their
generations : But that's the firft limitation of
this promife made to Abraham ^with reference to
his feed.
2. This promife was given unto Abraham
under a limitation, in regard of the continuance
of his feeds intereft in,and their a&ual poiTtflion
and injoymentof the good promifed , that they
had afore an intereft in j and thus it was limit-
ted both to the feed and their rcfpe&ive genr-
rations, as they fliouldtrecome, and continue to
be Abraham's myftical 01 fpiritual feed, through
their perfonal entring into, and walking in the
ftepsof thefajth and obedience of their father
jitrabsm.
Take
('5
Take ljaac , he was one of Abraham's na-
tural iced, and as fuch was intended in this pro-
mife, That God would be a God to him in his
generations ; that is,as before expreiTed,to him,
and to his immediate children , but now the
continuance of his intcreii in, and actual enjoy-
ment of the good of the premife , as grown up
to years of maturity, did depend upon, and nc-
cclTanly require his perfonal acceptation and
performance of the conditions ot the Cove-
nant , into which he had, as one of Abraham's
natural feed, ad million in his infancy s hence his
childrens actual intereit in , and right unto the
promifc ( which was in part the good of the
promife, as made to him ) depended upon his
myttical relation to Abraham , an<3 not mcerlf
upon his natural relation to Abraham.
For if fo be he had not accepted of, and per-
formed the conditions of the Covenant, his
children had wholly loft that their right to and
intereit in the promifej which was granted unto
them with himfclf , as included in his generati-
ons.
And hence it wiH undeniably follow, that all
Abraham's natural race and polterity by ljaac
and Jacob.htld their interett in, and right to the
promi(eY and enjoyed the good promiied, either
as Abrahams myftical feed, or as included in the
generations of thofe that were his mytfical Teed,
for their bare natural relation to Abraham was
not enough to preferve their own intereft , nor
convey a right to and intcreii in the proaiife to
their children*
And
(1*3
And from all it will follow , whichldcGre
may be diligently obferved , that the cafe of
believing Gentiles , fuppofing the promifc to
run in the fame extent and latitude to them
that it did run in to the natural pofterity of
Abraham ( as I doubt not , through di-
vine affiftance , (hall be made evident ) that it
doth.
And the cafe of the Jews, or natural pofte-
rity of Abraham, is one and the fame, in re-
gard of their own and their childrens right to,
and intereft in the promife : the natural poste-
rity of Abrahamyoi the Jews,when once grown
up , held their intereft in , and right to the
promife, not barely as his natural pofterity, but
as accepting of , and performing the conditions
of the Covenant, fo far,as not abfolutely to dif-
anul that their intereft in it , and confequently
as Abrahams myiucal fecd,and as fuch they con-
veyed a right to, and intereft in the fame Cove-
nant and Promife, themfelves were under to
their children.
And the fame is the cafe of believing Gen-
tiles, they have a right to, und intereft in the
promife,as accepting of,and performing the con-*-
ditions of the Covenant, and as fo doing,convcy
an intereft in, and right to the fame Covenant
and Promife, they themfelves are under, to their
children, by vertue of this promifc as made unto
Abraham, with reference to his feed in their ge-
nerations.
The truth of what is now afferted concerning
the extent and limitations of this promife, will
I
07J)
I doubt notfufficiently appear when I come to
the proof of the fecond Propolition.
The ium of what hath been hicherto faid,take
in bncfin thefe rive Conclufions.
r irlt, That when God entied Covenant with
Abraham, and promifed to be a God to him and
his feed in their gcnerations,he intended,accord-
ing to the full latitude and extent of that pro-
roife, his whole feed, whether Jews or Gentiles,
grown perfonSjOrinfantSjall thofe who, accord-
ing to the Scripture account , fhould bear
the denomination of Abraham's feed, how, or
by what means foever that denomination was
applicable unto them , were comprehended un-
der this term Seed.
Secondly, Although thepromife extend to,
and ought to be interpreted of Abraham's
whole feed, as now expreflTcd, yet God in it had
a peculiar and fpecial regard to his natural Cecd,
whether immediately or mediately defcending
from him.
Thirdly, That the natural ieed, race or po-
fterity of Abraham injoyed an intereft in, and
right to this promife, and together therewith a
Covenant- ftate and relation God-ward fuccef-
tivcly, for fo long time i not barely as his natu-
ral feed, but as his myftical feed ; that is,
through parents fo far performing the conditi-
ons of the Covenant, as to preierve their own
Covenant ftate and relation themfelves, con-
veying to their children the fame intereft in, and
right to the Covenant and Promifes thereof that
themfelves had,
C Fourthly,
C'8)
Fourthly, That in and among the feed of
Abraham , as conildered thefe various wayes
aforementioned, there is a certain number afore
cbofen and elected of God, to whom in a pe-
culiar andfpecial manner, this term Seed is ap-
plicable, and that in regard of their eternal de-
llgnment to enjoy the good promifed , the
whole number of thofe , whom vifibly and de*
nominativcly were to be accounted for Abra-
hams feed , were intended in this promife s yet
the promife was not intended by God infallibly
to-fecure the good promifed to every individual
perfon, who in regard of an external and vilible
denomination, were tebe accounted for his feed,
but there is a certain number chofen of God
from eternity, actually to inherit the good pro-
mifed, who in time 3rc faringly wrought upon,
and thefe, in a fpecialand peculiar manner, are
intheefteemof God accounted for the feed.
Fifthly, That yet they were the natural feed
of Abraham, as immediately defcending from his
own loins , who Were intended in this promife,
as the next and immediate fubje&sof if , and
that the natural Cccd of Abraham intended in
this firft Propofltion.
And that is the thing that I (hall now apply
my felf to the proof of.
CHAP*
c*o
CHAP. II.
ibe truth of the fir ft Tropofition, as before
explained^ evidenced two wayes,
i. More generally ^ by fuch Arguments
as will evince^ that all Abraham*/ im-
mediate natural fee d^ one aswell as ano-
ther, were intended as the immediate and
next JubjeSs of this Tromife.
2 . More particularly^] infiancing in
fuch of his natural feed , as upon a fup~
pofition^ of who fe being intended in the
frontije, it will neoeJJ'arily follow, that
all his natural feed were in likf manner
intended, and proving that they were
indeed intended by God in that Fro*
wife*
T
Hat when God,at his fcrft entring Covenant
with Abraham, proroifed to be a God to
him and his feed, intended his natural feed, as
immediately defcending from his own loins, as
the immediate and next fubjedte of that pro-
mife,may be evinced two wayes;
i. More generally.
2. More particularly.
C % ■• More
(ao)
h. More generally; And thus I {hail only
offer a two -fold Argument.
The firft (hall be taken from the Promife it
felf, as taken according to tfce literal and molt
proper fence and fignirication of thofe words it
is expreft in, and it is this :
What God fpeaks unto men ought to be in*
terpreted and underftood according to the li-
teral and mod proper fenfe and tigni heat ion of
thofe words he expreffeth himfelf in , unlefs
there be fome neceiTary Reafon enforcing a re-
ceflion from that literal and moil proper fence
and (ignification of his words.
But according to the literal arid mod proper
fence and (ignification of the words of this Pro-
mife, now made to Abraham his natural feed,
immediately defcending from his own loins,and
that univerfally one as well as the other muft
be intended , as the immediate and next fub-
je&s of it, and there is no Reafon enforcing our
receffion from that literal and moil proper fence
and (ignification of his words : Therefore we
ought to ioterpret and understand them, as in-
tending his immediate natural feed , as the im-
mediate and next fubje&s of that Promife.
When God faid to kbrabam , He would be a
God to him and to bis feed in their generations,
furely the literal and molt proper fence and
(ignificat^onof the words, wherein the Promife
is expreffed,muft needs lead him to apply it as to
himfelf, fo to his immediate natural feed , and
ghat univerfally.
It's
f 31 )
It's true,God promifed to Abraham, Thaf he
would maty bim the Father of many Nations i
and doubtlefs t\braham did undcrftand rhc Pro-
mife, as reaching and taking in all thofe he
(hould (Main the relation of a father unto.
But no Reafon could be drawn from the
words of the Promife it fclf , why either Abra~
bam, or any other iince, {hould undferftand it, as
iniending his remote or adopted feed, to the ex-
cluding of his own natural feed, as immediately
defcending from him.
Now that what God fpeaks ought to be in-
terpreted, as before expreit, cannot be doubted
by any.
And therefore all that poflibly can beobjed>
ed, for the invalidating this argument, is, That
there is a neccflity of interpreting and under-
ftanding this Promife,asnow made to Abraham,
differently from what the literal and proper
fignirication of the words feems to import;
Whether there be any fuch neceffity (hall be con-
fidered by and by.
In the mean time let it be obferved , that we
have the letter of the Promife on our fide , as to
the interpretation put upon it.
The fecond Argument (hall be taken from
Abraham's applying of the fcal or token of that
Covenant* whereof the Promife, under conside-
ration, was a principal part,to his immediate and
natural feed, and that univerfally to one as well
as to another , and that under that very notion
and confideration, as the feal and token of the
Covenant.
C 3 Hence
Hence I argue,
If Abraham^ according to the will and ap-
pointment of God , did apply the feal or token
of that Covenant ( wherein the Promife , un-
der confidcratior? , was one fpeeial Article on
Gods part ) to all his immediate natural fed>
to one as well as to the other, and that under
that very notion and contention , as the feal
or token of the Covenant, then God in that
Promife muft needs intend all his immediate na-
tural feed, as the Subjects of it : but the former
is true,therefore the latter.
The Aflumption fure cannot once be qucftion-
cd by any that have read over the Book of Ge-
ntps : yet exabundanti.
Let me touch upon the proof of it in the fc-
vcral branches or claufes of it : It contains three
tranches.
I. That Abraham did apply the feal or token
of that Covenant, wherein this promife is con-
tained , unto all his immediate natural feed : If
that term Seal offend any, let them keep only to
theother word token > it's all one as to my pre-
fentpurpofe. That Circumcifion was the feal
or token of the Covenant, that God now entred
inro with Abraham and his feed , is part all
doubt \ Yisexprefly called, the lokfnof the Co-
venant, (jen.17.11. Te Jhall circumcife the fore-
skin of your fiejhy and it jhall be a tokfn of tht Co-
Vrnant between me and you. A token of the Co-
venant: Of what Covenant? Why, of that,
nodoubtj now eftabltfhed with Abraham, and
his
C*0
his feed in their generations : and that Abraham
did apply this token of the Covenant to all his
narural feed, isevidenr, partly from Gods Com-
mand y read that Gen. 17. 9,-10,11,12,13.
partly from Abraham's practice y- mention is ex-
prclly made of his ctrcumciiing of Ijhmsel and
Lfaic, verlc 23 with Gen 21.4.
But fome will fay , There's is no mention of
his circumcilinghis Sons by Kcturah.
To t hat 1 anfwer, No more is there mention
made of Jjc^'scircumcilion, nor of his twelve
Sons ctrcumcilion, and yet (hall it be quefiioned,
whether they were circumcifed or no? The
command of God engaging it and the teftimony
that God gives of Abrahams fa.thtulnefs , and
his circumcifing all his male fcrvants , is fuper-
abundant evidence that he did circumcife them,
though their circumciiion be not mentioned ; So
that it's undeniabie, that Abraham did apply the
leal or token of the Covenant to all his Seed,
immediately defcending from his own loins.
2. That Abraham did apply this feal or token
of the Covenant to his lecd , under that very
notion and consideration as the feal or token of
it , this is evident thus:
Look under what notion God commanded it
to be applyed, under that notion and contidera-
tion Abraham did apply it ; That Abraham did
apply it under that notion as the feal or token of
the Covenant, as he was commanded, is unque-
ftionable, from the forementioncd teitimony that
God gave of him.
C 4 Now
Now that God did command #it to be applyed
Under that notion and confider ation, is evident,
becaufe in the Command, concerning the appli-
cationofit, he calls it the Covenant , illyCm-
«*** fhaUbeinyour fiejhi that is, the token of
my Covenant, and that as the token of it.
3- That what Abraham did was according to
the will and appointment of God , this is pair
doubt by what is already (aid i Abraham a<2ed
in circumciiing his Children according to the
exprefs command he had received from God j fo
that the Atfumption is in every branch and
claufe of it undeniable.
Secondly, For the Confequence in the Major
Propofition, viz. That in as much zs Abraham
did apply the feal or token of the Covenant, as
now exprefled, itmuft needs follow, that God
in this Promife did intend his immediate natural
feed, asthernrft fubjc&sof it : The validity of
this Confequence, if any (hall queftionit , will
appear thefe three wayes.
Firft, From the famenefs of the word uftd in
the Promife and in the Command , concerning
the application of the feal: The Promife is, 7o
thee and to thy Seed; the Command is, Ibou
Shalt tberefortkeep my Covenant , thou and tby
Seed. J
Now who cli once imagine , that this term
S^€d fcould be ufed reiiri&ively in the Promife,
as intending only one or more of Abrahams
Children ; exclufive of the reft , and univer-
Ully
(25)
rally in the Command, as intending all his Chil-
dren.
That it is to be underflood univcrfally in the
Command,is part all doubt •, God explains him-
ftlf in the very next words , Every Man child
amongji you Jlsati be ciratmcifed.
Now thole that (hould take this term Seed
reftri&ively in the Promife , had need for their
acquitment in the light of God for their fo doing,
have as clear a warrant from God as Abraham,
had,to take it in an unlimited fence in the Com-
mand i whether they have fo or no, concerns
them to look to it.
Secondly , It appears from hence , becaufe
otherwife the feal or token of the Covenant
(hould , and that according to the appointment
of God, be apylyed to feme, unto whom it fig-
nified and betokened nothing at all ; it fhould
be applyed , and that as the feal or token of the
Covenant, to fome wholly uninterelTed and un-
concerned in the Covenant, of which it was the
feal or token.
Now how remote is it from a rational proba-
bility, that God (hould appoint the token of the
Covenant, and that under that notion and con-
federation , as the token of it , to be applyed to
perfbns neither externally nor internally in-
terefled or concerned in the Covenant, of which
it was the token, let but any fober perfon exer-
cife his reafon , and fee whether there be (o
much as the xemoteft probability of it.j
It's
(16)
It'? true, God might have commanded the
fame thing to have been a&ed upon perfons, un-
der another notion or confederation , for fomc
fpecial end appointed byhimfelf, but that he
thould appoint the fame action, with reference
unto all,and that to be performed under one and
the fame notion and confederation, and yet, that
fome of thefefhould be in Covenant, and others
not at all concerned in it , is a thing not to be
fuppofed by any man , that hath the free life of
his own reafon.
Thirdly, It appears, becaufc in cafe the tea 1
or token of the Covenant had been applyed to
any in the fence afore expreflcd, no way interef-
led or concerned in the Covenanc , nor the Pt&-
mife thereof, then God had fpoken that which
had been a bfolutely falfe , which far be it from
any man, that pretends to Chriftianity, once to
imagine: yet the denying the fame perfons to
be intended in the Promife , that were intended
in the Command , concerning the application of
the feal, doth neceffanly irfcr it. tor pray ob
ferve it : Saith the Lord of Gircumcifior,/* (hall
be tbt toh^n of tbt Covenant between me and you,
Gen. 17. 11. Now had any of thefe male-
children, whofe circumcifion is commanded in
the foregoing verfes , been wholly unconcerned
in the Covenant , then it could not have been a
token of the Covenant between God and therm
and confequently it had been falfe to iay , it
fhould be a token of the Covenant between him
and them : for according to the opinions in this
tirft
f*7)
fiift Propofition oppofed, it was not the token of
the Covenant between God and them, in as
much as the male- children, now intended, were
not in the Covenant , or there was no Covenant
between God and them.
Now for God to command, that every Male-
child amongll f hem (hould be circumcifed , and
then to fay of Circumcifion, as foapplyed, that
it (hould be a token of the Covenant between
him and them, whereas there was fome of thofe
Male-children wholly uninterefled in this Co-
venant , or betwixt God and whom there was
no fuch Covenant , had been abfolutely falfe;
for it was not , it could not podibly be a token
of the Covenant between God and them , be-
tween him and whom there was no Covenant :
there can be no token of a Covenant between
whom there is no Covenant made : But now
faith God, It jhail be a tokgn of the Covenant be-
tween me and them : So that to grant, that Abr a-
bam , according to the will and appointment of
God did apply the feal or token of the Covenant
to all his immediate natural Seed, and that as the
leal or token of the Covenant, and yet to affirm,
that fome of his natural Seed were not in Co-
venant, or not intended in the Fromilcs thereof,
is to afcribe fatthood unto God, or to charge him
with fpeaking what was abfolutely falfe.
And therefore undoubtedly Abrahams
whole natural Seed were intended in the
Fromife , as the immediate and next fubje&s
of it.
Secondly,
(28)
Secondly, Let us inftance in fuch of Abra^
tarn's immediate Children , as upon fuppolition
ot their being intended in the Fromife , under
consideration, it will undoubtedly follow, that
all his immediate Children were in it : and thus
1 (ball inftajice in thefetwo of his Children, that
the Scripture makes more frequent mention of,
viz,* I(bmael and Ifaac ; and I (hail begin with
the latter rirft.
Firlt,That Ifaac was intended in this Fromife,
asoneot theSubje&sof it, is fully evident from
that one paflageof God to Abraham.GeH.2i. 12.
cited and expounded by the Apoftle , Rom. 9.
7 8. Jtfjfaac (kail thy feed be called. We read
in the tenth verfe, Sarahs requelt to Abraham,
to call out Hagar and her Son Ifhmael: Now
this was grievous to Abraham. God had pro-
mifed to be a G#d to him and to his feed : lfh*
mail is one of his Seed \ hence to caft him out,
and thereby disinherit him of the blefling pro-
mifed , . was very grievous to Abraham. Now
Ged to allay Abraham's grief tells him, Though
he (hould anfwer Sarahs requeit , yet in Ifaac
Jhould his Seed be called -y that is, in Ifaac and his
line the Fromife mould have its accomplish-
ment. Though Ifhmael was cad out, and there-
by difinherited of the good promifed , yet the
Fromife (hould (land firm , and receive its full
accompliftiment in Ifaac and his line > which
could not have been , had he not been intended
in the Fromife : had not Ifaac been intended ,
not exclusive of others, butindufiveofhimfelf,
the
(39)
the Promife could not have received its accom-
plifhment in him , but had failed in the ejection
oiljhmad : and hence the Apoftle tells us, That
Abraham (bjourned in Canaan, as a Stranger in
a lirange Land, with Ifaac and Jacob, heits with
him of the fame Promife : Of what Fromife *
Surely of that, wherein God engaged himfelf
to be a God to him, and to his Seed, and to give
him and them the Land of Canaan for an evcr-
laiting poflcllion : both thefe Promifes are joyn-
ed together as one Promife, Gen. 17.6. Now of
this Promife lfaac was an heir with Abraham,
and therefore mult needs be included in it as one
of the Subjects of it.
Secondly, That lflwiael was intended as part
of Abraham's Seed in this Promife,is evident by
this one Conlideration.
Not to multiply, where truth is fufficiently
evident, viz. His ejection out of Abraham's
Family , and his being diimherited of the Co-
venant and Promife thereby.
It's true , his bare ejection out of Abraham's
Family would not demonftrate his being in
Abraham's Covenant , and under the Promifc
thereof, while in his Family he had Servants
in his houfe,who yet might be after caft out, but
that would not conclude them to have had an
intereft in his Covenant : but now as by that his
ejection out of Abraham's Family , he was dif-
inherited of, or ditintereiTed in the Promife, or
was diverted of his right and title to it , doth
undeniably evidence his right and title to it
antece-
antecedent to that his eje&ion » for he could
not be diveftcd or difinherited of that he never
had,or was never an heir unto.
Now that IJhmael , with and by means of his
teje&ion out o( ^Abraham's Family, was diveft-
ed of aright and title he afore had to the Co-^r
venant,and to the promifes thereof^ evident by
thefe two Reafons.
Fiiu\Becaufe his eje&ion was typical of their
eje&ionoutof the Gofpcl Church,and rcje&ion
trom the benefits and bleflings of the Covenant
of Grace,who under a Profdfion of Chriliianity,
or of being the Covenant- people of God , do
adhere to the Law for Righteoufnefs and Life.
That IJhmael's calling out of Abraham's Family
was thus typical , is exprefly aiRrmed by the
Apoftle, Gtf/,4.30. compared with the foregoing
Context.
Now his bare ejection out of Abraham's Fa*
mily , could not have made him a proper type
of the perfons beforcmentioned , in as much as
then there had been no direct Analogy or pro*
portion between the type and antitype. How
his meer calling out of Abraham's Family mould
rcprefent, or forefhew, and predift the ejection
of the perfons forementioned out of the Gofpel
Church, and diveftment of all title to the bene*
fits and bleflings of the Covenant of Grace can-
not be imagined \ for as much as others might
be caft out of Abraham's Family, whofe ejection
was not of my fuch typical figuificition.
Secondly,
(30
Secondly, That Ifhmael, together with and
by means of his ejection out of Abrahams Fa-
mily, was divt (fed of a right and title , which,
while in his houfe , he had to the Covenanr and
promiles thereof, is evident, becaute Sarah, in
her icqucft to Abraham to caft him out , piopo-
fed that as her end, viz. That he might not in-
herit with Ijaac her Son > Gtn. 21. 10. Cajiemt
thti bond woman and hit Jon, for the fon of iht
bond-woman fh*Unot bebtir with my fan , tvtn
withlfaac: And that it was the good promifcd
in this Covenant , that (he de (ires his dishe-
riting of, is evident by Abrahams griefs i had
it been only the temporal po(Tc (lions of Abra-
ham, his not inheriting of which (he propoftth
as her end , indefinng his ejection, there had
been noreafonof Abraham's grief, in as much
as he was under the promife of outward blef-
tings, notwithstanding that his ejection ; Now
there had been no reaion for Sarah , to propofc
that end in her requeft , to have him call out,
unlcfs he had, and would continue to have had,
during his abode in the houfc , a like vilible
right and title to the Promife that Ifaac had,
(he might have de fired his eje&ion for fomc
other reaion , but for that , that he might not
inherit with Ifaac , (he could not rationally do,
it would have been an impertinent reafon , for
h<ir to have dclired his ejection , that he might
not inherit with her own Son , in cafe he had
co right nor title to the promifcd Inheritance,
whillt in the houfe.
For a woman to dcGre her Husband to caft
out
(30
out a Servant out of the family for that reafbn,
that he might not inherit with her own Chil-
dren, when as whether he (hould continue or be
caft out of the family, he could lay no claim to
to the Inheritance, would be ridiculous ; Hence
Sarahs pleading that reafon , or prop®undmg
that end of her requeft , plainly implycs , that
JJhmaely during his abode in Abraham's Family,
had atleaii a vilible right and title to the inhe-
ritance promifed, which would be difanulled by
that his ejection : Hence it is evident, Ifhmael,
as well as Ifaac , was intended in that Promifet
and that both were joynt Heirs to, or Subject
of that Promife,as externally made to Abraham,
with reference to his Seed.
Now then feeing thefc two, viz. IJhmaelwd
Ifaac , were intended , there can be no reafon
imagined, why we (hould fuppofe Abraham's
other Children to be excluded ; for they were
cither elected or not elc&ed > if they were, their
cafe was the fame with Ifaac s, if not, their cafe
was the fame with JJhmatl's *f?and therefore both
J/hmael and Ifaac being intended, there is no
(hew of reafon to fuppofe the other excluded;
but we may partly from the parity of their ca-
fes, With the cafe of the one or the other of thefe
two, and partly from the evidence of the fore-
going Arguments , pofitively coRclude, that all
Abrahams natural Seed,according to the intend-
ment of thisfirft propofition , were intended in
thispromife, as the firft and next fubjedb of it :
but let that fuffice for the proof of the fira\pro-
pofition.
CHAP.
r 33 3
CHAP. III.
ohjcSions againft the firfi fubordinatd
Proportion considered and anfwer-
ed.
THus having feen fomewhat ( for much
more might be produced ) of that evidence
the Scriptures give in, for the confirmation of
this ririt Proportion , I (hall now confider the
Obje&ions i have yet met with, or can poffibly
imagine may be made, that have any appearance
of weight in them, againft the truth hitherto af-
fcrted and pleaded for : That which I plead foy
is this, That God in that grand Promife of the
Covenant , wherein he engaged himfelf to be a
God to Abraham and his feed in their generati-
ons, intended his natural Seed, and that indefi-
nitely one as well as another , immediately pro-
ceeding from his own loins , as the immediate
and next Subjects of it. Now at lead fome (I
(uppofe not all)ofthofe, whofc judgment
and pradice vary from the truth pleaded for
will contend, that this term Seed is to be under-
stood in a retrained fenfe, as only intended of
one or more of Abraham's immediate Children
to the excluding of the reft, and that'it is not
Co be extended 10 all indefinitely. But yet , f
C34)
fuppofc, they are not agreed among themfelves,
which to affign as the proper Subje&s of this
Promife j fome have denied lfaac to be the feed
or part of the feed here intended > others, and
I fuppofe the major part of our oppofers , deny
that JJbmael was inteaded , or ought to be ac-
counted as part of the feed here fpoken of : As
fojj thofe that judge lfaac was not intended in
this Promife, the only ground they go upon, for
ought I have yet met with, isthisSuppofition,
viz. That God made a twofold Covenant with
jibrshatn and his Seed , the one a legal or tem-
poral Covenant , confiding only in temporal
promifes, and requiring only an external obedi-
ence i the other a Covenant of Gr^ce , coniinS
ing of fpiritual promifes,and requiring internal
and fpiritual obedience i and they conceive,
that this Covenant entred with Abraham and
his Seed , mentioned Gen, 17. 7, was only a
legal or temporal Covenant, and that the Co-
venant of Grace is that formerly fpoken of, Gen,
12.3. and again re-elhbliftred with If aac &t
the nineteenth verfe of this feventeenth Chap-
ter: And then the Objection that the perfons
of this perfwafion raife againft our Propofition
in the fenfe given, is to thispurpofe : That this
term Seed is not to be understood in that extent
five fenfe given of it , in as much as this Cove-
nant, mentioned in this feventh verie, was only
a temporal or legal Covenant eftabli&ed with
Abraham , as a natural Father , and his flefhly
feed,andnot the Covenant of Grace, eftabliihed
With him, as a fpiritual Father, *nd with his
fpiritual
C35)
Spiritual feed » now Ifaac being a Child of pro*
mife,and confequently to be accounted of Abra~
barn's fpiritual feed , could not be intended iri
that promife,which alone intended his fkfhly ox
natural feed.
Anfw. I anfwer, That Ifaac in particular Was
intended in this Promife, and that as a. principal
Subject of it , as it refpedfred Abrahams natural
feed, hath been already proved, and as for the
Objection now made, it involves the framers of
it in fuch abfurdities and contradictions , and'
fuppofing it granted , would fo little advantage
the caufe, the promotion of which is in the ul-
timate defign of it aimed at , that it needs no
reply at all ; I fhall therefore only m a diredfc
oppofition to that Suppofition, this Obje&icn is
grounded upon, affirm, that there was but one
Covenant efiablifhed between God and Abra*
bamy and his feed, and that was a Covenant of
Grace , and the very fame for fubftance that be-
lievers are now under, and confequently that
that Promife in Gen. 12. 3. was either a branch
of this Covenant , or rather the very fame pro-
mife with this, under confederation, expretfed
in other terms. And that that Covenant men-
tioned verfe 19. is the fame with this mention-
ed ver. 7. There are fevexal branches of this ge-
neral Afiertion : As,
»
Firft, That there was but one Covenant made
and eftablifhed between God and Ab rah am ,with
reference to himfelf and his feed j I do not fay,
D z that
that there was but one Covenant made with the
feed of Abraham, understanding that term Seed
of hrs Race erPofterity in following ages, but
I fay, there was but one eitablifhed with Abram
bam, wherein himfelfjn common with his Seed,
was concerned * now this appears from the con-
{tant phrafe of Scripture alwayes, where fpeak-
ing of rhe Covenant made with Abraham /peak-
ing in the lingular number, the Covenant , and.
not in the plural, Covenants.
Secondly , I fay , this was a Covenant of
Grace.
Thirdly , That it was the very fame Cove-
nant for fubftance that Believers are now un-
der.
Fourthly, That thatPromifc, Gm. 12. 3. is
one branch of the Covenant now eitablifhed
with Abraham and his Seed, or rather the fame
Promiie with this mentioned, in our ririt Propo-
rtion exprelfed in different terms •, thefe things
1 flullfpeakto hereafter, and the truth of them
will, 1 doubt not, fully appear by the proof of
tkefecond Proportion, and therefore 1 (hall fay
nothing to them at prefent.
Lafily, That the Covenant mentioned verfc
19. is the very fame mentioned verle 7. this is
luoiciently evident to any that will but read the
whole Chapter.In the former part of the Chap-
ter, we read how God promifeth to eitablifh his
Covenant
fB7)
i Covenant with Abraham and his Seed in their
generations, for an everlafting Covenant, that is,
to endure while Abraham Ihould have a Seed
upon earth : Now at verfe 19. the Lord (hews
Abraham, in which of his Seed, and his Line, or
poiterity this Promife Qiould take place, and
have its accomplifhment , and that was Ifaac,
Therefore obferve how the Text runs, And Cod
Jaid, Sarah Jhall bear thee a Son, and 1 r»iU ejia-
blifb my Covenant with him. Mark, here is no
intimation of any other Covenant,diflcrent from
that before mentioned ', he doth not fay, I will
alio make, or I will eftablifh a Covenantor ano-
ther Covenant, but I will ejiablijh my Covenant :
What Covenant ? Doubtlels that before cntred
in with Abraham, with reference to his Seed in
their generations) and this limitation of the
Covenant, as afore made and eftablilhed, with
Abraham, in reference to his Seed in their gene-
rations , unto Ifaac alone, doth plainly imply,
that in the firit eftablilhment of it , Abraham's
whole Seed, as immediately proceeding from his
own loins , were included and intended i tor
what need an explanatory limitation of it , in
regard of the eftablifament thereof, for an ever-
lafting Covenant to Ifaac and his Seed , had it
not been more comprehenfive in the firit pro-
mulgation of it i and it is as if the Lord fhould
fay, Though I have entred Covenant with thee,
and thy Seed after thee, in their generations, for
an everlafting Covenant, and have received and
taken in thy whole Seed , as proceeding imme-
diately from thine own loins, univerfally and
D 3 indc-
<3«)
indefinitely one as well as another , into a Cove-
nant relation , together with thee with my felf,
yet my meaning is, not that this Covenant- rela-
tion between me and thy Seed, (hall be continu-
ed in each of their refpe&ive lines, throughout
their refpedtive generations ; but it is with
Ifaac that I will eftablift my Covenant, and
with his Seed, as the perfon in whom , and in
whofe Seed, my Covenant (hall take place, and
be accomphfted \ though thy whole Seed be in-
tended in the Promife , as the next and imme-
diate Subjects of it , yet the Promife in the full
latitude and extent of it , as it runs to Seed in
their generations, for a Promife to continue fuc-
ceflively throughout all generations , (hall only
take place and receive its full accoaiplifhment in
Ifaac and his Line : But not to fpend time upon
this, that Jfaac was intended in this Promife is
evident beyond all rational contradiction , and
that is all at prefent I contend for*
Qbjett. 2. Secondly, Others, and I fuppofe,
vaftly the major part of our oppofersin the
main truth pleaded for , conceive that it was
Jfaac alone intended as the only Subject of that
Promife, and confequently that fjhmael, and the
other children of Abraham, were excluded from
any right or title to it : And there are three
Qbje&ions made againft our extending that
Promife, to the including and taking in Jfhmady
and the Sons ©f Abraham by Keturab , as the
joynt Subjects with Jfaac of it,
fiift,
(39)
Firft, Say fome, as God promifed to be a Go£
to Abraham and his Seed., Co he promifed the
Land of Canaan for an everlafting pofftffion to
that Seed, to whom he promifed to be a God %
but the Land of Canaan was never given to, nor
intended for,either //&*»**/, ,or any of Abraham's
other Children by Keturah^oi any of their Seeds,
and therefore certainly neither JJhmael^ nor any
of Abraham's Seed by Ketnr ah ,c6uld be intend-
ed in that Promife i for do we think that God
would promife that which he never intended co
give ? or (hall we think that God would pro*
mife the Land of Canaan to all Abrahams Seed,
and yet never mind his promife after, nor regard
to make good what he had promifed,
Anfvv. To that I anfwer two things.
Firft , That, in that any of Abrahams Seed
did not actually potfefs the' Land of Canaan^
nor in that God intended not that they mould
poflefsit , it is no Argument they were not in-
tended in, as the Subje&s of,this grand Promife,
wherein God ingaged to be a God to them in
their generations : This is evident , becaufc
fome , who were undoubtedly the Subjects of
this Promife, never did, nor was it intended by
God , that they mould* a&ually polTefs that
Land; Abraham himfelf, who was tbe prime
and principal party in this Covenant, according
to the letter of it,and consequently the undoubt-
ed Subjed of this Promife, as referring to him-
felf, never had, nor was it intended by God.that
he (hould have the actual poffeffion of this
D 4 Land i
<4o)
Landi fo for If* ac and Jacob, Heirs with him
of the fame Promife, they never had, nor was
it Gods intendment they (hould have, the a&ual
poffcflion of .that Land. But
Two things are replyed to this.
Firft, Though they did not poiTefs k in their
own perfons , yet in their pofterity they did i
their pofterity had the a&ual poffeffion of it,
and God gave it unto them only as a reverfion,
to be poiTclTed by their Children , when the (in
of the Inhabitants was full.
To that I anfwer, It is certain all their pofter
*ity did not poiTefs it , witnefs the whole race
and pofterity of Ifaac defcended by Efatt.
Bat you will fay, Yet fome of their pofterity
did poffefs it, and that was enough to verifie the
Promife unto them, coniidering under what no-
tion it waspromifed> viz. as afore expreiTed, a
feverfion to be enjoyed by their pofterity. ■
To that I anfwer, It is true, and fo for what
appears, the pofterity of any or of ail of hbrz-
hams other Children, (houid have had the joynt
poffcflion with Jfaac and Jacob's pofterity , had
not their Fathers forfeited their own and their
pofterities right and title to the Promife , and
' iheir not inheriting, through an antecedent for-
feiture of the Promife, is no evidence that their
flrft Parents , as immediately proceeding from
'Abraham, were wt intended either in that
or the former grand Promifc of the' Cove-
nant.
Secondly, It is replyed , that though Abra-
ham, Ifaac and Jacob did not, nor was it intend-
ed by God , that they mould in their own per-
fons, at that time, as then upon earth,enjoy the
Land of Canaan, yet there is a time when they
fhall have the perfonal enjoyment of it , they
/hall arife again, and during the thoufand years
reign of Chrill upon earth , (hall have the pro-
mife in the very letter made good unto them.
To that I anfwer , Not to divert to debates
excentrical to .our prefect Queftion ,Tuppofe
that notion prove true , I would fay the fame of
Jjhmatl, and the other Children of Abraham,
both he and they, with their refpe&ive pofteri-
ties , fuppofing their not being finally caft out
from the Covenant , and the Promifes thereof,
through their own or their Progenitors (In, (hall
partake with Abraham, \faac and Jacob in that
their fuppofed felicity, and therefore neither
their not aftual poflcffing , nor Gods intention,
that they (hould not actually poffefs that Land,
will prove, that they were not intended in that
grand Promife, their cafe was no other than the
cafeof feveral others , who were undoubtedly
intended in that Promife,
Secondly, I anfwer, That the Land of Ca-
naan was either a meer temporal good , and the
enjoyment qf it only a temporal mercy , or elle
it
(40
It wa$ * type and pledge of a higher good, viz.
of that City that hath foundations , whofe Ma-
ker and Builder is God '•, and anfwerably taking
it as a type, it was a fpiritual good, and the en-
joyment of it a fpiritual bkffing , and an effen-
tial part of the Covenant ©f Grace, the Land of
Canaan muff "be looked upon under the one or
the other of thefe notions , or under both , ac-
cording to the letter under the former , accord-
ing to the myftical or typical fence under the
latter. Now let our Oppofites tell-us, how or
under what notions they look upon that Land,
the fubjeft matter of that Promife : if they fay
they look upon it under the firft notion, namely,
as a temporal good, a'nd the Jews poffefling of it
only as a temporal blcfling, then, I fay, it was
only an appendant , and not pertaining to the
effenceof the Covenant, and the prcmifeofit
only a definite promife > made to Abraham's
Seed, collectively or generally ^raken , and an-
fwerably the Promife was verified in that 'any
of his Seed, had the poffeffion of it : Indefinite
promifes, as made to any (pedes or forts of per-
sons, collectively considered, are equivalent to
particular prOmifes,and they are verified, in cafe
only fome of that fpecies , cr fort of perfons,
have the good promifed : That this promife of
the Laf d of Canaan , fuppofing it to be only a
temporal promife, rs thus to be taken, is unque-
stionable ffm the way and manner of Gods
performing of it, had it been a promife to A£r*-
ham and his^Seed, diftributively or particularly
taken,it mult have been made good to each par-
ticular
C43)
ticular Subject of the promife , both to Abra-
ham and all his Seed univerfally, which it is evi-
dent it was not. If they fay it was a fpiritual
promife, or the promife of a fpiritual good, a
higher and greater good typified by it : then I
fay,it was of the EfiTence of the Covenant, and
was either in the letter , or in the fpiritual fence
and meaning of if, performed both to Abraham
and to all his Seed in their generations, whether
Ifaac, or Jjhmael, or his Sons by Ketnrah, who
did not through a failure in the performance of
the condition of the Covenant, loofe their right
and title to the promife of if; that is, though
they had not the good promifed it felf in the
letter , yet they had the good typified by that
Land, and principally intended in the Promife :
A further proof of this I need not add than the
Promife it felf confidered, in eonjun&ion with
the faithfulnefs of God in the performance of
his Promife.
Thirdly, If they will (ay, they look upon it
under both notions , which I conceive is moft
agreeable to the mind of God in that Promifei
then I fay as before,'twas as a temporal promife,
only an appendant to the Covenant , as a fpiri-
tual promife of the EiTence of it , andanfwe-
rably was made and made good to Abraham's
Seed, both collectively and diftributively taken,
in the fen te afore opened * from all it evidently
appears, that in that neither ljhmael, nor the
Sons of Keturab, did, norwas it intended by
God , that they (hould enjoy the Land of C*-
naatty
(44)
nactn, it will not follow, that they were not in-
tended in that grand Promife , wherein God
ingageth himfclf, to be a God to Abraham 2nd
his Seed in theic generations , they might be in*
tended in that Promife , and yet not actually
enjoy that Land promifed,as miny others, who
were undoubtedly intended in the former Pro-
rnife^yet never actually in the letter enjoyed the
good of that Promife.
Obji&.^. Say others % If Ifhmatl were in-
tended in this Promife , and received as one of
Abraham's Seed into his Covenant, why doth
Abraham pray fo earnehMy for him, Gen.ij .18 ?
Doth not his praying io earneftly for h>m, at
leaft, ftrongly intimate, he had no right to, or
intereft in the Covenant afore eftabhlhcd with
Abraham, with reference to his Seed > If }fh-
tnad was under the promife of having God a
God to him , what need Abraham pray to earn-
eitly that he might liYfc before God ?
Atf/n** lanfwer, May not a promifed good
be prayed for } Or may not a father pray that
his child may live, grow up}and enjoy the good
of promifes relating to this life, and give com*
fortable difcoveries of his intereft in the Pro-
mifes of the Covenant? Who can quefhon, but
that he may > But the true reafon of Abra-
ham's prayer for Ijhmael , was an intimation
given by God , in thofe promifes made with re-
ference to that child to be born of Sarah , of
what is more plainly after expreffed, that he
(hoald
(45)
ftould be the fpecial Child, in whom, and in
whofe line the Seed (hould be called , that is,
with whom and with whofe Seed the Covenant
mould beettabliflied , according to the full ex-
tent and latitude of thepromifesof it , but this
is no intimation at all , much lefs a conclufive
Argument, that ljhmad was not at prefent taken
into Covenant, and intended in the Promifes of
it , as one of the immediate Subjects there-
of.
Object. 3. And that which by mod of out
Oppofites is efpecially intifted upon, is a fuppo-
fed inconfiitency between what is affirmed in
this our ririt Proportion, viz. That God in this
grand Promife of the Covenant intended all
Abrahams natural Seed univeifally and indefi-
nitely , one as well as another, as the next and
immediate Subjects of it , confidering what the
facred Story relates of ljhmad in particular, one
of Abr alums Seed, affirmed by us to be intend-
ed in that Promife, and other Principles and
Aflertions coniiantly maintained by us, who
ground the infant-feed of believing parents
right to and interelt in the Covenant , upon this
its firit etfablimment with Abraham and his
Seed in their Generations \ thefe Principles and
AiTcriions, with which what is affirmed of all
i/ibraham's nztutzl Seed, and of l/hmaelm par-
ticular, is fuppofed tobeinconfiiknt, are more
efpecially thefe. two,
Firft> That that Covenant , now eftablifhed
* with
(40
with Abraham y was a Covenant of Grace,
and the very fame for fubftance with that un-
der which Believers are under the Gofpel ad-
miniftration.
Secondly, That the Covenant of Grace is an
immutable and unchangeable Covenant , a Co-
venant that cannot be broken, a Covenant from
a (tanding in which none can fall. Now it is
objected, That if it be true as we affirm, that
this Covenant , now eilablifhed with Abraham
and his Seed, was the Covenant of Grace, and
that Ifomael in particular was intended in this
jPromife , and anfwerably taken into this Cove-
nant with Abrahams one o{ his Seed there in-
tended , then the Covenant of Grace mu ft be
£* anted to be a mutable and changeable Cove-
jwnt, a Covenant that may be broken, contrary
to our other principles , feeing it is evident, and
granted by us , that in cafe IJbmael was ever in
this Covenant, he did break it, and was caft out
of it , and was diflnherited of the promife con-
tained in it > and if fo, then it will follow, con-
trary to wkat we elfewhere affitm , that a man
•may be in the Covenant of Grace to day , and
acaft out to morrow , and then may be in again
,'within a few dayes after, and yet caft out again,
and in the clofe finally perifh. Now it is faid,
Howcan Principles or AiTertions, lying in fuch
a diametrical oppofition one to another, be all
true > Therefore fure we muft either grant, that
JJhmael was not intended in this Promife , and
conftquentty not one of this Seed of Abraham ,
with
(47 )
with whom, in conjunction with Abrabatnhlm-
fdf, God never entred Covenant, or elfe that
Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace , i ,i»
der which Believers now are , or elfe that the
Covenant of Grace is mutable, and may be bro-
ken > rhat perfons may be in it , and after eaft
out and difpoiTeiTed of that good they had iorne-
times a Covenant-right and title to.
Before I return a direct Anfwer to thisOb^
je&ion , I (hill premife, that this Objection is
urged by our Oppofites to a twofold end or
purpofe.
.Firft, It is urged by fome, to difprove or
overthrow what we affirm of this Covenant,
now eitabh&ed with Abraham and his Seed, viz.
That it is the Covenant of Grace , the fame for
fuUtance that Believers in Gofpel times are
under. Say they , This Covenant made with
sibrabam and his natural Seed, might be brc-
ken, but the Covenant of Grace cannot be bro-
ken v one might be in that Covenant to day,and
call: out to morrow i witnefs l(hmael , who
though taken into Covenant, yet wasfoon caft
out.again > but it is otherwife with thp Cove-
nant of Grace, and the perfons admitted intait,
thatis,a Covenant that cannot.be broken , fer-
ibns once in that Covenant are never caft. p&£
again; and therefore this could not be a
Covenant of Grace , but a legal Covenant,-,, j&
iorae call it, a temporal Covenants others
Secondly,
(48)
Secondly, it « urged by others , in a way of
oppofition to what is affirmed concerning IJh-
matV% being intended in this Promifr, and con-
fequently received into Covenant with Abra-
ham ; Thefe grant that this was a Covenant of
Grace, and hold with us, that the Covenant of
Grace of Grace is a Covenant that cannot be
broken. Now fay they, it is ridiculous to affirm,
chat Ijbmad was in this Covenant , feeing it is
certain he never enjoyed the good promifed ,
which he mould undoubtedly have done, had
he been taken in as a party in it. The Cove-
nant of Grace, fay they, infallibly fccures the
good promifed in it to all thaf have admiflion in-
to it > it is a Covenant that is immutable , thole
that are once in it are never caft out , but (hall
infallibly enjoy the good promifed : but fjh-
mael enjoyed-not the good premifed in this Co-
venant ,• therefore it is ridiculous to fay, he was
ever taken into it. So that we may fee our Op-
pofites are not agreed among themfelves , fome
granting that Ifhmael was intended in that Pro-
mile , and conflquently that he was a party iri
that Covenant, but deny that that Covenant
was a Covenant ©f Grace : Others granting*
that that was a Covenant of Grace, but deny
Ifomael to be a party in it , whence it appears,
that in all thefe t^iree AflTertions, viz,, that \fti-
mail was intended in that Promife , that the
Covcnant,in which the Promife is contained^ a
Covenant of Grace^That the Covenant of Grace
cannot be broken, we have the iurTrage of fome
of our Qppelitcs, as they are taken feverally.
But
CA9)
But you Will fay, They all agree, they cannot
be ail true taken conjunctively : It is true, they
do Co i and where their miftake lies, either as to
what we affirm , or as to the truth it felf , (hall
be now conlldered.
Firft, And I (hall firft (hew in what fence we
hold and maintain the Covenant of Grace, tcfr
be an immutable and unchangeable Covenant, 3
Covenant that cannot be broken.
Secondly y Lay down fome Propofitions for
the vindicating the truth afTerted in this rlrft
Propoiition, for carrying any appearance of re-
pugnancy te that Principle held and maintained
by us , in the fence it is held and maintained by
us , concerning the immutability of the Cove-
nant of Grace.
For the rlrft : and thus we riiuft obftrve i
twofold diftin&ion.
Firft, We muft diftinguifti between an exter-
nal and vitiblc, and an internal and invifibJe be*
ing in Covenant , or between the Covenant of
Grace, as externally and viiibly,and as internal-
ly and inviiibly plighted,or mutually entred be-
tween God and men y that there is an external
and vilible being in£ovenant , or that there is
an external and vilible plighting , or mutual
cntring of Covenant between God and men*
where yet there is not an internal and invifiblc
being in Covenant, nor any internal mutual err*
£ tring
f50)
tring Covenant between God md men i is evi-
dent through the whole benpture. and isfo«de*
monftrativtly proved by others, tfpecially
Mt.Cobb€tto( New-England^ that it is wholly
fuperfluous to add any thing , 1 (hall therefore
only fay , that unlcfs we do grant this diiiindi-
on, we mutt hold* that either Chrift hath no
vifiblc Body, Church, or People in the World,
or elfe that Tome may be of the vifiblc Body,
Church or People of Chrift, who yet are not in
any fence in the Covenant of Grace * the for-
mer fure none will affirm, and the granting the
latter will grant what I contend for, as will ap-
peal in theproctfsof our dUcourfcv
Secondly, We muff diftinguifh between being
in Covenant , through a perfonal acceptation of
the terms of the Covenant , andingaging with
God in a Covenant way, and being in Covenant,
by vertue of the gratious tenour of the Cove-
nant it felf.as made with Abraham and his Seed
in their generations* that theie is a being in Co-
venant by a perfonal acceptation of the terms of
the Covenant , and ingaging with God in a Co-
venant way , will be denied by none » and rhat
there is a being in Covenant , or being uuder rhc
promifesof the Covenant,by vertue of the gra-
cious tenour of the Covenant it felf, will I hope
fufiicicntly appear from the proof of this and
our next Proportion. Now when wc fay, the
Covenant of Grace is an immutable and un-
changeable Covenant , a Covenant that cannot
be broken, we intend it ©f the Covenant as per*
fonally,
fonally, and that intittly and I fince.ely entred by
at.uly.egcne.ate Soul , and »ot of the Cove-
'ant as only exte.nally and unf.nce.ely entred
bv Hypocrites, no. of the Covenant as made
Jith believi.g Parents , with reference : to «h««
natural Seed , and the meaning of what i< at-
SS3 conceding the immutability and un-
cLgeablenefs of the Covenant of Gra« *
on y this i that when once a Soul is fav.ng y
w ought upon, to a rightly elofing m *ith
33, andPa fiving doling with the termsof
The Covenant , that Soul mall never tota Uy and
finally fall away , foas tefuffrtanabfolute end
total ofs of that Grace wrought Milt, norW
ablolutely caft out of a Covenant ftate and re-
Con God- ward : whether thefepromifes.upcn
the warrant of which this immutability and
unchangeablenefs of the Covenant » affer ed
and maintained , will prove anymore, (hall be
conudc.ed, at leaft fo far as concerns my p.elen»
purpofe , by and by. Having then given the
fence, in which we hold the Covenant of Grace
to be immutable and unchangeably I proceed to
the fecond thing promifed , the Propofit.ons,
and they are thefe.
Fitft, That this Covenant now eflabliflied
between God and Abraham, and his Seed in
their generations, which I grant, yea affirm,
hat Uwasa Covenant of Grace the fame in
fubftance that Believers are ftili under, Was and
ftill is a conditional Covenant : Let not that
tumcottdmond offend, I intend no ™K™£
(52)
whit I fuppofe will on all hands be granted,
?«£._ That as God promifcd good to Abraham, -
with reference both to himfelf and his Seed in
their. generations, fo he required the perfor-
mance of duty as from Abraham himfelf, io
foom his Seed in their refpe&ive generations :
In brief thus, this Covenant contained promites
of good from God , yet with a reftipalation of
duty from the parties with whom it was made,
and, urtfo whom the promifes did appertain »
and this is efTentia! to the very being of a Co-
venant as properly taken ; It is true , this term
Covenant is variouily ufed in Scripture , fome-
times for a bare promife on Gods put , fome-
t imcs for the reftipulation on mans part, fome-
times for the token of the Covenant , but thefe
are improper fignifications of the word ; when
it is properly taken, it alwayes fignifies a mutual
compact between God and man ,. wherein God
ingageth himfelf by promife to them , and in-
gageth them to the performance of what him-
felf hath conftitutcd to be their duty : a Co-
venant in general when properly taken , and
consequently this Covenant in particular, which
rnuft partake of the general, nature of Cove-
nants , every Species miift partake of its Genus,
being quiddam , complexum , implying two or
more parties covenanting, fo two parties co-
venanted , the giving of fome good on the one
part, and the return of Come performance on the
other, and that as indifpenfably necefTary to the
prefeivation of the Covenant inviolate on each
part. .t
Secondly,
C53)
Secondly, That this reftipulation or conditi-
on on Abrahams part , did concern him, both a$j
a tingle perfon, and as a Parent, landing in a pa-
rental relation towards his Seed , taken in a*
joynt parties with himfelf into covenant , my
meaning is evident , Abraham flood in a double
capacity , as" a (ingle party , with whom God
entred covenant, and as a father of children, to
whom the promifes of the Covenant did in
common with himfdf appertain. Now as1
Abraham, as a iingle perfon in covenant, was to
accept Qfand perform the conditions of the Co*
venant , he was in that capacity ingagedtoby
God , fo as a parent he had (bmething of duty
incumbent upon him, with reference to his Seed,
as 'immediately defcending from his own loins,
and as his faithful performance of that duty in-
cumbent upon him in his iingle capacity , fo his
performing that duty incumbent upon him as a
parent, in reference to his Seed, was abfohately
necciTiry in order to his enjoying the good pro-
mifed , with reference both to himfelf and his
Seed : The truth of this Propofition is evident
from thefe two places of Scripture compared
together , (jen. 17. i. and Cm. 18. 10. 1Val\
before we, and be thou f erj e# , There was Abra-
ham's duty,, in reference to himfelf as a fingle
perfon , with whom the Covenant was entred >
For I byorv him , that he will command his Ch'iU
dren^andhis Houjhold after him , and thy (hall
Keef judgment and juftice , that^ the Lord may
bring upon Abraham that which be hath fiokfn
ef him j that is , that he may be a God to him,
£ 3 and
(54)
and his Seed after him : There was Abraham's
duty, as a Parent and Matter of a Family, and
under this term Command ail other duties, fub-
ferving of referring to their walking in the way
©f the Lord, were imply ed and compichended.
Now faith the l*otd,Abrabam irill tbm command
hti Cbildrtft xand Houjhold , that tbt Lard may
bring upon him trbat be bath ftokjn of him :
Whenceit appears, that Abraham's performance
of his duty towards his Children and Houfhold*
was a ncceflary condition of Gods bringing up-
on him , or making good to him , what he had
promifed , in reference to his Children and
Houihold, and that without the performance of
that duty he could not cxpedr, according to the
true intent and meaning of the Promife , that
God (hould bring that good upon him , or do
that good to him: and what is faidof Abra-
ham is true of all his Seed , fuppollng them un-
der that double capacity ; Abraham was to be
a pattern to all his Seed, both in privi ledges and
in duties.
Thirdly, That whatever was the condition
etreflipulation of the Covenant as made with
Abraham , was the condition or reftipulatioa
ttcjuired of his natural Seed, and to be a&ually
performed by them in their own perfons , Co
foon as they came to that maturity of age , as
jendred them capable thereof, and that as in*
difpenfably ncceflary to the compleating and
continuance of their covenant-relation with
God, into which they, as Abrahams natural
Seed,
(55)
Seed , were admitted in their infancy > though
God waS pleafed to enter covenant, not only
wirh Abraham himfelf , but with his Seed to-
gether with him, and his accepting of the Co-
venant tor himfelf and them , confirmed a co-
venant-relation between God and Abraham ,
and his Seed , and that covenant- relation was
continued during his Seeds infant capjeity upon
Abrahams account, yet when they grew up to a
capacity of a perfonal ingaging with God in a
Covenant way, and performing the reilipulation
required. Now the continuance of that co-
venant-relation between God and them , in*
difpenfably required their perfonal accepting ofj
aiid performing that icltipulation or condition,
that Abraham in their infancy had accepted foi
them, and their non-acceptance or nOn-perfor-
mancc of that condition did,- ipfo fafio^ difanul
the Covenant , or forfeit their right to , and in-
terett in it and the promifes of it * God flood the
longer by vertue of that Promife obliged to be a
God unto them > and for them to have fuppo-
fed the continuance of that covenant- relation
b.tvreen God and them , into which they were
afore admitted, and upon that account expected
the good promifed, without their perfonal per-
formance of the duty the Covenant did oblige
them to , had been a groundlefs preemption.
The truth of this Propoiition is evident in part
from what hath bees already faid,and will more
fully appear, when I come to the proof of my
fecond Propoiition. Abraham's commanding
his Childrcnand Houfhold to keep the way of
£ 4 the
the Lord, in order to that end , namely, their
enjoying the good promifed neceffarily fuppo-
feth it i for why fhould he command them to
keep the way of the Lord, in relation to fiuch an
end, if their keeping that way had noncceflary
reference to that end, but the end had been at*
tained without their keeping that way > be*
fides, were not this true, there could have been
no iuch thing , as breach of covenant , found
among any ot Abrahams natural Seed , as will
be obvious to tvery ordinary capacity. Before
I proceed further, let me note by the way, that
this Covenant , now eftablifhed with Abraham^
and his Seed in their generations , implyed a
twofold condition , neceflary to beobfervedjn
order to Gods making good the promifes of it,
referring to his Seed.
Firft, There was a condition incumbent on
Abraham himCelf, there was fomething of duty
required of him , with reference to his Seed,
viz. that he com/nand them to keep the way of
the Lord , as is obferved in the foregoing Pro-
pofition.
Secondly, There was a condition incumbent
upon the Seed , as grown up and become
capable of underftanding and performing if,
that is, That they walk in the way of *he Lord 5
and fuppofmg that either Abraham had failed
in his duty, or his Seed in theirs, God had been
acquitted of any charge of unfaithfulnefs to hi$
promife, though the gopd promiftd, with refer
rence
(5?;
fence to his Seed, had never been given in i God
promifeth to be a God to Abraham's Seed as
well as to hirafelf, yet with this condition, that
he inftru& and command his Seed , and that
they accept of, and perform the duty ingaged to
by covenant.
fourthly , That IJhmael's breach of cove-
nant did neither proceed from a failure on Gods
part,in making good the Promifes made to him,
nor confiit in his own loofing or falling from in-
herent Grace,but did wholly lye in his non- per-
formance of that duty required, as indifpen-
fably neceflary to the compleating and .contU
nuance of that Covenant-relation he was ad*
initted into with God , and tranfgrefling thole
Commands he was obliged to the obfervation
of* in brief, he fell from a Covenant-fiate, but
not from Covenanted- grace , for that he never
had an adtu a^toiTcflion of ; lb that to affirm,
that Ijhmael ^[1 in the Covenant , now efta-
blifhed with Abraham and his .Seed, and that
that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace that
£elievers are fill under , notwithstanding his
breach of Covenant in the fence now opened,
is no way inconfiftent with what is affirmed con-
cerning rhe immutability of the Covenant of
Grace, we freely grant, and our Oppoiites mult
grant it too , unlefs they will admit of the ab-
surdities aforementioned verie 12. thatperfons
rnay be in an external Covenant ftate Gqdward,-
and yet want the truth of Grace , may Joofea
Covenant- (late, though not loofe Covenanted-
Grace,
(53;
©wet, e? fall fronj a fta te of Grace. But nor to
leave any doubt, that may arife in the minds of
any, about what hath been fa!d,unfarished,l am
aware of one Obje&ion , and that not without
a teeming weight and ttrength in it , will be
made againft what hath been fa id , and that is
this.
0bj$fi. It will be faicL, Doth not the Scripture
plainly intimate, if notpoiltively aiTeit , That
the Covenant of Grace cannot be broken , no
not in the fence in which it is now fuppofed J/fc-
mjrf did break it , and is not that at lean one
Chara&criftical difference between the Cove-
nant of Grace and the rirtt Covenant , and the
peculiar excellency » in refpt& of which the
Covenant of Grace doth excel that former Co-
venant ? Hath not God promiled to wrire -his
Law in the inward parts, and put his (ear in the
heaits of all that have admiffyfcinto this Co-
venant, as the means to prevem^heir breach of
it > Now it will be faid, How could /Jhmael, or
any Child of believing Parents , fuppoiing he
Was and they are in the Covenant of Grace,
fetjlin performing the conditions of that Cove-
nant, unlefs God fhould fail in making good
thefc Promifes, which to affirm would be blaf-
phemy , and therefore furc, had he been and
were they in the Covenant of Grace , he
never had , not they never would break Co-
venant , through a failing in performing the
conditions of it.
Now
Now to this I anf wer , That take thefc Pro*
mifesas indefinitely laid down, f© they arc only
made to the Church indefinitely as a colle&ivc
body, and indefinite Piomifes, as fo made, do
not infallibly (ecurethe good promifed to every
individual pcrfon externally interelTed in
them.
But you will fay, Suppofethc truth of this
firft Proportion, viK. Thar Abraham's natural
Seed , immediately proceeding from his own
loins , were to be looked upon as the Subjects
of this Promife, diltriburively taken, then every
one in particular had a real and actual interest
in it.
To that I anfwer, It is true : but confidcr
what hath been already faid ; the Covenant
and Promifes of it were conditional, and his
not performing the conditions forfeited the good
promifed.
But you will further fay , Are not thefc pro-
mifes , of writing the Law in the inward
parts , &c. included in thac grand Promile,
wherein God promifeth to be a God to him and
them, and confequently their performance of
the condition was virtually included and inv
plyed in the Promife it felf , and (b the Promife
did fecure their performance of the condition «
though the Covenant of Grace hath conditions,
yet they are Conditions conditions*, conditions
which are themfelves promifed in the Cove-
nant > hence though the Covenant be not ab-
folutely unconditional, yet it is equivalent there-
unto i in as much as the conditions ate them*
fclves
(6o)
felve? include^ in the Prorhifes' of the Cove-
nant v and therefore fure if they had been
actually under Covenant v, their performance of
the conditions had been fecured by this-Pio-
To this I anfwer t woxhings r That though
thefe Promifes do hold forth the main and prin*-
ciple conditions^ the Cdvenant, as Regenera-
tion, Faith, Repentance, and the like, and they
ihould be included in this Proanife , of Gods
being a God to his people, and though they run
in the external tenour of them abfolutely , yet
they are not abfolutely abfolute , as I mdy fo-
fpeak> they, have a fubordinate condition , aad
that is , that the parties concerned in them do
faithfully ufe the means appointed of God , in a
fubferviency to his working in or bellowing
upon them the good promised ; this is evident
from Ezekf 36. 37. where we have the very
fame good * though in other terms or phrafes,
prpmifed > fo alio, in Frw. 2 6. thefc Promifes
hold forth what we of our felves cannot attain
to or perform v but they fuppofe, and require
our ufe of means, which, as Mr. Femur excel-
lently expreffethit, lye betweenour cm and our
cannot , and though it is true, a man, while in.
his natural cftate, cannot ufe the means fo, as
ihall infallibly fecure the good promifed to him-
ftlf,yet his not ufing of them according to what,
through the improvement of what ability, whe-
ther natural or fpiritual, he hath received, he
might do, will acquit God from unfaithful nefs in
denying the good promifed.
But
But fecondly, I anfwer, That take the Cove*
cant as externally made and declared to Abra~
bam^ and his Seed in their generations, as im-
plying a ftipulation on Gods part, and a reftipu-
lation on mans part , fo thefe Promifes or di-
vine tcachings>writing the Law in the heart,e^r.
are not included as effential to this Fromife , of
Gods being a God to them, but are difhn&Pro-
mifes,made indefinitely, to the Covenant-people
of God y in making good of which , God ads
according to his Soveraign will and pleafure, in
a complyance with his eternal Decrees and Pur-
pofes of election and pretention, andanfwerab- '
ly, no individual perlon can lay ana&ual claim
to them,afore they are at leaft initially or incho*
atively fulfilled i Gods being a God to any in-
dividual per(bn, doth require and prefuppofe,
that they do for the prefent, fuppofing them
capable, or for thefuture,asfoon as capable,take
God in Chrift as their God , which that his
Ele&fhall do,is fecured by thefe Promifes * but
that every individual per fon externally in Co-
venant,and under the Promifes thereof (hail do,
is not fecured by them. If any (hall affirm, thaG
thefe Promifes are included , as an effential part
of the good of that grand Promife of the Cove-
nant, it concerns them to make good what they
affirm, and (hew how the very fame Promife, at
leaft for the (ubftance of it , was made good to
the feed of the Jews, and how it came copafw
notwithstanding that Promife , that they never
had their hearts truly circumcifed; to lave the
Lord with all their hurts, and all their feuls,
as
as the letter of that Promise , T>tut. $&. 6 af-
firms they mould. Befides, let it it be further
noted, that the Covenant relation itabli&ed be-
tween Gad and the feed of believing Parents,
mcerly by vertue of the external tenour of the
Covenant , is not fo full and compleat as that is,
which is constituted through a Souls perfonal
acceptation of the Covenant , and actual inga-
gjng with God in a Covenant way ; the Cove-
nant in a proper and full fence mull be mutual i
but fo it is not in the cafe of the Infant- feed of
believing parents , their being in covenant is
rather a being under a conditional Promife of
the good contained in the Covenant,' than being
properly and compleatly in covenant with God,
though in a fence God may, as he is in Scripture
faid to enter covenant with them , he enters
covenant as he makes promife of the good of
the Covenant to them , which yet he doth, as I
have faid , only conditionally , and the com-
pleating of the Covenant-relation between
God and them, depends upon their perfonal ac-
ceptance of the terms propofed in it, when they
come to rtpenefs of years.
To put a clofe to this firft fubordinate Pro-
portion, by what hath been faid, I fuppofe, the
rruth affcrted in it is fufficiently evident , not-
withstanding what may be objected in a way of
opposition to it > and I have infilled the longer
upon this, becaufe it is the foundation to out
whole Structure to be raifed, in reference to the
confirmation of the truth pleaded for , and the
fall evidencing of this, will make our way plain
to
to the following Proportions , in as much as
Abraham being the firtf perfon with whom the
Covenant was,at leaft in fuch a latitude/ormally
and expiefly entred , he muft needs be the rule,
meafure, or pattern , according to which the
Covenant, fin all following Ages, (hould be en-
tred and continued between God and his Seed,
Primum in unoqnoque gtnere eji rtgnla ant men*
fur a ctterorum ejufdem gmtrti. God did in A"
brabam fet a pattern how he would deal in rela-
tion to the tenour of his Covenant -with all his
Seed ; and Abraham being a Father of all ad-
mitted into a Covenant- relation with God. It
highly concerns us, rightly to underltand and
know the terms and tenour of the Covenant, as
made with him, in reference to us who are hi*
Seed ; it being made with his Seed in the fat^c
tenour,and upon the fame terms generically con*
(idered , as it was with him , he was the great,
pattern, as I have faid, both of priviledgesand
duties to his whole Seed, as will appear more
fully in our fecond />ropofiCion, which J no*
proceed to.
CHAP,
c«o
CHAP. IV*
7be fecond fubordinate Proportion laid
down. How to be under flood) declared;
tbtfirft way of its confirm at ion ,viz. the
tenour of the Vromife^ as at fir ft made
f* Abraham, propofed and profecuted*
Objections anfwered*
Cbjea. i.
SOmcobjed, That the Promife, wherein God
ingaged to be a God to Abraham and his
Seed , cannot in that latitude and extent be
fetled upon and confirmed to believing Gen-
tiles y becaufe that Covenant Believers arc now
under, is a Covenant wholly divers from that
eftablifted with Abrahams and when the Co-
venants are divers, the good covenanted cannot
be one and the fame, at leaft the Subjects of the
one cannot lay claim to the good of the other, by
vertueof that Covenant they are under : hence
a Believer, as a Believer, that is, as Abraham's
(pirftual Seed , could not lay claim to the old
Covenant- promifes, if not defcended from
Abraham by Ifaac after the fk(h > to a Be-
lievers fleftily feed, take it either of Abra*
bam , or any other Believer , cannot lay
claim to the New Covenant Promifes, unlefs
bora
( *#5
to the following Propofitions , in as much at
Abr*b*m% being the rirft pcrfon with whom thf
Covenant was,at leal) in fuch a latitude,format -
ly and exprefly entrcd,he muft needs be the rule*
meafure or pattern, according to which the Co-
venant, in all following Ages, ftiould be cntrcd
end continued between G©d and his Seed. Fri+
\ mum in uho quo que gmtrt tft regnla aut minfurs
ctttrorum tjufdem gtutrk. God did in Abraham
fct a pattern how he would deal in relation to
the tcnour of his Covenant with all his Seed *
and Abraham being a Father of all admitted
into a Covenant-relation with God. It highly
concerns us, rightly to underitand and know the
terms and tcnour of the Covenant , as made
with him , in reference to us who arc his Seed *
it being made with his Seed in the fame tcnour*
«nd upon the fame terms generically conhdered,
as it was with him , he was the great pattern, as
1 have faid , both of privilcdgcs and duties to
his whole Seed, as will appear more fully in oifc
fecond Propofition, which I now proceed to*.
chap.
r , i!- ..-- i\.>r. • • — i — ?-«■. '■'" ' -« > — ~
CHAP. IV.
ike feo*d Subordinate fropofttion lately
down. How to be underflood, declared.
thpfiwayofitsconfirmationyiz. the
Mn**Xi <tfi lk? frwifz, a* at fir (I mad&
t to Abraham, propofed an d profecuted.
ObjeHions arsfvoered.
The Second Propofition.
l*T*Hat the fame Promifetbai God made unto
A Abraham, with reference to bimfelf and hi*
natural Sk?d\ lk by God bimfelf) and that in the
fame latitude and extent -given toyand fet led upon
Relieving Gentiles : the Promife runs in the fame
tenourjbotbttirtgardof extent and limitations, to
Abrahams Seed, whether natural or myllical, that
it ran in to Abraham bimfelf ; it is continued to
the Seedy as it was firft eftahlijhedwith their Fa-
ther. Only for the preventing miftalys let it be
noted) That Abraham had fome prehemineney
above any of his Sted^ as it was meet the Father
fhould have fomething of prehemineney above
kit Children, Abraham had a twofeldpreherni*
Fiift,
C*5)
Firft, He had a preheminence in point of pa-
tcrnity or fatherhood; he was not only a na-
tural Father of natural Children , as any of his
Seed may be » but he was conftituted a myfti-
cal Father % to all that (hould in after ages
be admitted into the fame Covenant with
himfelf, whether Jews or Gentiles ,- Rvmm
4. ii.
Secondly, He had a preheminency in regard
of bis natural Seed, Race or Pofterity. He had
a threefold preheminency in regard of his natu-
ral Seed.
Fifft , In their multiplication. God never
multiplied the Seed of any Believer as he mul*
tiplied the natural Seed of Abraham.
Secondly, In their fegregation or feparatiort
from other people, and their incorporation to-
gether as one Nation, Body politick, or Com*
monwealth.
Thirdly, In Gods llngling them out as the
fpeeial Subjects of his Kingdom, and vouch-
fating unto them his Covenant, with the bene-
fits, priviledges, and bleflings there cf, in Co ge-
neral and extenfive a way, as he hath done, and
will yet do. His Church or fpiritual Kingdom;
under the firft Teft amen r, conflfted in a fpeeial
manner of Abraham's natural Race or Poftc*
f ity,and he will again take his natural Pofterity,
as the people who in a fpeeial manner fhali
¥ z injojr
(66)
injoy the good things of the Covenant of Grace,
«f yet to be adminirtred in the world : This
twofold prehemiticncy we grant that Abraham
bad above any of his Seed, whether natural or
Biyftical : Cut yet take Abraham as a natural
Father, accepting of the Covenant God made
with him , and fo the fame Promtfe , that was
given unto him,is given and fetlcd upon his whole
Seed , and consequently ( which only falls un-
der our prefent confideration ) '%% given to »
and fetlcd upon believing Gentiles. The truth
of this Propofition I ihali ( the Lord affixing )
evidence four wayes.
Firfif, From thctcnourof the Promife made
to Abraham, with reference te^iiis Seed, at the
firfteftabhfhmentofthc Covenant between God
and hirmand here we mutt have rccourfe to what
hath been already faid > for the explication of
this Promife. The fum of all is this \ That
when Godpromifcd Abraham to be a God to
him,and his Seed in their generations, his mean-
ing was,that he would be a God both to Abra*
ham and his whole Seed , as before explained in
their rtfpc&ive generations i that is, to them
and their refpe&ive Children , defcending im-
mediately from their own loins ; yet fo, as that
their intcreft in the Promife, and enjoyment of
the good promifed , mould be continued and
vouchfafed to them upon condition of their
walking in the Heps of the faith and obedience
of their Father Abraham » and confequcntly,
that the promife did not actually appertain ci-
ther
C*7)
fhcr to any of Ahrahsm's natuial Race orPo-
tferiry , fceyond his Children immediately de-
fending from him,ox to any of his Seeds,Raccs,
or Poftcrities,beyond their immediate Children,
included with them in that phrafc , thtirGtne-
rations, by vcrtue of that their remote fchtion
unto them. Now then all that ] haveto do tot
the proving the fettlement of this Promifc, in
the fame extent and latitude upon biHcving
Gentiles , in which it was given to Abraham
himfclf , by the tcnour of the Proroifes as now
made to Abraham^ is to prove, that this is the
true fence and meaning of this Promifc, as made
to him with reference to his natural Seed, for
look as the Promifc was to be undcritood as re*
ferring to his natural Seed , fo it is to be undcr-
itood as referring to his myftical Secd,inas much
as both are equally and alike intended in the
Piomifc, as at firft made unto Abraham, both
his natural and my meal Seed Handing in one
and th^e fame capacity refpedfcive to the Promife,
and therefore as it ought to be interpreted as it
had reference to the one, fo it ought to be inter*
preted as referring to the other. Now that this
Promife,as referring to Abraham's natural Seed,
was to be interpreted and undeiAood in the
extent and latitude, and yet with the limitations
before «xprcflcd,I (hall make good by thefc two
or three Arguments.
Firft, Thatmuft needs be the true fence and
meaning of this Promifc , which alone is con-
Uftcnt with the truth and faitbfulncfs of God
F5 in
(68)
in performing it : But that fence and meaning,
which is given according to the extent; and li-
mitations afore expreitcd, is only confident with
Che truth and faithfulnefs of God in performing
it : Therefore that fence and meaning mult be
the alone true and genuine fence and meaning of
it , and anfwerably is fo to be interpreted and
underftood by us. That we ought to interpret
and undcrft and the Promifes of God in fuch a
fence and meaning,^ is confident with his truth
and faithfulnefs in performing them , and when
there is but one fence and meaning confident
with the truth and faithfulnefs of God , that
that mult be the alone true fence. and meaning,
fure none will deny. God is a true and faith-
ful God , a God that cannot lye, not only will
not, but cannot lye $. therefore that fence and
meaning put upon his f romifes , which is con-
fident with his truth and faithfulnefs in per-
forming them , cannot poffibly be the true fence
and meaning of them, Now that the fence
and meaning put upon this Fromife •> according
to the extent and latitude, and with the limi-
tations before exprefTed, is alone confident with
the truth and faithfulnefs of God inperfonning
it, will beevident, by (hewing the ineonfidency
of any other fence and meaning poflibly to be
put upon it, with the truth and faithfulnefs of
God in performing it. And for this let us a
little inquire what other fence and meaning can
poflibly be put upon this Promife, and I fuppofc
the only fence and meaning that will be at-
tempted to be put upun it , will be this, via;.
ut r ,\' That
That when God promifed to Abraham \ witfi
reference to his Seed , (0 be a God unto thenh in'
their generations , his meaniBg was only this,'
Tfut 1ifc- would be a God to each of their) in
their f'efpe&ive ages or generations' wherein
they Ihourdiife > a'ftdfo by this phrafe, In their
generations ) we are to uridcrftand only eacih par-
ticular Or individual perfbri of Abraham's Sfod,
as fub'firting in their refpe&iVc ages or genera-
tions /ancT not as including Parents and Chif-'
Now let itt a little purfue tnis fence and;
meaning, and fee whether it be corififteht witfr
the rruth and faithfulnef* of God in his PrornW
fes. And here let it be remembred, (hit /ib?&
bams natural Seed rmiftnecefTirily be ^Vitnarily
intende'din this Promtfe'", as the feffifl^foff
dirte Subjedfc of it V this hath been alrdcty
proved, ^ind therefore I fhall take it for granted
at pre'ltnt. And it muft further be' xfohficfered1;
that though Abraham's natural Seed , 'as imme-
diately defcending from his own loins , wcYe!
fiiiily intended , as the primary Subject of this
Fromife ; yet it had a further refped:, vtz: ttf
his whole natural Race and Pofterity , as me-
diately defcending from him , in fucceedirig
ageh this is evident, as from other Scriptutcs.
fofrom this very phrafe, their generation s ', and
befides, the whole Context evidently declares
it. In Gen. 15. 16. it evidently appears , that
God intended not , that Abraham's Seed fhould
poflefs the Land of Canaan till the fourth gene*
cation j yet it ispiomifcd to the Seed intended
¥ 4 in
C7o)
in this Promife, that they fhould hare the Land
of Canasn^nd that for an everlafting poffeffion ;
So that when God promifed to be a God to
Abraham, and his Seed, though he intended his
own immediate Children , ye* he had a further
iefpe& to his natural Race and Poftctity, as me-
diately defending from him.
Now let it be confidered , how it was con-
fident with the truth and faithfulnef* of God
in his Promiles, to promife to %/(hrabdm% to be
a God to him, and his Seed, both immediately
and mediately defcending from him, feeing it is
certain he was not a God to all his Seed, no not
Co much as in an external and outward way ;
for when l(hm*tl was cart out of Abraham's Fa-
mily, and together therewith, or thereby, out
bf the Covenant, God ceafed to be a God to any
of his Race or Pofterity, unlefs by their perianal
acceptation of the Covenant,they became again
Incorporated into the Church of the Jetys , as
any other Heathen might be : and the like is
tnte of Efau's Race and Pofterity, fo for the
whole body of. the Jcwifli Nation at this day,
there is a ccfTation of any actual Covenant Rela-
tion between God and them Now how could
God caft off fo great a pare of Abraham's $qc£
from being his people , and how could he ccafc
to be a God to them, and yet remain faithful to
his Promife, in cafe this be the fence and mean-
ing of it ? Ycs,it may be fome will fay,the truth
and faithfulncfs of God may be vindicated two
wayes,
firft
(70
Fiift, It may be vindicated by the confidera-
tion of the nature of this Promifc ; It was, as
you your felves grant, an indefinite Promifc
made to Abraham sSced collectively taken, and
f« was verified, in the performance of it to fome
of his Sctd , though it was not performed uni-
verfally to every individual perion of his
Seed.
But to this I reply two things.
rirft, That this Promifc, according to the
fence and meaning contended for by my Oppo-
fcrs. cannot be an indefinite Promilc t<& Abra-
ham sSzc&9 collectively taken, but mutt needs be
a definite Promifc to his Seed , diftributivcly
taken i for that is the fenfe and meaning con-
tended for , That God promifed to be a God to
Abraham , and each of his Seed in their refpc-
dive ages or generations. Now, accoi ding to
this fence , this term Sud% muft needs be taken
diftributively, as meant of every one of Abra-
hams Seed : So that whenever , in any genera-
tion, Abraham had one born unto him, as one of
his Seed, the Promife did reach and take in him>
or her, as fo born unto him, as one of the Sub-
jects intended in it. If it had been only fai'd to
Abrabamjo thee and to thy Sczdf it might have
been an indefinite Promife to his Seed, colle-
ctively taken; but when 'tis added, in their
generations,according to this fence it mult needs
be a definite Promife made to his Seed, diftri-
butively or fingularly taken i and conft-
^jucntly, Gods not being a God untVany
of
(70
of his $et&, had been a breach of thimomjife,
as made (into Abraham , with reference to his
Seed.
Secondly, I an Over , Though the Promife
were an indefinite Promife nrtade to Abrahams
Seed, eolle&Wely taken , yet none ever did, or
ever (hould fail of enjoying the good promised,
fuppofing there had been no failure in perform-
ing the condition of it, either " by the parties
fhetftieVves, or by their next or remote Progeni-
tors.
Secondly, It may be it will be faid, The Pro-
inife was made conditionally , ihd^ Abraham's
Seed- feilrng'in the performance of the conditl-
ons,difbbriged Qod from making £oo<f the Pro-
mtfe Wthem.
.
To that I reply ,l Thaf it is rcadfily granted,
that this Covenant , andthe Promifes thereof,
was made to Abraham and his Seed conditio-
nally .' Bert obferve it\ ^according to the fence
and meaning pleaded for by our* Op^ofJrs, every
ChiM-df atry Jew, ©r of any of Abraham's Po«
Verity, tnuft be in the eye of this Promife ac-
ctMrrte^as one of Abraham! % Seed , and as fo
tfeiated irntfr him, berm tended in it as one of the
Subjects of it \ And how can a Child forfeit its
tight to a Promife before it is born Y So that
fappok that the immediate Father had failed
in the condition of the Promife; and thereby de-
prived himfelf of awntetetfirrit , fix hd could
not
C73)
not forfeit the Childs iight,in as much as if this
fence were true, the Child received not its right
flora the next Parent , but from Abraham him-
felf> one of whofe Seed this Child isi and
hence it will unavoidably follow, Chat cither the
whole Race and Pofterity of Abraham , at Jealt
in their infancy, before an actual forfeiture made
by themfelvcs, muft be under this Promife, and
confequently in a Covenant-relation with God,
orelfe God hath failed in making good his Pro-
mife > neither of whicb thole that contend for
this fence will affirm > therefore this fence and
meaning muft unavoidably be relinquished, and
there being no other fence and meaning ima-
ginable, we muft neceiTanly adhere to that afore*
given. And indeed (hould we not underftand
this Promife in the extent and latitudc,and with
thole limitations before exprelTed j one of thofe
abfurdities will neceflarily follow ; for if fo be
we (hould underftand it of all Abrahams natural
Seed, univerfaily, both immediately and medi-
ately descending from him , God muft either be
their God, or fail in his Promife, they receiving
their right to, and intereft in the promife s , not
fiom their immediate parents , as included with
them in that phrafc,<6eir gtmrations , but from
Abraham himfelfi which right and intereft
they could not loofe by the fin of any inter*
mediate parent, they being,notwithftanding the
fin of fuch a parent, ft ill Abraham's, Seed., And
it being impoflible, that they themfelveS, afore
they are born , (hould forfeit their own right to
it j and if we (hould grant, that parents and
children
(74.)
children were included in that phrafc, thtir
£$HiratioHf,md not limit the the piomifc to par-
ticular generations of Abrahams Seed ,that is, to
parents and their immediate children, the fame
abiurdity will follow i for then the Seed of the
Jews , who in their own pcrfons forfeited their
own right, would yet have a right toit,by ver-
tuc of the piomifc, as made to their progenitors
in one or more generations part \ and if (6 be
the natural Seed of Abraham fhould convey a
right to the promifc, tneerly as fuch, *>**• **
Abraham's natural Seed, without confideration
had to their own abiding in Covenant , ft ill the
fame abfurditics will follow, either the Infant*
feed of thcjrws mutt ftill be under the promifc,
of God is not faithful t6 his promises, neither of
which will be af$rmed (as I judge; by our
Oppofers. Now then this being the true fence
and meaning of this promifc, the truth pleaded
for is pa ft all que ft ion evident, viz.. That as
God promised Abraham , with reference to his
natural Seed, immediately defcen ding from him,
that he would be a God to him , and them in
their generations, » fo with reference to his- my-
ftical Seed, viz* Believing Gentiles, that he
would be a God to him and them in their gene-
rations, the promifc being made to Abraham's
whole Seed , whether natural or mytfical, that
God would be a God to them in their genera'
ttons, and furely believing Gentiles are Abra-
ham's Seed \ as well as his Children proceeding
from his own loins , as (hall be evidenced more
fully by and by. But that is the firft Argu-
ment
(75?)
went, to prove that the (ence and meaninj
given , according to (he extent, and latitude 9
and the limitations afore cxprcflcd , is the true
and genuine fence and meaning ef this pro-
mifc.
Argttm, 2. My fecond Argument is this #
God in his confequcnt tianfadtions and dealings
with the Seed of Abraham , in reference to co-
venant-ingagements between him and them,
hath expounded that Promife, according to the
fence and meaning afore given } then that mud
needs be the true fence and meaning of it : but
the former is true , therefore the latter. Sure if
the after dealings of God. with the Seed of
Abraham do declare the fence and meaning d
that Promifc to be as we have afore given it, we
need not doubt but 'tis the true and genuine
fence and meaning of it > we cannot doubt but
that God fully understands his own fence and
meaning in that, as well as in all other his pro*
mifesi we may well interpret promifis as God
himfelf doth, whether he do ir in his Word of
by his Works ; Now that God hath expounded
this promifc , according to the fence and mean*
ing before given , is evident from that of Vtut.
29' io> ••> *2, 15. Forobfcrve it, when God
deals with Abraham's Seed , in reference unto
Covenant engagements between him and thcro>
he takes in not only Parents, but their Infant*
feed with them,and that as the accomplifhmcnt
of this very promifc. God now enters Cove-
nant with the whole Congregation, in that
extent
(76)
efctent and latitude that he promifed to Abra*
bam.thzt he Would be a God to his Seed in their
generations, including Parents and Children >
he did nocbnly enter Covenant with the Pa-,
rents, as he had before promifed to Abraham*, to
be a God to him and his Seed , but he enters
Covenant with their Children : that is, he* en-
ters Covenant with them in their generations 4
and his eatring Covenant with thefe Children
or Infants, could not be, as they were, of the
natural Race and Pofterity of Abraham, for the
Reafons before gvven ; for if that promife in-
gaged God to enter Covenant with , or extend
his Covenant to the Infants of thefe particular
Barents , upon the account of their relation to
Abraham \ as of his Seed, there would be the
fame reafon of continuing this Covenant-rela-
tion between himfelf and all Abraham** natural
Race and Potterity, while in their infancy, which
he hath not done i and therefore he mult needs
take them now in upon the account of their
immediate parents , by vertue of this promife,
whefein he ingaged himfelf to be a God to
Abraham, and his Seed in their generations:
Betides, he enters Covenant not only with the
natural Seed of Abraham , but with the Stran-
gers thenamongtt them , and with their Seed,
the Children of Strangers being iti 11 admitted
into Covenant together with their parents : So
that the manner of his now entring covenant
with thefe particular Parents and Children ac
this time, as a clear ahdexprefs explication of
that phraic, wherein the promife was tirft made
to
(77)
to kbrabty* t with reference to his Seed, viz*
That God would be a God to them iu their ge-
neration, And as the Covenant was entred m
this extent and latitude , in which the promifc
was at firit made , fo with rhe fame limitations,
as is evident from the Commination denounced
againft him th<f (hould apoitatize to Idolatry*
compare the twentieth with Chapter the thir-
teenth , verfe the twelfth and thirteenth •-, The
Seed of Idolaters was to be deftroyed with the
parents thcmfclves, which Could not have been,
<in cafe the promifc had extended beyond trie
immediate Children : fo that we have God
himfelf expounding the true fence and mean-
ing of this promife, and thus he expounds it in
the latitude, and yet with the limitations before,
expreffed.
krgumt 3. My third Argument is this,
If the Prophets have interpreted this promifc
as to be fulfilled in Gofpel times , in the extent
and latitude before exprelTed , then we are fo to
interpret and underftand it ; but the former is
true, therefore the latter.
Bur this will bring me to the (econd way
propofed, for the evidencing of this oar fecond
Proportion, and therefore I (hall not tiay upon
it at prefent.
From what hath been faid it evidently ap-
pears , that this promife of the Covenant is to
be underftood according to the extent and lati-
tude,and yet with the limitationsbefqr^gjiren :
This promife was made to JU^i^ whole
$ctd>
e?8)
Seed, andanfwerably to his myfucalSeed, be*
licving Gentiles, as well as to his natural Seed :
Here is no limitation of the promife to either
fort or fpecics of Abrahams Seed i 'tis no more
limitted to his natural than to his myftical Seed,
nor to his myftical than to his natural, but is
made alike to both forts of Seed, whoever
bear this relation to Abraham, as his Seed, they
are the Subje&s intended in this jpromifc , or
fhey are under thispromifc,That God will be a
God to them in their generations : Every be-
lieving Gentile ftands related to Abraham , and
anfwerably is to be looked upon in the fame ca-
pacity, with reference to this promife, as Jfaac
did, though the foundation of the relation be
different i yet the relation it felf is one and the
fame, and the capacity of both , with reference
Co the Promife , alike , that we may fay as the
Apoftle tofomcthing a different purpofe , We
Brethren are as Jfaac wa§ , we fiand alike related
CO Abraham,** he did,and are the joynt Subjects
of the promife with him : fo that as God pro-
mifed to Abraham , with reference unto him,
that we would be a God to him in his genera-
tion, fo he promifed to Abraham, with reference
to us believing Gcntiles,that he would be a God
to us in our generations , that phrafe including,
•sthen fo.ftill, Parents and Children : and that
which gives further evidence to this truth is,
that Abraham's natural Seed, as grown up, held
their own intcrcft, and conveyed an actual right
co,and intcrcft, in the promifc,to their Children
cet a* they were AkrabirJs natural Seed them-
fclvci,
(79)
felves, but as they were his myftical Seed ( that
is ) did walk in the Reps of his faith and obe-
dience. Now let any man (hew any reafon why
the promifc in that extent and latitude fhould
be reftraincd to Abraham's natural Seed , especi-
ally they, as grown up, inheriting the promifc
thcmfelves , and conveying a right to it to their
Children, as his myftical Seed, and not as his na-
tural i I fay, let any man (hew any (olid reafon,
why the promiie in that extent and latitude
fhould be refrained to them, and why the Gen-
tiles fhould not enjoy it in the fame extent and
latitude that they did,feeingthat God hathpro-
mifed to be a God to Abraham and his whole
Seed in their generations j certainly no rati-
onal ground can be given, and therefore we may
pofitively conclude, that this promife,in the full
latitude and extent of it 9 is given and confirm-
ed to, and fetled upon believing Gentiles, in the
very firft making of it unto Abraham,
CHAP*
C'*o)
CHAP. V.
The fecond way of the foregoing Propor-
tions confirmation propofed and pro) edi-
ted 3 where it k proved, thxt by the Pro-
mijes and Pfophefies of the old Tefta-
ment , relating to new Te jt amen t times ^
the good contained in this Promt] e is
fetled upon0and confirmed to^ fome under
the Covenant of Grace in new Tejiament
times 3 and that it is no way rejirained.
unto thefe immediately and dirc&ly con-
cerned in thefe Promifes and Prophefyes,
andconfequtntly muff needs be common
to all under the fame Covenant. The
third way of the fame Proportions, con-
firmation, where it k proved, that the
good contained in t%e forementioned
Promife is, by the' exprejs letter of the
new 'lefiament • fetled upon and con-
firmed to believing Gentiles 5 the Scrip-
ture wherein that fettlemeni is made
produced: Obje&ions of the faid fettle-
ment anfwered,
SEcondly, The truth of this our fecond Pro-
portion is further evident from the Promifes
and
(8i)
and Prophtfiesof the old Teftament ; and thu*
the good contained in thisPromife made tohbra-
bsm is, in the extent and latitude before expreft,
^iven and confirmed to,and fetled upon believing
Guitilcs, by the Promifesand Prophelles of the
oid Tdiament , referring and relating to new
Tdtament times: And thus we argue , What
good is by promife and propheiie given to , and
idled upon fome under the Covenant of Grace
in new Teftament times, is by the fame promife
and prophcfie given to, and fetled upon all under
the lame Covenant , unlefs it be retrained to
that fome cither by the nature and quality of
the good it fclf, or by fome exprefs revelation
of the will of God ; but this good, viz. To
have God a God to them and their Infant-feed,
is by promife and prophefic given to, and fetled
upon lome under the Covenant of Grace in new
Tcftament times, and is not retrained to that
fome , either by the nature of the good it fclf,
or by any exprefs revelation of the will of God >
therefore that good muft needs by the fame
Prophelies and Promifes be given to, and fetled
upon all under the fame Covenant.
The Major proportion cannot be denied,
without utterly razing the foundation of the
faith and comfort »of all believers. For what is
the foundation of the faith and comfort of each
particular Believer but this , That what good is_
promifed to any particular Believers , and no
wayes retrained to thofc in particular to whom
the Promife was firftmade, is promifed to all
that are under the fame Covenant with them :
G 2 and
t«o
*nd thus the Apoftle dirc&s us to apply Promi-
ses made to particular Believers , yea, when
there might feem to be fome (hew of reafon to
teftrain the good promifed to thofe in particu-
lar to whom it was immediately made > the
Apoftle applying that Promife made to J^Jhus^
concerning Gods never leaving nor forfafyng bim>
to the Hebrews , is our fulficient direction in
this matter.
For the Minor propofition, that only can be
queftioned » for the proof of which I (hall, the
Lord affifting, do thefe three things.
Firft, Inftance in,and aflign the perlbns, who
in new Teftament times have by thePromifcs
and Prophefies of the old Tcilamcnt this good
given to, aad fetlcd upon them.
Secondly, I (hall prove, that 'tis one and the
fame Covenant of Grace that they are under,
as having this good given unto them , and that
believing Gentiles in general are under.
Thirdly, That this good is not retrained to
them in particular , to whom it is bypromife
and prop he fie given , either of thefe wayes be*
fore mentioned , and confequently not at ail.
For the firft, And thus I need do no more,
but produce fuch old Teftament Promifes and
Prophefies , as by which this good , of having
God a God to them and their Infant-feed , is
given to, and fetled upon fome under Che Cove-
nant
C83)
nant of Grace in new Teftamcnt times : Tht
perfons ,' or that fort or fpecies of pcrfons in-
tended in them,is fufficiently evident from thefc
Promifes and Propheiies thcmfelves. Look in-
to thefe Scriptures , Ifai, 59. 21. and 65. 25.
and 44 3,4. Jer. 3.12. Eze}^ 37, 21. and 22.
and compare all thefe places with iu?/*. 1 1. 26.
That all thefe Promifes and Propheiies refer to
the Jews, as yet to be called tnd brought home
unto Chrift , will not be denyed by any. And
this good, viz. To have God to be a God to
them, and their Infant- feed with them, is given
to,and fetled upon them by thefe Promifes and
Propheiies , is fure paft all rational doubt: If
all tnefc Promifes and Prophefies , concerning
Goes pouring his Spirit upon them and their
Seed , concerning his continuing his Word and
Spirit in their mouths, from one generation to
another^ concerning. his being a God to all
their families, not only of their perfons, but
families-, concerning their Children being as
atoretime , and the like ', efpecially the Apoftlc
expounding all thefe Promifes and Propheiies
by that univerfal phrafe, AH Ifrail , do not fufc
ficiently afTure the Jews , that whenthey arc
brought home unto Chrift, they (hall enjoy this
good in the latitude and extent exprelt , I ice-
rot how we can poflibly be fure of any thing?
held forth by way of promife and prophetic »
yea,or how we can be afford of any thing paft,
that is declard to us by Scripture- hiitory.
Certainly we rauft wholly defpair of under-
landing any thing God fpeaks to us in hi*
G 3 Word,
C84)
Word ; if we doubt whether the foremention-
ed Promifes and Prophefies do affure the Jews
of that forcmentioned good\ Therefore we
may poficivcly conclude , having fuch an abun-
dant, yea, fuperabundant evidence from Scrip-
ture for i.t,that the Jews , when the veil is taken
off from their hearts ,• and they that turned to
to the Lord (hall enjoy this good, in the fame la-
titude and extent that their Father Abraham
did.
Secondly, That it is one and the fame Cove-
nant into which the Jews ( the perfons to
whom this good is by thefe Promifes and Pro-
phefiesgivea) (hall be received, and believing
Gentiles in generations are under \ this is evi-
dent, paft all rational contradiction , by com-
paring Jer. 31,31. with Htbr. & 8. We plain-
ly fee, that the Apoftle takes it for granted, that
the Covenant that God promifes to make with
the Jews at their future calling and converfion,
ts the Covenant now made with believing Gen-
tiles > fo that though fome, though groundlefly,
fuppofe, that Covenant made with Abraham was
not thefame with that believing Gentiles are
now under : yet none can pretend, that the Co*
Ycoant under which believing Gentiles are, and
that to be made with the Jews,at the time fore-
mentioned , are different or diftinft Covenants.
Suppoie the Apoftle tell us, that God made
another Covenant with Believers than that he
made with If ael of old ( then that he made
with Abraham it is no where faid J yet thty
cannot
C§5)
cannot fry there is the leaft intimation that God
will nuke another Covenant with the Jews,
different from that we are now. under. Now
then the Covenant being one and the fame, the
promifes of that Covenant are indifferently to
be applyed unto all under it : And for the fur*
ther confirmation of this, let it be obferved,
that the Apofile doth fiequently apply thefe
promifcs , which are to have their full accom-
phfhment torhejews, to the Gofpel Church
under this prefent adminiftr it ion : compare
IJji. 54 1- with Gal. 4. 27. That promife in
in the letter directly refpe&s xhc Jews , yet the
Apoitle applyes it,as fulfilled inchoariveIy,in the
convcrlion of the Gentiles : So compare Hvfea
1,11. and 1. 23. with Rom. 9. 25,26. So
oiicc again, compare Amos 9, 1 1. wirh Acts 15.
26. So that it is evident, that the Covenant,
then to be rryde with , or into which the Jews
fhail b'e received , is the very fame with that
now made wirh believing Gentiles, and anfwe-
rably thofe promifcs, that (hall have their fall
accomplish me nt to the Jews , are applicable to
believing Gentiles.
Thirdly, That this good , of having God a
God to Parents and their Infant- feed , is not
reftrained to the Jews, by either of the wayes
before mentioned, and confequently not at all :
Who can imagine that believing Gentiles (hould
be lefs capable of injoying this good , than the
Jews will be at their converfion ? Why may not
6od be a God to Believers and their Seed now,
G 4 as
(96)
« well as to Believers and their Seed hereafter ?
Why may not God be a God to a believing
Gentile and his Seed , as well as to a believing
Jew and his Seed > Can any prove , that be-
lieving Gentiles arc abfolutely incapable of in-
joying this good, in the full latitude and extent
of ir> They will fay fomcthing to the invali-
dating of this Argument : Suppofe it mould be
granted f which yet I fee no reafonfor) that
the Seed of the Jews will be more capable of
being the Subje&s of the Covenant and pro-
mife thereof, than the Seed of Relievers now
are, yet unlefs they prove, that the Seed of
Believers arc abfolutely uncapablcof being re-
ceived into, as joynt Subjeds with their parents
pf theCovenant, and promife thereof, they fay
nothing tp the purpofe > in as much as whatever
difference, in point of capability or incapability,
may be affigned between the Seed of Believers
then, and the Seed of Believers now, iiuregard
of the different manner of this and that adrai*
niftration , yet that is no reafon why we may
riot apply thefe promifes to believing Gentiles,t$
have their firft accompli foment in and among
them , according to the manner of this prefent
tdminiftration i, as well as the Jews may apply
themtothemfelves,, and in joy the accompJiuV
ment of them in a way futable to that more
excellent and glorious adminiftration : and as
for the other way of Gods retraining the good
pfpromifes to fome particular perfons, viz. by
the exprefs revelation of his will , let any fuch
jcvclation of the will of God , in the matter
under
(87)
Under confiscation, be produced, and I (hall
pur an end to this controvert!* > and unkfs this
good, in the extent and latitude before expreft,
be Come way reftrained to the Jews, we may po-
iitively coBclude, that the promife made to
Abraham, with reference to his Seed , is by the
forementioned promifesand prophefies con-
firmed to , and fetled upon believing Gentiles,
in the full latitude and extent in which it was
given unto Abraham, viz. That God will be a
God to them in their generations, that is, to
them and their Seed. We may lay down this
f>encial lule , That whatever Piomifes or Pro-
phefies are given out by the Prophets in the old
Teftament, directly referring and relating to the
Jews at their call and converfion, yet unkfs the
good contained in them be foaie way reftrained
to them in particular, we may and ought to ap-
ply them to the new Teftament Church, and
the particular members of it, under this prcient
administration. The application made by the
Apoftle of Promifes and Prophefies diredly re-
ferring unto them, to the new Teftament
Church,and the particular Members thereof is a
(ufficient warrant for our io doing* As now
for intiancc take that promife, Amos p. n.
concerniag the building up the Tabernacle of
David, in the letter of it, it hath a dired refe-
rence to the future converfion of the Jews , yet
we fee, ABs 1516. the Apoftle applyes it to the
erecting and building up of the Gofpel Church
among the Gentiles. Now the Prophet Jert-
miab tells us, how God will build up this Ta-
bernacle
(8S)
bernadebf David, of and among the Jews, he
will do if, by taking in their rcfpc&ive families,
which muft needs take in Parents and Children
into Covenant wieh himfelf, He mil be a God
tit all the families pf the houfe of ffrael. ' Now *
let any rational account be given , why we may
not apply that promife in Jeremiah, txprttfing-
the manner of Gods raifing up this tabernacle,
tohrs raring it up from among the Gentiles , as
well as the Apoftfe applyes that promife it fclf
to the gathering the Church from among
them', doubtlefsnoreafon, that hath to much
ala probable fhewof rtafonor truth in it, can
be given.
And whereas it maybe faid, there are forrie
things fpoken in Jeremiah 31. which cannot
Be applied to believing Gntilcs.
To that I anfwer, Tis granted : But rhat
Hinders not at* all, but that what is applicable to
them, may and ought to be applied unto them,
in that promife , concerning the building up of
the Tabernacle of David ± as ft refers to the
converfion of the Jews, there is fomcthing
which is not applicable to the Gentiles; yet
that hinders not, but that the promife, fofaras
applicable to them, was intended of them, and
accomplifhed in the beginning of it , in their
conveifion : So now God, as being the God of
all the families of Ifrael, wi 1 1 > when the Jewilh
Church cometh up to the fulnefs of her glory,
communicate himfelf in a more full, glorious,
and univerfal manner , in refpect of the indivi-
dual Members of each family, than now he
/> cloth »
doth i yet that hinders not at all, but that that
promife was intended of the families of Ifr ael9
as gathered from among the Gentiles , as the
ApolHe calls the Gentile Church , the ifra'elof
<W,and is begun to be accompli (hed, according
to the true intent of it , under this prefcnt ad-
miniftration. But that's for the fccond way of
evidencing the truth of this our fecond Propo.
iltion.
Thirdly, The truth of what we affirm in
this fccond f ropofition may be evidenced from
the exprefs letter of the new Teftament , this
promile made to Abraham, and that in the fame
extent and latitude in which it was made to
him, is confirmed to, and fetled upon believing
Gentiles, by the exprefs letter of the new Te-
iUment. Thus in Galatians 3. 13, 14. Chri(iy
faith the Apoftlc Jtaf6 redeemed m from theenrft
of the Lar», beingmade a curfe for us, that tht
blejfitjg of Abraham might come on the Gentiles y
through J ejus Chriji , that tvi might receive tht
Frcmifc cf the Spirit through faith. The Apo*
iile we fee here doth polltively affirm , that the
very end of Chrift, redeeming the Gentiles from
the curfe of the Law, was their poflelling Abra-
ham's bleding, and confequently is the immedi-
ate iflue and refultof a Gentiles redemption or
deliverance from the curfe of the Law,through
Chrift, as believed in. No fobner is a believing
Gentile freed from the curfe of the Law,- by his
faith in Chrifi,but he,as one of Abraham's Seed,
hath Abrahams bkffing cotnc upon him.* Ftm
(' the
(90
the clearing up the evidence given in to the
truth of our foregoing Proportion , by this
Scripture I (hall do thefe two things,
Firft, I (hall prove, that this bleffing of A-
brahamfrid to be come upon believing Gentiles,
is that very good contained in that promife,
wherein God ingaged himfelf to be a God to
Abraham, and his Seed, and remove what Ob-
jections may be made to the contrary.
Secondly, I (hall prove, that this bleffing is
come upon the Gentiles, through Chrift, in the
fame latitude and extent that it was given to
Abraham,^ the firft cftabliftiment of the Cove-
nant with him.
For the firft, viz. That this bleffing came up-
on the Gentiles through Cnriftys the good con-
tained in the aforementioned promife : This is
evident from the Context.
Firft* From verfe 16. where fayes the Apo-
ftle , Now unto Abraham and bis S ted were the
Tromifes made > be faid not, unto Seeds, as of
manyjbut to tby Seed, which is Chrijl : This yerfc
16. is added for the confirmation of what the
Apoftle had alter ted in verfe 14 For the clear*
ing up of this wemuft obferve, that by the pro-
oaifcof the Spirit, in the latter claufe of that
▼erfe 14. and the bleffing of Abraham, in the
former claufe of this verfe , one and the. fame
good is intended. Tis truc,Bes* conceives two
diftinci
diftin£ hidings arc intended, and therefore he
adds that Copulative , «i *W. and takes that
phizk,'li?eprQmije of the Spirit, by an Hcbraifm,
toi the Spirit promifed i but that cannot be, for
thtn,as Fareut obferves, it mould not have been,
tjV i-myy^hf t* wrivfttt©- , the promifc of the
Spirit, as it is, but i* *h<va -ib \wypti**, the
Spirit of promifc : and therefore by the pro*
mife of the Spirit we muft undcrihnd, cither
that fpmtual promifc, foFarem% or rather that
promifc which God by his Spirit gave unto A-
brabam , and which by the infpiration oi the
Spirit is left upon record in the Scripture , and
that is the promife containing the bkffing be-
fore mentioned > or if any mould undt ritand it
ot the Spirit himfdf, taking ijt of his in-dwel-
ling preience , they {hall not begainfaid by me.
And the meaning is this, Chriit hath redeemed
us from the curfeof the Law, that we, whethet
jews or Gentiles , might receive the promile of
the Spirit, (viz, that bleffing promifed to Abta-
bam by the Sphic ) through taithin Qwift^that
is, that being united by faith untoChrift, and
incorporated into him , as members of hisroy-
fiical body, we might receive that bleffing pro-
mifed to Abrdbam , and now come upon the
Gentiles through Chrift: So that that which
the Apoftle aflertsjn this ver. 14.1s this,that the
bleffing promifed to Abraham is come upon the
Geanlcs, through their incorporation into Chrift
by faith , and this the Apoltlc proves in verfc
16. by the tenour of the promile wherein the
bkffing aforementioned i? contained; The te-
nour
((9m
nour of the promife is this, not, I will be a God
to thee and thySeeds, but to thee and thy Seed,
as intending only one fpecies or kind of Seed,
which the Apotile expounds to be Ghrilt , that
i;,Chriifc my (heal. Now obfervc it, the Apofties
Urging the tenour of the promife, to prove that
the bktfing of Abraham is com: upon the Gen-
tiles, as he had atore affirmed it to be, in verfe
14 evidently declares, he muft needs intend the
blciling contained in that promife > if he had
intended it of any other bfciling than that good
given to Abrahim and his Seed by thac promife,
the tenour of that promife had not prov'd what
he was to prove : fo that it mutf needs be that
bklfing promiftd to Abraham , that the ApotHe
here affirms to be come upon believing Gentiles
through Jefus Chrift. Now that this promife,
by the tenour of which the Apoftle prov'd
What he had faid, verfe 14. is this very promife
made to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. is evident pad
all doubt , in as much as the Apott le muft needs
tefer to Come promife made to Abraham and his
Seed in that very phrafe * 1o thee and thy Seed •
the (frength of the Apoftles Argument lying in
the manner of expreffion, to thy Seed. Now
we have no other promife containing a good
competable to the Gentiles , exprett in rhar
phraie but this only i fo rhacut is evident, that
this bleffing, faid to be come upon the Genti es
through Chrift, is that bleffing contained in that
very promife, wherein God ingaged to be a God
toAbrabam9 and his Seed in their generations.
As for that promife in Cm. 12.3. there is no
mention
(93)
mention at all of Abrahams Seed i and for that
Gen, 17. 19. unto which fome feem to fuppofil
the Apoitle here hath reference , there is no
mention at all of Abrahams Seed, as fuch, but
of Ifaacs j and belides,'tis not faid to thy Seed,
but it is fpoken of or concerning his Seed : But
now, I fay, the Apoftlc muft needs refer to, and
intend fome promife., wherein this very phrafe,
to thy Seed, is exprefly ufed : The ft length of
this Argument, a* I have faid, lying in the man-
ner of cxprtllion , there being a myftery in that
phrafe, implying that the bltfling of Abraham
(hould not be enjoyed by all that might lay .
claim to this relation to Abraham^ his Seed,
but by his Seed which were of the faith, as the
Apotile explains it, Rom. 4. 13.
Secondly, That theblcffing faid to be come
come upon the Gentiles through Chrift, is that
bltfling contained in that promife of the Cove-
nant, is evident from verfe 29 where faith the
Apoftle, // ye beCbrijis, thm art ye Abraham'/
Seed, and heirs according to firomife: Heirs of
what ? Why verfe 14 tel's us, of the blclfing of
Abraham : But heirs according to what pro-
mife ? Why verfe 16. tells us , that promi/c
made to the Seed of Abraham : Now how could
they be heirs of that bkffing, according to, or
by vertue of that promife , unlefs the bleiling
f hey were heirs unto , "were the bltffing or good
contained in that promife > Can any be heirs ro
a bleffing, according to or by vertue of that pro-
mife, in which that bhifing is not contained?
Or
Cm
Or can a promife convey a right to that good
which is not contained in it ? who can imagine
it > Therefore doubtleis the bleffing muft needs
be the bkfling, contained in that promife made
to Abraham , and his Seed in their generati-
ons.
Thirdly, That the bleffing of Abraham faid
to be come upon believing Gentiles through
drift, is the bleffing contained in that promife,
is evident from verfe^, where it is faid , thej
that arc of the faith arc blefTed, *vf *> «pjt
Ag&Jp, with faithful Abraham, that is, bkffed
with the fame bleffing that Abraham was blef-
fed with : Now there is no bleffing that Abra-
ham wasblefled with,that can poffibly come up-
on the Gentiles , but only the bleffing contained
in this promife,and therefore that muft needs be
the bleffing here intended.
But three things will be objcAed agaiftft our
taking this Scripture as an exprefs fettlement of
Abrahams bleffing , as it confided in that pro-
mife , of God being a God to him and his Seed,
upon believing Gentiles.
Firft, Itwjllbeobje#cd, That this bleffing
is not meant of that bleffing with which Abra-
ham himfelf was bleffed , but of that bleffing
promifed to him , with reference to his Seed,
which was, that God would be a God to them,
as he was to Abraham himfelf.
T*
(95)
To this I anfwcr : It is all one, whether we
undcritand it of the blc fling promifed to Abra*
bam.w ith reference to himielt or with rcfereace
to his Seed , in as much as the Promife made to
Air ^bam himfeif , and that made to him with
reference to his Seed, is one and the fame : What
God promifed to Abraham^ viz. That he would
he a God to him and his natural Seed, that he
pomifed to his Seed, viz. to be a God to them
in their generations i that is, as before explain-
ed jo them and their Seed > and belides, taking
it fo , the promife to Abrahams natural Seed
was, to thtm in their generations. And in like
Bhanrici , astheApollle here affirms, it runs to
believing Gentiles, viz. to them in their gene-
rations, including Parents and Children : But
if we compare this phrafe, n fato?htti AC£pt/K,
the bleflingof Abraham, with verfe 9. it is evi-
dent , it was the blelftng wherewith Abraham
himfeif wasbkffcdv the bleffing of Abraham^
according to the propriety of the phrafe, pro-
perly lignities the bleffing that Abraham himfclf
injoy'd ; and to be blelfed with Abraham , to
enjoy his bleffing , and to inherit the good pro*
mifed to him, with reference to his Seed, in-
tends, in the language and difputatiqn of the
Apoftle, one and the lame thing i an undeniable
cvidcnce,that the promife,as made to Abraham^
with reference to his Seed , contained the very
fame good it contained as made to Abraham
himfeif, the Father of that Seed. Now to him
it was, to him and his Sccdy that is, his natural
Seed i and therefore it is the fame to his Seed,
H / t$
(96)
to them and their natural Seed , or which is all
one, to thera in their generations.
Secondly, It will be obje&ed , That this
bkffing is not meant of a relative good , con-
lifting in a Covenant -relation between God and
Abraham, and his Seed, but is meant of thefe
fpiritual bleffings of Reconciliation, Juftiricati-
on, Adoption, and Eternal Life vouchsafed to
Abraham , as perfbnally confidered $ and 'tis
granted, that Abrahams bkffing , confiitmgof
rhe(e fpirituai bleffings, is come upon believing
Gentiles, through Chrift : But what is this to
that promife made to Abraham , concerning
Gods being a God to him, and his Seed in their
generations, conftituting an external Covenant-
relation between God and them.
To this I anfwer, This Obje&ioa will be
obviated by the fecond thing propofed, for the
clearing up of the fef dement made oi.Abra-
ham's bkffing upon believing Gentiles, by the
cxprefs letter of this Scripture : and therefore I
(hall only fay thus much at prefent , that it is
granted , the (piritual benefits or bleffings now
rnentioned, were included in this bkffing, faid
here to be come upon the Gentiks through
Chrift, yet not 'exclufrVe of that relative good
of a Covenant ftate and relation between Gocj
and Abraham^ and his Seed, but that is the ruij
and primary good intended, and that which is
the foundation of all the remand in which they
&zc ail virtually included.
Thirdly,
(97)
Thirdly, It will be further obje&ed , That
the blcffiug here faid to be come upon the Gen-
tilts through Chrift, is not that bleffing where-
with Abraham himfelf was bleffcd , but that
bltiiing promifed to the Nations in him, and
confequently the Apoftle intends not the blef-
iing contained in that promifc of the Covenant,
mentioned in that Gen. 17. 7 but that bleffing
fpoken of Gen, 12. 3. where God Promifes on-
to Abraham , that in him all the Nations of the
earth (hould he blejfed: and that the Apoftle
intends it of that blehng contained in that pro-
mife , and notof that bleffing contained in that
Gen 17. appears fromveric the eighth of this
third of Galatians%
To this I anfwer two things.
Fhft, That though I freely grant , that this
bleffiog , faid by our Apoftle to be come upon
the Gentiles , be that bleffing with which 'twas
promifed to Abraham, That the Nations (hould
be bltlTed in him, yet it will not follow , that
it is not the bleffing or good contained in that
grand promife of the Covenant , yea, that it is
the bleffing contained in that grand promife
of the Covenant, is abundantly proved from
what hath been already fpoken. And there-
fore,
Secondly, I anfwer, That that bleffing, witb
which God promifed fo to blefs the Nations in
Abraham , is the fame bleffing contained ia that
grand promife of the Covenant » and therefore
H a the
( 93 )
the Apbftlc might have, and certainly hath re-
ference to both thefc promifesin this Chapter.
For the clearing up of this , let it be obferved,
that there are three things confiderabie in this
bleffingpromifed to Abraham, with reference to
the Nations of the Earth.
Firft, There is the matter of this bkfling,
at*d that is fummarily , their having and enjoy-
ing God, as a God unto them and theirs.
Secondly, There are the means of their in-
joying that bl (Ting , and thc(e are either chief
and principal , viz. Chrili as removing the
curfc of the Law, and purchasing that biffing
for them by his death and frittering. 2. The
fubordinite and Ids principal, viz. Abraham
himfclf.
Thirdly, There is the notion or confideration
under which they fhould receive and tnjoy this
bltffiug, and that is, as Abrahams Seed.
Now in thatGe/z. 12. 3. wc have a more ge-
neral promife of this blefling , with which God
intended to bkfs the Nations , and alfo a fpeci-
fication of the means, boihfupream and prin-
cipal, and alfo fubordinate and Ids principal, of
their coming to the injoymemof it v they mould
be blclTcd in Abraham, that is, in Abraham him*
felf, asthelefs principal means i in Chrili, the
Seed of Abraham , as the chief and principal
tneaus.
But
(99)
Bat in this Gen. 17 7. wc have both the mat-
ter of the blcffi'n^ afore promifed, and the notion
under which they fhould receive and injoy it »
1 will he , faith God , a God to thee and thy Setd
after thee in their generations. The notion un-
der which God promifed to blefs the Nations in
Abraham ,is,as they were his Seed '•> the matter
of the bklfingis, that God would be s God to
them in their generations j that is, to them and
theirs. So that thefe two Promifcs, Cjtn. 123.
and Gen. 17. 7. are not twodiltmd Promifes,
containing two diltincl blcflings > but they con-
tain one and the fame bktling, and, as taken
joyntly together , declare the full mind of God
ccn.erning his blclling the Nations ot the Earth
in Abraham. The turn of all comes to thus
much , That God woald make Abraham as a
rather of natural Children, from among whom
the Mi Huh Chould come ; fo a fpiritual
or myitical Father , and anfwerably would ,
through the interpofal of that one principal
Member of his Seed, viz. Chrift, be a God to
him and his Seed, both natural and mvfrical, in
their generations » and confequently «1< the Na-
tions of the Earth , whether of Abraham's na-
tural Race or Pqfterity, or of the Gentiles, thit
were defigncd to be bleffea\ mould be blelTed in
Abraham, as his Seed, or m him, as a common
Father to them all : And in ha Seedyviz, Chrift,
as the procuring caufe of that their bleffednefs :
Hence it is no wonder, though the Apoitle, in
fpeaking of the way of the bleflings coming
upon the Gentiles, hath reference to both there
H 3 promXcs,
( ico)
promjfes, both, as I faid, taken together, ahd in
conjun&ion one With the other , containing the
full mind of God, concerning his bkffing the
world : As a clofe of all. let me add , that as
God promifcd to blefs the Nations in Abraham^
as before opened , fo he made Abraham himfelf
a copy or pattern,according unto which he pro-
miied to blefs them in him, and that both in re*
fpedi of the bkffing it felf,with which he would
blefs them,and in refpeft of the terms and man*
ner of their poffeffing and inheriting that blef-
fing, viz. Through faith in Chrrfr,exprc fling it
felf in univerfal obedience.
For the further proof of this, let it be ob(cr-
ved,that both the Hebrew prefix and the Greek
prepofition we tranflate in, may be tranilated
after the manner -, or according to .* For the
Greek, fee Hebr. 4. 1 1 . whence Calvin gives the
ftnfe thus , Nm t ant am fignificat iffnm fore
exemplar ^ fed caufam benedi&hnit. Junius and
T'remelittf give this glofs, ¥amili& Urre tibi
infite per fidem, participes fiunt harumpromijjio*
ftum benedidionxmqHe tuarum : And thus the
Apoftle expounds this promife, of being blelTcd
in Abraham , by another phrafe , bleffed with
Abraham. Now then having proved, that this
bleffing, faid by the Apoftle to be come upon the
Gentiles through Chrift, is that very bleffing or
good contained in that grand Promife of the
Covenant , and that not only in that branch of
it that refers to Abr abam's Seed , but in that
branch referring directly unto Abraham him-
felf, wherein God ingaged *o be a God to him
and
fioi)
and his Seed , and confequently that this is the*
bkfling faid to be come upon the Gentiles.
1 come now to the fecond thing propofed,
viz. to prove,that this bkfling is come upon the
Gentiles, in the fame extent and latitude in
which it was given to Abraham himfelf : Now
this is fufficiently evident from the alone confi*
deration of the indefinitenefs and univerfality
of the expreflion , the bkfling of Abraham 1 we
fee the Apoflle affirms, the bkfling of Abraham
is come upon the Gentiles, without any reftri&u
on or !imiration,he doth not fay,this or that part
of the bkfling 3 but the bkfling abfolutely and
unlimitedly.
It is true, notwithstanding the indefinitenefs
and univerfality of the Apoftles expreflion h
yet in cafe any part of the bkfling vouchfafed
to Abraham beof that nature, as that the Gen-
tiles are fimply and abfolutely incapable of if>
or in cafe God himfelf hath ariy where elfe
withheld any part of it from them, in this cafe
a limitation and reftri6tion muft beunderftood,
as neceflarily implied in this general and univer-
fal expreflion 5 but otherwife we ought to un-
derftand the Apoftle, according to the full lati-
tude of his expreflion, the bkfling, that is, the
whole bleiling of Abraham is come upon be-
lieving Gentiles.
And hence we argue : 'If the whole bkfling
of Abraham be come upon believing Gentiles.
To far as they are capable of injbying it,and God
hath by neexprefs revelation of his will with-
H 4 held
held it from them, and this, to have God a God
to him and his natural Seed , was an cifential
part of his bleffing, which believing Gentiles
are capable of injoying^nd God hath not by any
tevelation of his will withheld from them, then
this part of his bleffing is come upon them in
the fame extent and latitude in which it was
given to Abraham : But the former is truc,there-
rore the latter.
It's true , If any man can make it appear,
that this part of Abrahams bleffing, viz,. Gods
^gaging to be a God to his Seed with him, be a
bleffing the Gentiles are incapable of injoying ,
or that God by any expreis revelation of his
will, hath withheld that part of the bkffing
from them % we flull ceafe any further claim to
But as for the fu(t, The incapacity of be-
lieving Gentiles to injoy this part of Abrahams
bleffing, furenone can pretend it i for fuppofe if
ftould be granted ( which is, not) that be-8
Iieveis under this pre fent difpenfation are not
in a like capacity to injoy this good, that Saints
in future times will be > or that their Seed are
not alike capable of that good the Seed of Be-
lievers in thofe times will be capable of: Yet
time can fay,that cither believers, or their Seed,
are incapable of whit Abraham and his natural
Seed were capable of: 'tis Grange how it is
poflible for any man to conceit (ben a difference,
either in the capacity of Parents or Children,
or in the difpenfation of jGod , that Believers
under this prefent difpenfation mould be who!-
I)
(103)
ly deprived of that part of the bkffing, which
Believers formerly injoyed, and fhali again injoy
at the call and converiion 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 bkffing from Believers,
and the controvtrlie is at an end. Till then
we (hall take it for granted , that the bkffing of
^Abraham is in this extent and latitude, in and
by Chriil come upon believing Gentiles. And
though it is granted , the direct defign of the
Apoftle in this place is, not to aflert the latitude
and extent of Abrahams bkffing , yet the indc«
finitenefs and univerfality of his expreffion is
a fufficient warrant for our interpreting the
bkffing in this latitude and extent pleaded
for. t
chap*
C 104 j
_____
&■■■ CHAP. VI.
The fourth andlafl » <*j of the fecond Co-
ordinate Proportion, cStiprmatioi
the New Teftament are confttkreJ.
hive Conclu^ns deduced from them 5
P<? third principally in ft ft ed upon}
mere u is proved 9 that the Promifeof
Solvation appertains to the Houfes of
WtWtvg Parents, as fuch , without
consideration had to the pergonal faith
and Repentance of any in or of their
. Houfes, heftdes their own , by two Ar-
guments. Objeftions againjt each Ar-
gument anfwered.
Fourthly , The truth of what we affirm in
this fecond Propofition may be further
evidenced from feveralpaflages and cxprdfions
in the new Teftament, plainly declaring , that
the Infant-feed of Believers under the Gofpcl
adminiftration, are included and take* in, as
fcjvnt Subjects with their Parents of the Cove-
tiarif and Promife thereof, and that by vertue
or their Parents relation to Abraham , as his *
Seed.
Now
Now this laft way of evidencing what i$
pleaded for , though it might require a very
large difcourfe,yet I (hall but briefly touch upon
it , partly becaufe the truth pleaded for is, as I
conceive, fufficiently evidenced from what hath
been already fpoken , and partly becaufe other's
have already fully handled and improved thefe
paflagesand expreffions, I have reference unto,
for the vindicating and eftabliftiing this truth, I
in common with them contend for j that to add
any thing more, efpccially there being fo little,
or rather nothing at all, replyed to any purpofe
by ourOppofers, may feem wholly fuperfluous 5
and therefore I (hall only produce thofe para-
ges and expreffions in the new Teftament, arid
lhew what evidence they give into this fecond
Propofition, in feveral Concluflons, neceffafily
flowing from, or grounded upon them, as taken
together,and compared one with another.
The PalTages and Expreffions I have reference
unto, are theiV five.
Thefirftisthatof Chrift, Marh^ 10. 10. '
The fecond is again that of Chrift, Lu%c
The third is that of Titer to the trembling
Jews, AUs 2.38,39.
The fourth is that cf ?sul to the Taylor,
The laft is that of Pant to the Corintbia^
1 Cor. j. 14.
From all thefe Scriptures , as laid together,
and compared one with another,thefc five Ctfn-
clufions do neceffaiily follow.
FirfK
Firft, That upon Parents believing in Chrift,
the Promife ot falvation belongs not only to
thcmfclves , but to their refpc&ive Houfcs :
fayes the Apoftle to the Jaylor , Believe in tbi
Lord Jefus , and thou jhalt be faved, and thine
Houfe : where we fee the Apoftle propofes it as
a motive and incouragement to him to believe,
in that upon his believing, not only himfclf, but
his houfe mould be faved, that is, both he him-
fclf and his houfe fhould come under the pro-
mife of falvation; or as the Apoftle Ferer ex-
pounds it , The promife of falvation fhould he to
him sndbis houfe I he and his houfe fhould have
falvation fetled upon them by promife , accord-
ing to the true tenour of the promife, which as
it did not fecurc falvation to the Jaylor himfclf
abfolutely , but upon conditioner his perfeve-
tance in faith and obedience \ He that indurts to
the end Jh all be faved: Be faithful unt,o the
death, andlrcil (give thee a Crown of lift , faith
Chrift to that Church, Rev. 2. 10. from which
and the like Scripture it appears , that the pro-
.mileof falvation, that Believers themfelvcsare
Under, is not abfolute but conditional > and the
fame muft be underftood of the promifes, as
made to their houfcs , which through their Pa-
rents believing they arc brought under,
And as the Apoftle promifes falvation to the
Jaylor and his houfe, as a motive and incourage-
ment to him to believe, fo Chrift tells Zacheut^
that upon his belicving,falvation was come to his
houfe, that is, he and his houfe were now under
the promife of falvation.
As
(1=7)
As foi that conceit of fome, that by falvation
here Chiilt himfcli inould be intended •, as it is
wholly groundlcfs , fo an evident perverting of
the woidsof Chrift.
For firft, Let it be (hewed where Chrift is
ever called falvation iln>ply and abfolutely •
'tis true , he is called Gods falvation r and Be-
lievers have appropriated him to themfelves as
their falvation i but that is as he is Author or
EiBcient of Salvation : This term Salvatiom,
when ufed limply and abfolutely. ilgnifies Salva* •
tion properly and literally taken.
Secondly, It is evident, that Salvation her*
is laid to be come to Ziehen his houfe , as a p£*
culiar good accrcwing to him upon that very
ground , and vouchtafed to him for that very
reafon, becaufc he was now a Son of Abraham,
and confequently was a good common to ail, of
whom the fame ground and reafon might be
predicated or ipoken, and peculiar and proper to
them as fuch. Now as Chrift did not come to
all their houfes , who were the Children of A-
brabsm, whether natural or myllical,io he might
come to their houfes , who were not the Sons of
Abraham, in the one or the other fence.
Thirdly, The Apoille doth clearly expound
the meaning of Chrift, Salvation wai come to bis
houfe i that is , as the Apoitle expounds it , He
and his houfe were under the promifeof Salva*
tion. Now did not men too wilfully (hut their
eyes
C 108)
eyes againft the light of Scripture, they would
not affix a fence upon the words of Chriit v no
yfbeic warranted from any other parallel Scrip-
ture, but contrary to the deiign of Chriii in
them, when they have a plain Expofition made
by the Holy Gkoil himfelt : .we fee what Ghrift
iaith of Zacbtus's houfe, and the ApotUc promi-
ses the Jay lor, with reference to his houfe, that
is faid |and promiied upon one and the fame
ground,z//£.theJFather of both;Chrift laith,£aJ-
vttionis come to %is boufe \ he now believing, the
•ApohMe faith, his houle mail be faved upon con*
dition of his believing. And who can imagine,
but that they both fpeak of falvation in one and
the fame fence, and confequently that the Apo-
ille expounds what that falvation was , that
Chrift faith was come to Zdcbeut, upon his be-
lieving , 'twas the fame kind of falvation that
he promifes to the Jaylor, upon condition of his
believing.
The fecond Conclufion. Thus under this
term Houfe, Children are, in a peculiar and fpe-
cial manner , included and comprehended :
How far this term Houfe, is to be extended,
whether beyond the Children of thofe , whofe
houfe is fpoken of, or no, concerns not my pre-
ferit purpoie ; that they are included and in-
tended under that term Houfe% is all that at pre-
fcnt I affirm. Now that the Children are in-
tenaVd, is evident, partly from that phrafe* ^#'
16. 33. where I otitic **, thy houfe, verfc 31. is
expounded by this phrafc, •; wu mnu, all of
him,
(icp)
bim,and partly from the frequent acceptation *f
this term Hotife throughout the Scripture ; it
being peculiarly appropriated to the Children;
Or (hould the term be more comprchenfive, yet
it cannot. rationally be fuppofed to exclude
them : And yet 'tis further evident by the Apo-
ftle Peter, where faith hie , Ibe Promife it to you
and your Children : What Promife ? Why the
Apoiile Paul tells us, the promife of Salvation v
Ibe Frornife is to thee and thy honft , faith Paul
to the Jay lor; But who are we to undcrftand
by Houjl> Why Peter tells us , his Chil-
dren. Hence again , as for that conceit of
others, that the meaning fhould be, that falva-
tion was come only to him , and in that it was
come to him, it might be faid, it was come to
his hcufe , 'tis too palpable a perverting the
mind of Chrift : For let it be obferved, that bjr
SaWatien here , is meant Salvation in a proper
fence. as hath been already proved ; and that by
Honfe here, cannot be meant that material
building wherein he dwelt, but his Houfhold ok
Family. Now how Salvation could be faid to
be come to his Hou&old, in that it was come to
him, when as his HouIhol^J was no wayes inte-
retted or concerned in it, is hard to imagine *
properly it cqukl not be faid to be come to his
houfe,himfelf was not properly his houfe : So
that this interpretation mutt needs fuppofe, that
Chrift here fpeaks figuratively. Now kt u be
obferved, how utterly improbable it is , that
Cr.nii (hould ufea figurative fpeech, that had a
an -..ii tendency, to lead men mie aonftake about
his
his fence and and meaning, when he might have
exprcit himfelf without any figure, in as few
and as intelligible words, and thereby prevented
the danger ol his being miftaken ; Had Chrift
intended that Salvation was come only to Zj-
cbtut himfelf, it had been as catlc for him to
have faid , Salvation is come to this man , as to
fay , Salvation is come to this houfe > and that
this phrafe, this boufe^did fubjeft men to the
danger of mittakinghis fence and meaning, in
cafe he had fpoken figuratively, is fufficicntly
evident becaufe that term Houfe^ is fo frequent -
ly^ycajconuantly and univcrfally ufed iH a fence
different from what this interpretation fuppo-
fcth that Chrift did ufe it in this place,that term
Houfe^ being coniiantly and univerfilly ufed to
tignine the Family or Children of thofe, whofe
houfe is fpoken of, unlefs when it fignihes
the material building it fclf : How many hun-
dred places might be mftanced in, as an evidence
of this ? Let it be (hewed whereever this term
Houfe is ufed as it is fuppofed to be in this inter-
pretation : neither is it,as I judge,a phrafe to be
parallel'd in any Language whacfocver,that any
good or evil (hould be faid to be come to a houfe
that r$,the Family or Houihold, when it is come
only to one in the houfe , having no reference
to any beyond the particular perfon himfelf,
is an expreflion not to be parallel'd throughout
the whole Scriptures : but now 'tis the conflant
phrafe of Scripture, to exprefs the Family, efpe-
cially the Children, by that term Houfe , 'tis
wholly fupcffiwus to enumerate placer; to
due
(Ill)
hat (hould this term Houfe be ufed thus impro-
erly by Chrift in this place , it auft needs Tub-
t(k all men to the danger of miftaking his fence
nd meaning, and the danger muft needs be the
greater, becaufe the good, viz. Salvation, faid
lere to be come to his houfe,is fo frequently, both
n the old and new Teftament , held forth , at
eaft very probably, to fay no more at prefent,irt
iich an extent and latitude as to reach the
vhole Family, efpecially the Children together
vith their Parents s thus it was promifed to
Abraham^ that the Families of the Earth Jhould
?e bleffed in him : So God promifes , that he
would be the God of all the Families of Ifrael.
?aul tells the Jaylor , that he and his houfe
(hould be faved. Peter tells his awakened
learers, the promife was to them and their
Children, that is, in an equivalency to them and
their houfes. Now when it is found in fuch va-
riety of palTages,that the promife of Salvation ex-
tends to whole houfes upon the believing cf the
Parents, men muft needs be very apt to conceive,
that Chrift ufes this term Houfe , in a fence cor-
refpondent to thofe various pafiages, wherein
the fame good is at lead probably held forth in
fuch a latitude and extent , as to reach the
whole houfes of believing Parents. Now I
fay, can we imagine that Chrift (hould ufe a
^hrafeinfuch a fence, as the whole Scripture
is unacquainred with, and which is conltantly
iCcd in another fence , and thereby fubje& ail
Tien to fo great danger of mhkking Ins fence
md meaning 5 and chit alfo to the upholding of
(112)
whathimfelf, according to the judgments o
ourOppoferSjhe was about to throw down,wheii
he might have expreft himfelf with as mud
eafe,6c alike intelligibly, in proper terms, no wa]
liable to be miftaken, methinksit is very ftrang
how it is pofllble for any man to imagine it : S(
that doubtlefs Chrift fpeaks properly , Sal
vation was come to Zacbem his houfe, that is
the promife of Salvation did belong to hi:
houfe, in fpeeial to his Children : and this a-»
grees, as already observed , with that promifi
of Faul to the Jaylor, Ibou jkalt be faved ant
tby bonfe.
Thirdly, That thepromife of Salvation be-
longs to the houfes of believing Parents, meet-
ly as fuch, without confederation had to the per-
gonal faith and repentance of any in, or of theii
jrefpeclive houfes, and consequently the promiie
of Salvation may , and frequently doth belong
to the houfes of believing Parents , antecedent
to the perfonal faith and repentance of any in
or of their houfes, befides themfclvcs. What
belongs to the houfes of* believing Parents, as
fuch , that is, as the houfes of fuch Parents,
equally and alike belongs to all the houfes of all
fuch Parents , and confequently may belong to
the houfes of this or that particular believing
Parent, when yet none in or of the houfe have
perfonaHy believed or repented.
Now the truth of this Concluiion will be
evident by a twofold Argument,
Fiift,
C III)
Firft , What belongs to the houfcs of be-
lieving Parents, meerly by vertueof fomething
univerfally predicate of all fuch Parents, iluU
needs belong to their iefpettive Iicufe,, as fuch,
without confederation- had to the perfonal faith
and repentance of any in or of jheir refpettive
houfes: But thepromifeoi Salvation belong!
to the houfes of believing Pavents , by vcrtuc
offomething univerfally predicate of all fuch
Parents * and trier t fore the jproroilc of Salva-
tion mult needs belong to all their rcfpc&ive
houfes, as the houfes of iuch Parents without
confideration had to the perfonai faith and re-
pentance of any in or of this houfe.
The Major proportion cannot be denyed yfor
if the ptomiTe of Salvation belong to the hou-
fes d< believing Parents , rneerly by vertue of
fomething univerfally predicabie of all iueh
Parents, certainly then none can qitf iiion , out
that the promife belongs to thpfc houfes, 'M ^^
houfes ot fuch Parents > without confider;
had to any thing in;or done by the houfes r
felves, ormy in or of them. Ir tKtdomin
fuch a Town or Corporation (hall belong to the
Children of Frecmen,mecily by veitue ot theii
Parents freedom, fure none cuuid queltion, buC
that freedom did belong to them , ai ths Chil-
dren of filch Paren;s,\vithout confideration had
to any thing in refpedt or the Children them-
felves. , ? u
for the Minor proportion: and thus 1 nave
shree things to do.
i i
OH)
Firft , To (hew what is that thing predi-
cate of believing Parents, by vertueof which;
the promife of Salvation belongs to their refpe-
dive houfes.
Secondly., To prove, that the promife ol
Salvation doth indeed -belong to the houfes oij
fuch Parents, meerly by vertue of that thing pre.|
dicable of thera.
Thirdly, To prove, that that thing, what-
ever it be, is univerfally predicable, or is univcr-i
rally true of all fuch Parents.
For the firft, And thus in brief , That thingi
predicable of believing Parents , by vertue oil
which the promife of Salvation belongs to their
refpe&ive houfes , is their relation unto^r*-
bam^s his Seed : Therefore faith Chrift of Za\
chews his houfe, Ibis day is Salvation come to this-
houfe , for as much as be it the Son of Abraham ;.
'Tis his Sonfliip to Abraham , or his relation to
Abraham^ as one of his Seed, that interefted his
houfe in the promife of Salvatioa.
Secondly, Which is the main thing to be
proved, That the promife of Salvation doth
belong to the houfes of believing Parents, meer-
ly by vertue of their Parents relation unto A-
brabam, as his Seed Now this is evident from
that paffage of Chrift concerning Zacbeus his
houfe, Salvation is come to this houfe, for as much
as be alfo is a Son of Abraham > that by boufe is
nor
C»5)
sot meant Zacbews hlmfelf, is before proved \ it
muft needs be meant of his Houfliold, or Family,
peculiarly intending his Children. Now fay es%
Chriit, Salvation U some to tbit boufe, that is, to
this Houfliold or Family , for as much as bets a
Son of Abraham. Whether Zacbeus was a Jew
or a Roman is all one as to my purpofe , feeing
he is conlidered here, not as a natural , but as a
myftical Son of Abraham i and as fuch a one,
Chrift affirms, Salvation was come to his houfe y
plainly grounding his houfes right to, and in-
terclt in Salvation, upon his own relation to
Abraham , as one of his Seed ? Salvation was
not only to nimfelf,but to his houfhold, by ver-
tue of his relation to Abraham , as one of his
Seed, and that the promife of Salvation belongs
to the houfes of fuch Parents, raeerly by vertue
of that their relation to Abraham, is evident,
becaufe the Scripture affigns nothing elfe as ne-
ceffarily to concur with that their Parents rela-
tion unto Abraham, for the effeding or produ-
cing their houfes *ight to, and intereft in the
promife: Chrift tells us here , That Salvation
was come to this mans houfe by vertue of his
relation unto Abraham \ and let it be (hewed,
where any thing elfe is required,for the effecting
or producing that their intereft in , and right to
the promife.
It may be fomc will fay, 'Tis cafily done \
the Apoftle Peter makes effe&ual calling a necef-
fary prerequifue to the Seed of believing Parents
inteteltin, and right to the promifes ; for faith
I 3 he,
fn6)
he, . The Tromifeis to yon and your Children, and]
to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord
cyr God fitall call. Whence it feems to be evi.
dent , that nofwithftanding Parents relation to
Abraham, as his Seed, yet thepromife of Salva-
tion appertains not to their Children, but upon
fuppoiition of their being eft dually called.
To that I anfwer two things ( not to Hay
upon a vindication of that Text of the Apo-
tile from the unfound fence fuppofed in this Ob-
jection i
Firfi, That (thrift doth not fay> Salvation
(hall come to this houfe, but he fpeaks in the
Hme pail, Salvation is come : 'tis true, if it had
been only a promtie referring to the time to
come , there had been fome (hew of colour for
the fuppoimg fuch a condition to be implyed in
it* but Chritl faith, Salvation was then come,
and that upon that ground, and for that realon,
becaufe he alfo was a Son of Abraham. Now
fhould we interpret this affirmation of Chrift
by that of the Apoftie, according to the fence
given by our Oppofcrs , his words would run
thus, Salvation is come to this houfe ; that is,
to as many of them as the Lord our God (hall
call, which would be contradictory, for if it were
come already5the coming of it could not depend
upon a future condition. If the coming of Sal-
tation did depend upon the p-rformance of a
future condition, it cou'd not be faid to be come
already, "cfore wtmuft not interpret
this
'I
his paiTage of Chrift by that of Peter, but that
^pafTage of Peter by that of Chrift.
Secondly, I anfwer, That this was a good
vouchfafed to Zacheus , upon the account of his
relation to Abraham, as one of his Seed,and an-
fwerably was a good common to all (landing
alike related to Abraham, and proper and pecu-
liar unto them j but now to have the promife
of Salvation upon condition of being effectu-
ally called j is a good common to all men uni-
verfally , and therefore the promife is faid to be
to all whom the Lord eur God (hall call i but
Salvation was erne to Zacheus his houfe as he
was a Son of Abraham j Co that we fee it was
meerly by vertue of his relation unto Abraham,
that the promife of Salvation belongs to his
houfe,Chri(t affirming, that Salvation was come
by vertue of that his relation \ and the Scrip-
ture being filent as to the neceifary concurrence
of any thing elfe for the jnterefting his hcufe
in the promife of Salvation \ we may pofitive-
ly conclude J the promife ©f Salvafion doth be-
loDg to the houfes of all believing Parents,
m:erly by vertue ct that their relation to
Abraham as his Seed , especially if we con-
sider,
Thirdly, That this relation to Abraham is
universally predicable of all believing Parents :
All believing Parents are the Children of Abra-
ham , and confequenrly this could be noprivi-
ledge peculiar to Zacbw^o have Salvation come
I 4 to
Cn8)
to his houfe, as he was a Son of Abraham \ but •
is a priviledge common to all believing Pa-
rents, they [landing alike related to Abraham as
he did. t£o that the Minor Proportion is un-
doubtedly true, whence the Couclufion will
undoubtedly follow-.
My fecond Argument is this , If ike promife
of Salvation may and ought to be applied by the
difpencers of the Gofpel to believing Parents,
both with reference to themfelves and theit
Children, meerly as fuch, that is, as believing
Parents, without consideration had to theperfo-
rial faith and repentance of any in or or their
houfes,then the promife of Salvation muft needs
belong to them and their houfes , without con-
fideration had to the perfonal faith and repen-
tance ©f any in or of their houfes : but the for-
mer is true, therefore the latter.
Cejtainly if a MiniOerof the Gofpel may ap-
ply the promife of Salvation , not only to be.
lieving Parents themfelves , but to their houfes,
then that promife belongs not only to them, but
to their houfes : Minifters may not apply pro -
mifes any other wayes then as they belong to
thpfe to whom the application is made.
Now that the promife of Salvation may and
ought to be applytd in this extent and latitude,
sot only to believing Parents themfelves, but to
their refpedive houfes, and that meerly as fuch,
without conlideration had to the perfonal faith
and repentance of any in or of their houfes , is
evident , paft all rational contradiction , by the
Apoftlcs
Apoftles propofing the promife in this extent
and latitude to the Jaylor. As the Apoitledid
propoieitto the Jaylor , as a motive to him to
belie ve,it might and ought to have been applied
to him upon his a&ual believing, he might have
b:en aiTured , that now he and his houfe (hould
be faved, yet in that way, and according to that
method , or upon the terms held forth in the
Covenant of Grace (an account of which we
have already given. ) And that the Apofile
propofes this promife in the extent and latitude
before expreit to the Jaylor , upon condition of
his own believing, without contideration had to
the perfonal faith and repentauce of any in or of
his houfe , is evident from the expiefs words of
the Text>T/?0# Jhalt be faved and thy houfe j> and
confequently might have been applied to him,
as a Believer, upon his actual believing; and
hence it sppears,that this promife did net apper-
tain to him alone,it was not a priviledge peculiar
to him, to have his hcufe under the fame promife
with himfelf, but a priviledge common to all be-
lieving Parents, guatznus iffyms concludes de
otnni.
The only Obje&ion 1 have met with is this \
Tnatas the Promilc was made conditionally, to
the Jaylor himfelf, fo to his houfe, that is,as the
ApoiUe promifed to him, that if he believed he
fhould be faved i fo he promifed to hirn , with
reference to his houfe, that if they believed
they (hould be faved , according to the inter-
pretation gjven of that promife of ?eury Acts
To
(120 J
To that Ianfvver, That though it is readily
granted, that the promife,as externally propofed,
was conditional! both to himfelf , and his
houfe, yet I fay, that his own believing did give
his houfe an actual right to , and intereft in the
promife ( yec to be fulfilled , according to the
terms of the Covenant; is evident, becaute there
could be no reafon of the Apoftlcs adding that
other branch of tke promife as a motive to him
to believe , uulefs by his believing a peculiar
good ( which can be nothing elfe but this right
to, and intereft in the promife ) did accrew to
his houfe. It had been a ftronger motive for
the Apoftle to have faid , Believe in the Lord
Jefus and thou {halt be faved,and all the Town,
or Country, yea, all the World. If the Apoftle
had not intended a peculiar good, in relation to
the talvation of his houfe , redounding to them
by his believing, there had been no more reafon
for him to mention his houfe , than for him to
have mentioned the whole Town or Country,
or whole World, in as much as thev (hould all
be faved upon condition of their believing.
And hence, whereas wheu this confederation
is urged to prove, That the Apoftle Peter holds
forth and declares the Covenant, and promifes
thereof, in this latitude and extent, to thofe
awakened Jews, AUs 2. 29.
It is replycd, That there were other Reafons
of his mentioning their Children , then the af-
ferring their right to, and intereft in the Cove-
nant and Promiie thereof. That fhift ( for Co I
(hall call it J can have no place here , for if it
mould
fhould be granted, that the Apoftle Feter might
mention the Children of thefe Jews, with re*
fpedl to that imprecation they were under, re-
corded in Mattb.2j.2^. or with refpe# to
that firft offer and tender of Chrift and the
grace of the Gofpel to be made to the Jews j
yet there could be no fuch reafon of the Apo-
iile mentioning the Jaylors houfe , they were
under no fuch imprecation, neither had they any
priviledge above others , in point of the offers
and tenders of Salvation to be made to them ;
and therefore the only reafon imaginable of the
Apoftles mentioning of his houfe , was to affure
him, that upon his believing he fhould injoy the
promife of Salvation, in the extent and latitude
it was at the-mrft eftablifhment of the Covenant
given unto Abraham : had not the promife ex-
tended to his houfe, as well as to himfelf, perfo-
nally coniidered , there had btea no reafon for
the Apoftle to mention his houfe , and tell him,
that not only himfelf, but his houfe fnould be
faved, had not a peculiar good redounded to his
hnufe by his believing : It had been a more ef-
fectual motive to have told him, that the whole
Town (hould have been faved, in as much as rhen
his houfe had been included , and he had had a
further intimation of the probability of other
his Friends, Relations and Acquaintance Salva-
tion.
Secondly, I anfwer, If we compare this pro*
mile of Pa*/ to the JayJor, with that fore-
mentioned paffagc of Chrifi concerning Z<*~
ibeuf
cheuf his houie , 'tis evident, the Apoftle pro-
pounded this promife , in both branches of it,
to him, upon the alone condition of his pergo-
nal believing » and his meaning is , that in cafe
he himfelf (hould believe , he and his houfc
fhould be faved, that is, as Peter ( as hath been
already obierved ) expounds it, the promife of
Salvation would be to him and his houfe \ and
that this is his meaning , appears from that pa-
rallel paffige of Chrift: Chrift ftells Zacheus,
Salvation wm come to his houfe , upon his own
believing,and that upon that very ground,or for
that very reafon , becaufe he now was a Son of
Abraham, and upon the fame ground , and for
the fame reafon, we muft fuppofe that the Apo-
ftle makes this promife to the Jaylor > the Apo-
ftle is to be underltood , according to that of
Chrift y it is as if he had faid , believe in the
Lord Jefus, and thereby thou wilt become a Son
of Abraham^nd as fo related to him, (hall enjoy
the promifes in the fame extent and latitude in
which it was made to him at the iir ft eftablifh-
ment of it. God will be a God to thee and thy
houfe, that is eminently thy Children, which
is all one as to the fence and importance of that
promife , Salvation (hall come to thee and thy
houfe, or, The promife will be to thee and thy
Children : all thefe phrafes are of one and the
fame importance and fignification. So that
from all, the truth of this ©ur third Conclu-
lion evidently appears , and from it , before I
proceed to the other , we may infer thefe two
things.
Firft,
(123)
Firft, That it is not at all necciTary to affirm
or prove, that there were any Infants in the
Jaylors houfeat this time, in order to the prov-
ing, from the Apoftles making this conditional
promife to him and his houfe > that thepromi-
fes of the Covenant are given to, and fetled up-
on believing Gentiles , in the fame latitude and
extent that they were given to Abraham, at
the firit eftablifhment of the Covenant with
him : if he had any Infants , the promife had
belonged to them as part of his houfe \ the pro-
mife was to him,with reference to his houfe,as a
Believer, without contlderation hadtatheper-
fonal faith and repentance of any in or of his
houfe > hence whoever was to be included in
this term houfe , had the promife appertaining
to them , whether capable of believing or re-
penting or no, and confequently had appertain-
ed to his Infants , in cafe he had had any , they
being neceffarily to be included in this term
houfe \ and fuppofe there was no Infants in his
houfe at that time , yet in that this was a pro*
mife, not peculiar and proper to him, but com-
mon to all Believers, the promife belongs to the
Infants in their refpedfcive houfes. The promife
appertains to the houle, by vertue of the Parents
believing , as thereby they are ingrafted into
t/lbraharrfs Family, and become one of his Seed 5
and hence all that are included in that term
houfe, have the promife appertaining unto
them , and confequently Infants as well as
others.
And
C iH)
And if it fhould be faid , There might be
fome Children grown up , who might refufe to
accept of thepromife, as made upon the terms
of the Gofpel , and how could the promife ap-
pertain to them.
I anfwer, Their cafe would hive been the
very fame with the cafe of the Jews, at the firfr
preaching of the Gofpel. The promife apper-
tain^ to them , as of the houfes of believing
Parents , but their actual refufal would have,
iffo fafto, difanulled that their right and title
to thepromife, and fothey, by their own fin,
had deprived themfelves of the good pro-
mifed.
Secondly, We may infer , that the Scripture
frequently mentioning the perfonal faith and
tepentance of the houfes , or of any in the hou-
fes of believing Parents, noway oppofes,but on
the other hand (irongly confirms the truth of
what we affirm in thisfecond Proportion, con-
cerning the fettlementof Abraham's promife,
in the full latitude and extent of it, upon be*
lieving GenrileSjin that the houfcs,or any in the
houfes of believing Parents, were- favingly
wrought upon, either at the fame time, or im-
mediately after their Parents believing and ac-
cepting the terms of "the Covenant , it cannot
be with the leaft (hew of reafon inferred or con-
cluded from thence, that they had not the pro-
mife of Salvation appertaining to them, meerly^
as the houfeSjOx as of the houfes of fuch Parents,
without
C»5)
without confederation had to their own per*
fonal faith and repentance i but on the cv icr
hand it doth ihongly prove , they were ui dir
the promife, as the houfes of fuch F 4t< at in
their believing and repenting the Proir f -vis
verified y their believing andrepc^-ug a
vifible demonstration , that thcprcmife , i: nc
extent and latitude before exprefl, viz as reach-
ing and taking in the houfes with the Parents
themfelves, was duly and rightfully sppK
fuch Parents by the Apoftle, when wc n.,
Apoftle applyes the promifes of fne Covenant
to the Gentiles, in the fame lafitnde and extent
that they were given to Abraham^ viz. as ma-
king in tr\eir Children with them , and then
read of the faith ana repentance of their Chil-
dren, immediately following upon their own be-
lieving, it may more fully aiTure us,that the pror
mifc runs (till in the fame latitude and extent
that it foimerly run in : why, we have not only
tnc Apoftles application of the promife for our
aflurauce, but we have Godhimfelf confirming
that application made by the Apoltle, in his
giving in the good promifed, in that extent and
latitude^n which the Apoftle did apply the pro-
mife : The Apoiile appiyes the promife in this
extent, Ibou and thy houfe (hail be faved: God
by actually giving in the good promifed, allures
us, that the A pottles application was according
fo his mind and will, that he was and would be
ftill a God, not only to believing Gentiles,perfo-
t nally confidered, but a God alfoto their refpe-
&ive houfes: So that whether there were any
Infant
(-126)
Infant- children, or any Children in their Infant
capacity in thefe houfes, the baptiftn of which
is recorded in Scripture, erno, is all one as to
what i contend for. The promife of Salvati-
on, which is equivolently the fame with that of
Gods being a God to them , appertains to the
houfes of believing Parents, as fuch, without
coniideration had to the perfonal faith of thofc
houfes, or any in them. If there were no In-
fant-children, yet (he promife appertains to t he
houfe i if there were, the promife appertained
to them as part of fuch a houfe : and the men*
tion made in Scripture of the perfonal faith
and repentance of fuch-houfe, or any in them,
no way oppofes , but confirms theic intereli in,
and right to that promife of Salvation , and
confequently they ought to be baptized, as will
appear from the proof of our third *Propo-
fition.
But let that fuffice, for the fecond Conclufi-
on , which is that I principally aimed at , and
therefore have efpecially infifted upon it. I
ftull but mention the other two. And there-
fore,
Fourthly, That theintereft that the houfes of
beliving Parents have in the promife of Salva-
tion denominates them holy , and conftitutes
them of the Kingdom,Church,or Myftieal Body
of Chrift, this I gather from Mark^ 16.
and i Or.7.14. taken in conjunction with thofe
other new Tetiament Scriptures aforemention- .
( 127)
Lafily, That thisintereft in the promife of
Jalvation accrews to the houfes of believing
'arents ,by vertue of fuch Parents relation to
4brabam^s his Seed : This is evident from that
f Chrift concerning Zacbetts, Salvation is come
o bis boufe , for as mucb as be is a Son of Abra-
lam. * And from all it appears , that the very
ame promife, made to Abrabam and his natural
>eed, is mllcontinued to, and fetled upon believ-
ng Gentiles, which is our fecond Proportion i
Let us now hear what is objected againft what
s aiferted in it.
K CHAP,
(irt)
CHAP. VII.
Objections againfi the ficond
fubordinate Propojztiov, con-
fidered andanfoered.
OljeH. i.
'npls conceived by fome , and that not a few,
A that what hath been aifitm'd in the fore-
going Proportions , at leaft the latter of them,
lyes in a direct cppofition to that Text of the
Apoftle, *"»• 9'7>%- and therefore cannot be
true. And thus 'tis objected : How can it be
true, that God fhould intend Abraham's natural
Seed C take it of his natural Seed in the fence
of the flrft PoGtion J and that as fuch, in that
pronufe, wherein he ingages himfelf to be a
God to him and his Seed > or how can it be
true, that this promife, in that latitude and
extent (hould be given to f and fetkd upon be-
lievers-
t*»9 3
Ikvers under the new Teftament » when the
«/4poit)e, having a dired: reference to this very
promife, pofitively affirms , That the Children
of the flcfl) are not the Children of God, but the
Children of the Promife are accounted for $h%
Seed. Say our Oppofers , Certainly it cannot
I "be true, that God fhould intend Abraham's natu-
ral Seed, that is, the Children of hisikfh, and
that raeerly as fuch3in that promife > or fuppofe
that promife might have a literal refped: to A-
brabams natural Seed, as fuch, yet fure it cannot
be true , that this promife is given to , or fetled
upon believers under the new Teftament , fo as
that God mould ftill ftand obliged by that pro-
promife, to be a God to them and their natural
Seed h for the Apo&\e tells us in exprefs wordy,
lb at the Children of the flejh are not the Children
vf God , but the Children of the fromife are ac~
counted for the Seed. *
m For anfwer to this Obje&ion I (hall, as the
Lord fhall aflift, do thefe two thing?,
Firft, Shew that there is no contrariety or re-
pugnancy, between what hath been affirmed in
the foregoing Propofitions^r either of them,and
this Text of the^poftle.
Secondly, Shew that this place of the Apo-
file rightly undaftood.contributesnot a little to
the t llablilhment and confirmation of what hath
been faid in the foregoing Proportions,
K ?, for
-:
( no )
For the firft , That there is no repugnancy
between what hath been affirmed and this Text
of the ^poftle, will foon appear, by declaring
what is the true and genuine fence of the ^po-
ftlcin thefe verfes : and thus it is agreed on all
htnds, that the ^poftles defign and fcope is to
open and declare how that word of promifcy
wherein God ingaged to be a God to Abraham
and his Seed,ftood firm, and had its full accom-
plifhment, according to the true intendment of
God'in it , notwithstanding the rejection of fo
great a part of his feed.
Bezay I judge, doth rightly ftate the Queftion
anfwered by the Apoftle, Qui fieri pojjit ut re*
jefius fit Ifrael quin fimul conjiituendum vidia-
tur irritum effe pactum T)ti cum Abrabamo &
ejus femiue. That was the Queftion , How
Ifrael could be rejected, and the Covenant that
God , made with Abraham and his Sccd^ not
made void thereby.
Now to this Queftion the apoftle anfwers in
* twofold general ^ffertton.
Firft , That all are not Ifrael that are of
Ifrael.
Secondly, That becaufe they are the Seed of
Abraham they are not all Children.
Two
C'30
Two things might be urged as Reafons, why
he Jews could not be rejected without a failure
d)v\ Gods part , in his promifes to them ; The
latter, which they mainly infilled upon, was,
That they were the Seed of Abraham , and that
God had promifed to be a God to him and his
fSeed after him.
To this latter plea the ^poftle anfwers in this
latter aifcition, and (hews, that their rejection
did not make void that promife ot God, and in
order hereunto explains the true fenfe and
meaning of that promife.
This the^poi.le doth in -thefe two verfes*
fo that thefe two verfes contain the Apofttes
expofition of that grand promife made to Abra-
bam^ with reference to his Seed.
Now that we may rightly under/land the
^poftle in the expofition he gives us of this
promife, and not miftake about his expofition,as
the Jews did about the promife it felf , we muft
inquire into two things.
Firlt, What the -^pottle denyes.
Secondly, What he affirms, with reference to
that promife.
For the firfr , And thus the ^poftle denyes
that all that were the Seed of Abrabam^nd had
that promife appertaining to them , as his Seed,
were the Children of God : Thus verfe 7. NeU
tber becanfe tbey art the Seed of Abraham f are
K 2 they
030
they all Children, which is explained in the next
veife ; where obferve, when the -^pofile fayes,
The children of the fie(h , thefe are not the chil
drenofGod)he rauft be interpreted by the words
immediately aforegoing,and his meaning is,they
are not all the children of God , for i'o he ex-
preffes himfelf in the foregoing words. In this
.eighth verfe the Apoftle amplifies, and further
explains what he had more generally laid down
in the ieventh verfe i whence it is evident, that
he fpeaks of the fame perfons in both > and an-
fwerably, as by the children of the flc(h, ver.8.
the fame perfons are intended that are exprefi by
that phrafe,*/?e<SW of Abraham, ver 7. (6 when
he fays of the children of the ficfajbey are nop the
children of God, he means only, as he had afore
expreft, they are not all the children of God :
ifome that were the children of the flefli , were
alfo the children of God, as l/aac in particular s
but all that were the children of the flefh were
not the children of God.
Now I fay,the Apottle denyes that thofe that
were theSeed of Abraham^ot the children of the
flefli, were all the children of God : where con-
sidering what the general defign and fcope of
the Apoftle is, viz, to prove the confiftency of
Ifraels rejection with the truth of that promife,
by opening and declaring the true mind and
meaning of God in it , thefe two things are
clearly fuppofed and implyed by the Apo
ftle, "•' ' "
m
C 133 )
Firft, That thofe who are not the children
J )t God, whatever reference or refpedr the pro-
>l nife had to them , yet might be reje&ed with-
i 3Ut breach of promife on Gods part.
1
*; Secondly, That the promife did not ncceiTa-
:ii rily prefuppole that God had done , or was ob-
•1 liged to do, for every one to whom the promife
1 did appertain, what was abfolutely neceiTary to
Itheir being or becoming the children of God, in
'jfuch a fence as that they could not be rejected
without breach of promile on Gods part.
Thcfe two things the Apoftlemult needs im-
ply and fuppofe in this Negation : and hence
the full of what he denyes is this, That this
promife, whether taken as a definite promife,
refpedhng Abraham's natural Seed, as immedi-
ately proceeding from his own loins, Angularly
confidered,or as an indefinite promife, refpecring
his whole race and pofterity, collectively conii-
dered, did oblige God, either to be their God
and own them as his people, but upon fuppofiti-
on of their being his children , or to do that f x
each particular of them, abfolutely neceiTary to
their bearing that denomination of his chil-
dren.
And if any ask, What that is that is abfo-
lutely neceffary to a perfons bearing the deno-
mination of a Child of God.
I anfwer two things.
K 4 Fuft,
03+)
FiriVj Ele&ion before time.
Secondly, Suppofing that perfbn grown up
to years of maturity., converfion or a faving
work of grace upon the heart in time.
]tf ow all that the Apoftle denyes is, That this
promife did necefTarily prefuppofe , that all to
Whom it was trade, were ele&edor chofenoi
God actually to inherit the good promi fed ,* or
that the promife did oblige God favingly to
Work upon them in time ; whence.in refpe& of
individual and particular perfons, as they might
not be elected , (b they might not be favingly
converted , and thereupon might be rejected of
God , without any breach of promife on his
part.
Secondly, What the Apoftle doth affirm
with reference to tkis promife > and thus he
doth affirm, That the children of the promife are
accounted for the Seed,
Now here again two things muft be inquired
into.
Firft, Who the Apoftle means by the children
of the promife ? And for this, thefe muft needs
be fuch of Abraham's natural Seed who might
rightfully bear that denomination of the chil-
dren of God > children of the promife muft
needs intend fuch of Abrahams Seed, or fuch
children of his fkfh , who were not only the
children of his flefh, but alfo the children of
Godi
0*5)
God. For let it be obferved, that the quefticn
was concerning A br a bam'% Seed , or the children
of his flefh,and that as fuch having that promife
pertaining unto them > whence it will undeni-
ably follow, that both thofe who were not the
children of God, and thofe who were the chil-
dren of the promife , were Abraham's natural
Seed , and confequently, by the children of the
promife we muff underiiand the eleft of Abra-
ham's natural S^d , or fuch whoamongft them
had a faying work of grace wrought upon
them.
Secondly, How they are faid to be accounted
for the Seed ? Now for this : They are faid by
the Apoltle, to be accounted for the Seed in
fome peculiar and fpecial fence , in which the
other of Abrahams Seed, ascontradiftinguifhed
from them , were not accounted for the Seed :
Now that can be only ia refpeci of their cle*
dfrion before time, and their adual injoyment of
the good promifed in time •■> they cannot be fcid
to be accounted for the Seed in this fence, as
though none but thefe were intended in that
prom.ie, for the Reafon before given, vizt Be-
caufc thequeftion concerning the whole natu-
ral Seed oi Abraham, and that as they were in-
tended in that promife i fo that they could not
be accounted for the Seed, as though they alone
were intended in thatprcmilei for the Apo*
file grants , yea, the very Quemon he anfwers,
doth neceiTaiily fuppofe others to be intended
. in
(%S6)
ia that promife befides them j therefore thefe
can be faid to be accounted for the Seed only,
in the fence and upon the account beforemen-
tioned.
From all it is evident , that the Apoftle doth
not deny that Abrahams natural Seed, and that
as fuch, were intended in that grand Promife of
the Covenant i nor doth he affirm , that the
cnildren of the promife were only accounted
for the Seed , in relation to an intereft in that
promife : All that he denyes is , That they are
all the children of God : And all that he affirms
is, That they, in a peculiar and fpecial fence,
were accounted for the Seed in the eye of that
promife : So that the plain and genuine mean-
ing of the Apoftle is this , as if he (hould fay,
when God promifed to be a God to Abraham
and to his Seed,that doth not prefuppofe that all
his children were elected , or that God was ob-
liged by that promile favingly to work upon
every individual of his Seed i whereupon
they might be reje&ed of God , and yet his
word of promife receive its full accomplish-
ment, there being a certain number chofen of
God from eternity , whom in time he favingly
works upon , and who in that regard were emi-
nently intended as the Seed in that promife, and
jn the accomplishment of the promife to them it
is fully verified , according to the true intent,
mind and meaning of God in it.
Now
037.)
Now then wlut repugnancy or contrariety is
there between what hath been affirmed in the
foregoing Proportions, or either of them, and
this Text of Scripture?
We affirnybat when God promifed to Ah ra^
ham^tobs a God to him "and his Sctd^ he intend-
ed his natural Seed as the rirft and %txt Subjects
of this promife , and that this promife in the
fame latitude and extent isfetled upon and con-
firmed to believing Gentiles : the Apofile de*
nyes it not,only faith,that all to whom the pro-
mife was made are not the children of God, and
thereupen might be rejected, and yet the word
of promife not made void thereby ; withall af-
firming, that there was a certain number in and
among this Seed of Abrabam,to whom this pro-
mife did appertain , that were eJcdftd of God,
who never were rejected , but had the promife
alwayes made good to them, and in that regard
had the denomination of Abrahams Seed pecu-
liarly due to them , and -that the promife was
fully accomplilhed in their injoyment of the
good promifed. Now X fay, what Ihew of con-
trariety between what we affirm, and what the
Apofile faith ?
Now that this was the true intendment,
mind and meaning of God in this promife , the
Apoltle proves, by producing a twofold In-
fonce, wherein God himfclf declared that to be
his fence and meaning in it,
Firft,
Firft,, He inftaftces in the Subje&s of this
Fromile immediately defcended from Abraham 's
own loins, thefe were, among others, Ifhmael
and Jfaac ; and here the Apoftle'fhews how God
declared his true fence and meaning in that
Promife, by his chufing Ifaac a&ually to inherit
the good promifed , when he paiTed by ljhmatl%
who thereupon, through his own fin, was re-
jtdtedof God, and caft out of Covenant: This
peculiar choice of Ifaac was fignified to Abra~
bam by promife, At the ftt time will I come, and
Sarah jball have a Son\ by that Promife God
did tacitely intimate to Abraham , that Ifaac,
the Son promifed him by Sarah, was the perfon
chofen for the aftual injoyment of the gpod
promifed i and this choice of Ifaac was a tacite
intimation, that IJhmael was pafTed by, and not .
designed to the joynt inheriting of the good
promifed with IJaac,
Secondly, The Apoftle inftances in the Sub-
jects of this Promife mediately defcended from
Abraham , for look what was the fence of the
Promife made to Abraham , the fame was the
fence and meaning of it as made to his Seed »
and thus the Apoftle inftances in the Children of
Ifaac, and (hews again how God did declare
what was his mind and meaning in this Pro-
cnife, as it was made to Abraham's Seed in their
Generations, viz. That as thereby he intended
not infallibly to fcatre the good promifed to all
Abraham's immediate Children, fo he intended
:: not
not thereby to fecure the good promifed to alJ
the Children of his Seed, as included with them
in the Promife, as made to them in their Gene-
rations i this the Lord declared by his choice
of Jacob , when he paiTed by Efau \ which,
choice was again figniried to IJaac by promife,
Ikt elder foall ferze the younger ; by that pro-
mife God fignifkd to 1/aac that he had chofen
Jacob as the perfon that (hould actually inherit
the good promifed , whereby he intimated his
pafliDg by of Efau.
Now upon the warrant of this twofold in-
ftancc, the Apoftle declares the fence afore given,
to be according to the mind and meaning of
God in this promife \ and that this is the true
fence and meaning of the Apoftlesexpofition of
this Promife , is fufficiently evident from what
hath been already fiid in the explication of the
words,where it hath been proved, that trie Apo-
ftle cannot be undcriiood , as though he denyed
that the natural Seed cf Abraham , and that as
fuch were intended in that Promife * the Que-
ftion he anfwers being concerning Abrahams
natural Seed, and that as fuch having that Pro-
mife appertaining to them : and therefore he
cannot be fuppofed to deny them to be intend-
ed in the Promife , the very Queftion he an-
fwers taking it for granted , that they were in-
tended. »
Afld if any fhould fay, It is true , the Que-
&ion doth fuppofe and take for granted , that
C HO)
the Jews , or the perfons putting it, did con-
ceive, that the Promife did intend Abrahams,
natural Seed, but that was their miftake, which
the Apoftle rectifies.
But to that I anfwer , The whole context
(hews it was otherwife i ancf that the Apoftle
himfelf dothfuppofe it,and take it for granted ;
The Apoftle doth not anfwer a Queftion that
fnight be grounded upon a miftake about the
Subjects of that Promife,but he anfwers a Que-
ftion grounded upon what really was : we fee
he grants fome to be of Ifrael, that were not
Ifrael, and that fome were the Seed of Abra-
ham, and as fuch intended in that Promife, who
yet were not the Children of God * and con-
sequently he cannot deny Abraham's natural
Seed to be intended in that Promife , nor affirm
the Children of the Promife were only account-
ed for the Seed > but that they are fo accounted
in a peculiar and fpecial fence before opened.
Now I fay , that the Apoftle is thus to be un-
derstood , I (hall indcavour to make out a little
further , though what hath been already faid
inight fuffice. to thofe that will but feriouily
weigh things.
And for this let it be obferved , that if the
Apoftle doth not reftram this term Seed, in that
■Promife,only to the Eledr, then there is nothing
at all faid by him in this exposition he gives us
of it j fo much as in the leaft intimating that
the natural Seed of Abraham, and that as fuch,
were
(HO
were not intended in that Promife. As for
what he denyes, with reference to that Promife,
there is no one word intimating that Abrahams
natural Seed were not intended',hc only denyes,
that all the Seed of Abraham were the Chil-
dren of God', which might be true, though
they were all intended in that Promife , as con-
ditionally made and externally declared to A-
brabam.
Now if fo be he doth not reftrain this term
Seed in this Promife only to the Ele& , and fo
exclude all others univerfally from being in-
tended in it,the natural Seed of Abraham , and
that as fuch,might be, for ought what the Apo-
ille hath faid, intended in it. And as for what
he affirms , though the Eled were in a peculiar
and fpecial fence intended , yet others might be
alfo intended , though not in that peculiar and
fpecial fence in which they were.
Now that the Apoftle doth not expound this
term Seei,as meant only of the Ele&} is evident
by thefe three Reafons.
Firft, Becaufe then he (hould in exprefs words
contradict God himfelf , God having declared
that he intended fome in that Promife , who
were not elected, this is evideat in Vent. 29.
io, 11, 1 2, 13. where the Lord tells th£ people
of 'fr ael Jic now entred into, or rather renewed
Covenant with them, to fulfil this very Promife
made to Abraham , with reference to his Seed :
and certainly he mull needs refer to this very
Promife
C»40
Promife made to Abraham, with reference to his
Seed ; and certainly he muft needs refer to this
very Promife made to Abraham. Only to pre-
vent miftakes , and that I may not be fuppofed
to contradict both the Truth and my felf , let it
be noted , that I do not fay they were intended
in that Promife, fo as that they had meerly, as
of Abrahams natural Race and Pofterity , an
actual right to, and intereftin that Promife >
but my meaning is only this , That as that Pro-
mife had an indefinite refped to Abrahams
whole Race and Pofterity, colle&ively taken,
and as thefe particular perfons, with whom God
tiow renewed his. Covenant, were afore appoint-
ed of God to be fome of thofe who mould have
the benefit of the Promife, fo thefe were in-
tended in it, and anfwerably thefe were intend-
ed , not immediately and dire&ly , but confe-
quently as they were forefeen and fore appoint-
ed by God , to be the peculiar perfons that
fhould have the Promifej as indefinitely made
to Abraham's Seed , collectively taken , made
good to them. Now who can fuppofe that
every individual Member , whether Infants or
grown Perfons in this Congregation, were elect-
ed or chofen actually to injoy the good promi-
fed? Now if the Apoftle fhould reftrain this
Promife only to the Elecl , he muft needs con-
tradict God in this declaration here made of
his mind in it. God declares plainly , he in-
tended forne not elected \ and fhould the A-
poftle fay, he intended only the Ele& , that
would
(143.)
trould be a diredfr contradi&ion of God him-
felf.
Secondly , That the Apoftle cannot ex-
pound this term Sted , as meant only of the
Elc& , is evident, becaufe at leaft many per-
fons intended in that Promife might be ordi-
Inarily known to m«n to be the perfons m-
Itcnded in it * but now the Elc& cannot or-
[dinarily be known by men , and that at leaft
many intended in this Promife might ordina-
rily be known to be the perfons intended in
it, is evident, becaufe there was a dutyiti-
|joyned , with reference to them > this duty
was the application of the Token of the Co-
venant. Now had the Eleft only been in-
tended, it had been impoffible for that duty to
be univerfally performed by man, with refe-
rence to them.
Thirdly , This is evident > becaufe the
i Promife did conftitute fome of Ifrael , who
yet were not elected, therefore the Apoftle
cannot be fuppofed to refrain the term Sad
only to the Ele<ft.
But two things will be faid by way of re-
ply to what haih been hitherto difcourfed;
for the clearing up the fence and meaning of
the Apoflle in this expoGtion he here givesof
that Promife,
Firft, It will be (aid , That all thofc thai
make this Objection do got deny but, fomc
do grant, that that promife did in fome fence
intend, and had refpedr to Abraham's natural
Seed, and that as fuch, viz. as it was a pro-
mife of a temporal good , or containing on-
ly a temporal blefiing, that which thefe den)
is this, vim That this Promife ( as a Pro-
mife of faving Grace , of Justification and
Life ) had refpeft to the natural Seed 01
Abraham , as fuch * and that is the mean-
ing of the Apoftle when he fayes , Ibe Cbth
dreu of the Promife are accounted for the Seed
he means, they and they only are accountec
for the Seed , refpediive to that Promife, as
it was a promife of faving Grace : The Apo.
file grants the Promife was made to Abra-
hams natural Seed , but there Chews whai
their miftake was, that did fuppofe the Pro
mife would be made void, in cafe the Jew
fhould be rejected, and (hews this to be theii
mitfake, That they fuppofed that this Pro
mife , as it was a Promife of faving Grace
did appertain to the natural Seed of Abra-
ham, as fuch.
Now this miftake the Apoftle rectifies
and (hews , that as fuch a fpiritual Pro
mife, it did not at allrefped: Abrabams na-
tural Seed, as fuch, but was made only tc
the Ek<S, they only were accounted for th<
Seed.
CH5)
Seed , refpedtive to this Promife as fo under-
flood.
To that I anfwer two things,
Firft, Letitbeobferved, that the prefcnt
framers of this Ob je&ion , in the fence now
expreffed, do grant, that the Promife in fomfc
fence did intend Abraham's natural Seed, and
that asfuch s whence it will follow, that if it
be evident, that it intended not only a tem-
poral, but a fpiritual good, as rriade to Abra-
ham's Seed univerfally, as well as to himfelr^
of which by and by,then our firft Propofition
is true by the grant at leaftof fomeof out
Oppofers, they granting that in a fe^ke it did
intend them.
But you will fay , Whatever Argument
may be offered, yet the Apoftle (hews plainly,
that as it was a Promife of faving Grace , it
was made only to the Ele&, for faith he, ta-
king the Promife in this fence , The Children
of the Fromife are accounted for the Seed , and
we muft believe the Apotfle whatever
Argument may feem to prove the con-
trary,
I anf wef to this,
Secondly, Confide* the Apoftle doth no.
more refimn thw Promife , as a Promife of
04<0
faving Grace to the Ele& , than he doth re-
train it to them as a Promife of a meer tem-
poral good, if he doth not reftrain it to them
wholly, and in an abfolute fence, he doth not
reftrain it to them at all > for obferve it , in
cafe he reftrains it as a fpiritual Promife , and
not as a temporal Promife, to the Ele&, that
limited reftraint muft be expreft either in the
words themfelves, or inferr'd from the Con-
text or the Apoftles fcope in them. For the
words themfelves, there is nothing intima-
ting fuch a limited reftraint , for fayes he,
The Children oftbefiejb are not the Children
of God , but the Children of the Tromife are
accounted for the Seed. He doth hot fay, the
Childref! of the flefli are not intended in that
Promife, as a Promife of faving Grace. So the
Children of the Trotnife are accounted for the
Seedy not are accounted for the Seed,
as that Promife was a Pwmife of faving
Grace.
But it will be faid , When he fayes of the
Children of the flejh, they are not the Children
of God, 'tis all one as if he had faid , they
were not intended in that Promife , as it is a
Promife of faving Grace.
To that I anfwer : Tis not all one , in as
much as 'tis poflible, that perfons may be un-
der a Promife of faving Grace , as made con-
ditionally
(147)
ditionally to them, and yet not be the Chil-
dren or God, in the fence of the Apdftle, nor
ever become the Children of God in that
fence : So that unlefs it can be proved, that
none can be under a Promife of faving
Grace, as conditionally made , or under a
Promife of faving Grace as indefinitely made
to fome fpecies or fort of perfons, collective-
ly taken, unlefs they are either at prefent the
Children of God , fit (hall infallibly become
! fo for the future, it cannot be faid, 'tis all one
to fay , that for the Apoftle to deny the natu-
ral Seed of Abraham to be the Chilnren of
God , and to deny they are intended in that
Promife , as a Promife of faving Grace , be-
caufe they might be iritended in that Pro-
mife, and yet never be the Children of God.
Perfons may be under a conditional promife,
or an iadtrinite promife of faving Grace, and
yet cannot be from thence denominated in an
abfolute fence to be the Children of God,
nor proved thereby , that they fhould ever
become fo i fo that fuch a limited re-
straint of this promife to the Elec> only , is
not in the leait intimated in the words them-
felves.
Secondly, For, the context and fcope of
the Apoftle neither doth infer fuch a limited
leftraint of the Promife to the Ele& only , or
a neceflity of putting fuch conftru&ion upon
L 5 the
the words i this is evident from what hath I
been already (aid in explaining the fence and
meaning of them ; The words,as afore open-
ed, as Sully agree to and anfwer the Apoftles
defign and fcope , as if they were underftood
Mtith a limited reftrainf, they would do, and
do as fully anfwer and fatisrie the Queftion
or Objection he was to anfwer.
This is fo plain , that^it would be fuper-
fluous to add any thing more than what hath
been already faid: So that there is nothing
in the words themfelves , or that can be de-
duced from the Context, or the Apoitles de-
fign and fcope in them , to neceffitate our un-
derstanding the Apoftle to intend any fuch
limited reftraint of this promife to the Ele<3:
only ) if it be not wholly and abfolutely re-
drained to them , it is not retrained to. them
at all, for ought what appears from the Text
of the Apoftle.
Now our Oppofers themfelves grant,That
in fome fence the promife was not ceftrained
to the Ele& , but did intend Abraham's na-
tural Seed, as fuch, and. therefore we may
conclude it was not at all retrained to
them.
But it will be faid fecondly, That though
st be granted, that this promife, as intending
i :: . ■ - . ■ , -■ ' . both'
fi49 )
30th temporal and fpiritual bleflings, did in*
tend, and was made to Abraham's natural
Seed, and that as fuch, and confequently that
the Covenant did take in Abrahams natural
Seed under the firft Tcfhment, as is affirmed
in the firft Proportion i yet the ^poftle here
(hews , that now under the Gofpel adraini-
ttration it mould be io no longer.
Now the Children of the fle(h are not
the Children of God in any fence , but
the Children of the Promife , that is, true
Believers are only accounted for Abrahams
Seed.
+
To that I anfwer, 'Tis evident from the
Context , that the y^poftle fpeaks not at all
of the extent and latitude in which the Cove-
nant fhould be made with , or continued to
Believers under the New Teftament, for the
Queftion he is anfwering doth not all im-
mediately and dire&ly concern Believers un-
der the New Testament, but wholly imme-
diately and direclly concerns the Jewes.
And obfeive it , What an anfwer mould
the Apofile return to the propofed Queftion,
according to the judgment of thofe that
make this reply.
The QMeftion was, How could lfrul be
rejected , and God remain true to his Word
L4 of
05o)
of promife made to Abraham then Father,
with reference unto them.
Now what doth the Apoftle anfwer to
this Queftion >
Why, according to the Judgment of thelc
men he anfwers , That though the Covenant
was made with Abraham and his natural
Seed, yet now it is only -made with Believers
themfelves , and extends not to their natural
Seed, as it did during the iirft Teftament ad-
miniitration.
And what had that been to the purpofe,
not only the Jewifh Infants, but the Parents
themfelves were rejected.
T, you will fay, That Parents were caft
off as well as their Seed is granted, yea,*hat
is the very deflgn of the Apoftle to fhew,
•that now under the Gofpel adminiftratiori
the Jews themfelves, though Abraham s natu-
ral Seed, could no longer continue the people
of God, upon the account of (heir flefhly de-
fcent from Abraham^unlcCs they did pcrfonal-
ly believe themfelves,and they not believing,
both they and their Children were rejected
from thofe privi ledges they had hitherto in-
joyed, upon the account of iheir natural de-
rcent from Abraham.
0*0
To this I anfvvcr two things/
Firft, I deny that the Jews had their Co-
enant ftate and relation , and confequently
heir abiding , in the Houfe or Family of
od continued to them hitherto , trpon
he account of their natural defcent from
librabam, as hath been already declared, and
(night be further manifefted if needful :
Hence this could not be the defign of the
jApofile , to (hew the celTationof that privi-
[ledge, becaufe there was no fuch priviledge
heretofore vsuchfafed- to thtm , the promife
confidered as a definite promife, did not
extend beyond Abrahams natural Seed .
immediately proceeding from his own
loins.
Secondly, I anfwer , That that Pr#-
mife, as an indefinite promife made to Abra-
ham , with reference to his natural Seed ,
taken colle&iyely, doth (till appertain to the
Jews , notwithstanding the rejedion of fr
great a part of them : This the Apoftle
grants in this difcourfc, and thews how it
had in part its accomplifhment. in the non-
reje&ion of many of them, and mail have
its full accomplifhment in the general con-
verfion of that Nation in the Ages yet to
come. See Rom. n. i, 16,25. So that this
cannot be the meaning of the Apoftle , be-
caufe
(ISO
eaufe their prefent ftanding in their Cove-
nant-relation with God , from which they
were now cut off , was not upon the meer
account of their natural defcent from Aha- ,
bam , and the Promife , according to the .
true intent of God in it , doth mil apper- \
tain to them , notwithstanding their reje&i-
on, therefore we muft neceffarily underftand
the Apoftle5according to the fence and mean-
ing afore given.
I come now to the (econd thing promifed,
and that is to (hew, that this Text of the
Agoflk rightly underfiood, and taken in
conjunction with the Context , is fo far from
carrying any contrariety to what hath been
affirm'd , that it adds not a little to the con-
firmation of it. Yea, I dare boldly fay, that
had there been no other Scriptures to prove
the truth of it , my firft Proportion would
be^ paft all rational contradiction, eftabliftied
from this very Text ; and my fecond Pro-
portion may receive no little confirmation
from it.
For let it be obferved , the Apoftle doth
plainly grant, yea,implicitly afferc, that fome
were the Seed of Abraham^ and that as fuch,
Were the Subjeftsof that promife , who yet
were not the Children of God , and in that
regard
053)
regard were not accounted for the Seed %
whence it is evident , that the fame perfons
might be the Seed of Abraham , and as fuch
mended in that promife , and yet in another
fence were not accounted for the Seed : they
were his Seed-, that is; the Seed of his flefti,
or his natural Seed, and as fuch, had the pro-
mife appertaining to them i but they were
not the Children of God, and in that regard
not accounted for the Seed , that is , not in*
tended in this promife , as the perfons de-
ilgned from eternity, a&ually to injoy the
good promifed > and that notwithstanding
according to the Apofiles intendment in this
Iterm Seed , they were not accounted for the
Seed, yet they were the flcihly Seed of Abra-
ham ^ and as- fuch intended in that promife,
as the joynt Subjects of it, with others, here
faid by the Apoftle, in a fpecial fence, to be
accounted for the Seed , is paft all rational
doubt evident from the Apoftles anfwer to
the forementioned Queftion , taken in con-
junction with the Instances produced by
him, for the proof of what he afferts in that
Anfwer.
Let but the words be carefully ob-
ferved : Saith the Apoftle, Neither becau/e
they are Abraham's Seed, are they all Chil-
dren, that is, the Children of God : Whence
it is evident, that feme are the Seed of
Abraham^
(154)
Abraham , who were not the Children oi f
God \ and that when the ! Apoftle grants,
fome were the Seed of Abraham , who were
not the Children of God , his meaning is,
thattheyhad, as the Seed, or natural Chil
dren of Abraham, this* promife appertaining
unto them, is evident.
J*
tii
Firft, Becaufe the Queftion he was to an
twer wholly concern'd the natural Seed oi
Abraham, and that as fuch, having that pro-lto
mife appertaining unto them > as before ob^ (
ferved : hence undoubtedly when in way of
anfwer to this Queftion he faith , becaufe
they are the Seed of Abraham , they are not
all the Children of God, he mutt needs fpeak
of therfame peifons that the Queftion doth
concern , otherwife his anfwer had been no
wayes pertinent to the Queftion.
Secondly, This is evident from the In-
tlances that the Apoftle produces to prove
what he had afTetted in this anfwer > and
thus he inftances in Ifaac , and Jacob, and
mews how they were elected, and in that re-
gard accounted for the Seed $ where the
Apoftle muft needs have reference to fome
others coming in competition with them, in
regard of their ftanding in a like capacity re-
fpe&ive to the promife as externally made
and dedar'd to Abraham : plainly thus the
Apoftle
f *55)
ipoftle mufi needs have reference to foma
>thers who were Abrahams Seed, and as fuch
lad a common external right to, and interelt
n the promiks. with Ijaaczud Jacob * and
hefe were lfimael and Efatt j did not the
Apoftle fuppofe and grant, that they flood in
the like capacity , refpedtive to thefe promi-
fes,as externally,made and declared to Abra-
ham, with Ifaac and Jacob, the producing of
thefe two Inftances had made nothing to his
purpofe, nor had been any proof of what' he
had before aliened , in way of anfwer to the
Queition propofed > for the Apoftle toaffert,
that all that are Abraham's Seed are not th«
Children of God , and that by way of an-
fwer to the forementioned Queition, and then
only to declare how ffaac and Jacob, the one
of Abraham's Seed , immediately proceeding
from his one loins, the other of his Race and
Pollerity , were intended in thispromiie , as
made to Abraham's Seed in their Generati-
ons^ being ele&ed , and not tofuppofeand
grant,that there were fome ochers,who were
alike, either of Abrahams immediate Seed,
or of his Race and Pofterity, intended in this
pronajie, who were not ele6t, had made no-
thing at all to hisprefent purpofe, but would
indeed Have evidenced the quite contrary to
what he affirms. Whence it appears, in as
full evidence as though written with the
beams of the Sun , that the Apoftle doth
grant,
050
gran* , that both Ijhmael zndEfdu were ths j
Subjedfrs of this promiie , the one as one of
Abraham's Children, immediately proceeding "
from his own loins , the other included irt
the promiie , as made to Abraham's Seed in
their Generations, and confequently that the'
promifb did belong to Abraham^ natural
Seed, as fuch, which undoubtedly eftabliflie*
the truth of my firft Propofition, and no way
oppofes, but rather confirms the fecond.
CHAP,
•
(177)
CHAP. VIII.
Jecond, third^ and fourth objection i
againji the foregoing Proportion re*
felled. '
Ob)tU. 2.
I^Orae objed, That the Promife,wherein God
3 ingaged to be a God to Abraham and his
>eed , cannot in that latitude and extent be
etled upon and confirmed to believing Gen-
iles , becaufe that Covenant Believers art now
jnder, is a Covenant wholly divers from that
rftabliftied with Abraham > and when the Co-,
venants are divers, the good covenanted cannot
be one and the fame, at leaft the Subjects of the
one cannot lay claim to the good of the other,by
vertueof that Covenant they are under : hence
a Believer, as a Believer, that is, as Abraham's
fpintual Seed , could not lay claim to the old
Covenant-promifes , if not defcended from
Abraham by lfaac after the flefh > (b a Be-
lievers fleftily feed , take it either of Abrv
ham , or any other Believer d cannot lay
claim to the New Covenant Prornifes, unlefs
N born
c !7t ;
born again., and engrafted into Chrift b\
Faith,
Now before I return a direft Anfwer to thi
Obje&ion , I (hall a little enquire what areth< i
true Notions and Conceptions of the perfon<
framing it, about that Covenant entred by God
with Abraham and his Seed in their generati-
ons , that fo rightly underftanding their fenc<
and apprehenfions ©f that Covenant , I may re-
turn a more full and dire£t anfwer to what i:
objected. And thus , for ought I can yet un
deritand , etiherby the molt ferious perufal b
their Writings , or by what I can gather frorr
their words, they exprefs and declare their No^
tions and Conceptions , we are now enquiring
after j one of theie two wayes.
Firft, That God made a twofold Covenant
with ^brabamy the one a Covenant of Grace,
the other a legal or temporal Covenant, and
that the Covenant of Grace was made with him,;
and his fpiritual Seed, viz. Believers, whetheifc
Jews or Gentiles, without any refpecl: at all to a
5e(hly defcent, either from Abraham himfelf, ot
from any of his Seed.
Secondly, That the legal or temporal Cove-^
nant was made with Abraham and his fteflilyj
Seed,and only with them, and that aS continued)
in the line of Ifaac and Jacob, and that this was!
the Covenant, the Jews, during the firft Tefta-]
ment adminiftration, were under* and the only
Cove-
( *79)
jovenant they were undcr,as the flefhly Seed of
ibrabam.
Secondly , Others declare their fence and
inception thus, That there was but one Cove-
nant made with Abraham, and that was a mix*
Covenant , confifting partly of fpiritual , and
■•partly of temporal Promifes > and as this Co-
venant was a mixt Covenant, fo anfwerably the
Seed of Abraham mwft be diftinguilhed ©if.
There was, fay they, his natural Seed, and there
was and is his fpiritual Seed, Now thefe hold
^jthat the Covenant, as confifting of temporal, oc
as fome expre fs it , domeftick or politick blef^
fings, was made with Abraham^ and his natural
or tk(hly Seed in their generations -, but the Co-
veriant, as confifting of fpiritual bleffings , was
made with Abraham only, as a fpiritual Father,
and with his fpiritual Seed , that is., Believers,
whether Jews or Gentiles. Now though our
Oppofites do thus varioufly exprefs themfelves,
yet they all agree in the general, that only tern-*
poral bklfings did appertain to Abrahams natu-
ral Seed,as fuch, and that fpiritual : 'bleffings were
wholly or alone promifed to Abraham , in refe-
rence to his fpiritual ©r myftical Seed \ and fome
add, that the Covenant, as confifting of tempo-
ral bleffings, was a typical Covenant, viz, a Co-
venant typifying the Gofpel Covenant , under
which Believers now are i though how to make
fence of that notion,efpecially themfelves grant-
ing a Covenant of Grace was now eftablifhed
with Abraham , with reference to himfelf and
N % hit
(i8o)
his fpi ritual Seed, will, I judge, be a matter of
no little difficulty > but 1 (hall leave it to the
per Tons concerned in it, if any fuch yet there be.
And thus 1 have given a brief, yet, I fuppofe,
a full account of the Notions and Conceptions
of our Objectors, about the Covenant now etfa-
bliflied with Abraham and his Seed in their ge-
nerations, and come now to anfwer the Obje&i-
ons propofed : And for anfwer to it 1 (hall do
thefe two things.
Firft, Prove that there is no fuch real and
fpecirical difference between thefe two Cove-
nants , as the Objectors fuppofe , and take for
granted that there is.
Secondly , Shew that notwithstanding the
Covenant made with Abraham , and that made
with Believers, fliould be really and fpecifically
divers the one from the other , yet upon fupr
pofal of the truth of what cannot be gainfaid
by ourOppofers, unlefs they (hall in exprets
terms contradid the Apoftle , the fecond Pro-
position may be true.
Firft, For the firft of thefe I (hail do two
things.
Firft, Prove that this Cpvenant , that God
entred with Abraham , and his Seed in their
generations , was a Covenant of Grace , and in
particular, that this Promife ©t that Covenant,
whejrein God engaged himfelf to be a God to
him and his Seed , was ag Promife of a fpiritual
blcfling^
(i8i)
blttfing.a good tranfcending any temporal good
whatsoever.
Secondly, Prove that this Covenant , now
eihblithed with Abraham , is the felf fame Co-
venant, for the fubltanceof it, made with Be-
lievers under the New Teitament,
For the rirft of thefe I need fay but little, be-
caufe others have faid io much : See Dr. Win-
ter in his Ireatife of Infant -Baft if m , as alfo
Mr. Ball upon the Covenant , Mr. Warnn and
others s and therefore in brief take only thefc
three or four Arguments.
The raft Argument of that Covenant, a^v
eftabliihcd with Abraham and his natural Seed,
was not only a temporal or legalCovenant,or the
Promifcs appertaining to his natural Seed, wert
only temporal Promifes, then many thoufands,
who were the a&ual Subjeds of that Covenant,
and the Promifes thereof, might and did never
enjoy any benefit by it,and that meerly through
Gods not performing what himfelf had promi-
fed , without any default on their own or their
Parents part : But none> who are the actual
Subjects of the Covenant and Promifes thereof,
ever did or could fall fhort of the good cove-
nanted , meerly through Gods not performing
what he had covenanted and promifed, without
a default cither of the parties themfelves, or of
their Parents \ Therefore this Covenant , as
cftablilhcd with Abraham and his natural Seed,
N 3 could
Ci80
tould not be a meer temporal or legal Covenant, k
or a Covenant confuting only of tempoia1
bleffings,but muft needs be a Covenant of Grace,
or a Covenant conlifting of faving benefits and
bleflings.
For the confcquencc in the Major Propofiti-
on, that cannot be denied, in as much as many
thoufands, who were the aftual Subje&s of this!'0
Covenant and the Promifes thereof, whether]?*
they were fo , as they were Abrahams imme-
diate natural Seed, or were fo, as included with
their Covenant-parents, in that phrale, in their
generations , might and did die in their infancy,
before ever they came to reap and injoyany
temporal benefit, by that Covenant or the Pro-
mifes thereof. Now this could arife from no
other head or fpring , but only Gods not per*
forming to them what he had promifed : And
if it fbeuld be faid, Though God did deny to
give them in that very temporal good contained
in the Promifes of that Covenant,yet they were
infallibly faved , and fo had only an exchange of
a temporal good for a fpiritual > though they
had not that particular good covenanted, yet
they had a better good, viz. the good of eternal
life.
But to that I anfwer two things:
Fiift, Grant it be fo* yet they never had any
benefit by this Covenant, or the Promifes of it,
the a&nal Subjects of which yet they were,
neither could they eajoy eternal life by vertuc
of that Covenantor any Promifes of ^accord-
ing
fi83)
lg to the judgment of our Oppofers, in as
nuch as it was , according to their judgment,
;t nly a temporal Covenant.
to But Tome will fay , Though they had not
alvation by vertue of this Covenant , yet all
iti nfants dying in their infancy , before they
I :ommit any adtual fin, are infal.ibly faved, and
iii :onftquently thofe whofe cafe falls under our
a ?refent confideration were faved.
i- I anfwer, Suppofe it ihould be fo yet.
I
irj Secondly, I fay, That many thoufands might
Jllve to commit actual fin,and yet die before they
f [come to enjoy any benefit by this Covenant and
.the Promifes thereof, fuppofing it be only a legal
!or temporal Covenant, and confequently might
not only be deprived of any benefit by this
Covenan^meerly through Gods not performing
what he had promifed to them, but might
i through their own fin fall (hort of any higher
good, which may be fuppofed mould have been
given ,in lieu of the good of this Covenant,
But now for any to fill wholly fhort of that
good promifed tothem,efpecially when nothing
is given in lieu thereof , meerly through Gods
not performing what he had promifed to, them,
is inconfiftent with the truth and faithfulnefs of
God, who hath (hied himfelf, A God keeping
Covenant and mercy for ever s and therefore
this Covenant could not, as made to Abraham's
natural Seed , be a meer temporal Covenant,
promifing only a temporal good , but muft
needs be a Covenant ©f Grace , confining of
N 4 fpiritual
Ci84)
fpiritual Promifes, as Jultification, Adoption
the in- dwelling prefenceof the Spirit, Life am
Glory, &c.
Secondly, If God ingaged himfelf to be s
God to Abraham's natural Seed by this Cove
nant and the Promifes thereof, and to have Goc
engaged by Covenant to a people to-be thei
God,be a greater and more excellent good, that
it is to enjoy any meer temporal good whatever
then this Covenant was made with Abraham*'.
natural Seed, as fuch, was not a meer temporal
Covenant, nor the Promites of it, Promifes o
meer temporal bltllings : But the Covenant wai
a Covenant of Grace , and the Promifes of il
Promifes of fpiritual blcflings. Buttheformei
is true,therefore the latter.
The Confequcnce in the Major propofition
is undeniable, unlefs any (hall affirm, that there
may be a good, greater and more excellent,than
any temporal good can poflibly be, which yet is
no fpiritual good, or which may be given to men
no way interelTed in the Covenant of Grace j ii
any fuch good can be found out,that excels any
temporal good whatfoever, and yet is not a
faving good , hath no reference and relation to
the falvation of thole that enjoy it , they will
do-fomething to the invalidating this Argu
ment > till then I (hall take it for granted , that
no fuch good is imaginable.
And for the Minor propofition , that is fuffi-
ciently evident from that, Gen. 17.7. compa
red with P/i/w 144, and the latter end; We
fee
fits)
fee from this Gen. 17. that God did mgagc him-
felf, by the Promitcof this Covenant, to be*
, God to Abraham's natural Seed, a> fuch , 1 will
be a God to thee and tby Seed ;' which Promife,
as hath been proved , refpc&s his natural S.ed,
as fuch , as the immediate and next Subjects ot
it > befides, according to the judgment of our
Oppofers, the Land of Canaan was given to all
Abrahams natural Seed , immediately defend-
ing fiom him by Ifaac and Jacob , fetting afide
Ejan and his pofterity, as the proper and ipecial
good intended in this Covenant , as refptding
them. Now we fee plainly, as words can make
any thing plain in the world, God ingages by
promife, not only to give them that Land, but
to bea God unto them, Getf. 17. 8. And that
to hav-e 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 paflage of the Pfalmift, where, we fee,
he plainly prefers this good above any temporal
good whatfoever > for baving fpoken of their
happinefs, who have the enjoyment of temporal
mercies and bleffings, he adds, asprefening this
above all, Tea, happy u that people, whofe God is
Jehovah. Now how could the Pfalmiji prefer
an intereft in God above the enjoyment of all
worldly felicity , in cafe it was but a temporal
good it felf, or a good that only referred to mans
temporal happinefs and felicity , or had no refe-
rence to any higher happinefs than the things
©f the world have ? I ea let me fay , did this
fronaife import only a temporal good , their
happinefs,
happinefs, who had God, as their God, by ver-
tuc of it , according to the terms upon which
it was now given, their happinefs, I fay, had
been rather lefs.than greater than the happi-
nefs ef thofe, whofe portion wholly lyes in the
things of the world * fo that the Pfalmift might
better have prefixed this yes to the happmefs
of others, than to their happinefs, whofe God
is the Lord , and might have faid , Happy is
the people whofe God is the Lord , yea, happy
is the people who is in fuch a cafe, in refpeci of
worldly profperity,as is before expreffed.
Objeci. But it may be fome will fay , This
having the Lord engaged to be a peoples God,
of which the Pfolmift fpeaks , is meant of their
having him engaged as their God by the Cove-
nant of Grace, and not of their having htm en-
gaged, as their God,by the Covenant made with
Abraham and his natural Seed i and fo it is
granted,that to have a covenant-intereft in God,
is a good,vauly greater and more exceUent,thaa
any temporal good whatfoever.
But to that I anfwer, The Pfalmift fpeaks of
a covenant intereft abfolutely, without diftin-
guilhing of the Covenant conveying that inte-
reft \ and where the Scripture doth not diftin-
guifti, we ought not* and confequently the Scri-
pture preferring a covenant-intereft in God
above all outward and worldly felicity whatfo-
ever , we may and ought to conclude , there is
no covenant-intereft , but what dath fo vaftly
excel
OH)
(excel any temporal good what(b:ver i andcon-
fcquently, that the interelt the natural Seed of
Abraham had in God , was a good tranfeending
any temporal good , and anfwerably mult needs
be a fpiritual good > whence it will undeniably
follow, that this Covenant conveying this inte-
reft in God unto them , was a Covenant of
Grace , and that this promife was a promife of
a fpiritual and faving good.
Third Argument , If that Promife of the
Covenant entred with Abraham and his natural
Seed, asfuch, 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 fence and meaning of the Holy
Ghoft in it, intend a fpiritual good, typified by
that temporal good, then that Promife, which
according to the letter and outward face of the
words, did intend and point to a fpiritual good,
rnuft needs be underftood of that fpiritual good,
which, according to the letter and outward face
of the words, it did intend and point to , and
confequently that Covenant muft needs be a
Covenant of fpiritual bleffings : but the former
is true , therefore the latter. For the Gonfe-
quence in the Major Propofition of the Pro-
iyllogifm,I fuppofe, it will not be denied by any
that are Matters of their own Reafon, it that
promife of the Land of Canaan , which in the
letter, and according to the outward face of the
words, intended only a temporal good, (for Ca-
ft**?) according to the letter, was but a tempo-
tat
ral good.) Now if that Promife, according to
more inward fence of the Holy Ghoit, intended
afpiritual good, furcly that Promife, of God
being a God, which in the letter, and according $
to the outward face of the word, intends a fpi
ritual good , mud needs be underiiood of tha
good it did in the letter and outward face of the
words intend * and for the antecedent, that 1
fuppofe will be denied, viz. that that promifc
of Canaan did,according to a more inward fenci
of the Holy Ghoit, intend and point toafpiritua
good » but this is fo evident,that it doth indeed
admit of no contradiction, from thofe who will
not profeiTedly fet themfelves to- oppofe the
Scriptures : See Htb. n. 9, 10. He looked for
a City , who ft Maker and Builder is God. By
what warrant did he look for this City ? Doubt-
Icls by the warrant of this Promife of the Land
of Canaan ; but for this fee Mr. Carter, in his
Abrahams Covenant opened , pjge 23,43. See
alfo Mr. Tombsh'is Exer citation, page 2. Now1
then both parts of the Frofyllogtfm being true,
it will undeniably follow, that this Covenant, as
made with Abraham and his natural feed, was a
Covenant of Grace , or did coniift of fpiritual
Promifes j and in particular, that that Promife,
wherein God ingaged himfelf to be a God to
Abraham and his Seed, was a Promife of faving
Giace.
The fourth Argument, That this Promife of
the Covenant in particular , wherein God inga-
ged himfelf to be a God to Abraham and his
Seed,
;ed , as it did refpedt his natural Seed, as fuch,
id intend and import afpiritual good, or was a
romife, asfome (peak , of faving Grace, that
, did intend fueh a fpiritual blcfling, as had a
\icdt reference to future falvation : I prove
hus, viz. Becaufe it did, as it doth refpedr, or
vasmadeto Abrahams myiiical Seed, intend,
sisconfelTed by all,a fpiritual good, whence we
rgue ; Jf all Promifcs made in the fame words,
erms,and expreflions to divers perfons feverally
nd particularly confidered , do alwayes ilgnifie
md intend one and the fame good , as made to
>ne,that they do as made to another, unlefs God
limfclf hath fome where or fome way declared
pis fence and meaning in them to be divers , as
made to one, from what it is as made to another,
and this Promife k\ particular be made in the
fame words, terms and expreflions to Abraham's
natural Seed , that it is as made to his myftical
Seed , and God hath no where or no way decla-
red his fence and meaning in it , as made to his
natural Seed, to be divers from what it is, as
made to his myftical Seed , then itnvuft needs
intend and ilgnirie one and the fame good, as
made to the one* that it doth as made to the
other,and confequently it Signifying and intend-
ing a fpiritual good , as made to his myitical
Seed , mult needs intend a fpiritual good as
made to his natural Seed ; But the former
is true, therefore the latter j That the Pro-
mife was made to Abraham's whole Seed, whe-
ther natural, taking that phrafe in the fenfe be-
fore opened, or myftical, hath been fufficiently
proved
(190)
proved already * and that it did intend a fpiri-
tual good, or was a promife of faving Grace, as
made to his myftical Seed, is not denied by our
Oppofers. Now let it be either (hewed where
or by what way God hath declared his fence
and meaning in it, as it was made to Abrahams
natural Seed, to be diverfe from what it is, as
made to his myftical Seed , or let it be proved,
that the Promife made, as before exprefled, may
carry a fence and fignihcation , 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 alHhe comfort of Chriftians,
and whether God hath any where or any way
declared his fence and meaning in it, as made to
Abrahams naturalSeed,to be diverfe from what
it is, as made to his myftical, (hall be considered
by and by ^ in the mean time we may evidently
fee,that this Covenant,asmade with Abraham's
natural Seed, and that as fuch was a Covenant of
Grace , or did confiftof Promifes of fpiritual
and faving blefllngs > and from what hath been
faid, it evidently appears , there is no fuch real
and fpecifical difference between that Covenant
made with Abraham , and that Believers arc
under, as this Objection doth fuppofe and take
for granted s it evidently appears , theyarenot
fpeciiically two Covenants, but quoad fubftanti-
amy one and the fame ; Now the foundation of
thii Objection being removed , the Objection
falls to the ground, and hath no weight in it.
Sc
(191)
Secondly i That this Covenant now made
with Abraham and his Seed, is one and the fame
for fubftance that Eelievers, under the Gofpel
adminifiration are under : This I evidence by
thefe two Arguments.
Firft, If this Covenant made with Abraham
and his Seed was not difanulled , either by the
Law, or by or together with any change or al-
teration God hath made in his adminiftrations,
with reference to his Church in after times,then
it was never difanulled, but is mil in being, and
confequently the fame in fubftance with that
Covenant , ^according unto which God doth
difpence and give out his faving mercies and
bleffings to believing Gentiles in the times of
the Gofpel ; but the former is true , therefore
the latter. Certainly it cannot be denied , but
that this Covenant is mil in being and in force,
yea, is that very Covenant, according to which
God doth difpence his bleffings and mercies to
believing Gentiles in the times of the Gofpel,
in cafe it was never difanulled , unlets any (hill,
fay, there is a twofold Covenant of Grace (till in
being, one a temporal Covenant, another a fpiri-
tual Covenant, which is not affirmed by any
that I have yet heard of,or met with, and there-
fore the confequence in the Major propofition
will not, I judge,be queftioned by any : For the
Minor propofition , viz. That this Covenant
made with Abraham and his Seed, was yet never
difanulled er abrogated, is exprefly declared by
the ApofUe, gal. 3. 17. Zbkl fayt Brethren,
~ that
090
that the Covenant which was confirmed of God in
Cbriftjhe Law which was four hundred and tbir »
ty years after, cannot difanul, that itjhoutd mak$
the Promifeof noneeffeft. What Covenant the
Apoftle here intends is Sufficiently evident, as
from the foregoing veifes, fo from the whole
context, viz. That Coveiaant made with Abra-
ham and his Seed in their generations , ashathi
been before proved. Now faith the Apoftle
of this Covenant , the Law which was given
four hundred and thirty years after the efta-
blifhment of it, could not difanul it > and let it
be diligently obferved , that in cafe this Cove-
nant had been difanulled either at, or any time
before the coming of faith,as the Apoftle (peaks,
that is, at the laying afide the Mofaical Pedago^
gy, and the fetting up the Gofpel adminiftration
in the room thereof ( and from that time fince,
fure none will pretend it hath been difanulled )
it had been all one as to the deflgn of the Apo-
ftle , as if ic had been difanulled by the Law,
had it been difanulled at the fetting up, yea» or:
were to have been difanulled.during the difpen-
fation of the Gofpel, under which we are : The
Apoftle ceuld ho more have proved , that the
bleffing of Abraham was come upon the Gen-
tiles through Chrift, as believed in, from the te-
nour of that Covenant, as we fee he doth, them
if it had been difanulled by the Law, for if it
had not been difanulled by the Law , yet if it
had been difanulled at , or confequent to the
fetting up of the Gofpel adminiltration , the
renew of that Covenant had no way proved
what
(*93 J
hat the Apoftle defigncd the proof of : To
hat purpofe fhould the Apoltlc have produ-
:d the tcnour of that Covenant , to prove the
ectflny of the Gentiles incorporation into
Ihriit, in order to their enjoying the blefling of
ibrabam, had it been now difanulled, in cafe it
ad not been difanulled by the Law^fothat it is
aft all doubt , that that Covenant was not dif*
nulled, when the Apoftle wrote to the Galati~
ns, nor was to be difanulled,during the Gofpel
dminiflration we are now under , and confe-
lucntly there being but one Covenant , accord*
ng to which the benefits and bkflings of the
3ofpel, are difpenfed unto Gentile Believers, it
nuit needs be this very Covenant afore made
ivith Abraham , and his Seed in their Geneiati*
>ns, which is the thing to be proved.
Secondly, If believing Gentiles enjoy the
faving bkflings and benefits of the Gofpel , as
the Seed of Abraham , by vertue of that ve-
ry Promife of the Covenant made with A*
brabam, and his Seed in their generations ,
then the Covenant made with him and his
Seed is one and the fame for fubftance with that
Covenant , believers are itill under ; but the
former is true , therefore the latter; It is mar*
vellous how it can enter into the heart of any
man, thatismafterof his own unckiftanding, to
imagine , that there fnould be a real and fpecifi-
cal dirference,between that Covenant made with
Abraham , and the Covenant Believers are now
O undei
under , when it is by vcrtue of the fundament;
Promife of that Cot enant made with Abrahan
that they enjoy all the good of the Gofpel, c
all the faving good they arc by Chrift made pai
takers of : Can they be under one Covenant
and yet enjoy all the good they do enjoy b
Chrift, by vertuc of another Covenant, reall
and fpecifically divers from that they areundei
and which is long fince difanulkd and abroga
ted? To affirm it it would be an abfolutc contra
di&ion : And that they do enjoy all the goo
they have by Chrift,as they are Abraham's, Scec
by vertue of this very Promife of that Cove
riant made with Abraham , is to evider
throughout this whole difcourfe of the Apo
file, that it needs no other proof, than the bar
reciting of his words, fee Gal. 3. 29. If ye ar
Cbrijhi then are ye Abraham J Seed, and Heir
according to Promife.
But it may be fbmc will yet objed , Certair
ly,notwithftanding all that hath been faid, then
muft needs be a real and fpecifical difference be
tween the Covenant that the Jews were undei
during the firft Teftament administration , an
the Covenant that Believers are under, durin
the new Teftament adminiitration i for dot
pot the Scripture exprefly call them two Cc
venants? doth not the new Teftament frc
quently fpeak of a new Covenant that Believei
are now under , in a contradiftin&ion from th
aid*
< Cm)
To that I anfwer , That when the Scripture
{peaks of two Covenants , or (peaks of a new
Covenant eitablifhed with Believers under the
new Te(tament,italwayes hath reference to that
Covenant, made with the people of Ifrael at
Mount Sinai y and never hath reference to this
Covenant made with Abraham i the words are
as plain as words can be expreiTed, fee Gal, 4,
latter end, Heb. 8.8. Yea , the Scripture is ex-
prefs that the new Covenant is the fame that
was firft entred with Abraham j So that, I fay,
the Covenant of Grace we are now under, is not
another Covenant,fpecifically different from this
made with Abraham , but they are forthefub-
itance one and the fame > and hence this Obje-
ction not only vanifheth , but we have an addi-
tional conrirmation of the truth of what is af-
firmed in our fecond Propoluion > and we might
add,
5. A fifth Argument thus, If the Covenant
be one and the fame , then the Promifes of it
rouft, unlefs limited by God himlelf, run in one
and the fame extent and latitude > but the Co-
venant is one and the fame , and the Promifes
are not linked by God himfelf i therefore they
muft run in one and the fame extent and lati-
tude : But the truth aiTerted is fufRciently evi-
dent, therefore I need not inlarge upon it,
I (hall come to the fecond thing propofed in
anfwer to this Objection.
* O 2 Secondly^
(i96)
Secondly , Notwithftanding the Covenant
made with Abraham > and that made with Be-
lievers , (hould be really and fpecihcally divcrfc
the one from the other, yet upon the fuppofal of
the truth of what cannot be gainfaid by our
Oppofers,unlefs they (hall in exprefs terms con-
tradict the Apoftle himftlf, this fecond Propo-
sition may be true, and consequently the affert-
irig and maintaining, that the Promife made to
Abraham, in that latitude and extent, as to take
in his natural Seed, as joynt Subjects with him
of the fame Promife, is given to and fetled upon
believing Gentiles , in the fame extent and lati-
tude , doth not necefTarily require the afTerting
and maintaining the Covenant entred with
him,and the Covenant entred with Believers, to
be one and the fame Covenant : for the clearing
up and evidencing of this , let it be obfervtd ,
that the Apoftle doth in exprefs words affiim,
That if the Gentiles are Chrifts, they are Abra-
hams Seed and Heirs, according to the Promife,
Gal. 3. 29. Whence it is undeniably evident,
that believing Gentiles are Heirs to Abrahams
bleffing , or to the Promife made to Abraham^
with reference to his Seed , as they arc confi-
dered under that notion and conflderation as his
Seed.
Secondly , Which follows from this , that
they are Heirs to that Promife , or the bleffing
contained in that Promife made to Abraham,
with reference to his Seed , which bkfling, as I
\wte proved before , was the fame iad£h that
which
rhkh Abraham himfelf was blefled with ; thefe,
two things cannot be gainfaid , but muft be
granted by all that will not in exprefs terms
contradict rhe Apofile.
Now then let me a little argue with our Op-
pofers thus i either that Covenant entred with
Abraham, and entred with believing Gentiles, is
one and the fame , or they are two Covenants,
fpecifjcally diverfe the one from the other :
The firit they deny , the latter they afBrm.
Well then, the Promife containad in it was ei-
ther a Promife of a meer temporal good , or a
fpiritual good. Yes, fay our Oppofers, it was a
temporal good , as the Prorrufe was made to
Abraham , with reference to his natural Seed.
Well then the bleftingor good contained in this
very Promife, as it was made to Abraham, with
reference to his fpiritual or myftical Seed, is
either a temporal or a fpiritual good , the latter
here mult, and I fuppofe will, be granted by our
Oppofcrs themfelves : It is evident thcn: ac-
cording to the Judgment of our Oppofers, that
the fame Promife made to Abraham, with refe-
rence to his natural Seed , and as made to him
with reference to them , only importing a tem-
poral good, may be given to, and (etied upon be-
lieving Gentiles , and that by the Covenant of
Grace , and that as given to , and fetled upon
them, may import and fignifie a fpiritual 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 Pro-
mife made to Abraham , with reference to his
O j Seed,
I
0?3)
Seed , is exprefly affirmed by the Apoftle I
whence it will undeniably follow , thateithctf
the Covenant mull be one and the fame > and
the Promifes thereof intend one and the fame
good,as made both with reference to Abrahams
natural, and alfo his fpiritual Seed, which is un-
doubtedly the truths or eltVthat the fame Pro*,
mife made to Abraham^ with reference to his na-
tural Seed, according to that Covenant then en-
tred with him ; and that as fo made, with rc-
fpedt to them,may import only a temporal godcf,
may yet be given to, and fetled upon believing
Gentiles,by another Covenant, and that as given
to, and fetled upon them, may import a fpiritual
good i and confequently that the Promife may
, run in the fame extent arid latitude , in which
irwasmade to Abraham , as how it is made fb
believing Gentiles, though the Covenant * in
which that Promife was contained , as made to
Abraham , was really and ipecifically diverfe
from that that Covenant,in which that Promife
is contained, as made to believing Gentiles ; for
if fo be, the fame Promife , as fimply and abfo
lutely coniidered, may be given unto and fetled
upon believing Gentiles, by a Covenant diverfe
from that, according to which it wasfirft given
tcr Abraham twhy may not that Promife be given
unto, and fetled upon believing Gentiles; in
the fame latitude and extent in Which it was
'ftifi given to Abraham ; If the Promife be giveii
{ to belkving Gentiles,why may it not be given in
therfjll extent and latitude of it? Certainly nc
rational account can b'g given." And here let i<
e carefully obferved , that both we Jnd our
)ppofers are agreed, That Abraham's bkffing,
t the good contained in that Promife, wherein
Jod ingaged to be a God to him and his Seed*
; granted to believing Gentiles j all the Que-
tion is, whether it be given to them in the fame
atitude and extent, in which it was given to
Abraham and his natural Seed ; whence it lyes
jpon our Obje&ors to (hew fome Reafon why,
.uppofing there (hould be fuch a difference fab-
:*veen thefe two fuppofed covenants, thePromife
nay not be continued in the fame latitude and
extenf,in which it was at firft given \ as well is
the Promife it felf, abfolutely taken, may be gi-
ven or continued to believing Gentiles, not*
withftanding that difference they imagtne be-
tween thefe fuppofed diiVind Covenants, Co that
the granting the Covenants to be really and
fpecitically diverfe one from the other , nd more
oppofeth the truth of this our fecond Propofi-
tion , than k doth oppofe What the Obje&ors
themfelves do hold , at leaft which they muft
hold , unlefs they will expreily contradifl the
Apoftle in what he expreily affirms : and.rhere-
fore I fay , upon the fuppofal of what the Ob-
jectors themfelves muft grant, the affirming and
maintaining the Promife to run- in the fame la-
titude and extent to believing Gentiles , in
which it ran in unto Abraham , doth not ne-
ceiTarily require the affirming or maintaining,
that the Covenant is one and the fame : our
Oppofers muft grant , that the Promife made to
Abrsbam^ either with reference tobimfelf* or
O 4 with
f 200)
With reference to his Seed , and it is all one
whether we take it the one way or the other, i
given to,and fetled upon believing Gentiles, w
(ay it is given to, and fetled upon them, in th
fame latitude and extent in which it was givei
to Abraham^ both in reference to himfelf and hi
natural Seed ; and now fuppoiing the Covenan
believing Gentiles are under, (hould bereall
diverfe from that entred with Abraham , ho?
that (hould contradict what wc affirm , mor
than it {hould contradid what the Objc&oi
themfelves muft grant, isimpofCble to imagine
So that, I fay, the Covenant is one and the fam
for fubftance j but fuppofing it were not , yc
our Propofition might and would hold tru<
0h)*8. It is obje&ed by fome, That th
Infant- feed of believing Gentiles cannot , wit
any (hew of reafon , be fuppofed to be taken i
as joynt Subje&s of the Covenant of Grace
and the Promifes thereof, with their Parent 1
mccrly upon the account of their Parents fait!
in as much as we fee plainly , that the Jew
themfelves, though they were the natural See;
of Abraham ( whofe Seed in reafon (hould ha\
enjoyed as great priviledges as the natural See!
of any Wieving Gentile ) could not upon t\\
mccr account of their fleflily* defcent from A
braham, be admitted into the Gofpcl- covenan;
but for their unbelief were rcje&ed , notwitlj
Handing their relation unto Abraham , as h
natural. Now fay pur Oppofers, if fo be, c)
f her the natural Seed of 4br*b*m> or the natt
(201)
ral Seed of Believers, had been or m&erc to be
received into the Gofpel-covenant , together
with their Parents , meerly upon the account of
their Parents faith, and had had, or have, as the
Seed ©f fuch Parents, a right to the Ordinances
and Priviledges of that Covenanr , then the
Jcws,they being the natural Seed of ^Abraham,
had had a right to the Gofpel-covenant, and
might , yea, ought to have been admitted into
the Gofpel-chuich by Baptifm,by vcrtue of that
their Relation to Abraham , as his natural Sccdt
and could not juftiy have been refufed for the
want of a perfonal faith and repentance of their
own, they being, notwithstanding their want of
a perfonal faith and repentance , yet Abrahams
natural Seed , and therefore certainly the Jews
had either wrong done them by the Apoftlcs, iri
not admitting them by Baptifm into the Go-
fpel-church , or elfe we mult relinquish our plea
for Infant-right to Baptifm, upon the account of
their jpynt intereft in the Covenant, together
with their Parents ; for can we think the Apo-
lllts would fo highly wrong the Jews,as to deny
them that priviledge which, is Abrahams Seed,
they had a right unto ? or can it be imagined,
that they, though the natural Seed of Abra*
bamy who was fuch an eminent believer,and the
Father of the faithful , mould have ne right to
be admitted into the Gofpel church, and yet the
fleflily Seed of believing Gentiles mould have a
right to fuch an admiition : And that which
makes this Objection fecm more weighty to
fome is , that they fuppofe wc hold, that the
Infant-
( 202 )
Infant- feed of believing Parents do ftand £e!a-*
ted to Abraham as his Seed, and do baptize them
upon that account : And how the Infant-feed
oi bclieviag Gentiles fhould be fuppoied to
ftand related to Abraham as his Seed , and upon
that account be baptized, when his own natural
Seed could no longer bear the denomination of
his Seed , with reference to the Promifesof the
Covenant of Grace , cannot be imagined, btit
feenns to be matter of great wonder , yea, and
amazement unto fome.
Anfw, I anfwer, What hath been already
faid,both for the explication of this term S-tedt
and for the removal of fome Objections raifed
up againftthe truth, aflerted in the foregoing
FropofitionSjhath fo far obviated and prevented
this Objection, as that little more need be added
for the removing of it out of our way: The
Objection, as we may eafily fee,is grounded up-
on s and receives what ftrehgth it hath from a
twofold Suppofitionv •
-
Firft , A Suppofition that we affirm, at leaft
that it will unavoidably follow from what we
do affirm, that Abraham's natural Seed , both
immediately and mediately proceeding fromhis
loins, had a right to the Covenant of Grace,and
the promifes, benefits and priviledges thereof,
meerly by vertue of their relation to Abraham^
as his natural Seed.
SccorKlJy3
Secondly, A Suppofition that wc hold ,
1 hit the natural Seed of believing Gen-
iles arc , by vertue of that their relation
o fuch believing Parents, accounted for the
iced of Abraham t and on that account to be
aptifed.
■
Now as to the former of thefe Suppofitions,
t will foon appear , to all that attend to what
lath been faid , that I am no way concerned in
t,having affirmed, and I hope fufficiently pro-
ved, the quite contrary, WE That the Cove-
nant, as at fiift cltablifbed with Abraham, did
not conflitutc a Covenant-relation betweenGod
and any of his natural Seed, meerly as fuch, be-
yond thofe that did immediately proceed from
his own loins , but that the light and intereit
that any individual or particular perfon of his
natural Seed, during their Infant-capacity, be-
yond his immediate Children, had in the Cove-
nant and Promifes oi it,arofe from their relation
to their immediate Parents, included with them
in that phrafe, their Generations, and that the
compleatingand continuance" of that Covenant-
■relation did neceflnily and indifpenfably re-
quire their own faith and repentance, fo foon as
grown up to a capacity inabling them thereun-
to , whence, as fuchi who in their Infancy had
a right to, and intereft in the Covenant, and
Promifes thereof, either by vertue of their rela-
tion to Abraham , as his natural Seed, thus, in
refpedi of his own immediate Children , or by
vertue of the relation to Covenant paccnts ,
thtf*
(204 )
thus^n rcfped of the Jews mediately defcendc-
from Abraham, during the fnrft Teftamentadmi
uiitration, I fay, as fuch, might, when grow
up to years of maturity, fail in the performing
the conditions of the Covenant , and thereupo'
be rejeded of God i fo they having loft thei
own Covenan^tate and relarion,could not con
▼ey a right to, orinterea in the Covenant an
Promifes thereof to their Children, their Chil
drens Govenant ftate and relation Handing o
falling with their own \ whence it is evident
that as neither rhe Jews themfelves , asgrowi
up, and as Parents, had any right to the Cove
nant, as adminiftred under the firft Tcftament
but what depended upon their perfonal ex
ceptance and performance of the conditions o
the Covenant, as then propofed to, and admini
ftred among them, nor their Infant- feed air
right of admiflion into a participation of th'
benefits and bleflings of the Covenant , as thei
adminiftred , but upon a fuppofition of thei
immediate Parents abiding in Covenant, il
now the continuance of their right ( confider
ed as grown up and as Parents; to the Cove
runt and bleflings thereof , as now varied anc
altered in its adminiftration , depended upoi
their acceptation and performance of the condi
tions of the Covenant, as now propofed unde
thisprefent adminiftration , and as thecontinu
ancc of their own right to the Covenant, ape
the priviledges thereof, depended upon thcii
own acceptation and performance of the Cove-
nant , as now adminiftred , fo their Childreni
righi
(205)
ght to, and intereft in the Covenant, and pri-
iledges thereof, iiood or fell with their owni
nd hence the Jews , as grown up to years of
maturity, or as Parents, rcfufing to accept of
nd perform the Conditions of the Covenant,
• s now differently adminilhed under the Necv
' Teihrnent, from what it was under the Old,
ivere perfonally rejected , fuppofing them finglc
jierfons , and were both themfelves and their
Children ( fuppofing their Children were in
Their Infancy ) rejected from their Handing any
longer in thtir former Covcnant-ftatc and relat-
ion God w*rd : So that this Suppolltion having
o footing in any thing I have hitherto faid,
he Objection it felf, fo far as grounded upon it,
way concerns the truth aliened in the one
\>r the other foregoing Proportions, and confe-
tquently I am not at all concerned to reply un-
Tto it.
I
1. Now for the other Propofition this Object-
ion is grounded upon , I acknowledge my (elf
I concerned in it, and do freely grant, yea, pofi-
Itivelv affirm, That the Infant feed of believing
! Gentiles arc to be accounted of, and numbred
among Abrahams myliical Seed : what reipedt.
wc have to that their myitical relation to Abra-
ham, as his Seed, in the application of Baptifm
to them, will be more fitly conildered under the
laft Propofition : But that they are to be ac-
counted of, and numbred among Abraham's
rnyftical Seed,I aiSrm, and it Sufficiently appears
from hence, vizi That Abraham's Seed in their
gene-
or
C 2o<5 )
generations make up but one royftical See J» Thi
is evident from Gen. 17. 7. where faith th
Lord , I eftablifh my Covenant between me an,,
thee, and thy Seed after thee in their genenerati
ons, tobeaGodtotbee, and thy Seed after thee
So that Seed in their geuerations is expounder
by God himfelf to be, Seed after thee i Seed ii
their generations makes up that one Seed : an<
to the fame purpofe is that of the Apoltle, ii
Gal. 3. 1 5. He- faith not, lo Seeds , at of many
but, lo thy Seed,t»hich is Cbriji. Whence it ap
pears, that all the individual and particular per
ions, whetker grown up, or lnfants,that are iu
eluded in that Promife , as made to Abraham
with reference to his Seed , make up but on
Seed, which, faith the Apoltle, . is Cbrijt. Nov:
that the Infant-feed of believing Gentiles , un
der the Gofpel adminiftration, as well as th
Infant- feed of the Jews , under the rirft Te(ia
ment adminiftration , are included with thei
Parents in that phrafe , Thy Seed in their gene
rations , hath been abundantly proved already
fo that I fay I grant, yea affirm, that the Infant
feed of believing Gentiles are to be reckoner!
of, and numbred among Abraham's myfticai
Seed.
Objeft. 1. Firft, That the Scripture fiilj
makes Faith the condition, or medium, of Genj
tiles becoming A^rj^m'smyftical Seed , Kfim\
4. 12,16* Whence it feems evident, that Abra
bam is a my meal Father to none but Believers
and his Seed arc only fuch as are of the Faith.
Anfa
(207)
I Anfiv. Iahfwer, The Scripture is not con-
4 trary to it felf : Now we have feen, that undet
Jl that phrafe , 7 by Seed in tbeir generations , the
Iniant-lced both of Jews and Gentiles are in-
cluded ; and that this, Seed in their generations,
is but Abraham's Seed after him : Whence it is
evident, the Apoftle in faying, that Abraham is
the Father of them that believe, excludes not,
'4 but on the other hand includes the Infant-feed
<J{ of fuch as do believe , as to be accounted with
their Parents, as making up but one Seed i he is
the Father of them that do believe , whether
Jews or Gentiles in their generations.
Objefi. 2. Secondly , It is objc&ed, That
then we make three parties in the Covenant.
FiruS Abraham.
Secondly, His Seed.
Thirdly, Their Infant- feed.
Anf*. In anfwer, We make but two par-
ties , Abraham^ and his Seed > the Infant-feed
of Believers makes not a third party , but Hands
in the fame capacity , refpe&ive to Abraham~y
that their Parents do , and he is to be looked
upon as a common Father to Parents , and their
Infant-feed, the feveral individuals, whether
Parents or Infants, are all but the feveral mem-
bers or parts of that one iotum , that one
coiledrive body, Abrahams Seed : from all it
appears, that this Obje&ion, in part, concerns
not me, and fo far as it doth concern me, is no
way oppofite to what I have affirmed, but is
granted
C 208 )
granted without the leaft pre judicc to the truth
pleaded for.
ObjeFr. 3. It is obje&ed by fome, That In*
fants cannot be under the Covenant of Grace,
becaufe the Covenant of Grace promifeth di-
vine teachings to all that are under it , the iffue
of which is the faving knowledge of God, which
as Infants for the prefect are incapable of ; fo it
is certain, that many of the Infants of Believers
are ne*cr made partakers of > now if they are
admitted into Covenant, and area&ually under
the Fromifes of it, they mult needs be taught of
God, and that fo as to know him, at leaft they
would, as they grow up to a capacity, be fo
taught of God > fee the Piomifc, Ifa. 54.. 15*
Jer. 31. 34.. Heb.%. 1©,
knfvo. Ianfwer, This Obje&ion hath been
removed already, but yet for further fatisfa<Sion
I (hall lay down thefe two Proportions.
Fiaft, That fome may be a&ually in the Co-
venant of Grace , who yet are not fo taught of
God , as favingly to know him ; this might be
evidenced from that diitin&ion formerly laid
down, concerning an external and internal be-
ing in Covenant. It is poilible, perfons maybe,
yea, it is certain many are, externally in Cove-
nant, who are not internally in Covenant > the
necefllcy of this diftin&ion hath been already
(hewed , and the abfurdities that would follow,
in cafe it fliould be denied, declared. Now iu
icfpcdt
Ijefpict of fuch who are only external in Cove
iant,it is certain, though they are in Covenant,
nd under the promifesof it , according to its
ruetenour, as fo externally made, yet are not
b taught of God, as favingly to know him, for
hen they would be, not only externally,but iri-
ernally in Covenant.
Secondly, That thisPromife made to the Co-
ehant-people of God, alluring them, that they
"ball be all, from the leaft to the greateft taught
3f God, fo as favingly to know him,doth not in-
fallibly fecure the good promifed fo every in-
dividual perfon, to whom the promifr, as ex-
ternally promulgated and declared 3 doth, in
common with others appertain.
And for the proof of thisPofltion I would
argue thas, If it do infallibly fecure the good
promifed to every individual perfon to whom it
doth externally appertain, it muft be either by
vertue of the umverfality of the terms, or by
vertue of the nature and kind of the promife it
fel f,or by vertue of the nature or quality of the
good promifed. That it is by vertue of the
nature or quality of the good promifed none can
pretend , and that it is neither of the former
wayes I (hall prove diitindHy.
Firfr, That it cannot be by vertue of the uni-
verfality of the terms in which the promife i?
exprelt, is evident thus, becaule indefinite pro*
miles may be, and rcnny times arc expreft in
univcr'fal terms, and then, though the terms b^
P liv£lfa%
A
(2IQJ)
univerfal , yet the promifes may not be made
good to every individual perfon, to whom, in
common wtth others, they do appertain j If I
be lift up, faith (Thrift, I will draw all men Ume%
John i2. 32. The terms are univerfal, yet the
promife is an indefinite promife, he would draw
many unto him. So again, AUs 2. 17. I ml
four out my Spirit upon all flefr : where we fee
again the terms are univerfal, yet the promife is
verified only in fome particular perfpns.
But here you will fay, In this place the pro-
mife is expreft with a peculiar emphalis , ihey
Jball all kpew me , from the leaji to the greatefr -,
and therefore it muft needs be underfiood uni-
verfally.
To that I anfwer , Whether we underftand
this phrafe, From the leaji to tbegreateji, of age,
or ftate, or condition, is not much to our pre-
fent purpofe j we find the very fame phrafe
ufed,when yet the fence is only indefinite, thus,
Jer. 6.13. From the leaft to the great eft, every one
is givento cwetoufnefl\ which yet wasnotuni-
verfally true of every individual perfon among
that people , whether Infant or grown perfon,
nor of every individual grown perfon, it only
notes the mighty, and almoft univerfal corrupti-
on of that people in point of Covetoufnefs. So
that every individual perfon, externally in the
Covenant of Grace , and fo in common with
others,having this promife appertaining to them,
fell be favingly taught of God , fo as truly to
know
( Ml)
now him cannot be inferred, or certainly coil-
luded horn the univerfality of the terms it is
xpriffd in.
Secondly, Nor from the nature of the pro-
niie\ forif the nature of the promife do in*
allibly fecure the good promifed to every in-
lividualperfon in covenant , as before expreft,
r muft be either, as it is a conditional, or as it i s
in abfolute promife i as it is conditional, it can-
lot be pretended , in as much as no conditional
promifes, as iuch, do infallibly fecure the good
Dromifed to any to whom they do appertain i it
is poffible the condition may not be performed,
and then God isdifobliged from making good
the promifes.
It is true , you will fay , iuppofing it were *
conditional promife , it would not infallibly fe-
cure the good promifed to all univerfally , to
whom it doth appertain * but it is an abfolute
promife , and rhe abfolutenefs of the promife,
taken in conjun&ion with the univerfahty of
the terms, doth fure infallibly fecure the good
promifed to all univerfally to whom it doth ap »
peitain.
1 anfwer, That the promife, though here
expreft abiolutdy,yet is not abfolutely abfolute,
as before proved \ fo though expreft jnumtcml
terms , yet may be and is an indefinite promife,
indefinite promifes being often expreft in um-
veffal terms-, yea, let me fay, that abfolute pro-
mifes , how univerfally foever their terms are
are yet to be alwayes understood in an indefi
nite notion, and the good promifed is not infal
libly fecured to any individual or particula
perfon, meerly by thepromifes themfelves, bu
©nly upon fuppotrtion of the eternal purpofe
and decrees or God, to give the good To promi
fed to this or that particular perfon : in refpe6
of abfolute promifes , God hath referveda li
bcrty tohimfelf, to give or withhold the gooc1
promifed, in a eommenfurablenefsto. his eterna
decrees and purpofes,and according as particula
perlons are elected and appointed to the enjoy
ment of the good promifed , or not elected o
pa(Ted by.
From all it evidently appears , that perfon
may have a vifible and external a.&ual right anc
title to this promife , and yet never have th<
good promifed in prefent pofTeflion, nor yet eve
have it made good to them, and confequcntly ii
cannot be concluded from the abfolutenefs o;
univerfality of this promife , that the Infant
feed of believing Parents are not in the Cove
riant of Grace, nor under the promifes of it.
But let that (uffice for our fecond fubordinatt
Proportion.
CHAP.
a
rpofi
rons
;::(
all
51
:r«
all
ijoj
;30
(213)
CHAP. IX.
vet)
Je //>/W fubordinate Proportion laid
down'-) how handled declared. The
firji Argument for its confirmation
propofed and profecuted , where that
Command^ concerning the keeping of
the Covenant^ Gen. 17. .9. is largely
fpoken to.
Come now to the third and laft fubordinate
Proportion, viz.
That all tbofe that are tinder , or are the aftnil
tHl'jefts of that Promife , wherein God ingz-
edhimfelf to be a Godto Abraham, and bis Seed
n their Generations^ ougltf, according to the will
f Cbrijtjo be baptized : all that are the Subje&s
f that Fromife are the due and proper 'Subjects. of
Zaptifm : There may be, its true, a tender of the
?rcmife to fucb who ought not to be baptized,. they
nay refufe that tender , but to whom the Promife
doth adually belong , the Ordinance of Baptifme
wgbt, accordingto the will of Cbrijl>to be apply-
ed,
P 3 This
Oh)
This Proportion I Qiall endeavour- to prov
in bypotbefi , or as applied to the particular fub
je& of our main Propofition, viz. the Infan
feed of one or both believing Parents i an
thus fuppefing , and taking it for granted ( i
being already proved ) that they are the a&u
Subjects of that Promife , I fliall prove try
they ought, according to the will of Chrift, \
be baptifed, and that by thefe three Argi
ments,
Firft, If it be the duty of believing Parent
not only to be baptized themfelves, but to tal
care that their Infant- feed , as joynt Subjeds
with themfelves of that promife, be alfo bapt
zed , then it is according to the will of Chriljl
that not only believing Parents themfelves, b;
their Infant-feed alfo (hould be baptized : bt|
the former is true, therefore the latter.
The Confequence in the Major proportion |
unquestionable, what a Believer is bound to tait
care be done , the doing of that muft uij
doubtedly be according to the will of Chrift.j
But 'tis the Minor proportion will be dcniel
viz,. That it is the duty of believing PareniL
not only to be baptized themfelves , but to tat
care that their Infant-Seed , as joynt Subjecp
with themfelves of the fame promife, be bap
zed.
But the truth of this is evident from the
prefs Command of God, Gen. 17. o. And G
/aid unto Abraham^ 7boHJhaltk$ep my Covenakl
therefore , thou and thy Seidafttr thee in tbr
Generations* Nc r
2
Now that it may appear, that this Comma**
loth conftitute it to be the duty of believing
.Patents, not only to be baptized themftlves,
but to take care that their Infant feed be alfo
.baptized, I (hall dmiiXjly fpeak tothefenve
ii things
cFirft, That by Covenant hi* this place is main-
,ly. if not only meant, the Token of the Cove-
nant, and by keeping the Covenant, the ampli-
cation and reception of that Token.
I Secondly, That the Covenant that Abraham,
and his Seed in their Gcneratioii5,were, or were
to be received into,al wayes had,and was to have
-a Token annexed to it.
Thirdly, That this Command requiring
Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations, to
keep the Covenant , obliges not only Parents to
have the Token apolyed to tfumfelves or them-
ftl-ves to receive and bear it , bat to apply or
Ske care that it be apply ed, according to divine
appointment, to their Infant-feed.
Fourthly, That as Circumcifion was the
Token of the Covenant during the old Teita-
ment adminiitration, fo Baptifnus the Token ot
the Covenant under the New.
Laftly, That this Command doth equally
and alike oblige believing Parents in their Ge-
nerations ; refpeftive to Baptifm , the pre ent
r p ^ Toxen
Token of the Covenant, as it did-the Jews, re
fpe&ivetoCircumcilion, the then Token of tfy
Covenant.
0
For the firft,, That is paft all rations;
doubt evident, God himfctt (Lews what h<
intended by Covenantrand what by keeping oil
fhat Covenant : When he applyes this Com-
mand, as more generally laid down to Abra*
bammavid his natural Seed in particular , verfe
lb. So verfe ij. My Covenant {ball be in you}
fle(hy plainly declaring, that by Covenant he in-
tended the Token of the Covenant, and by
keeping of this Covenant , the application and
reception of that Token, though not affirming
Circumcifion to be the only Covenant to be
kept, and confequently not limiting the Com-
mand to it.
And here let us a little inquire into the fence
and meaning of this term Tofyn -y the Hebrew
3H1K is ufually tranflated by the Seventy
vupsicv, both the Hebrew and Greek fignifie ,
Signum tarn nudum quam prodigiofum, a iigti
both ordinary and prodigious , and fois cxpreft
by the Apoftle, Horn. 4. 1 1. npZov *mlCi mix-up* s
and Sign or token here we are to take in a pure
logical notion , and thus we may define it with
jiuften, to be, Id quod feipfum fenfui & prefer
fe aliquid ammo reprefentat : Or as a later Au-
thor, Signum eft quod feipfum fenfibus & idcu-
jus JSgnum eft intellettui aufert : A Sign in this
logical notion is, that which is obvious to, or
perceivable by fence , and through the medium
of
(217)
pf fence prefents to the mind or undaftanding
what it is a fign of : Whence it is evident , that
this term, Tokgn or Sign^ is not expretfive of all
the ufes or ends that the Token of the Cove-
'A nant here commanded was defignedor appoint-
ed to : the term abiha&Iy taken, only expreffes
the general nature and defign of that Ordi-
nance , but expreiTes not the various ufes and
blends it was in particular appointed to; what
thefc ufes and ends are, mult be gathered from
other Scriptures, wherein God himfdf hath de-
clared them , of which I (hall fpeak when I
come to the fourth Particular.
But let that fuilcc in brief for the firft parti-
cular to be fpoken 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 Inihtu-
tion annexed unto the adminiitration of it ,
which though of various ufes , and fcrving t#
various ends, not exprefiy declared in that term
loktn^ abftraclly taken, yet might be denomina-
ted the Token of the Covenant. This is evi-
dent two wayes.
Firft, Apriore, from the Command of God,
injoyning Abrahams Seed in their Generations
to keep it.
Secondly, Afojleriori, or defatto , from the
actual
aftual inftitution and appointment of fuch
Token.
For the firft, Let the words in Gen. 17. 9. b
diligently obferved , And God f aid unto Abra
ham. Ikon /halt therefore keep my Covenant, tbo,
and thy Seed after thee in their Generations c.
Now God would never have injoyned Abra[
bamy and his Seed in their Generations, to keep
his Covenant, that is, the Token of it, had h
not intended to annex a Token to it. Andob
ferve it , the Command lyes on Abraham's Seec
in their Generations, without any limitation, an
eonfequently is fincumbent upon Abraham'
Seed, while he hath a Seed upon earth. Henc
it is evident , that as God intended to annex
Token to that Covenant, then entred with A
brabam mdhis natural Seed , To he intended K
annex a Token to his Covenant ( whether th
fame, or another , it is all one as to our prefen;
purpofe ) into which Abrahams fpiritual Seed*
viz. believing Gentiles, in after Ages fhould b
teceived • we fee the Command lyes uporj
Abrahams Seed in their Generations unlimit !
edly.
Now Believers under the new Teftamcnt , a
hath been proved, are Abrahams Seed,and coni
fequently muft needs lye under the Obligation
of this Command, whence there muft needs b(
a Token annexed to the Covenant into whicli
they are received , for other wife they wquld lyij
under an Obligation to keep the Token of th<|
Covenant * and yet have no Token appointee
them
(219 )
1 whem by God, to keep which would be abfurd :
And that this Command is obliging to Abra-
hams myiiical or fpiritual Seed , is evident by
lathis Argument.
The fame perfons intended in the Prornifes of
the Covenant, arc intended in the Command,
injoyning the Token : But Abrahams myiiical
f! Seed, as well as his natural Seed, are intended in
Sj rhe Prorrufes ; therefore they are alfo intended
in the Command,
We evidently fee, the Promiies and the Com-
mand run in one and the fame extent and lati-
tude '■> 1 tvill ejiablijh my Covenant betwien me and
thee, and thy Seed after thee in their Generations,
to be a Ged to thee and thy Seed after thee , there's
the Promife*. thou fh alt therefore fyep my Cove-
nant, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Gent*
rations , there's the Command.
Now if God hath not limited the Command
to fome of Abrahams Seed , then we mult not
do it : Sut God hath no where limited the Com-
mand to fome of Abraham's Seed > therefore
muft not we.
If any fnould fay, He hath limited that Com-T
naand.
Let that limitation be produced , and it (ball
fufficev till then we (hall conclude, the Com-
mand is of an equal txtent with the Pro-
mife.
Now
( 220)
Now there being a Command incumbent up-
on Abraham's whole Seed myftical , as well as
natural, to keep the Covenant, that is, as God
himfelf expounds it , the Token of the Cove-
nant, there muft needs be a Token to be
kept.
Secondly, This is evident, de facto, for the
Covenant under the firft Teftament administra-
tion that will not be denyed, and for the Cove-
nant under the new Teflament adminiilration,
the truth of what I affirm will appear, when I
come to (hew that Baptiim is the prefent Token
of the Covenant.
And therefore thirdly, That this Command,
requiring Abraham , and his Seed in their Ge-
nerations, to keep the Covenant,obligesnot only
Parents to have the Token of the Covenant ap -
plyed unto themftlves, or themfelves to receive
and bear it5 but alfo to apply or take care that it
beapplyed to their Infant-feed. The truth of
this will again appear two waves,
•
Firft , From the- Letter of the Command ,
Ibou /halt therefore keep my Covenant , tbou and
thy Seed-in their Generations. Now under this
p.hrafe, thy Seed in their Generations, both Pa-
rents and their Infant-feed are included ; they
are both included in the Promife , as hath been
already proved, and therefore muft needs be both
ii^iuded in the Command injoyning the keeping
t the ovuiant, Hence, that the Covenant
be
(22 1)
fee kept by the Seed as well as by the Parents
themfelves, is according to the exprefs letter of
the Command j which duty of keeping, as to be
performed by the Infant- feed , can only intend
their reception and bearing of it > and fo 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 faid to have broken the Cove-
nant, verfe 14.. becaufe the Infants as well as
the Parents are under the Obligation of the
Command to keep the Covenant.
. Now if fo be the Covenant be to be kept, not
only by Parents,but by their Infant-feed, if will
undeniably follow, that Parents are to take care
that it be kept by them, in as much as they, as
fuch , are incapable of taking care of it them-
felves, the care muft lye upon fome body, and
upon whom, if not upon their Parents ? We fee
that God hath thioughout the Scripture made
it the duty of Parents to take care of, and fee to
the performance 61 his will relating to their
children, as might be evidenced in variety of
inftances were it needful.
Secondly, The truth of this appears from the
clear and exprefs difcovery that God made of
his mind and will as to Circumciiion , the anci-
ent Token of the Covenant,and thus as God in-
joyncd the token of the Covenant to be applyed
to the Infant-feed of Covenant- parents , fo he
impofed the care of the application of that To-
ken unto the Seed upon the Parents, Every mut-
child
child among you (ball be circumctfed^ vctCe iO.
He that is eight dayes old, jhati be circumcijed
among you, verfe 12. The Child in the applica-
tion of the Token was piffive, and though upon
whom the care of the application of the Token
to the Infant- feed was laid , is not exprefly de-
clared in this place , yet that it was upon the
Parents isfuffieiently evident throughout the
Scripture. We fee how angry God was with
Mojes , when the circumcifion of his Child was
neglected i and in that God fo fully declared
his mind in refpedfr ot Circumcifion, the then
Token of the Covenant , it is a full comment
upon the Command , as more generally laid
down, viz. That asin that phrafe, ThySeedin
their Generations, he intended both Parents and
Jnfant feed * fo that the care of the Childs
receiving and bearing the Token of the Cove-
nant ( which is the whole of its keeping of it )
did appertain to the Parents as their duty.
And hence let it be obferved , that the will
of God concerning Circumcifion, (hews us what
is his will concerning Baptifm , that as the one3
fo the other mould be applyed to the Infants of
believing Parents, as well as to the Parents
themfelves, and that the care of the application
of the one, as well as of the other,lycs upon the
Parents.
Where note, that I argue not from Anallogy,
but only take that difeovery God makes of his
will concerning Circumcifion , as a comment
upon that Command injoyning the keeping of
the Covenant, as more generally laid down.
Bat
(203)
Eut not to inlargcupon this , by what hath
m faid the trut.h of the third particular fuffi-
:iently appears.
Fourthly, That as Circumcifion was the Sign
or Token of the Covenant,during the old Tefta-
rrent adminiftration , foBaptifm is the Sign or
Token of the Covenant under the new Tefta-
ment adtninifiration. Where note, that when
I fay, Circumcifion was, and Baptifmis , the
Sign or Token of the Covenant , 1 would he
thus undcriiood, viz. that Circumcifion was,
and Baptifm is, that Ordinance or lniiitution
that God then did annex, and now hath annex-
ed to the Covenant, ferving to, and performing
of thofe various ufes and ends, with reference
unto thofe to whom it was, and is to be apply-
ed, that he propofed to himfelf, as the reafon
land ground of his annexing a Sign or Token in
the general to the Covenant efiablimed between
himfelf and Abraham, and his Seed in. their
Generations.
That Circumcifion was this Ordinance or
Institution , is exprefly declared, Gwefis 17.
t©> n.
That Baptifm is the prefent Sign or To-
ken of the Covenant will appear thefe two
wayes.
Firu, More generally, and thus : Uniefs Bap-
tifm be the prefent Sign or Token of the Co-
venant, the Covenant, during this prefent admi-
niltiauon. is left wholly dctiiruteof any Sign
or
( «4)
or Token at all. ; let the Sign or Token be pier
duced in cafe 2>aptifm be not it.
'Tis true, it miy be it will be faid , That the
Covenant under , the prcfent adminiftration ,
hath no external Sign or Token annexed to it,
neither is it neceiTary that it fhould > the Spirit
is the Seal of the Covenant of Grace , and the
more plentiful powrings forth of the Spirit
upon Believers , efpecially under that notion ol
a Seal, makes an outward Sign or Token whollj
unncceffary*
•
To thatlanfwer :
Firft, That though Believers are faid td bt
fealed with the Spirit, yet the Spirit is no when
called the Seal of the Covenant, neither indeed
can it in propriety of fpeech be fo called > foi
if the Spirit were the Seal of the Covenant,
fhould be given to all that are under the Cove^
nant , the contrary thereunto both Scripturt
and experience abundantly declare , the Sea;
of the Covenant muft be as exteniive as thr
Covenant whereof it is the Seal. Now take
the Spirit as a Seal, that is, as given for that par<i
ticularufe and end, viz. toaffure and afcertair
theSubjedt recipient of it , of the good pro
mifed in the Covenant , and fo it is certain he i
not given to every one truly and internally ii
covenant for a long time , nor to fome poffibly
while they live. How many live many years,anc
it may beatlaftdye without any fenfible afTu-
ranee of their covenant-fiate , or inpyment o
fh
!
C»5)
■r he good promifed", (b that the Spirit canno*
Iroperly be called the Seal of the Covenant*
u- is rather ( as I may To exprefs it J a private
Ileal given by God to this or that particular Be-
i, icvcr, according to the good pleafureof his own
mi
it
lt Secondly, I anfwer, That to feal and aflure
jjtt thofe who are admitted into covenant with
}[3od , their injoymentof the good promifed is
yiot the only uieand end, with reference where*
anto the Sign or Token of the Covenant is ap*
pointed.
Hence fuppofe it mould be granted , that the
^Spirit is the Seal, yea, the only Seal of the Co-
venant of Grace , yet that doth no way oppofe
jthe truth of what we here affirm concerning
aptifm , for though it mould be not of that
articular ufe , nor appointed for that fpecial
lend which yet it is,as will appeal by and by,yet
it may be the Sign or Token of the Covenant,
it may be of thofe other ufes, and ferve to thofe
other ends that God did propound to himfelf,as
the reafon and ground of his annexing a Sign.
or Token in the general, to the Covenant , io
that it is certain, the Spirit cannot be ration.ilJy
fuppofe d to be that Sign or Token of the Co-
venant , which Abraham's Seed in their Gene-
rations were injoyned to keep; and conftquent-
ly, for ought what is faid of the Spirit, unlefs
Baptifm be the prefect Token ■ th .• Covenant,
it is wholly deltituteof any Sign or TokVti a?
all, which that it cannot be , hath beeri
Q fcrcv;d
(226)
proved already : as for the Lords Supper, I fup-
pofe, none will ever imagine that that can be
the Token here injoyned, if they (hould, their
vanity will eafily appear.
Secondly, This will more clearly appear, if
we compare Baptifm with Circumciiion , the
former Token of the Covenant* that Circumci-
fion was the Token of the Covenant is unque-
ftionable ; and hence look what Ordinance un-
der the new Teitament doth mod fully agree in
with Circumcifion , in regard of the ufes and
ends, which, as the Token of the Covenant, it
was appointed for, and did ferve unto, that mud
needs be the Ordinance defigned by our Lord
Chrift, for the Token of the Covenant, upon
the celTation of Circumciiion : And here for the
evidencing what is affirmed, I (hall do thefe two fo
things.
i. Inftance in feme of the more efpecial ufes
and ends whereunto Circumcifion was appoint
ed,and whereuntoit, as the Sign of the Cove
naBt, did ferve.
i
2. Shew the exadt agreement of Z?aptifii
with Circumcifion , in regard of thofe ufes and
ends : Where let it be carefully obferved , that
it is no way neccflary for the proving Baptifrr.
to be the prefent Sign or Token of the Cove
nant ,. that I (hould prove an exa& agreement
between it and Circumciiion in all circumftan-
ces, nor yet in regard of all theufcsor endso
the
C«7)
(the one and of the other*, if it be evident, that
I heir agreement be fuch as will evidence Baptifm
■to be the Token of the Covenant , upon the
KtiTation of Circumcifion, it is enough as to my
prefent purpofe , and that may be fufliciently
vident by their agreement in fome things,
hough they mould difagree in others, efpe-
cially there being no other Ordinance that
can with any Ihewof reafon be pretended to be
that Token , the application and reception of
which is here enjoyned Abraham's Seed in their1
1 Generations > a little may fuflice to prove, that
Eaptifm is that Ordinance, when there is no
other Ordinance that can, with any mew of pro-
bability, be fuppofed to be it.
I (hall therefore only inftance in a fourfold
ufe and end , whereunto Circumcifion, as the
Sign and Token of the Covenant, was appoint-
ed, and whereunto it did ferve i and then mew
the agreement of Baptifm with Circumcifion, in
regard of thofe ufes and ends. The riritand
two lali i (hall do little more than mention, and
a little infill upon the kcond.
I Firft, Circumcifion, as the Sign and Token of
the Covenant, was the folemn Rite or Ordi-
nance, whereby perions were admitted into, and
incorporated in the jewim Church . and by the
reception of which they became adual Mem-
bers of that church s and consequently was that
folemn Rite or Ordinance, whereby perfons
were incorporated in , and united to the myfti-
cal Body of Chiill as vifible : The proving .of -
0_2 tiiis*;
(228)
this,! fuppofe,is needlefs, 'twill furely be denyed
by none. And therefore,
Secondly, Circumcifion was to feal and af
fure to the Subje&sof it,their enjoyment of the
good things , benefits and bleflings promifcd in,
according to the true tenour of, the Covenant,
to the administration of which it was annexed
See this in a particular Inltance, viz. Remiffion
of iin, or the Righteoufnefs which is of Faith
Circumcifion was a Seal of the Righteoufnefs ci |
Faith, that is, it did feal and allure , to the due
Subjects of it/rthe non-imputation of their fin,
or the imputation of righteoufnefs to them ,
upon condition of their Faith. Thus it is faid
of Abraham, He received the fignof Circumcifi-
on, a feal of the right eoufne ft of faith, which he
bad being yet uncircumcifed, Rom. 4. n. The
Apoftle here (hews us one fpecial ufe and end oi
Circumcifion, refpe&ive to all to whom it was
duly applyed.
Qbjett. But here it is obje&ed , That to ha*
Circumcifion a Seal of the Righteoufnefs oi
Faith, was a piiviledge peculiar to Abraham the
Father of the faithful, and was not of that ufe,
nor appointed for that end, to all to whom it was
righrfully applyed: therefore it is faid, He re-
ceived the fignof Circumcifion, a feal of the rigb-
teoufnc.s 0} faith , that be might be the Father of
all that believe. And hence if may feem, that he
receiving Circumcifion under that notion andl
con fide rat ion, upon a reafon and ground peculiar
and
(229)
md proper to himfelf , the priviledge was pecul-
iar and proper to him , and not common to any
^ther with him, there not being the fame reafon
md greund of their receiving of it under the
fame notion and confideration.
i; To that I anfwer two things.
Firlt , Thofe words, Ihat he might be the
Father of all them that believe , depend not only
upon the words immediately foregoing , but
upon the tenth verfe taken in conjunction with
the former part of v. 1 1 . he did not only receive
Circumcifion as a Seal, that he might be the
Father of all them that believe, but he both had
righteoufnefs imputed to him while in uncir*
cumciiion , and alfo received the Sign of Cir-
cumcifion as a Seal, that he might be the Father
of them that (hould believe, whethtrcircumci-
fed of uncircumci fed : So that he did not re-
ceive Circumcifion, as a Seal ol the righteoufnefs
of faith, upon any reafon peculiar and fpecial to
himfelf, any more than he had righteoufnefs
imputed to him, upon a reafon peculiar and pro-
per to himfelf: And confiquently , upon the
fame account that ourOppolites appropriate cir-
cumcifion as a Seal of the righteoufnefs of faith
to Abraham himfelf , and deny it to be of the
fame ufc to his Seed; they may appropriate the
imputation of Righteoufnefs through Faith aftd
Circumcifion it felf to him alone, and deny that
any of his Seed had Righteoufnefs imputed
unto them , or ought to have been circum-
cifed,
Q^j Secondly,
(230)
Secondly, Ianfwer, That the Apoftle here
rathet fpeaks of the fink cm , than the finis
tii]w of Abrahams receiving Circumcifionasa
Seal; My meaning is this, Abraham received
circumcition as a Seal, not barely for the fakeoi
that relation,of his being a Father of them that
mould believe, as it was a good benefit or privi
ledge to himfelf, but he received it under that
notion and confederation, In eorum gratiam qui
credituri fint, for their fake to whom he (hould
fuitain the relation of a Father: And fo the
meaning is , He received the Sign of Circumci-
fion as a Seal of the Righteoufnefs of Faith, not
barely that he might fuitain the relation of a
Father to all that mould believe , as that was a
good tohimfelf , but that he might as a Father.
or common perfon , be a pattern to all thai
(hould fuitain that relation of Children to him
in regard of the good which they, as his Chil;
dren, mould receive.
Now then having removed this Objection
I (hall offer two or three Arguments to prove
that Circumcifion was appointed for this uf<
and end. viz. to fcal and confirm the wholi
Covenant to all to whom it was , according t<
the will of God, to be applyed.
The fiift (hall be taken from the end o
Abrahams receiving of it , as here declared b;
the Apoftle : And thus I argue, ]f Abrahan
received Circumcifion , as a Seal of the Righte
oufnefs which he had through Faith , that h
might be the Father of, and as the Father of
patter
(*30
creattern to all that being circumcifed mould be-
*« icve , then to all that, being circumcifed, did
sj >elieve, their circumcifion was and, ought to be
td ooked upon and improved by them, as a Seal of
ofrhat Righteoufnefs they had through Faith:
ut But the former is true, therefore the latter. For
>the Confequence in the Major proportion, I
3tfuppofe,that will not be denyed, it being paft all
«(rational doubt, that if Abraham received Cir-
cumcifion under that very notion and confide-
ration as a Seal, that he might be the Father of,
and as the Father of, might be a pattern to all
that,being circumcifed, mould believe as he did :
Then look of what ufe it was to him , or to
what end he received it \ it muft needs be of
the fame ufe , and appointed for the fame end
unto them, to whom he was a pattern as re-
ceiving it. And therefore 'tis only the Antece-
dent that can be queftioned, which yet is fo evi-
dent, that to underftanding and unprejudiced
perfons the proving of it may feem wholly fu-
perfluous. That Abraham received Circumci-
lion under this very notion , as a Seal of the
righteoufnefs which he had through faith , that
he might be the Father of all them who being
circumcifed did believe , isexprefly affirmed by
the Apoftle •, all that can be doubted of is ,
whether he was, in regard of the ufe and end of
it , as received by himfelf, a pattern to all to
whom he was a Father : But now this is unde-
niable,in as much as his paternity or fatherhood,
as I may fo fpeak, in part, if not principally,
confifted in his being a pattern and example to
Q-4 »11
( *3a )
all to whom he was a Father. This title of a
Father is in a peculiar and fpccial manner giver
to , and piedicaced of Abraham , in this verj
regard, that he was fee up as the great pattern,
according to which God would a<$ towards,
and de*l with, all chat fhould after believe, 01
Readmitted into a covenant-relation with h in
Celt: hence in this very place the Apoftle tells
us , that faith was reckoned to Abraham, For
righteoufnefs, which is all one as to fay, righte-
oufnefs was imputed, to; him through , frith ,
tyhen he was in uncircumcifiou , that he might
be the Father ot the uncircumciled , that righ-
teoufnefs might be imputed to them alfo, viz.
according to the pattern fet in Abraham him-
felf.
So again, Gal 3 . 7. £ yen as Abraham believe i
God , and it was accuun ed to him for rigbteouf-
nefl. Mark, the deflgn of the Apoftle is to
prove, that righteoufnefs is through faith, fron
the frit pattern fet in Abraham. Now fa yes
he, yerfe 7. Know ye thenfore^ that they which
are of the faith are the children of Abraham >
and then clofes, verfe 9. So then they which are
of faith , are blejftd with faithful Abraham -,
that is, as they are bleffed with him with the
fame bkffings, Co they are bleffed withhimafter
the fame manner, viz. through faith. Now
as Abraham had righteoufnefs imputed to him
through faith , that he might be the Father of
all that believe, and, as a Father, a pattern to
them, in regard of the imputation of righteoufc
nefs : So he received Circumcifion as a Seal of
that
that righteoufnefs , that he might be the Father
of them that mould believe of the circumciii-
on, and,as a father, a pattern to them. in regard
pi the ufe and end nf Circiimctiioty, which both
he and they in common received : So that it is
evident, thar ( ircumcilion was of that ufe, and
appointed for that end, viz. to be a Seal of the
righteoufnefs of faith , not only to Abraham
himielf, but to all his S<;ed, during the continu-
ance of that infutution.
Sicondly, That Circumcifion was of this
ufe, and appointed for this end, with reference
to the temporal benefits promifed in the Cove-
nant, is evident from hence, becaufe it could be
of no other ufe , nor appointed forany:other
.end, with reference to fome of them.- HenceL
I argue, If Circumcifion had fome reference to
the temporal good things promifed in the Co-
venant , it was annexed to , and could have no
other reference or refpect but as a Seal, afluring
the injoyment of them , then that mult needs
be its ufe and end, with reference to thofe good
things promifed : but the fotmer is true, the re-
fore the latter.
The Confequence in the Major proportion
cannot be dmyed, for if Circumcilion had (bme
reference to the temporal good Things promifed
in the Covenant, and it could have no other re-
ference, but as a Seal or Sign alluring the injoy
men t of them, then thar mull needs be its ufe
and end refpe&ive unto them , this will not be
denyed.
Second 'y,
I
lio
en
Secondly, For the Antecedent , thatconfifts
of two branches.
Firit, That Circumcifion had fome reference
to,or was of fome ufe , and appointed for fomelvi
end, refpe&ivc to the temporal good promifed » <q
this is evident from the indefinitenefs of the jcJ
cxpreffion, 7be Jok^n of my Covenant \ »twas the
Token of the Covenant absolutely taken , not
of fome part of the Covenant , but of the
whole Covenant, and therefore muft needs in its
ufe and end have fome reference to the whole
good promifed in the Covenant : Bat this, 1
fuppofe, will be granted by our Oppofers, they
generally affirming, that the fpecial, if not the
only ufe and end of Circumcifion , did refer
and relate to the temporal part of the Cove
^ant, of to the Covenant as it was a temporal
Covenant,
And therefore fecondly, That it could have
no other reference, or could be of no other u(e
•with reference to thefe Promifes, but only this.
viz. To leal or afTure the injoyment of the
good promifed : Take it of the Land of Ca
naan \ for what ufe, and to what end coulc
Circumcifion be inftituted , refpe&ive to thai
Promife , but to feal or aflure the injoyment 01
the good promifed,upon condition of the obfer
vation of the Articles of the Covenant ? Whenc<
the Conclusion is undeniable, ; So that, I fay
Circumcifion was the Seal of the whole Cove-
riant, we fee it :
Firft, In refpedfc of the fpiritual good promi
fed,as pardon of fin, the righteoufnefs of faith.
* Secondly
(235)
Secondly, In refped: of the temporal good
romifed > and that Circumcifion did feal the
I >mporal part of the Covenant , is not only
1)1 vident from Scripture and Reafon , bat is the
eneral acknowledgment of our Oppofers them-
;1( elves ± therefore 1 (hall take it for granted, and
ipon that Supposition infer a third Argument,
q prove that it was of that ufe,and appointed
or that end, viz. To be a Seal, or an alluring
Sign of the whole good, whether temporall or
pintuall convey'd , and made over by the Co-
venant, and confequently was a Seal of the Co-
venant abfolutely taken. And therefore,
Thirdly , If Circumcifion, as the Token of
•(the Covenant, was a Seal of fome Promifes con-
tained in it, then it was a Seal of all the Promi-
ses of it : But the former is true , therefore the
latter.
That this Covenant, now entred with Abra*
bam and his Seed, was a fpiritual as well as a
temporal Covenant, or did coniifi of fpiritual as
well as temporal Promifes, hath been already
proved, Now that Circumcifion was the To-
ken of the Covenant , is expreily affirmed by
God himfelf , Ibis it the Tokgn of my Covenant i
and that as the Token it was of that ufe , and
appointed for that end , with reference to the
temporal part of theCovenant,hath been before
proved , and is granted by our Oppofers , and
therefore mud needs be of that ufe , and ap-
pointed for that end, refpedive to all the Pro-
mifes of the Coyenant ; VH lex non diftinguit
non
mn diftinguendum eft, Let any reafon be (hewed
why it (hould not be a Seal, or an afluring Sign
of the fpiritual part of the Covenant, as well
as of the temporal part, till which be done, the
indetinitenefs of its reference to the whole Co-
venant, expreft by that indefinite phrafe, 7 hi
lokgn of my Covenant, is an undoubted warrant
to take it, as of the fame ufe, and appointed for
the fame end , refpe&ive to all the Promifes ol
the Covenant, that it was to any : from all we
fee, that Circumciiion was a Seal, or an afluring
Sign or Token \ and that's the fecond ufe and
end of Circumciiion, th,e former Token of the
Covenant.
Thirdly, The ufe and end of Circumciiion
was , to oblige and ingage the perfon receiving
of it to keep exactly to the Articles of this Co-
venant •, hence is that pafTage, Jtr. 4, 4. Cir-
cumcife your [elves to the Lord : But this, I fup-
pofe, is granted on all hands, I (hall not at all
ftand upon it.
Fourthly and laftly, The ufe and end of Cir
cumcifion was, to be a vifible badge, to diftin-
guifh the people of God from all other people,
and to be a vitible Sign of their covenant-rela-
tion, or to be a Sign, whereby they did vifibly
appear to belong to God in Chrift, inacontra-
diftin&ion from the reft of the world.
Secondly , That Baptifm doth agree with
Circumciiion, in regard of thefe ufes and ends,
is
037)
s fufHciently evident , and confequently mufr
leeds be the Sign and Token of the Covenant
icre injoyned,fince the laying afide of Circum-
:iiion ; Let us fee it in the particulars.
Firft, For the Hr ft ufe and end of Circumci-
fion, viz. Its being that folemn Rite and Or-
dinance, by which perfons were admitted into,
Lnd incorporated in the Church , or mythcal
Body of Chritt , as vifible : That Baptifm is of
: his ufe, and appointed for this end, isexprefly
declared by the Apoitle, i Cor. 12. 13.
Secondly, For the fecond ufe and end of Cir-
cumcifion, viz, to allure the party, to whom it
was applyed , of the injoyment cf the good
things , benefits and blcllings promifcj in the
Covenant. That Baptifm is of this ufe:, is fjffi-
ciently evident from that paffage' of Ptter^
Fet 3. 21. where Peter having Spoken of the
falvation of Noah and his houfe in the Ark,fayes
he, 7 be lik$ figure tvhirtunto Baptifoi nowfavcth
w , and telleth us how it faveth, both negative-
ly and pofitively \ negatively, it is not by vpafb-
ingthebody from its outward filth, but pofitive-
ly, by giving or effecting the anjmr of a good
confidence towards God y through tizrefiurreUion
ofChriji fram the dead. What the Apoitle means
by this anfwer of a good conference , Interpre-
ters are not agreed , neither doth it concern my
prtfent purpofe to determine \ that which I on-
ly intend is , that by the refurre&ion of Chrift,
through aright ufe and improvement* nrude of
Baptifm,
Baptifm , a believing Soul comes to have a goo*!*
confcience , that is, an acquitting conference
Novr what ufe or improvement can be made o
Baptifm, in order to the cleanfing and purifyinj
the confcience , by means whereof it become
good> as the Apoftle rpeaks, but as it is looket
upon, and applyed as a Seal, or an affuring Sign
fealing and affuring to the Soul the remiflion o
fin, through the purchafe of Chrifts death, a
declared valid and effedual by his rifing fron
the dead : this ufe and end of Baptifm is aid
clearly implyed and held forth in the Apoftle
Exhortation to thofe trembling Jews , A&s 2
38. Repent and be baptized every one of you h
the Name of Jefut Cbriji^ $ts *?%af &t<tapnu? , foi
or unto the remiflion of fin. Now under wha
notion or confideration doth the Apoftle exhori
to Baptifm, refpe&ive to remiflion of fin > Ii
cannot be under the notion of a proper caufe
for Baptifm is no proper caufe of the remiflioi
of fin , neither is it fo much as a neceffary con
dition, as Faith and Repentance in the adult are
for then none could receive remiflion of fir
without it > but that is falfe, as is evident in th(
cafe of the Thief upon thecrofs, and the like is
the cafe of many othersr, who are converted
immediately before death. Neither doth hi
exhort to it barely under the notion of a Sign,
that phrafe , nfr *>««* «p*?m»f , implyes fome
jeference that Baptifm hath to remiflion of (in,
beyond what it would have, were it only nu-
dum Signutn, a bar£ Sign or rcprefentation of
the remiffion of fins by the blood of Chrift
an'G
(239)
id therefore he muft needs exhort to it under
e notion of a Seal or alluring Sign : And for
e further clearing up of this, let the cafe and
ondition of thefe trembling Jews be confi-
ered,as they had finned in crucifying of Chrift,
ind were under the guilt of that iin , and under
in Obligation to fuller deferved punifliment , i*o
hey were under a deep fence of that their fin,
;nd that wrath or punifliment due to them up-
>n the account thereof. Now as the Apoftle ex-
lorts them to repent ( with which a faving
faith in Chrift mult be fuppofed to concur) with
i direct reference to their obtaining remiffion of
fin,i« foro Dei j fo he exhorts them to be bap-
tized , with a peculiar reference to the pacifica-
tion of their confeiences, that they might
not only have remiifion of iin in the Court of
Heaven, but have that remiffion fealed and con-
firmed to them, to thequietmg their afflicted
confeiences , or to the working in them good
confeiences ; But that is a fecond uie and end of
Baptifm.
Thirdly, For the third ufe and end of Cir-
cumcifion , viz. To. oblige and ingage theper-
fons to whom it was applyed,to a due and faith-
ful performance of all consequent duties requi-
red in the Covenant. This is true alfo of £ap-
tifm > Baptifm is not only a lea ling or confirm-
ing Sign, but an obliging Sign, by it the peifon
baptized is obliged to take God in Child for his
God, and give uphimtelf to him, in univerfai
and conftant obedience to his will : This is
cleanly
clearly held forth in that Propofition &, Bap-
tism is faid to be, ei'* ™ wua. 7* Wy*, into tht
Name of the Father, Matth. 28. 19. clt XeisrV,
Into Chrifi , Gal 3. 27. Eut this , I fuppofe;
will be granted on all hands , I need not Hand
upon it.
..-:
Fourthly, For the la(t ufe and end of Cir-*
cumcifion , viz. To be an outward Sign or
badge of that covenant-relation the Soul waslji
taken into with God in Chrift , whereby the |
perfon was known and taken notice ot , as vi-
fibly belonging unto God, as one of his cove-
nant-people. This again is true of Baptifm >
hence thofc that are baptized are faid to put on
Chriit, Gal. 3. 27. As many as were baptized in
to Cbrift have put on Cbrifi , they vifibly appear
as Members 01 his myftjcal £ody, as contra
diftinguifhed from the non-)>aptized •, from all
it evidently appears, that Baptifm is indeed that
Ordinance, appointed by our Lord Chrift undei
the new Teftament, ferving to, dad performing
of thofe ufes and ends, with reference unto
which , a Sign or Token in the general was an
nexed to the Covenant eftablifhed between God
and Abraham, and his Seed in their Generati-
ons. But let that fufriee for the fourth parti,
cular.
Laftly , That this Command doth alike
oblige believing Gentiles, refpeftive to Baptifm,
that it did the Jews, refpe&ive to Circumcifion.
As it obliged the Jews , during that firft Teih-
nufli
CH«3
tint adminiftration , to be circumcifed them-
:lvcs , and fee that their Infant feed were cir-
amcifed with them i fo it doth (till oblige be-
cving Parents to be baptized themfelves, and
:e that their Infant-feed be baptized with
lem : This is evident from the coniideration
f two things in the Command.
Firft, The extenfivenefs of it ; it reaches
Ibrabam's Seed in their Generations^ we have
fere proved.
Secondly, The applicability of it, as more
eneralk laid down to Baptifm, as well as to
^ircumcifion : And for the clearing up -of this*
-t it be carefully obferved , that the Command
•bliging ^/ibrabam^ and his Seed in their Ge-
lerations, to keep the Covenant, meaning as
before noted, the Token of the Covenant, did
lot at all intimate, much lefs determine , what
hat Token thould be j it only conftitutes the
jeneral duty of Abraham, and his Seed in their
jenerations , refpedive to the Token of the
Covenant, whatever that fhould after be deter-
nined by God himfelf to be ; the words are
plain and exprefr , Ibou Jhalt keep my Covenant^
hou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations ;
rot thou and thy Seed (hall be circumcifed or
? .'prized, but thou and thy Seed in their Gene-
rations (hill keep the Covenant; Hence the
Command, as thus generally laid down,obligeth
no more to the app;ication or reception of \ ir-
CUmcifion ,' than to the application or reception
K
(242 )
ot Baptifnijand indeed to neither of them/impty
and abfolutely considered ■> it only enjoyned th<
application and reception of the Token of tin
Covenant, but did not determine what that was
or (hould be i and had God only thus generally
and indefinitely commanded the keeping of th<
Covenant , without (pecifying what this Cove
nant (hould be , for Abraham himfelf to havi
been eircumcifed , or to have circumcifcd hi -
Seed, had been a Sin and an aclof will-worflup
but now when God had determined Circumci
lion to be the then Token of the Covenant, thi
general Command was to be applyed by him t*
that inftitution in particular , and his scceivin
of it himfelf, and applying it to his Seed, wa
warranted, yea, injoyned by this Command > f
then that particular inftitution of Circumcifio
was laid alide , and £aptifm inftituted for th
fame ufes & ends: that Command was no longe
to be applyed roCircumcifion,but unto Saptifr
fetup in the Head of it i and doth equally ob
lige Chciftians to the application and receptio
of Baptifm, as it did the Jews, during the fir.
Tefiament adminiikation , to the applicatio
and reception of Circumcifion ; the comman
only injoyning the ohfervation of the Token c
the Covenant, not determining what that wa
or (hould be > as it injoyned of it felf neithc
Circumcilion nor Eaptifm , fo itinioyned hot
the one and the other, as they were determine
by God to be the Token of his Covenant > (
that we have as an exprefs command, comparin
this command with that, Matth. 28. 19- ff
baptifi
( 243 )
3ptifme of Infants , as the Jews had for thi
ircumcifing their Infant- feed > Thecommand
k<.cp the Covenant lying upon Abrahams
<leed in their Generations, which, as I have faid,
ii' s it injoyned Parents to receive or have the
[|^ Token ot the Covenant applyed untothcm5and
^ into their Infant- feed , fo it conftituted it to be
't duty of the Infant-feed of Believers , to re-
\ cive and bear the Token as applyed unto them,
P Jo that what would we have more, indeed what
i :an be more plainly fpoken : would we have
H lad God faid , thou (halt keep my Covenant,
l hou and thy Seed after thee in their Genera-
ions. Circumcifion before theMefliah come ,and
>aptifm after.
I,you will fay, had it been fo exprefi it would
lave prevented this controveriie.
But to what purpofe fhould it have been fo
exprefi f* Is ir nor all one , Ibou fijj.lt kgep my
Zoven&nt therefore, thou and thy Seedin their Ge-
uraiions , not determining what Covenant
liquid Be kept , and then for God firit to infli-
'ute Circumcilion as the Token of the Cove-
nant, and then lay that afide, and fubftitute Z>ap-
tifm in the room of i t > the command ftiJl re-
maining in its full force , without the leaft inti-
mation ol a repeal: is, not the command /till
legible, and is it not plain enough, it lyes upon
Abraham's Seed in their Generations ? And is it
not evident, that believing Gentiles are Abrar
bams Seed ? And is it nor plainly exprefr , that
Baptifin is the prefeht Token of the Covenant,
is Circumcifion of old was t So that h wi wiH
0*344)
not call for a command, and when it is brougl
(hut our eyes againft it , here we have as an ei
prefs command for the baptifm of the Infan
feed of believing Parents , as the Jews had fc
the circumciiing their Infant- feed.
But yet for the further explanation , illuftra
tion and confirmation of what I have in th
particular after ted , let two things be obferved,
Firft, How the Lord doth vary the phrafi
when he comes to fpecirie the Covenant the
to be l^ept ; 'tis not faid, This is my Covenan
which thou and thy Seed in their Generatioi
(hall keep , but, This is my Covenant which y
Jhall kee^ between me and you , every man- chit
among you fliall be circumcifed , andyou fiia
circumcife the flefh of you r fore-skjn, and it fha
he a token of the Covenant between me and yoi
verfe 10, n. So again verfe 12. He that
eight dayes old Jhall be circumcifed among yoi
every man-child in your Generations. A phi
intimation, that he purpofed a change in th
Token of the Covenant, and that Circumcifio
(hould continue the 'Token of it, only durin
the firft Teflament administration , while th
Covenant it felf was to be continued in a
efpecial manner in Abrahams natural loin an
polterity.
■'.
Secondly, Let it be obferved,That this Com]
mand ftands not alone in regard of this inter
pretation we have put upon it , but hath its pa]
rallel.: there are other commands in the ol<
Teftamtnc
(245)
eftament that rnuft be neceffariiy interpreted
id underiiood after the fame manner.
I (hall give you a twofold inftancc in the
Dmmands of the Moral Law.
Firft, Take an in/lance in the fecond Com-
landment , Tbou Jhalt not make to tbyfelf any
"aatn Image. Now will any fay , that this
ommand is only negative , doth only prohibit
rofs Idolatry, according to the letter t>fthe
ommand. Surely 'tis agreed on all hands, that
requires fomething pofitive, viz. That the
xternal worfhip that God himfelf appoints, be
xadrly obferved and performed , according to
he way and manner himfelf hath determin'd in
lis Word i and thus when God had appointed
nd eftablifhed that worfnip , conliftingin fa-
rifice, obfcrvaiion of dayes, and the like,in and
y which his people, under the firft Tcftament,
. vere to worfhip and ferve him , that command
vas to be applied to that kind of worfhip , and
id require the exadt obfervation and perfor-
nance thereof, according to the way and man-
ner declared by God himfelf. But now then
hat kind of worfhip was laid afide , and other
Ordinances and Inftitutions appointed , in and
ly which the people of God were and are to
arorfbip and fcrve him:the Command is of alike
luthonty as before , ajid doth alike oblige and
)ind the people of God, to the exid obfervation
ind performance of that worfhip now eftablifh-
'd, according to the way and manner declared
in the Word , as it did oblige and bind the peo-
R 3 pie
(246)
pleof God, under the firft Teftament, with re
fpeft to the worfhip then eftablifhed : Thougl w
there bean alteration and change made inch k;
particular Ordinances and Inftitutions , ina n< f
by which God will have worihip tender'd up ti
him ; yet the Command, as mere generally lai
down , as requiring the exad: obfervation an* if
performance of whatever worihip is of God
owr. n futution, is of the fame authority an* I
force that ever it was ; though it doth not ob u
lige us generally to the fame ad£s of worlhi
that it did oblige the Jews unto , yet it cquall
obligeth us to thofe aclrs and duties now pr€
fcribed by God, as it did the Jews to that woi
fhipprefcribed unto them : The Command, z
more generally propofed , doth not fpecifie an
paticular a&s or duties , in and by which Go
would be worfhipped , it only requires in th
general, that whatever ad or duty God himfe
appoints, be exactly observed and performec
and that according to the way and manner d<
clared by himfelf : the very fame is the cafe «
this Command , injoyning the keeping of x\
Covenant. The Command, as I havefaid, «
thus generally propofed, fpeeiries not what th
Covenant is or mould be , only requires the aj
plication and reception of the Token of tl
Covenant , and confequently to Circumcifioi
when that was appointed as the Token of tl
Covenant,and during its continuance \ but upc
the cefTation of that, to£aptifmc, as that Ordl
nance which God hath declared to be the prf
fent Token of the Covenant.
Second \\
(H7 )
Secondly, Take another Jnftance in the
mrth Commandment, Remember the SMitb
\y to kgep it holy. Here is a Command more
enerally laid down, injoyning the keeping ho*
the Sabbath or re(t-day,not fpecifying which
ay (hould be that reit-day. Now when the
eventh day was infututed as that day of reft,
lis general Command was to be applyed to
nlhat particular day , and did require the keep-
bjng or that day holy \ but when the Seventh
May was laid afide, and another day, viz. The
llirlt day of the week, inili touted by Chriit as
rc:hat reiiday ; now that Command, as fogene-
ir rally propofed , is to be applied to this particu-
lar day , and equally obligeth us Chriiiians to
!the keeping holy the firft day ol the week , as
it did the Jews to keep holy the feventh \ hence
we have no exprefs command in the new Te-
nement for the keeping holy the rirft day of the
week , neitker is there any need there (hould
that command, to remember the day day of reit,
and keep it holy,being equally applicable to one
day as to another , and God having determined
the day,the command is to be applyed unto it as
fo determined by God i which again is the very
cafe of this command, under conlideration > it
determines not the Covenant to be kept , but
requires that the Covenant , whatever God de-
termines it to be, be kept , and consequently as
it rirli obliged to the application and recept.on
of Circumcilion , Co now it obligeth to the ap-
plication and reception of tfaptifm.
R 4. Now
(248)
Now then to come to a clofe of this firft Ar-
gument, we fee the Promiles are true, and
confequently the conclusion is certain > name*
ly , That it is the will of Chrift , that the
Infant-feed of believing Parents fhould be
baptized.
CHAP*
(H9)
CHAP. X.
The fecond and third Argument , for the
confirmation of the taji Subordinate
Proportions propofed and managed, ihe
feveral lnjia?jces of *HoHJ?)olds being
baftized^confiderecL
Ihe fecond A-^ument.
IF the Infant- feed of be'i.ving Parents were
in primitive times baptized , either by the
Apoftles themfelves, or by any others by their
allowance, direction, or approbation, then it was
or ftill is according to the will cf Chriir, that
they mould be baptized : But the former is true,
therefore the latter. The conference in the
Major propofition will be readily granted on all
hands. That which alone needs proof is this,
viz. That the Infant- feed of believing Parents
were in primitive times, either by the Apofiles
themfelves, or by others, by their allowance,
direction or approbation baptized. For the
confirmation of which this one Argument may
fuffice,
If rhe Infant feed of believing Parents were
by the Apoftles owned and looktd upon, as ap-
pertaining to , or as Members of the mylticai
Body of Chrift,as vifible, then they were,either
by themfelves. or by others, by their allowance,
dirr^
050)
dire&ion and approbation , admitted and im-
planted into that Body by Baptifm ; But the In*
iant feed of believing Parents were owned and
looked upon by theApoftles, as before expref-
fed : Ergo, &c.
Here again the Confequence in the Major
proposition will be, I fuppofe, readily granted
by our Oppofers, and 'tis fufficiently evident by
this Argument.
If Baptifm was appointed by Chrift , for the
folemn admiffion of fuchinto hismyftical Body,
as viiible , as did appertain thereunto , or were
Members thereof , and there was no other way
©r means appointed for the fame end and pur-
pofe,then all that the Apoftles did own and look
upon, as appertaining to, or as Members of that
Body, were, either by the Apoftles themfeives,
or by others, by their allowance, direction and
approbation, admitted and implanted into it by
Baptifm : But the former is true , therefore the
latter » the Minor here alone needs proof , and
that conllfts of thefe two branches.
Firft, That Baptifm was appointed by Chrift,
tor the folemn admiflion and implantation oi
fuch into his myftical Body, as vifible, as did
appertain thereunto, or were Members there-
of.
Secondly , That there is no other way 01
means appointed by Chrift for that end and
purpofe.
Firft, For the firft , fee i Cor. 12. 13. For h
one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body> whe-
ther m be Jews or Gentiles , whether we be bone
61
050
or free , and have bet* all made to drink into ont
Spirit. What may be objected from this Scri-
pture againft the baptifm of Infants, (hall be
taken notice of by and by. All that I cite it at
prefent for i.% to prove, that Baptifm was ap-
pointed by Chrilt , for the folemn admiflion of
perfons into his Body>as vifible, which is fuffici-
ently evident.
Secondly , That there is no other way or
irncans appointed by Chriit, tor the folemn
admifiion of any into his villble myiiical Body :
If any (hall fay there is , let them (hew it and
prove from Scripture what they affirm , and I
(hall readily grant the invalidity of this Argu-
ment > but that doubtlcfs none will attempt to
do, fo that 'the truth of the Major proportion
is unquestionable,
For the Minor, viz. That the Infant- feed of
believing Parents were owned and looked upon
by the Apofiles, as appertaining to, or as Mem-
bers of the myfiical Body of Chriit, asvitible.
This will be denyed , and therefore muft be
proved, and I (hall prove it by thefe two Argu-
ments,both which being grounded upon exprc(s
and poiitive Scriptures, will render the addition
of more wholly needle(c.
Firft, All thofe who were by the Apoftle
owned and looked upon, and that as perfcnally
or particularly confidered, as the a&uai Subject
of thePromifeof Salvation, were owned and
looked upon by them, as appertaining to, or as
Members of the myfiical Body of Chriii , ai
vifible: But the Infant- feed of believing Pa-
rents
C252)
rents were owned and looked upon by the Apo-
files, and that as perfonally and particularly
conlidered,as the adtual Subjedfc of the Promife
of Salvation , therefore they were owned and
looked upon by them, as appertaining fb, or as
Members of the myttical Body of Chrift > as.
vifible. '
The Minor pTopofition hath been already
proved * and as for the Major, that is evident
thus, Chrift is the Saviour of his body, Epbefe
5. 23, Now to be under a Promife of Salvation,
is to be under a Promife of being faved by
Chrjit : hence all that are under a Promife of
being faved by Chrift, muft needs appertain to,
or be of his myttical Body , for 'tis of his Body
that he is the Saviour.
But twn things will be objected.
Objea. 1. Firft, That Chrift is faid to be
the Saviour of all men, 1 Tim.^.io. Tobethe
Saviour of the world, John ^ 42. and there-
fore though it mould be granted , that the Jn-
fant-feed of believing parents are under the
Promife of being faved by Chrift , it will not
follow, that they were looked upon as apper-
taining to , or as Members of his myftical
Body.
Anfw. To that I anfwer, that though Chrift
in a large fence may be , and is in Scripture faid
to be the Saviour of all men, and the Saviour of
the world,yet no particular or individual perfon
isa&uallyvand that for the prefent, as perfonally
contidered under any Promife of being faved by
him, f efpccially taking Salvation of fpirituai
and
and eternal Salvation J but fuch who are of, or
do appertain to his myfiical Body : therefore it
is faid of thefc Ephejians , before their imbrace*
ment of C. hriit , They were jirungers to the Cove-
nants of proinife, Ephef.2.i2,They had nothing
to do with the Promifes of fpiritualand faving
Mercies > and as they were Grangers to the
Covenants of promife , fc> they were withouc
hope, without any grounded hope , intereftin
the Promifes being the alone true ground of all
hope or' fpiritual and eternal Salvation : fo that
interelt in the Promife of Salvation, declares the
perrons fo interciled, ro appertain to, or to be
of the myfiical Body of Chriit, all others being
iirangersto the Promifes,and therefore without
hope.
Objecf. 2, Secondly, It is objected , That
when it is faid.Chriii is the Saviour of his Body,
it is only meant of his myftical Body,asinviiibIe,
and confequcntly , in cafe this Scripture will
prove,that the Infant- feed of believing Parents,
as having the Promife of Salvation appertaining
to them , do appertain to the myfiical Body of
Chrift, it will prove, that they do univerfally
appertain to his Myfiical Body , as inviiible,
which it will be faid we our klvesdeny, and
therefore this Scripture is impertinently
brought to prove their relation to the myltical
Body of Chrifi, as vifible, which only (peaks of
his myfiical Body, as invifible.
Anfw, To that I anfwer, This Objection
will receive a more ftrll aufwer by and by5where
I ihalim:et with it again:at prefem I (hall only
6y,
(254;
lay, 'tis evident the Apoftle fpeaks of the myfti*
cal Body of Chrift, as vilible, and not meerl} as
inviilble i for let it be obferved , that Body and
Church, in this djfcourfc of the Apoftle, are
Synonimies , or words exacftly anfwering one
another in fence and fignirkation : whom he in-
tends by^Body he intends by Church , and fo ori
the other hand, whom he intends by Church he
intends by Body : Now this Church or Body
of Chrift , of which he is faid here to be
the Saviour , was that Church or Body , of
which thcEpbefians were an homogeneal Part,
that is,a part of the fame kind with the whole
hence the Apoftle fpeaks of them , as joynt
Members with himfelf of this Body,verfe 20.
for we are Members of his Body, of his fkfh,
and of his bones. Mark, he takes in the Epbe<
fans univerfally and indefinitely, one as well as
another, as joynt Members with him of this
Body: So Epbef. 2. 19. Now therefore ye are no
longer Strangers and Forreigmrs , but fellow-
Citizens with tbe Saints, and of the Houfhold of
Ged. To be fellow- Citizens with the Saints,
and of the Houfhold of God, is all one with be-
ing of this Church or Body. Now it is evident,
the Apoftle did not fuppofe, that every indivi-
pual perfon of this Church were Members of
the inviilble Body of Chrift^ what he faith,
AUs 20 30. plainly declares the contrary,
Now then this Church or Body , of which the
Apoftle faith, Chrift was the Head and Saviour,
being that Church or Body, of which the Epbe-
fians were an homogeneal part , and they not
being
(255)
)dng fuppofcd by the Apoftle univerfally to
appertain to the Church or Body of Chrift, as
invifible j It will undoubtedly follow, that he
doth not fpeak of the Church or Body of Chrift
meerly as invifible , but as vifiblc. Chrift is in
Scripture faid to be the Saviour of his Church
or Body, as villbly considered, and the Infant-
feed ot believing Parents being under a Promife
of Salvation by him, or of being faved by him,
they mutt needs by the Apotiles be owned and
looked upon,as Members of that Body of which
he is the Saviour, none, as I have faid, being un-
der a Prcmife of being faved by him, butfuch
as do appertain to that Body, of which he is the
Saviour.
Secondly , All thofe who under the Go-
fpel adminiftration, and that as perfbnally con-
(idered, are the actual Subjects of that Promife,
wherein God ingaged hfrnfelfto be a God to
Abraham , and his Seed in their Generations,
were owned and looked upon by the ApohMes,
as appertaining to,or as Members of the myfiical
Body of Chriit,as vifiblc: But the Infant feed
of believing parents under the Gofpel admini-
ftration, and that as perfbnally coniidered, are
the actual Subje&s of that Promife > there-
fore , &c.
The Major is undeniably proved , by that
poiitive AlTertion of the AponMe , Galatians
3. 16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the
fromifes made-, he faith not, to hit Seeds, as of
tr.ary, hut in thy Seed, which is Chriji ; that is,-
Chnit myfiical. Now if that Promife were
nude
made to Chrift, and to Chrift only, as we fee the
Apoftle denyes it to be made to any other , it
was not made to Seeds, but to Seed,to thy Seed,:
which, faith the Apoftle, is Chrift. I fay, if this
Promife was made only to Chrift , it will unde-
niably follow, that whofoever that Promife was
made unto, or to wh©m that Promife may by
Scripture-warrant be applyed,as the a&ual Sub-
jects of it, and that as perfonally conlidered^
they muft needs by the Apoftles be looked upon
and owned, as appertaining to, or as Members
of the myftical Body of Chrift > and therefore
let none evade this plain evidence,to the deceiv
ing themfelves or others, by faying, that there «
are Promifes made to others, that are not Mem-
bers of the myftical Body of Chrift. Let it be
lemembred , the Argument fpeaks not of Pro-
mifes in the general , nor of any kind of Promi-
fes, but of this Promife in fpecial » nor.doth.it
fpeak of this Promife, as an indefinite Promife
made to any fort or fpeciesof perfons,colle&ive-
ly taken , where no tingle or individual perfon i
can be faid to be an actual Subject of it, as per-
fonally considered ; and therefore to produce k
aay fuch Inftances is wholly impertinent: as j<
to the Argument in hand, let it be (hewed, that |
any perfon, whether old or young, might ac-
cording to Scripture be accounted an adrual
Subject of this Promife , and that as perfonally
canfidered , who yet was not by the Apoltles
pwned or looked upon, as appertaining to,or as a
Member cf the myftical Body of Chrift, -till
which be done5which I fhali not doubt to affirrc
("257)
; impoflible to be done ) we may undoubtedly
onclude, that all thofe that are the a&ual Sub-
dfo of that Promife , as perfonally confidered,
'ere owned and looked upon by the Apoftles,
s appertaining to, or as Members of the myfti-
al Body of Chrift, which is the thing affirmed
our Major proposition. For the Minor pro-
ofition, viz. That the Infant- feed of believing
arents are, under the Gofpel adminiftration,
jch Subje&sof that Fromife > this hath been
lready fully proved » whence our Conclulion
; undeniable, That they were owned and look-
d upon by the Apoftles , as appertaining to ,
w as Members of the myftical Pody of
hrift.
Qh'pa. But it will be faid, That by Chrift
lerc we are to underftand Chrift myftical , as
nvifible , and not as vifible. The Promifes are
fiade to Chrift, that is, to the real and internal
VIembers of his myftical Body.
Anfn>. To that I fhall anfwer thefe two
things.
Firft, Vbi Lex non diftinguit^ tton diftinguen*
dum eft , Where the Law diitinguifheth not we
are not to diftinguifti. Now the Apoftle tells
us , the Promifes are made to Chrift •, not to
Chrift, cither under this or that notion or con-
tideration ', here is no diftmdion between
Chrift, as vifible or invifible, but fimply and ab-
iolutcly, the Promife is to thy Seed, which is
Chrift.
But you will fay, Though the Apoftle doth
tot here diftinguifti, yet the Scripture elfewhere
S Warrants
';(
warrants that diftin&ion i and it is certain, the
Promifes do not really appertain to any , but
fucfci as have a real union with , and inured in
Chriif, of whom his Body, as inviiiblc, is confti-
tuted and made up , therefore we are to under^
ftand the Apoftle,as intending only the inviiiblc
Body of Chrill.
To that I anfwer, It is granted, that in ordeik
to a due application of thi?or any other Pto*
mife to our ielves , and in order to our enjoy
ment of the good promifed , we mult not only
look to a vifible profeffion of Chrift, which con
ftitutesusof his Body, as vifible, but we are tcjm
look to the reallity of our union with , and in
tereft in him. But yet let it be carefully ob
ferved, that the Scripture prefumes and takes i
for granted, that as to particular perfons, thof
who do viiibly belong toChriit,areof his Body
as invi(ibly,as well as viiibly confidered : Henc
in all that it {peaks to,or of the Body of Chriti
it fpeaks to or of it, limply or abfolutely, as h
Body , wirhout diftinguifhing of it as viiible o
invisible. And let it be turther carefully ob
ferved, that that diftin&ion of Seeds intima
ted by the Apoftle, whereof fome have the Pre r-
mifes made to them , and others not , doth nc
refpedt the Members of the Body of Chrift,
viiible , as though fome of them had the Pre
mifes made to them , in a contradiction frot
others, viiibly of the fame Body, who have nc
the Promifes made unto them, but the diftindt;
on is either between fuch , who might plead a
intereft in the Promifes as related to Abraham,-,
h
is natural Children, who yet cleaved to the
aw tor Righttoulncfs and Life : Or between
Ich , who though in word they did profefs
aith in Chnit, yet did indeed fall in with, and
'tbrace fuch dodrines and pradiccs as did, itfa
forfeit and diianul their right ot member-
nip 'in rhe myitical Body of Chrin, as viiible,
rid fuch who did viiibly adhere and cleave to
jbtift infaiih and obedience, in oppofmon to
he imbracement or falling in with any fuch do*
brines or pra&ices. Now the Apcftle affirms,
hat to theft, and not to thole, the Promife was
nade. Indeed this I (hall readily grant, that th*
,oly Ghott would have all to know, that it any,
rvhilerhey keep up a viiible profeffion of ChrilT,
fad of adhearing alone co him in faith and obe-
dience ,' (hould yet ad (hortof, or contrary to
:hat their profcflion , it was not their meer pro-
ftffion that would give them the adual pofTeflion
M the good promi fed, they muitact according
to their profcfiion, otherwife though the Pro-
mifes, as externally promulgated and declared,
are made to them, and they in for-o Ecclefi* had
a right to them, yet it was none of the intends
ment of God, that upon the terms of a bare
f>rofe(lion they (hould enjoy the good promiied i
but this I fay, that the Promifes, inrefpettot
the external promulgation and declaration of
rhem , are made to Chrift myftical , without
confidtration had to that diftindhon of vinble
and inviiible , the Holy Ghoit fpeaking to or ot
men, by men i peaks according to what viiibly
appear ot them, n
$ i But
C 260 )
But fecondly, I anfwer , That Chrift herd
mutt needs be underftood of Chrift myftical , a$
vifrbly confidered ; This hath been touched up«r
on already , and for further fatisfa&ion , fecf
Mr. Cobbttt in his Juji Vindication^ page 57,1
and it evidently appears from henee , bccauien,
particular and individual perrons might ordina-j! .
rily be known to appertain to , and be Members n
of Chrift , as here fpoken of by the Apoftle, "J
Now no individual or particular perfon can be
ordinarily known to appertain to Chriit , or tc
be a Member of him , as inviiibly confidered
fee verfe 28. where faith the Apoftle , Te areal J
one in Cbiijl i the Apoftle fpeaks to the Galati- :tl
ans, and faith he, Te are all one in Gbriji > and ir |u
faying they were all one in Chrift,he mud need:
acknowledge them to be all in Chrifh how !j.'
could they be all one in Chrift, unless they wer "
in Chrift ? But fure none will fuppofe, that th F
Apoftle did infallibly know them, to have beei
univerially every individual perfon among then
of the Body of Chrift, as invilible, therefore h
muft needs fpeak of Chrift here asvilible, anc
not meerly as invifible ^ and beildes, let th
foregoing Arguments, to prove that the Infant
Iced of believing Parents, and that as fuch, ar
included as the a&ual Subjects of this Promife
be well weighed, which fuppofing it to be true
it will undeniably follow , that the Apoftle her
fpeaks of the myftical Body of Chrift, as vifible
in as much as the Infant-feed of believing Pa
rents may then be ordinarily known to apper
tain to Chrift, as here fpoken of by the Apoftk
An
And therefore whereas our Oppofcrs affirm,
""har Chrift here is to be underltood of Chrift
ayftical, as inviiible, and thereupon conclude,
hat the Infant-feed of believing Parents can-
lot , as fuch , be fuppofed to appertain unto
j thrift , and consequently not included as Sub-
] edts of that Promife, faid by our Apoftle to be
1 nade unto Chrift.
3| We on the other hand affirm , and I hope
, lave fufficiently proved , that they are included
j is joynt Subjects with their Parents of that
j 5romife,and upon that ground ought to be look-
ed upon as appertaining to Chrift , and confe-
j,juently that by Chriit here we are to under-
^ tand Chrift myftical as vifible , and not meerly
was invifible.
I Now unlefs our Oppofers (hall produce clearer
In evidence , that the Apoftle doth indeed fpeak of
^he myftical Body of Chrift, meerly as invifible,
n:hen hath been produced , to prove the Infant-
^feed of believing Parents, and that as fuch, to
I )e included in that Promife , we mail take it for
t granted, that lie (peaks of Chrift as vi(ible,& that
t,the Infant- feed of believing Parents do apper-
tain to, or are Members of his myftical Body as
•vifible, and confequently, G)jod %rat demonjiran-
tdum^ were either by the Apoftles themfelves, or
,,by fome others, by their allowance, direction or
,ippr©bation, admitted and implanted into that
| Body by Baptifm.
Now as a clofeof this Argument, it may not
be altogether unfeafonable to (hew in a few
Words ( it needs not many ) what refpedfc we
S 3 hav£
have to that rnyftical Relation , wherein the
Infant- feed of believing Barents Hand toward*
Abraham, as his Seed, in the application of Bap;
tifm uuto them, the confederation of which!
afore referred to the handling of this la(i Pro
pofition , and I know not where to touch upoi
it fo feafonably as here.
And for this let it be noted , that in the 3p
plication of Baptifm we have a diredf. and pii
rnary refpedfc to their itate , as joynt Suhjeft
with their Parents of the Promt fes of the Co
venant, the Covenant and Promifes thereof be
ing entred with, and made unt© Abraham sSce-
in their Generations, as with and to the Parem
perfonally considered; Co with and to their Seec
as fuch : Hence both Parents and Seed are
have the Token of the Covenant applyed un;
them , they being joynt Subjects of the fan
Covenant and Promifes , they arealike to pa
take of the Sign and Token of the Covenant
Hence look what refpecl: we have to the myil
cal Relation of believing Parents to Abrahat
in the application of Baptifm imto them, t
fame refped: we have to the rnyftical Relatic
of their Infant feed to Abraham, in theapplic
tion of Baptifm unto them.
The third Argument : If interell: in th
grand Promife pi the Covenant , wherein Gi
ingaged to be a God to Abraham and his Se
in their Generations j be alone and by it fell
fufficient ground, upon which per(bns may a
ought to be exhorted and moved unto Baptif
icn all thole , who have an imereft in that Pror
ife,may and ought to be baptized: But inte-
«j rft in that Promife is alone and by it felfa
ca efficient ground , upon which pcrfons may and
ight to be exhorted and moved unto Baptifm :
herefore all thofe, who have an mterelt in that
romife , and confequently Infants they having
n interelt in it, may and ought to be bapti*
d.
The Confcquence in the Mijor Proportion
»f this Profyllogifm cannot be denied '•> for if a
rfinifter may exhort or move one to be baptized
j ipon this fole ground , that lie hath an mtereft
:« n that Promife, he may and ought to apply
j Saptifm to him upon that fole ground s other-
i -vife perfons might t>e duly exhorted to a duty,
xvhich would be unlawful for them to practice,
n which would be abfurd.
j Therefore 'tis the Minor only which, I fup-
itpofe, will be dcnyed, which yet, I judge,will be
Itgranted by the major part of our Oppofers i and
Jor the fatisfa&ion of others, let thcfe two
[Scriptures be compared together, and well
c weighed , Gen. 17. 9. ^ff/2.38,39 faith God
c to Abraham, Thou ftjalt keep my Covenant, there-
fore thou and thy Seed in their Generations : faith
the Apoille , Repent and he baptized every one of
you fur theremifjjioK of fin , for the Promifeif to
you and to your Children. Now let it be di!i-
genrly obferved , how the Holy Ghoit grounds
the Command or Exhortation to keep the Co-
venant,that is,the Token of the Covenant,upon
intciet in> and right to the Promifes of the
S 4 Covenant,
( 2*4 )
Covenant , / will he thy God , faith the Lord tc
Abraham, andtbe God of thy Seed in their Gene*
rations , thou Jhalt kffy my Covenant therefore
thou and thy Seed in their Generations. Now tc
what end or purpofecan it be imagined jthat th<
Command to keep the Covenant ihoirid to
ulhered in with a therefore , had not the Conf
mand fome reference to the Promifes immedi
ately afore propofed ? And what reference cat
it be imagined to have but this , that God
vouchfafement of thefe Promifes was thegrounc
and foundation of the Command? The Com
mand was given upon no other account or con
ilderation , but their intereft in the foregoinj
Promifes, and the ufe the thing commando
(hould be of to them , refpecftive t© thefe Pro
mifes , fo that I fay, the Command is grounds
upon their intereft in the Promifes * havinj
thete Promifes , 1 hou Jhalt therefore keep my Co
venant : In like manner the A poftle grounds hi
Exhortation to JBaptifm , the prefent Token c
the Covenant, or enforceth it by the confidera
tion of right to, and intereft in the Promife, b
baptized, for the Promife is unto you'i And tha
the truth of what we affirm may more full;
appear, let us enquire into two things.
Firft, What Promife it was the Apoftle faitl
was unto them.
Secondly , What the meaning of th
Apoftle is in thefe words , Ibe Promife is t
you.
Firfl
(?*5 5
Firft , For the firft , And thus the Promife
here faid by the Apoftle to be unto them , muft
needs be fome Promife, which is common to all
that are called of God, and yet peculiar and
proper to them and their Children: hence it
could not be either the Promife of fending
Chrift, or the Promife of the extraordinary gift
of the Spirit > for as the former is not proper
and peculiar to fuch as God calls, Co the latter is
not common to them all , and therefore it muft
needs be either that grand Promife of the Co-
venant , or fome other of. the eiTence and Tub-
fiance of the Covenant,as remifiion of fin, or the
like , which is all one as to our prefent pur-
pofe.
Secondly, For the fecond , Andthuslfup-
pofe all parties muft neceffarily and anfwerably
do concenter in one of thefe two interpretati*
ons, either that the Apoftles meaning is , that
the Promife was to them , fo as that they had a
prtfent actual and peifonal intereft in it, which
feems moll agreeable to the letter of the words ,-
orelfe that at prefent the Promife was to them
only,by way of offer and tender, but would be
unto them, fo as that they mould have an actual
and perfonal intereft in it , upon the Lords cal-
ling of them, or which is all one, upon their
repentance i and that the Apoftle doth eye and
intend their perfonal intereft in the Promife,
either as at prefent, according to the firft fenfe
of the words, or future, to be obtained by their
repentance, according to the latter, is evident*
becaufc otherwife the having of the Promife
to
to them, would have been no fufficienc ground
for the Apoftles Exhortation to Baptifm. neither
could he rationally make it a motive to them to
be baptized » fo that according to the latter in-
terpretation of the Apoftles words , 'tis as if he
(hould fay , the Promife is to you by way of
offer and tender at prefent , therefore repent,
whereby you (hall have an actual interet't in it,
and thereupon be baptized > and that the Apo-
iile exhoits to Repentance only , and not both
to Baptifm and Repentance i in order to their
having an a&ualintejeft in the Promife, is palt
all doubt,in as much as Baptifm mult necefTarily
follow upon , and not precede intercft in the
Promife,as a means either by it feli, or as a joynt
means with Repentance,to obtain that intereit i
fo that, I fay, his meaning mult be this, repent,
that you may have an intcreft in the Promife,
and upon your repentance be baptized for the
remiffion of fin , for then the Promife is to you,
that is,you then will have an actual right to, and
intereft in it : So that take the meaning of the
Apoftle which way you will , it is all one as to
my prefent purpofe , in as much as he grounds
his Exhortation to Baptifm upon actual intereft
in the Promife , or makes that the motive to ex-
cite and ftir them up to Baptifm ; now intereit
in the Promife being the ground upon which,or
the motive by which the Apoftle prefTeth
them to Baptifm, it muft needs be a fuffici*
ent ground for the application of Baptifm ; and
confequently whoever hath an intereft in the
Promife may duly and rightly have Baptifme
applyed unto them. Qb]ttt9
( :67 )
ubjeci. />ut it will beobjecTed, The Apoftlc
conjoyns Repentance and Baptifme in his Ex-
hortation,and therefore they cannot be feparated
in practice,
Afjftv. i. To that I anfwer two things.
Firli, That though the ApofHe conjoyns thefe
two duties in his Exhortation , yea, though he
ihould ground his Exhortation to the practice
of them both upon the fame foundation, viz,
intereft in and right to the Promiie , yet that
doth not nea flan ly imply an infeparable con-
nexion between them in practice , two duites
may be conjoyned in an Exhortation , and both
moved to upon one and the fame ground , and
yet be fepatibie in their practice, and then either
of thefe duties may be preiTed to and anfwerably
pradliced apart upon that ground, let us fee it
in thefe two duties of Repentance and Eaptifm,
exhorted to by the Apoltle; it is evident the
Apoftle exhorts to thefe two duties , with refe-
rence to two diftindt ends ; the one, viz. Re-
pentance, with reference to their obtaining aft
adtual intereft in the Promife. fuppofe that were
wanting, or wirh reference to tht removal of a
fpecial bar, which at prcfent lay in the way of
their Baptifm, fuppofing them to have a prefect
intereft in it *. The other, viz. gaptifm, with
reference to the confirmation of their faith inv
or their aiTurance of their enjoyment of the
good promifed, upon fuppniition of a precedent
intereft in the Promife. Now when thefe two
ends are feparated , as in refpe& of many they
may be , fometimes Repentance may and ought
to
C258)
to be preifed to and pra dfrifed , when Baptifm is
unneceffary , as in cafe of a believers falling into
fin after Baptifm : So on the other hand , Bap-
tifm may be exhorted to and pra&ifed , when
yet Repentance, or the profeflionof Repentance,
is no way neceflary , as in the cafe of Chrifts
Baptifm ; fo in John Baptiji's cafe , fuppofing
him , he being fan&ified in the womb , to have
kept up the due exercife of Grace and Holinefs
from his infancy .* Now in thefe cafes thefe two
duties are infeparable in pradfrife , and in fuch
cafes either of them may be diftin&ly and fove-
rally preifed to upon this ground ; what is a
fufHcient ground to bottom an Exhortation up-
on to the pradtife of two duties, muft needs,
fuppofing thefe duties are infeparable in their
pra&ife , be a fufficient ground to bottom an
Exhortation to either of them apart upon , fo
that though thefe two duties are conjoyned by
the Apoftiein his Exhortation, and both ex-
horted to upon one and the fame ground j yet
:they being feparable in pra&ife , either of them
may be exhorted to , and pra&ifed upon that
ground , according to the cafe and condition of
the parties concerned in them: whoever hath
an intereft in the Promife, in cafe of the com*
million of any fin , may be exhorted to repen-
tance upon that fele ground of his intereft in
the Promile > fo whoever hath an intereft in the
Promife , may and ought to be exhorted to
Baptifme, upon that fole ground of his inte-
reft in the Promife i an Exhortation to both,
taken either conjunctively or feverally, may
be
0*9)
be rightfully grounded upon the perfonsintereft
in the Promile.
Hence fecondly, I anfwer, Let it be granted,
that the Apoftle exhorts thofe trembling Jews
to repentance, as a necelTary prcrcquiiite to their
Baptifm, yet that was only either in order to the
confirming, continuing, and vifibly manifesting
their precedent intereit in the Promife , or re-
moving that fpecial bar, that lay in the way of
their Baptifm , 'twas their intereit in the Pro»
mife that was the proper ground upon which
the Apoftle exhorts them to £aptifm > Repen-
tance is no further necelTary unto Baptifm, then
as it is a part of the condition of intereft in the
Promife, and an external difcovery of that in-
tereii to the Adminiihators of £aptifm,as in the
cafe of perfons afore unconverted , or for the
removing [ome fpecial bar lyiug in the way of
.Baptifm, as in cafe of Believers fallen into iin
afore the application of 2>aptifm unto them > in
cafe intereit in thePromife may be known,when
Repentance is not upon (uch accounts incum-
bent as a duty, that is, a fufficient ground upon
which to move unto and apply Baptifm: And
that which ftrongly perfwades us to judge, that
the Apoftle exhorts to Repentance,not as (imply
and abfolutely necelTary toSaptifm, at all times
and in all cafes,but only as necelTary in their fpe-
cial cafe, and in cafes parallel with theirs, is not
only his giounding his Exhortation to both thefe
duties, upon one and the fame ground, thereby
plainly declaring their rightful practice, as con-
jundivcly, when the cafe £o requires, fo fepa*
ratcly,
(Q70)
rately, or each apart by themfelves, when either
of them is not neceffary or pra&icable by the
parties concerned in them upon that fole
ground * but the whole reference that Baptifm
hath to the Promife, or the Souls interelt in it.
Baptifm hath no ncceifary reference unto Re-
pentance as already performed, fo as its ante-
cedency mould be indifpenfably required , in
order to a right application of it ; neither hath
repentance any neceiftry reference to Baptifm, fo
as that 7>aptifm may not be adminitfred , but
upon fuppofition of its antecedency, as we fee in
the cafe of our Lord Jefus Chrift * and John
Baptifi) as before noted * but Baptifm hath a di-
rect reference to the Promife , and the Souls in-
tereft in that i and therefore when repentance is
required as a neceffary prerequisite to Baptifm,
it is only upon fome of the accounts before
mentioned; 'tis interelt in the Promife that the
Apoitle grounds his Exhortation to Baptifm
upon, and confequently intereft in the promife is
a fufficient ground for the application of Bap-
tifm.
Now that the Infant- feed of believing Pa-
rents have a right to,and intereft in that promife,
hath been already proved, and receives no little
confirmation from this Text of the Apoftle ,
The Promife if to you^and to your Children : but
r»y deiign is not, Actum agere, to do that which
others have done already : I mill therefore only
fay , that fjppofe it might admit of a doubt,
whether Children here are to be taken , qua
Children j as the Children of fuch Parents as
ttitffi
(a70
thefe the Apoftle fpeaks to , or whether their
right to the Promife doth not fuppofe their per-
ianal Calling: I lay, though this might admit
of a debate , taking this Scripture abfha&ly in
it fclfj yet comparing this Scripture with tit
evidence before ^iven , that the Promife runsin
that extent and latitude , as to take in Parents
and Children, turely it is paiiah rational doubt,
that Children here are to be taken as the Chil-
dren of fuch Parents , tbt promife it to you and
to your Children's they are your Children . Sut
having (o fully proved this, I (hall add no more
at prefent.
fourthly. To add ftrength to the. foregoing
Arguments, let us take in thofe feveral Inliances
recorded in the new Teiiament , of whole
Houlholds being baptized upon the faith or
' converfion of one or both Parents : That, to-
gether with the Parents, upon their faith, their
refpe&ive Houlholds were frequently baptized,
is in the new Teltament fully declared : See
yicts 16.14. 15. To alfo verfe 33. of the fame
Chapter, 1 Cor. 16. 16. touching all which
Inliances let thefe three things be obfer-
ved.
tirii, That it is very probable, if not fully
certain, that at leait fome in or of fome of thefe
Houfes, laid to be baptized , were baptized not
upon the account of their own perfbnal profeffi-
on of Faith and Repentance, but upon the ac-
count of their Parents Faith. For the clearing
up of this I (hall prernife three thing?,
Firit,
(270
tuft, That under this term Houfe or H&u(holdt
ive muft comprehend and take in all the natural
Children that were, at leaft, then prefent, of
thefe Parents , whofe Houfes are recorded to be
baptized, we muft take the Holy Ghoft, accord-
ing to the literal and proper fenfe of his
words , where there is no neceflary Reafon ,
as here there is not , otherwife to underftand
him.
Secondly, That thefe Houfes or Houfliolds
may be rationally fuppofed to be considerably
great h thefe phrafes, Houjholdf, all bis^ and the
like, note only a bare plurality of perfons,
but that they were in forne rrieafure numer-
ous.
Thirdly, That not only Infants as new born,
or in their infant-ftate, but fuch Children, wh6
had arrived to aihigher ftate of childhood , or
were grown to fome years of maturity, muft yet
be rationally fuppofed to be baptized, not upon
the account of their own perfonal profeffion of
Faith and Repentance, but upon the account of
their Parents ; and the Reafon is evident, be-
caufe fuch Children cannot be rationally fuppo-
fed to be capable of attaining to, in an ordinary
Way, a competent meafure of knowledge in the
Myfteries of the Gofpel in fo (hort a time, as did
intervene between the Parents imbracement of
the Gofpel and their own, and their Houfes Bap-
tifm : And the Spirit of God, in his ordinary
way of working , works according to the capa-
city of the Subjects he works in and opon ,
Vnum quo dam reciptur fecundum moditm reci.
fie ni if a
C 275)
pitiV.U. Hence our Oppofers mutt either fay,
that in their Houfes there were not only no
Infants, but none in their childhood, or elfe they
mutt fay , that when the Holy Ghoft fpeaks of
Houfes,he intended only fome particular perfons
in thofe Houfes.
But for the firft, It is altogether irrv
probable,that there (hould be fo many Families,
and yet no young Children in them , there is a
probability there might be Infants , but much
more that there were Children, who though paft
their infancy in a (hid fenfe , yet improbably
baptized upon the account of their own perfo-
nal proilffion : and as for the latter, that would
be to recede from the letter of the Text, which
ought not to be wichout evident ncceflity t
whereas here is none at all. And for the further
clearing up of this firft Obfervation, let us take
•a more particular account of that one Jnftance
of Lydias houfe faid to be baptized with her i
the ftory you have ^cfr 16.14, 15. -^nd here
iet three things be attended to.
Firft, That it is evident her Hou (hold was
with her at that ^iTembly of Women, to whom
the ^poftle preached; for after her own and
her Houftiolds baptifm , (hebefeecheth FaxI ic
go home with her, verfe 15.
Secondly, It is evident this was an -^ifembly
of Women, verfe 13.
Thirdly, Here is no mention made of the
converiion of any but of Lydia her felf. Now
Ut things have their due consideration j Ly~
7r M£s
tofclrttadJy
mm^
i*fi$*t*> fa
^-i^Sfo ^ , .
iWwjjha^or «itthit if
!mqc confining 4pf*lcverfcl
prrticukrs ^oald in » t<
^td1*kF^Jy,aiitrfctodum
^ Mare ariic^g them i if^icft
lfttid ; * gftttt fttntty $ TMfltiftft WR^T
Chihl ink, fewt^Vet^ Wit^aBktsf*
<k*ifertdkig tttat*«tt i*at$>l v ft*
hb^ts td Jtt4ih to kvdtopittni
^ tht ivftfteiids t)f the Gofptl 5
wfoyghtupon ty *&&&ȣ? Wfteii
-flfete #rbi%ht tfpdft j ' ^ tor
%«#h^'h^felfii$ttdribHft^e
*the conveffton of aiiy m^MMMftf^
• there ii)ight be the conetftfeence of
^iii-f^fl ft is to Hhote iWfectt -'"
Wf, <h*tfomc,if^ota«,
m
(275)
her £f outsold , were indeed baptized upon the
account of her Faith , and not upon the account
of a perfonal pr-ofeffion of Faith and Repentance
that themfclves did mrke.
Eut here it is faid, That this Houfhold of
Lydia had fome Men in it, as appears from verfe
40. and it is probable fome Women alio, who
were converted with Lydia , and they are the
!j Houfhold faid to be baptized.
But to that 1 anfwer , That it dcth nc
way appear that thefe Brethren, whom the Apo-
ftle, verfe 40. is faid to have feen, were of Ly-
dia s Houfhold ,they might be Neighbours con-
verted after PWscommjng to her Houfe, who
now came in to fee Paul , or whom Paul before
his departure went to vifif: 'Tis evident by
what hath been already faid they were none of
her Houfhold , faid before to be baptized with
* her > fo that this one Inttance , all things consi-
dered, makes it exceeding probable, if not evi-
dently certain, that Tome in the Houfes, whole-
baptifm is recorded in Scripture, were baprized
upon the meer account of the Parents Faith,
without con fi deration had to their own perfonal
Faith and repentance.
Secondly, Let it be obferved:that it doth not
appear , that any in or of thefe Houfholds were,
converted antecedent to their baptifm , as for
Lydius Houfhold, there is not the leaft intima-
tion of the conversion of any belldes Lydia her
felf '•> yea, there is, as we have already feen, t an-
turn n9My a certainty, that at leaft feme of her
Ho-^cld -ve^c baptized upon *hc account of
ft M
(i76)
her faith,and not their own perfonal prafeffion ;
and as for the Gaolers Houftiold, it doth not cer-
tainly appear, that any in or of his, faid to be
baptized , were converted antecedent to that
their baptifm : It is true, there are two para-
ges urged to prove, that they were fuch of his
as were wrought upon by the Word as fpoken
by Paul.
Firft, ^ is faid verfe 32. That they, that is,
Faul and Silas , jpakj to him the Werdof jhe
Lord) and to all that were in his houft : Whence
it is fuppofed , that all that were in his Houfe.
and coniequently his,faid to hebaptized,ver 33,
muft needs be fuch as were capable of having
the Word preached to them.
But to that four things may be replyed.
Firft, It is uncertain whether this fpeaking
of the Word J of which Luke fpeaks , was an-
tecedent to the baptifm of the Gaoler and his
Houfe? things are not alwayes declared in that
order in which they were done.
Secondly, Suppofe that be granted , yet it
cannot be concluded from thence , that there
were none incapable of having the Word fpo-
ken to them in his Houfe: See a like Inftance
Veut. 31. verfe la ft, it is faid, Mofes Jpakg in the
tars of all the Congregation of Ifraelthe words of
this Song) until they were ended : Now fhall we
conclude, there were no Infants or little Chil-
dren in that Congregation? The contrary is
evident, verfe 12.
Thirdly, It is no way evident, that the per-
form in his Houfe, to whom the Word was.fpo-
ken,
(277)
ken , were numerically the fame petfons faid to
be baptized, all of his faid to be: baptized,
teems plainly to intend different perfons from
all thole in his Houfe , to whom the Word was
fpoken.
But fourthly: Suppofe the perfons were nu-
merically the fame , yet the having the Word
fpoken to them, will not conclude their conver-
fion by that Word, the Word may be fpoken to
thofe that are not converted by it ; fo that this
paffage doth no way evince the converfion of
any in his f/oufe, befides himftlf alone, antece-
dent to his and his Houfholds baptifm : I do
not fay abfolutely there were 'none , bur it
cannot be certainly concluded that there were
any.
■ Secondly, The other paffage urged to prove
the converfion of the Houfhould antecedent to
their baptifm , is that verfe 34 where it is
faid, according as we read, Herejoyced, bel'uving
in God rcith all bit H -at/hold \ but the -Greek runs
fcxadfcly thus, iy «>*M/tfsa7o, 7joj>o,xi rwz&jws tzj
©«» , He-rejuyad rvitb -all bh b\wj'*, be believing
in God ; Now his houfe might re Joyce, though
Tione were favingly-wrought upon but the Gao-
ler himfelf i and indeed the ApoULs hying the
ground of their joy in his perfonai- believing-,
they rejoyced, he believing in God. sfttfri plainly
ihrimare , that as yet the Gaoler alone did be-
lieve , for why elfe mould he not fay , they be-
lieving in God,or at leaft that the benehf, which
"was the matter and occafion of rheir joy, did
iiccrew unto them through his faith ? 'Tis not
T3 fot
(278)
fpf nothing that the Apoftle makes his perfonal
believing in God the ground of the joy of the
whole Houfe •> (b that it doth not certainly ap-
pear, that any in the Gaolers houfe did believe,
antecedent to their baptifm.
And for theHouftioId of Stephanas , there is
nothing evidencing their or any of their faith
antecedent to their baprifnci : Tis true, we read
that his Houfhold did addict themfclves to the
Miniftryof the Saints, i Cor% 16.15. But whether,
tfoefc, faid to addict themfelves to this Miniftry,
were converted before or after his imbracement
of the Gofpel, and his and his Houiholds bap-
tifm, is altogether uncertain;
Thirdly obferve, That fuppofe fome parti-
cular perfons in or of thefe Houfes , faid to be
baptized , might be converted antecedent to
their baptifm, yet from thence it cannot be con-
cluded, that in other Houfes it mutt needs be fo
alfo , nor yet that the Houfholds , as generally
considered, were not baptized upon the account
of the Parents faith : as fuppofe there were any
converted in the Gaolers Houfe antecedent to
their baptifm., from thence it cannot be conclu-
ded , that any in Lydia's Houfe were converted
antecedent to their baptifm ; fo fuppofe there
fhould be fome of the Gaolers Houfe converted
before their baptifm, yet to argue from thence,
that Baptifm was not adminiftred to the Hou-
fes ,' as more generally taken , as the Houfes of
believing parents , is a meer non fequitur : So
that fuppofe it could be proved , which yet it
cannot be, that fonae in or of fome one or other
of
(*79)
of the Houfes, faid to be baptized, were bapti-
zed upon the account of their own perfonal
profcfijon of Faith and Repentance , yet that
would not overthrow the evidence that the
Inliances of any Houlholds being baptized, as
a Houfhold of a Believer , gives in to the truth
contended for > the probability of any one
Houfhold , yea, or any one in or of anyone
Houfhold, being baptized, as the Houfhold, or
as of the Houfhold of fuch a Parent , carryes
alike evidence to the truth pleaded for, as taken
| abttra&ly in it felf, as it would do in cafe (here
were the fame probability , that all theie
Houmolds, and all in them, were baptized, as
fuch //oufholds.
From the whole of what hath been faid
touching theie feveral Inftances , and that as
taken abftra&ly in themfelves, I (hall not doubt
to conclude , that there is at leaft a very great
probability, that in primitive times Houfes were,
i together with their converted Parents , bapti-
zed, and that meerly as the Houfes of fuch Pa-
rents.
. And yet further, for the making it more pro-
bible, that thefe //oufholds, faid to be baptized,
at leaii fome in or of them, were indeed bapti-
zed , not upon the account of a perfonai
proftifion of their own Faith and Repen-
tance but upon the account of their Parents
Faith, as received into the fame Covcnant-
ifate with them , let thefe things be confi-
de red.
T 4 Firft,
( 28o )
Fir ft, How exceeding improbable it is, that
in cafe none could be admitted into communion
with the Body of Chrift by £aptifm , but upon
a perfonal profefllon of Faith and Repentance,'
the Sacred Hiftorian , writing by divine infpi-
ration, would mention, and leave upon record,
the baptifme of any one Houfhold , without
giving the leaft intimation of the converiion of
at leaft one or more in or of that Houfhold,
that fo the ground of the baptifm of the reft
might have been clearly inferred : That the
Covenant, together with the Sign and Token of
it, fhould be of the fame latitude and extent in
theadminiftrationand application of it , that it
was under thefiril Teitament, might be ratio-
nally expected by all men : hence it may be
well fuppofed, that our Lord Jefus ChrinY who
is exprcfly faid to be faithful in all his Houfe, as
M fts was in his, would if not have given fome
exprefsand potitive difcovery of his will , as to
the baptifm of perfons upon the perfonal pro-
feffion of their faith and repentance, excluilve of
all others, which our Oppofcrs themfelyes will
hardly affirm that he hath done, yet would have
given in fo full and clear an account of the
Apoitles practice in execution of their Corn-
million , To teach and bapize the Nations , as
ihouid have evidently obviated all miftakes , in
a cafe wherein miftakes fo probably would be,
when it is fo evidently declared, that under th&
firli Teitament, upon perfons taking hold of the
Covenant, both themfelvesand Hou (holds were
admitted and incorporated into the Body of
Chrift ,
C 28 O
Chrift, by the then Sign and Token of the Co-
venant > and then declared in the New, that
together with Parents, upon their imbraccment
of the Gofpel , their Houfholds were admitted
and implanted into the fame Pody ( as the
Apoftle is exprefs in EpbeJ. 3 . 6. that the Body
is one and the fame ) by Eaptifm , theprefent
Sign or Token of the Covenant, and no account
is given of the perfonal faith and repentance of
any in or of thofe Houies, at'leaft fome of them,
as the ground of their baptifm , betides the Pa-
rents alone . Sure none can deny , but here is a
rational ground to fuppofe, at feaft very probab-
ly, that the Covenant, and together therewith
the Sign and Token of it, is of the fame extent
and latitude as it formerly was. Now I (ay>
confiderhow extreamly improbable it is , that
the Holy Gholt mould record the JEaptifm of
whole Houfholds: taking notice only of th^ faith
and repentance of the Parents, without giving
the leaft intimation or the faith and repentance
of any in or of fuch Houthold's.' thereby giving
fo clear aground of msitake, in cafe none under
the new Telhment adminihrsfron ought to be
admitted and incorporated ir.to the myitical
Body of Chrift , as viiible , but upon a per-
fonal profeffion of their faith and reperw-
fance.
Secondly , Let it be confidered ; Low the
Holy Ghoft doth vary his manner of exprcflion
in his narrative of thofe primitive tranfa&ions,
Vvhen he fpeaks of the baptifm of Hou molds, he
tells us, the Houfholds were baptized, together
with
(282)
with their Parents , not giving the leaft intima-
tion of the faith of any in or of thofe #oufes,
as the ground of tkeir baptifm > but when he
fpeaks of more general Aflemblies,or concourfes
of people, he fpeaks more diftinguifhingly, As
many as gladly received the Word were baptized^
Ads 2, 41. And why the Holy Ghoft (hould
fpeak fo diitinguifhingly in one place and not in
the other>is hard to fay, unlefsit (hould be, be-
caufein refpe&of fuch more general Affcmblies
and concourfes of people , conilfting of grown
perfons, the perfonal faith and converiion of
each was neceffary to their baptifm , but not fo
in refped of the Houfes of believing Parents,
but that is for thefe Inftances,as taken abfiradly
in themfelves : But now compare one thing
with another , and the evidence is vaitly more
clear > for as considering what hath been faid,
to prove the interelt of the Infant-feed of be-
lieving Parents in the Covenant and Promifes
thereof, and what hath been faid, to evidence a
light to Baptifm to be of equal extent to ince-
leit in the Covenant and Promifes thereof, it is
undeniable to me , and I can hardly think, but
it will be fo to others, who will freely entertain
Light when held forth unto them , that thefe
Houfholds were baptized, as the Houfes of fuch
Parents , upon the account of their interelt in
the Covenant > fo on the other hand, when we
fee what hath been before faid , concerning the
interelt of believing Parents in the Covenant,
and concerning their right to Baptifm *pon
that account , and then find whole Houfholds
baptized,
OS?)
baptized , and that fo very probably, to fay no
more , as the Houftrs of fuch Parents , it may
much more Wrongly perfwade us of that their
intereft in the Covenant and Promifes there-
of, and of their right to the Sign and Token of
the Covenant. But let that fuffice for the proof
of our third fubordinate Proposition.
What Objections the Truth we have con-
tended for will meet with fom the contrary
minded, (hall now be confidered,
CHAP.
f 284)
CHAR xi.
Objections again]! the luji PropoRtrcn
anfwered. She conclusion of the
whole.
Objefi. 1.
NOtwithftandingali that hath been faid for
the confirmation of the three foregoing
Proportions, yet fome may fay, That it is not the
will of Chrift,that the Infant-feed of believing
Parents fhould ordinarily be baptized ( may be
at leall very probably concluded J from thofe
various paiTages that do occur in the new Te-
ftament , wherein fuch things are declared to
have attended the administration of Baptifm,
and fuch things are affirmed of , and required
from the baptized in the primitive times, which
cannot attend Baptifm, as adminitfred unto In-
fants, nor can be trulv affirmed of, or rationally
required from them. See 1 Cor. 12. 13,21* 25.
Epbef.4.16. Gal. 3. 26, 27.
Anftp. ThiYObjedtion will Toon vanilh, and
appear to have no itrength at all in it, if we con.
ilder thefe three things, which becaufe they
arc fo obvious to every one of a competent
undemanding, and at all acquainted with the
Scriptures,
(*8S)
Scriptures , I (hall need do little more thar<
mention.
Firlt, Conlider that what in thefe or the like
Scriptures is declared of, or required from the
Body of Chiiit, or the feveral Members of that
Body, as united and incorporated, by the means
( whether internal or external ) appointed for
that end and purpofe , agrees to , and equally
concerns the whole Body of Chrift , and the
feveral Members thereof, (imply and abfolutely,
in all times and ages > the .Body of Chriil is but
one, fucctflivcly continued throughout all ages>
and hence it may as well be concluded from
thefe Scriptures , that Infants never were , nor
ever (hall be admitted into this Body, f true
contrary whereunto is mod evident ) as that
in the primitive times they were not by Bap-
tifm admitted into it, as then exiftent in the
world.
Secondly, Confider that it is a thing of fre-
quent occurrence in Scripture , for things to be
declared and fpoken of , or to whole Bodies or
Societies, and that in the moft univerfaland
indefinite terms, which yet are to be underftood
and applyed varioufly, with refpedfc to the par-
ticulars, according to iheir refpe&ive capacities
and concernments, in what is fo declared or
fpoken : See this abundantly verified in that
Speech of Mofes to the whole Congregation qf
Ifrael , recorded in the twenty nine and thirty
Chapters of Deuteronomy^ there are fome things
fpoken as univerfally true of them all : Sj their
[landing before the Lord , in order to their re-
newal
(296)
newal of their Covenant with him, thus, Dent.
29.10,11,12, there areother things fpoken^
which were alone true of the grown perfons
among them , and that but in part true of fome
of them , in whole true of others : Thus their
feeing what God had done for them in Egypt>
and in the Wildernefs , fome had feen both
the temptations they had been tried with , and
the Signs wrought before them in the Wilder-
nefs, but had feen nothing , in refpedfc of a per*
Cbnal fight, of what God had done for them in
Egypt: Others had feen what God had done
both in the Wildernefs and in Egyf>*> and yet
the fame things are univerfally declared of
them all, verfe2. So again, there areother
things affirmed and declared of them all in one
and the fame expreffion , which yet were to he
underftood in a different manner, as applyed to
particulars : Thus of their entring into Cove-
nant, it is faid of them univerfally, Ibty flood
before the Lord to enter into Covenant , and yet
they could not enter into it after one and the
fame manner , the grown perlons were to doit
perfonally, the Infants and Children, incapable
of a perfonal covenanting with God , were en-
tred by their Parents. Yet take one more In-
stance , that Command , to keep the words of
that Covenant they were now entring into , is
iaripofed upon them all univerfally, verfe $.
tCeep therefore the words of tbit Covenant , and do
ibemy tbat ye may proffer in all that you do:
Yet who will fay , either that there were no
In&nts; 01 that Infants are capable to keep thfe
tfordV
(237)
words of that Covenant? So that we may fee
how variouily, what is indefinitely , and in the
mofl general and univerfal terms fpoken to or ot
an Ailembly, oi united Body of people, as col-
lectively or generally taken, is yet to be under-
itood and applyed to the particulars of that
AlTembly , or Body of people. And feveral
other Inltances, of a like nature with this,mighr
be given : See i Cor i®. begin, but I am wil*
ling to contract as much as may be: Thus in
reiped of the parages the Objection is ground-
ed upon , what is declared *o have attended the
adminiftrationof Baptifm, or what is fpoken of
or to the perfons baptized , is to be underftood
and applied to particulars, according to their
refpe&ive capacities and concernments iri what
is Co declared and fpoken.
Thirdly, Let it be confidered, to whom, or
tor whole ufe the Scriptures were written , as
alio what is the fpecial deiign of the Holy Gholt
in thofe paflages the Obje&ion is grounded up-
on : And thus let it be confidered , that the
Scriptures were written to and for the uienot
of Infants, while in their infant capacity, but
grown pcrfonsi and the defign of the Holy
Ghoft, in the places mentioned, is either to in-
ftrucrraud eftablilh in fome nectffary truth , or
prefs to fome neceflary duty i and hence what
in the forementioned paffiges is fpoken to or of
the Body of Chrift, and the feveral Members of
that Body, only concerns fuch perfons, and is of
fpecial ufe :o the promotion of the defign aim-
ed at in them \ but that is no Argument , that
Infant*,-
r 288)
Infants, to whom thefe things agree not, and
who are not concerned as fuch m t&em , nor are
capable of improving them to the end intended,
were not of that Sody , and confequently not
admitted into it by Baptifm, efpecially when the
mind of Chr^iSt is fully revealed in other places as
to that matter.
ObjeCt, %. But the main and principal Ob-
jection , and indeed which hath any considera-
ble appearance of weight in it, is that raifed
fromM<*f. 28. 19. compared with Mark^ 16.15,
16. where the institution of Baptifm, as is fup-
pofed by many , aCommifiion authorizing and
requiring the administration of it among the
Gentiles, as is granted by all is recorded. Now
fay our Oppofers , Infant baptifm cannot be ac-
cording to the will of ChriSt , in as much as it
^agrees not with the institution of Baptifm : the
institution warrants the teaching and baptizing
the Nations, that is, fay the Obje&ors, fuch of
the Nations as are faught,and by teaching made
Difciples , but here is not a word concerning
the Baptifm of Infants. Now fay they, certain-
ly had it been the will of ChriSt that Infants
fhould have been baptized, he would have Co ex-
prelTed the infiitution, as that his mind*(hould
have been plainly and clearly held forth therein,
touching this matter i but here not being the
leaft intimation that it is his will that they
.fhould be baptized , therefore their Baptifm
cannot rationally be judged to be according to
his will.
Anfxp. I mall not debate the Queftion, w'le-
rher [his of Matthew be , or may be, fitly called
the,or an inftitution of £aptifm,either absolute-
ly,or unto us Gentiles,though let me fay, it feems
fomething ftrange to me , how it comes to bear
the denomination of the inititurion of £aptifm,
feeing Eaptifm was in ufe long before this Com"
mand was given out, and certainiy the Admini-
ftrators of it would not a<ft without an inftitu-
tion, neither do 1 think it can properly be called
the inftitution of Eaptifm to us Gentiles. I
doubt not, but this was Only a Commidion given
out by Chrift to his Apoftles , and in them to all
the Minifters of the Gofpcl5authorizihg sod en-
joyning them to adminifter thofe two Ordi-
nances , of preaching the Gofpel and Sapcifm,
afore inftitured, in fuch an extcniive way , as is
here expreiTcd in the adminiftration of which
Ordinances the Adminiftrators were and are to'
be regulated, not only by the letter of this Corn-
million, but by all other directions Chrift himfclf
had, or yet mould give them , relating to that
their adminiftration : But let that pais, call i^
the inftituiion of Baptifm , absolutely or xefpe-
lively to us Gentiles., or a CommiflSon , it is
much at one as to my prefent purpofc : As for
the Objection- as afore laid down, a brief anfwef
may fufricc : Two things, I fuppofe, are and
wi 1 be granted by the generality of, if not uni«
verfally by all our Oppofcrs.
Firfi, That this Inftitution or Commidion,
call it which you will, doth not of it felf necef-
farily exclude Infants from partaking of the
Ordinance of tfaptifrrr. f fc
Secondly, That this inftitution or Commifli
on doth warrant, yea, injoyn the application of
Baptifme to all thofe our Lord Jefus Chrift hath
in his Word declared, that it is his wilt they
mould be baptized.
Now let but thefe two things be granted,
and I have what I defire, having, as I judge,
futficiently evidenced, that Eaptifm was pra&i-
fed in primitive times by the Apoilles them*
felves, and by others, by their allowance, dire-
rt^rion and approbation > which whether I
have done or no , I (hall leave to the judgment
of ail judicious and impartial Readers , i'o that
I might difmifs this Objection , the framers of
it granting what I contend for : but yet be*
caule I find this Objection lo much infilled up-
on, and accounted, by thofe of the abJcft parts
among our Oppofers , to be the main and prin-
cipal Objection, to oppofethat practice of In-
fant-baptifm we have hitherto pleaded for,
I (hall take it a little further into confideration,
and fee what ftrength it hath in it : and I rind
three things in a fpecial manner urged, as giving
ftrength to it.
Firit, That that Relative *vv*s> tbem, in this
Cemmiflion, muft refer to Difciples, included in
the Verb tutfaTivoxtt, tranflated by our Tranila-
tors teach,by othtrs,Difciple,or make Difciples,
and not to edw, Nations.
Secondly , That Infants being incapable of
teaching, cannot be, nor in any propriety of
fpecch faid to be3 Difciples.
Thirdly,
C 291 )
Thirdly, That this inftitution or Commiflion
is to be underliood exclusively , as excluding all
from a rightful participation in that Ordinance
of Baptiih) , whoarenot comprehended in it ->
and hence the fum of what is urged from rhis
iniijrution or Commiflion, againit the practice of
Infant- baptifm , amounts to thus much , That
the Subjccis^appointed by Chrift to be baptized,
being Difciples , and Infants not being \ nor
rightly to be called Difciples, and all others
beiides Difciples being excluded from baptifm,
by Chritis appointing of them as the proper
Subjects of that Ordinance \ therefore Infants
neither may nor ought to be baptized ; And
thus, I conceive, we fee the Utmolt ihrength of
this Objection.
For anfwer,T (hall a little diftin&ly con-
(ider thek three things giving ftrength to
it
And for the firft , That &***<, them, muft
refer not to 40w, Nations, bur to the Noun Di-
fcipks, included in the Verb &i%Tivc*Tiy to teach
as jts Antecedent or Stihftantive.
Tiiis I deny» and affirm on the contrary, that
it ought to be referred to Nations, and not to
Difciples, fuppofed to be included in that Verb,
2nd that for two Rcafons,
I;iih\ Becaufc we ought to keep to the lite-
ral and plain Grammatical coniiru&ion of 1
text, where tin re is no rreceffary Reafon to ia-
forcc a recJlLu from it ; Nt>w according to the
literal and plain Grammatical c0nftrli&iGn «f
thefr worcKrhcy rnufl rcfe* to NarionSjtfhfcfhcf
V *
we tranflate that Verb , teach or make Difci-
ples, faith Chrift, teach all Nations, ormakejeo
all Nations Difciples, baptizing them: £ap
tizing whom? Why, the Nations, who ac
cording to this Commiflion of Chriftare to bee
taught, or made Difciples ; And here is no ne*
ceiTary reafon why we mould recede from the
moit literal and plain Grammatical conlhu&i-
on of the words > what reafon is pretended (hall
be taken notice of by and by.
Secondly, Becaufe it is doubtful, whether the
Noun Difciples , fuppofed to beimplyed in the
Verb (jufivrrivcv'n, were eyed by our Saviour in
this Commiflion > what is affirmed in this mat-
ter, is affirmed mainly, if not only upon the
conceit of a Critticifm , concerning the fignifi-
cation of that word, viz. That it muft needs
ilgnirie, to teach cum effegtu^ or to teach till the
perfons taught become Difciples: £ut now
whether this Critticifm were attended to by
Ghrift , or whether he ufeth the word in that
fenfe or no,is altogether uncertain : We fee evi-
dently Mar'l^ ufeth another word in fetting
down this Commiflion , Go preach the Go§elto
every Creature , which, fay our Oppofers , an*,
fwers this, Go teach all Nations j which if true,
we may read the Commiflion thus , Go preach
the Gofpel to every Creature, or to all Nations,
baptizing them > and then there can be no other
antecedent, but the Creatures or Nations to be
taught > and it is certain, the Gofpel may be
preached where no faving effed is produced by
it, in thofe to whom it is preached ; fo that to
leave
cave the plain Grammatical and mod literal
:onftrudtion of the words , and to ground a
:onftrudtion upon a fuppofed Cricticifm ,
vhereas it is wholly uncertain , whether Chrift
:yed any fuch Cntticifm or no , as uting that
word in thisCommiffion , is altogether unfafe,
ind therefore, I fay, Nations,not Difciples, muft
be the antecedent to «Wif, them , injoyned by
this Commiffion to be baptized : But fome Rea-
fons are urged to prove a neceffity of taking Di-
fciples, as included in that Verb, as the Antece-
dent to them;
The fir it is this , Becaufe it is faid that Chrift
(viz. by his Difciples ) made Difciple and bap-
tized, Jobn^.i. therefore pAhiwatm muft be in
this, place underftood of making Difciples alfo.
But to that I anfwer , That though Chrift
and his Difciples did by preaching make Difci-
ples , yet all that they preached to were not
made Difciples > they preached the Gofpel to
many who were not thereby made Difciples :
hence it will not follow, that becaufe Chrift and
his Difciples made fome , yea. many Difciples,
by preaching, therefore the Apoftlts, and other
Minifters or the Gofpel, were injoyned by this
Commiffion to teach, cum ejfecin , in refpeft of
all they were to teach ; That they were and are
to endeavour to teach Co; as that the Word may
beerfe<ftual,and Hearers may be made Difciples,
is unquestionable i but that they ftiould be en-
joyned fo to preach , as that the unerlc&ualnefs
of their Do&nne (hould be their iin, as it fcems
fo t?e, in cafe Chrift eyed that Cruticifm, can be
V 3 no
(294)
noway inferred trom this fuccefs vouchfhfed to
their Minifhy, while exeialed among the-
Jews.
But (econdiy, Though the Difciples did bap-
tife the Difciples made by their preaching , yet
it is not faid,they baptifed only Difciples > rhaf
Difciples are (o be bjptized,fuppofe then cafe be
the fame with thofe there mentioned, is unque^
ttionable i but that they only are to be biptized,1
is not in the leati intimated : So that from this
expreffion in John , it cannot with any (hew of
leafon be concluded , that Cnriit had an eye to
that aforementioned Critticifm , in that word
ufed by him in this Commiffion ; r.or if he had,
that yet Difciples mufi needs be the Antecedent
to them , the words may be as well read,Difciple
all Nations,or make all Nations Difciples,bapti-
zing them, and yet Nations,not Difciplcs,be the
Antecedent to them.
Secondly, Another Reafon to enforce the
fence pleaded for by our Oppofers, is this , be*
caufe that fence feems beii to agree with the
wordsof Marl{, Mar\ \ 6. 15, 16. where this
Commiffion is thus expreii , Gop reach the Gofpei
to every Cxeaturt \ which, fay our Oppofers, an-
fw^rs this phrafe, Go teach all Nations -, he that
helieveth, and k baptized, Jhall be jai>ed, which
anfwers, fay they, baptizing them : hence they
infer,that the Subjects of Baptifmare Difciples.
3nd thefe Difciples muil be Believers.
But to that I an f we r, That there is no necef-
(ityofour fo interpreting the one Evangelhtby
the other s we may, eonjoyning both togethei
conctivi
095.)
conceive the whole Commiffion , as thus given
out by Chrift ; Go ye there fore, teach all Nation f^
baptizing them-) I fay , Go preach the Gofpel to
every rreature '•> He ibat believetb, and is bapti-
zed, flail befaved, be that believetb not /hall be
damned: And then as in thefe words recorded
by M^rJ^, Preach tbeQofpel to every Creature
Chriit explained himfelf, as to the extenlivenefs
of his meaning , in that phrafe , All Nations,
ufed by Mattlnn? : So in the latter claufe , He
that believetb, and is baptized, flail be faved j be
that believetb not, /hall be dammd : Chriit in-
forms them what theiflueof their difeharge of
their Commillion fhould be , in regard ot the
Nations to be taught>or Creatures,to whom the
Gofpel (hould be preached by them, thofe that
fhould believe, and be baptized, (hould be faved,
but thofe that believed not , however they
might be baptized, yet they mould be damned >
which muft needs, according to the unanimous
confent of our Oppofers, be underliood of the
adult ; whence it will follow,that A4ai\ fpeaks
not at all of the Subjects of Baptifn^but of the
ilTue of the Apoitles dilchargiDg. their whole
CjjmmiflTion , both in refped of preaching and
baptizing, in refpedl of thofe towards whom
they (hould difcharge it , in cafe they (hould re-
ceive the Gofpel preached , or through the
preaching of the Gofpel mould believe , and
were baptized, then they (hould be faved ; but
though they had the Gofpel never fo faith f afly
preached to them3 yea, though they might fofar
imbrace it , as to fubmit to Baptifm, yet unie(s
V 4, they
fhey believe, they mould, notwithstanding that,
be damned.
Thirdly, It is yet further urged, that in cafe
efyrk) them, did refer unto s'0J% Nations, with-"
put any limitation, then this Commiffion would
warrant the baptifm of any Perfon or Nation
in the world, whether taught or no, which it is
rightly faid, we our felves acknowledge ought
not to be.
To this the anfwer is at hand, 'Tis true, it
would do foin cafe there were no other directi-
ons in any other part of the Scriptures , for the
Miniftersof the Gofpel to regulate themfelves
by inthedifchargeof this Commiffion i but this
fuppofed evil confequence isfufficiently obvia-
ted in other places ot Scriptuie,wherethe right
Subjects of Baptifm are furrkicntly declared,
viz, grown perfons, in cafe they were not afore
baptized upon their faith and repentance , and
with them their Infant-feed i and this, I con-
ceive, is the very defign of Chrift in this Com-
roiffion, to authorize, yea, enjoyn the preaching
of the Gofpel, and adminiftrationof baptifm to
the whole world , by perfons duly called to ad-
minilter Gofpel Ordinances unto men, yet fo as
to regulate thtmfelves,in refpedt of both theone
and theother,by fixh directions and limitations
as himfelf had or (hould give , in relation to a
due admin ift rat ion of both Ordinances '■> and
that the Difcipks and Minifters of the Gofpel
weie and are to regulate themfelves in the
difpenfmg the Gofpel unto men, as well in the
admanifliution of Baptifm , b^ other Ruks
' • afore
057)
afore or after given by Chrift, is fufficiently evi-
dent throughout the new Teftament i fo that
notwithstanding what it urged to the contrary.
I conceive, it is fully evident, that tbem in this
Commiflion, fpecifying the Subje&s of £aptifm,
refers to Nations, not to Difciples,as its Antece-
dent,
Now having discovered the uncertainty, yea,
filfity of this hdl Principle affcrted, and laid as
a foundation to the Objection propofed , the
Objection is fo 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 itrengch it hath.
And therefore fecondly, as to what is avert-
ed in the fecond place, viz. Thar Infants nei-
ther are,nor can in propriety of fpeech be called
Difciples, it concerns not me s it is enough, as
to my prefent purpofe, that they may be com-
prehended under that phrafe, All Nations ■•> I
(hall therefore only fay, that I cannot but con-
ceive, that will men judge impartially, fuppofe
we fhould grant, that tbem in this Commiflion of
Chriit doth refer to Difciples, and not to Nati-
ons, and confequently that Difciples are. the
proper Subjects of Baptifm i yet they muft
acknowledge , that what hath been laid by
others to prove , that Infants may and ought,
according to Scripture account , be numbrcd
among the Difciples of Chriit, renders this Ob-
jection wholly inefficient to counterbalance
the evidence produced from other Scriptures,
for the cftablifhment of the practice now
pleaded
I
(=93)
pleaded for > which is all at prefent I contend
for.
And therefore thirdly , As for that Affertion,
That this Inftiturion or Commiffion is to be un-
dcrftood exciutlvely , and confequently , that
none are to be baptized, but fuch whofe bapnfm
is in expreis terms warranted by it. I (hall on-
ly fay it is true, we ought fo tounderitand it, in
cafe we had no ether Scriptures for our directi-
on in theadminiitrationof Baptifm, but take
this Commiffion or Inftitution abfolutely in it
felf,and the not including Infants in it, is not an
excluding of them out of it. We fee here
Chrift fpeaks immediately and diredtly to his
Difciples, Go yetherefore^&c. none befidesthem
are exprefly included in it > and (hall we fay
therefore that this Gommiflion only concerned
them ? Surely no, it is a CommifCoh for all that
at that time , or in after Ages, (hould be called
forth by Chrift to minifter in the Gofpel ; fo it
will not follow, fuppofe Difciples- be the Ante-
cedent to them,that therefore none elfe are to be
baptized : As for what Inltances are brought of
Commands.expreit only pofitively, oc yet inter-
preted by all Interpreters exclufivcly,as 1 Cor u.
28. and the like, the Reafon u ,becaufe no other
Scriptures allow any others, but fuch there fpo-
ken of, to partake of that Ordinance there fpo-
ken of, otherwife the bare commanding perfous
to examine themfelves, in order to their due re-
ceiving of that Ordinance , doth not of it fclf
exclude all others from it> that do not,or cannot
examine themfelves > {othat 1 fay, the Inftitu-
tion
r ~<99 )
tionor CommilTion, as abfiradredly taken, doth
r.oc exclude all from the participation of this
Ordinance of Baptifm , who are not in exprefs
terms comprehended in it, which is all that I
contend for , and as I haye fiid, I fuppofe mil
be granted on all hands; Co rhat fliould we
grant, that them is to be referred to Diiciples,
included in that Verb, and thhtt Infants arc not
Scripture Diiciples, neither of which, notwiths-
tanding all that is {aid by our Oppofers, is
granted , our Proportion may hand rum , for
though Infants are not exprdly included in the
Commillion, yet they are nor excluded out of n,
therefore their ifaptiim omit itaftd or rail by the
evidence of other Scripture's* and we having
furfkient evidence from other Scriptures , that
it is the will cf Chriit that they fhould be bap-
tized, their nor being expreily mentioned in the
Commiffion, ought to be no Ren.ora m the way
of our thankful injbraccmenr of what light he
hath clfcwhere given of his mind and will in
this matter.
0bjt8\ 3. There is an Objection or Argu-
ment , which fome (lem to conceive to have a
very great iircngth in it , yea, to be unanfwe-
rable, which is carried on gradually to this iiTue.
fay the Frame rs of if, Seeing there is no exprefl
Command requiring the baptifm of Infants, the
practice mult needs be deduced only in a confe-
quential way from the Scriptures:Now to prove
that it cannot be rightly and duly deduced from
any Scripture in a confequential way, Co as thac
the
(3°o }
the omiflioti of it fhould be a fin in the Parents,
( and their fin it mutt be if it be a fin at all )
againlt any Law of Chriit , it is thus argued >
If the omiflion or negled of the Baptifm of
Infants were a fin chargeable upon their Pa-
rents, as being a tranfgrcffion ot feme Divine
Law , then fome one cr 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 whatfoever, is in
Scriprure either commended for the practice of
it, or blamed for the negledtof it i Therefore
the omiffion of it cannot be a tin chargeable
upon the Parents , as a breach of fome divine
Law.
Which Argument laid down catagorically
muft run thus.
Whatever practice is confidentially deduced
from Scripture, in cafe it be from Meaven, fome
one or other, at one time or other, hath been
commended for the practice of it, or blamed for
the ncgledr of it : But no one was ever com-
mended for the practice of Infant- baptifm, nor
blamed for the neglect of it ■•> Therefore it can-
not be from Heaven , but mud needs be of
men.
And for the proof of the Major Propofition,
feveral Jnftances are produced of Duties confe-
cjuentially drawn, in refped of which we find,
that fome one or other ,f at fome time or other,
hath been commended for the pra&ice of them,
or blamed for the ncglcd of them : thus, if I
miftake not, that action of ?hinehas> in flaying
Zimri
Zi/wriand Cosbi , recorded Numb. 25.6,7,8.
is produced as one Inftance, and variety of other
Inilances are reckoned up.
Anfa. Inanfwer to this ObjecTion,or Argu-
ment, I (hall fay in general, that were it not for
the high conceit fomehavecf it, and that the
fudden piopofal of it , cfpecially in the heat ot
difputation, when the mind, varioufly diftra&-
ed cannot alwayes fuddenly rccal it felf to a due
weighing of what is propofed , may for a little
while feem to puzzle fuch, who yet upon a little,
ferious review of it will foon difcern che ex-
tream vanity of it , I mould wholly pafs ic by,
as not thinking it worthy an anfwer, the weak-
nefs of it {o evidently appearing to all coniide-
rateperfons ; but feeing it is fuppofed to be of
fuch iirength , for the oppoting the practice 1
have hitherto pleaded for, I have judged it meet,
to take it into conlideration,and as previous to a
diredt Anfwer to it, I (hall premife thefe two
Que ft ions.
frirlt, Whether it be neceiTary,. for the deter-
mining whether any controverted practice be
from Heaven or of Men, that this commendati-
on or difcommendation, of perfons pradiiing
or negle&ingof it , mould be exprefly , or in
pbin words, declared in Scripture? or whether
it be not furrkient, that they themfelves may be
confee]uentially,ar?d by Way of Argument;drawn
and deduced from Scripture.
Secondly, Whether it be necelTary that this
commendation or difcommendation) pleaded ' \
(302)
be fo nccelTary for the end mentioned , muft be
contained in force Scripture diitindt from thoCc
the practice controverted is deduced from , or
whether it may not be iufficient that they are
contained in Come Scriptures, which yet may be
urged to give contenance to the practice under
debate? And let the Framers of this Argu-
ment anfwer to theie Queftions , as they
conceive moil conducing to the end deilgned
in it.
Thefe twoQueftions being premifed , let us
come more dire6tly to the Anfwer i and it may
beanfwered feveral wayes,according to the An-
fwer our Oppofers (hall give to the foregoing
Que ft ion 5.
t irft, Suppofeit (lull be faid, That it is fuffi-
cient to determine any controverted pradtife to
be from Heaven , in cafe it can be confequenti-
ally, or rationally deduced from any Scripture
whatfeever, whether urged to give countenance
to the practice controverted or no , That fome
one or other, at one time or another, hath been
commended tor the practice of it^ or blamed (or
the negledt of it : Then I (hall anfwer tUcie
two things. «
Firft, 1 deny the Minor Proportion, and fay,
that we have Inftancesof perfons commended
for the practice of Infant- baptifm , take thefe
Inftances, of Lydia, the Gaoler, and others.
But it isreplyed, It doth not appear that they
had any Infants baptized , and therefore Luke's
telling us, that they and* their Houfholds were
baptized, cannot be interpreted a? a commenda-
tion
(303)
cion to them for pradifing of Infant-bap-
tifme. «
But to that /anfvver, Lis fab judice ejtt we
judge they had , our Oppofers judge they had
not: And who (hall be Judge in. this cafe?
Surely neither we nor our Oppofers, being
both parties m the cafe controverted. And
therefore,
Secondly , I fay, That this Argument leaves
the ControverJic as it found it, and is of no uie
at all for the end dehgned in it i Its ddjgn is ro
prove, that the plaice of Znfant-baptifm is
not from Heaven, but of men, and it leaves it as
doubtful,whether it be from Heaven or of men,
as it was before \ for not withftanding fuch com -
mendations or difcommendations may 6e pro-
duced the way allowed in this Anfwer, yet the
praftice will be doubtful, and the Reafon is evi-
dent , becaufe it may be doubted , whether
thefe commendations or difcommendations arc
rightly and dul> deduced from Scripture or no.
And therefore,
Secondly, I fuppofe the Objectors or Atfcu>
mentatorsmutt needs fay, That fuch a commen-
dation or difcommendation, as is required, mu&
be declared and expreffed in fome plain and ex -
prefs Scripture, or the confluence be draw* fo
evidently, as amounts to a plain and expreis
Scripture > but then how extreamiy ridiculous
the Argument is, will foon appear to every ordi-
nary capacity y and the Major may be iuixiy de-
nied, and that for * fourfold Reafon.
( 304)
Firft, It is evidently falfe , there are fomd
pra&ifes confequentially drawn, owned, and
pradlifed by our Oppofers, as well as by our
felves^refpe&iveunto which no one inftance can
be produced of any, cither commended for the
practice of them, or difcommended for the neg-
led: of them ; That Inftance of Womens re-
ceiving the Lords Supper is obvious , that pra-
ctice is only warranted in a coniequential way ,
for where is any exprefs Command to warrant
it ? And let any fuch Inftance , as agrees with
the fence of the Oponent in the Major Propo-
rtion be produced of any Woman , that is in
Scripture commended for the pradice of it , or
difcommended for the neglect of it.
Secondly, This Argument involves the
Authors of it in an abfolute contradiction, con*
fidering what is and muft rationally be granted
by them, for the practice the Argument makes
head againft, mult rationally be granted 'to be
controvertible , 01 a practice that rational men
may differ in their judgments about , fome
conceiving it is from Heaven , others conceiving
it is from Men. Now kt it be carefully obfer
ved, that fuppofing there were any plain Scrip-
ture exprefly declaring , that fome one nr other
had been commended for the "practice of it , or
blamed for the negk& ©f it , how could it be
controvertible among wife and rational men ?
Sure the producing of fuch a Scripture would
put it out of all qucftion, among thole that will
be guided by Scripture light ; fo that this Ar-
gument doth imply , cither that a controverti-
ble
C 505 3
ble pra&ice may be io evidently declared in
Scripture , as to admit of no control v.,e about
, or elfe that there is no fuch thing *s a con->
trovertible practice in rerum nantra , which is
an eafie way of deciding all Controvafies * for
s for duties plainly expreft and declared in
Scripture, no wife man will move a controverfie
bout them ; and as for pra&ifes confequentially
drawn , the way is moll obvious, to determine
whether they are from Heaven or of mens if
from Heaven , fomc one at one time or other
would have been in Scripture either commended
for the practice of them, or blamed for the neg-
Je&ot them j if no fuch commendation or dis-
commendation be extant in Scripture, than they
are infallibly of men : Now furely it may eafily
be found out, whether there be extant any fuch
commendation or diicommendation, refpedfcive
to any Religious pradtifes whatfoever , Co that
were this Objection or Argument worthy of
any notice to be taker, of it, we (hould Coon have
an end of all our Controverfies among all fober
Chriftians. But
Thirdly, Suppoleno pra&ice couLi be inftan-2-
ced in befides that in controverfie that is from
Heaven, but hath received its atteftation from
God, one of the wayes mentioned in this Argu*
ment . and fuppofe the Framers of it were not
involved by it , in fuch a contradiction as afore
declared, yet,I fay, the proof is wholly infuffici-
cnt. For
Firff, The Inftances produced for the proof
Of it are wholly impertinent , as to the thing to
X be
be proved > for obferve it , what is that which]
ought to be proved, in cafe the Argument mike]
any oppofition againft the pra&ice pleaded tor fl
Iris this , that all thofe practices that are dedu-
ced from Scripture only in a confequential way,
and on that account are controverted among
rational men, ought to have a Teftimonial from
God,of their being from him,in cafe they are (b,
by his either fomewhere in Scripture commend-
ing .fome one or other for the practice of them,
or blaming fome one or other for the neglect of
them > if this be not proved , the practice of
Infant-baptifm , though deduced only in a con-
fequtnual way, may be from Heaven, not with-
ftand\ng none have ever either been commended
for the practice of it, or blamed for the neglect
of it.
Now mark,what do thefe Inftances produced
prove only this , that fome pra&ifes may be
lawful , which yet are deduced only confequen-
tially from Scripture , in as much as fome have
been commended for pradifing upon that
ground,others have been blamed for the neglect
of pra&iiing Duties fo deduceable, Et quid boa
ai rhombum , what is that to the purpofe ? the:
Inftances, if pertinent to the purpofe for which)
they are brought, (hould be of practices produ-
ced, as afore expreft, which Antecedent to
lawful pradtife of them,have received fomefuch
teftimonial from God, of his approbation of them
by the wayes mentioned.
Secondly, Suppofe we (hould grant ( which
yet we by no means can do ) that thefe Inftances
were
C 307)
were pertinent, yet who can fay the enumerati-
on is full and compleat , yea, it is evident it is
valtly deficient , for notwithstanding u •£ iind
fuch andfuch pradt'ifs owned tobcfrbinfl od,
by the commence me
one or other foi
the blame be h
led of thcrn:
duties and pr- gh
duced in a coniequemial way, from fbn
very that God had afore made of his will, in
refpecl: of which there is no one Inftance
throughout the whole Scripture, of any one
pracl iting of them,nor. mention made of any ones
negltdfc of them > Shall we think, that no more
duties were deducable from the feyeral Laws,
whether Moral or Ceremonial, or Judicial, then
fome have been commended for the practice ofy
or others have been blamed fur the negled: of?
It would be moft irrational to fnppofe it.For any
to infer , that becaufe fuch and fuch have been
commended for the practice of fuch duties,
which they have confeqaentialiy drawn from
fome antecedent difcoveries of the will of God,
or others have been blamed for the neglecl of
others that might have been confequentially
drawa , therefore whatever practice is duly
inferred , by confequence would have its at-
teitation from God one of thofe wayes, m cafe k t
were indeed from him, is as unreafonable an In-
ference , as well can be drawn by any mm :hac
Ifath the ufe of his own Reafon,
fe
C3o8;
Fourthly, Ianfwer, That the Inftanccs men-
tioned for the proof of the Major Propofition,N
are fo far from proving that,the confirmation of
which is defigned by them, that they do indeed
prove the quite contrary : The thing to be
proved is this, That all fuch pradrifes as are
deduced consequentially from Scripture, in cafe
they be from Heaven , as the pleaders for them
pretend them to be, would be declared fo to be by
fome commendation recorded in Scripture, that
God at one time or other had given to fome one
or other for pra&ifing of them , or by fome
reproof, that he at one time or other had given
for the negledt of them. »
Now for the, proof of this,feveral Instances arc
brought of pradfcifes deduceable only in a con-
fequential way , in regard of which i we read
how God hath commended fome for thepra-
#iceof them,and blamed others for the neglecJ
of them.
Now let thefe Inftances be well weighed, and
we (hall fee they prove the quite contrary to
that, the confirmation whereof they, are de-
figned unto , namely, That a pradice that is
only confequentially drawn from Scripture,may
be lawful, yea, a duty, though none have ante-
cedently been ever commended by God for the
practice of it , or blamed for the neglect of it.
Take that a&ion of Pbinebas in flaying Zlmri
and Cosbi^nd fuppofe Tbinehat to have deduced
his duty in that particular only by way of confe-
quence, from fome antecedent difcovery of the
will of God ; JSlow it is evident, that Fbinebas
doth
(309)
loth perform that duty , and was accepted of
3od in it , as only fo confequentially deduced,
without any approbation of it from God, either
)f the wayes before mentioned , was there any
?ne at any time , either commended for killing
Zimri and Cosbiy or for killing any others upon
the like occaiion , and yet we fee Pbinebas only
deducing his duty in a cofcfequential way, is
faithful in it , and is accepted and rewarded of
God i and the like will be found true of all
other Inftances of the like nature , produced for
the fame end and purpofe : And thus fuppofe
the practice of Infant-baptifm were only de-
duced in a confequential way , and no one were
ever commended for the pra&ife of it, nor any
ever blamed for the neglect of it , yet it may be
fafely pra&ifed, and none need, upon the ac-
count cf the want of fuch Inftances as is requi-
red , queftion their acceptation with God j we
have the Infiance of Pbinebas , and other of a
like nature,for our warrant and incouragement,
becaufe Saints have formerly been accepted, and
highly rewarded for the doing of that their du-
ty, which they could only infer in a confequen-
tial way, and if we, following of them , do
indeed rightly infer our duty , and faithfully
pradtifeit , we (hall be alike accepted of God^
and not mifs of our reward. From all that hath
been faid , we may fee the unreafonablenefs of
this Argumenr, and were it not for the Reafons
aforementioned , 1 (hould have judged it rather
worthy of contempt than aCerious anfwer.
X 3 Thcfc
Thele Objections being anfwered, I conceive,!
may with fafcty and fecurity to the Truth plead-
ed forborne to a clofe,only whereas it is by Anti-
fcedobaptifts ufually queried, What can we ratio-
nally fuppofe can be the end of our Lord Jefus
Chnft, in appointing the application of Baptifm
to Infants while in their infancy? Or what
good can accrew uqfo them by it , feeiug it is
certain they underftand. not what is done unto
them, neither are they capable of making any
preterit improvement of it ?
I judge it neeeiTary to offer fomething for
their fatisfa&ion, wherein yet I (hall, on the
account elfewhere mentioned, be very brief,
and all that I (hall fay at prefent is this , That
take Baptifm>as the Sign, Token, or Seal of the
Covenant, as it ought to be taken, and anfwe-
rably applyed upon that ground , viz. their
intereft in the Covenant and Promifes thereof,
and as ferving to, and performing thofe various
ufes and ends , with reference to which a Sign
or Token in the general is annexed to the Co-
venant : And ib I fay,that as there were mighty
ends of our Lord Jefus, his appointing the ap.
plication of it to the Infant-feed of believing
Parents, (b exceeding "much good doth and,
were it rightly and duly improved by them , as
they grew up to a capacity inabling them there-
unto, vaftly more would accrew unto them
thereby.
I (hall give this one Inftance , and that is
Its ufeful lub(ervency to their prelervation in
that Covenant-date, into which they , as the
Seeds,
Seed of fuch Parents, were afore admitted, and
confequently to the injoyrnent of all the good
benefits and bleffings of the Covenant , and the
ufeful fublervency Baptifm hath to this great
end lyes in this , that thereby the Seed of Ee-
lievers are anticipated; in their choice of what
God they will ferve , and what way they will
walk in.
For the clearing up of this let it be obferved,
that youth is ordinarily mans chufing time »
hence whereas we read in Ecclef.12.1. Remember
thy Creator in the dayesof thy youth. Ariiu Mon-
tana in his Interlineal reads, In diebus eleaionum
tuarum, in the dayes of thy chufing ; the word
comes from a Root , which properly ilgnifies,
elegit, [elegit, hence the Subftantive, by a Meta-
phors ufed to fignifie a Youth or a young Man,
either becaufe of the fitnefs of youth for fervice,
upon which account fuch are ufually chofen out
for fpecial iervice,whence is that frequent phrafe
in Scripture, of chofen men, fpeaking of Souldi-
ers , or men appointed for war , or elie becaufe
youth is the fpecial time of mans choice \ Man
fo foon as capable of reflecting upon himielf,
and perceiving his own indigency, as to that
happinefs his natural make and confutution
yenders him capable of, is fore'd to look out and
caft about him, for the gaining from without
fuch a fupply as may compenfate that indigency
he fcnds himfelf to lye under,and no fooner doth
man begin to look abroad into the world , but
as variety of objects , io variety of wayes and
courfes of life occur to his mind and thoughts,
X 4 from
(3*0
from whence he may conceive a hope of furnifh-
ing himfelfwith thofe fupplies ; and as in the
general, a Deity, with the wayes and means of
his worihip and fervice, and the world, with
the various wayes and means of gaining and
in joying that, become Competitors in his
choice : So feeing to all Nations, nor to all peo-
ple in each Nation,there is not one and the fame
God. nor one and the^ame way of worfhipping
& ferving him,6c feeing there are variety of par-
ticular Objedis in the world, & various ways and
means of gaining and injoymg this or that par-
ticular Object > hence he hath variety of choice,
when in the general he is come to a refolution
with himfelf, whether it (hall be by the worfhip
and fervice of a Deity , or by the gaining and
injoymg the world, he will attempt his own
happinefs, and according as the mind is fwayed
towards , at lealt fo as to "fix upon this or that
objector this or that way or courfe,fuchufually
at lealt frequently , is the man throughout his
whole life and converfation , take it of the
things of the world in general, as coming in
competition with a Deity , with the way and
means of his worlhip and fervice > if the mind
be fwayed towards the world, Co as to fix upon
that, the man ufually lives an irreligious life,and
profecutes the world and the things of that
throughout his whole life i but now if it pleale '
the Lord to open the eyes , and (hew the Soul
himfelf, and effectually draw and incline the
mind to himfelf and his wayes, with the benefit
snd advantages of chufing , ferving and wor-
shipping
(313)
{hipping him , it is unto God and his wayes of
woifhip and fervice that the man applyes him-
felf,as the only way to attain unto happines. So
take it of any particular object in the world,
or any particular way or courfe of life, accord-
ding as the mind hxes at the firft, io is the man
throughout his whole life and converiation.
Now, I fay, 'tis in youth at leaft ufually, that
the mind of man pitches upon this or that ob-
ject, this or that way or courfe, afterwards pro-
fecuted,or after taken and walked in throughout
the following part^of his life ; hence it is found*
a,t leaft very frequently, as for thofe whoinjoy
the means of Grace in their youth , if they are
not then wrought upon toclofe in with God in
Chrift his wayes and wor(hip , as the only way
to attain unto happinefs , they are feldom ever
wrought upon.
Now here is an eminent expreflion of the
goodnefs of God to his people , that as he hath
extended his Covenant to their Seed, fo he hath
ordained the application of the Sign and Token
of the Covenant unto their Seed -as well as to
themfelves , that he might thereby anticipate
their choice , that when they come to look
abroad into the world, they may find themfelves
afore well provided for in their interefl in God,
and find themfelves preobliged to take God in
Chrift as their God and portion, and to walk in
his wayes, they rind them[elves not left at li-
berty tochufe what God they pleafe, or walk
how or in what way themfelves pleafe, but they
find themfelves afore dedicated and given up to
God
(314)
God in Chrift, as his people, and obliged and in-
gaged by Baptifm to cleave unto him , and to
walk in his waves, and fuppofing them by thofe
upon whom that concern is incumbcnt5inftru&-
ed in this Obligation they are prevented by,and
what is the danger- of breaking of it, their
baptifm hath amoft ufeful fubferviency to the
prefervafion of their Covenant-ftate, and con-
sequently their injoyment of all the good, blef-
tings and benefits of the Covenant. And let me
add thus much more , That Baptifm having a
bkfling annexed to the adminiftration of it , is
one of thofe means, fuppofing the party bapti-
zed come to make a due improvement of it, that
God doth make ufe o£ eife&ually to 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
eafily pereeive , that God had weighty ends in
injoyning the application of Baptifm, the prefent
Token of the Covenant,as well as Circumcifion
of old, the then Token of the Covenant to the
Infant- feed of his People * and that the appli-
cation of it is of admirable ufe and benefit unto
them, when duly improved by them *, and cer-
tainly then it mu(t needs be not only highly in-
jurious to the Seed of believing Parents , to
withhold the Token of the Covenant from
them , they being thereby deprived of a fpecial
means, fubfervient to their prefervation, in their
Covenant-ftate and injoyment of all the good of
the Covenant, but exceeding prejudicial to the
intereft of Chrift in the worjd, the Tabernacle
of
of Divides we have before proved, is raifed up,
and upheld among the Gentiles, by Gods taking
Families into Covenant with himfelf: Now to
neglcd: a fpecial means that God hath appoint-
ed, fubfervient to the prefervation of thefe Fa-
milies in their Covenant ftate, mult needs direct-
ly tend to the ruine and overthrow of the inte-
relt and Kingdom of Chrift in the world : But
not to inlarge upon this at prefent.
From this little that hath been laid we may
eafily perceive , that the application of Baptifm
to the Infant feed of Believers , is no fuch vain
or ufelefs thing, as it is by two many fuppofed.
I have only a few more words to add , as a
Coronis to the whole foregoing Difcourfe , and
I have done.
That it is the will of our Lord Chrift , that
the Infant-feed of one or both believing Parents
fhould be baptized, is to me, upon the grounds
afore laid down, unquefiionable h how far it will
be To to others J cannot fay i only this I know,
that whatever light is held forth by man ,
for the difcovery of the mind and will of Chriir,
relating to any practice, yet unlefs he>who is the
great Prophet of his Church, (hall vouchfafe to
open the eyes'of the mind, and prevail upon the
heart to imbrace and fubmit unto that light
heldforthjthe holding of it forth will be whol-
ly infignificant , as to any benefit accrewing
therefrom unto men. Man may, according to
what allidance is vouchfafed from Chriit , hold
forth light difcovenngthe way he would have
his People walk in, but 'tis wholly in his own
power,
(3^J
power\ whoie Prerogative it is to lead into all
Truth,toinlighten the mind,and caufe the Soul
to walk in that way : Leaving therefore the
whole of what hath been faid in his hand , and
to his bkfling , I (hall wind up all with a three-
fold advice, according to the various, fentiments
of men about , and their various concerments in
the pra&ice I have contended for.
Firft, As for fuch who have been t and not-
withstanding what is here offered, or hath been
by others, (hall (till remain to be fo far diflatisfi-
ed about the practice we plead for, as wholly to
omit it, and walk in that way that lyes in a di-
rect oppofltion thereunto, letmeadvife, and in
the Spirit of meeknefs earneftly befeech them
to carry it, under their prelent perfwafions, and
praclife with a holy fear and trembling. The
grounds held forth in the foregoing Treatife,
and by feveral others , pleading for the fame
Truth, feem fo full and clear, yea, tome fo con-
vincing,, that/ can hardly fear being accounted
over confidents though 7. take it for grant-
ed, that the moft confident and refolved of our
Cppofers muft needs acknowledge, that our
dodhine and practice of Infant baptifm (lands
upon the fame level of probability, if the ad-
vantage be not on our fide , that the oppofite
Dodttine and pradtife doth , and that upon fup-
poiition of our Dodfrine and practice being
found agreeable to the mind and will of Chrift,
the oppofite Doctrine and practice muft needs
be highly prejudicial to the comfort of believing
Parents , the good of their Seed , and which is
moft
(3'7)
moftof aIl,cothe fupportation and propagation
of the intereit and Kingdom of Chrili in the
world. And let me add, that when the confe-
rences of refufing or claiming a priviledge are
of an even fize , the refufing (uch a priviledge,
fuppofe it be indeed granted , and ought to be
accepted of,is a greater fin, and more difpleafing
unto God, than the claiming and appropriating
of it,fuppofing it be not granted, nor that claim
really warranted by Scripture is,as is evident to
every conliderate perfon : w.e fee how much
God was offended at Abaz his refufing a Sign
when offered to him * how much God was dif-
pleafed with Mofes for neglecting to circumcife
his Child : therefore, I fay, walk with a holy-
fear and trembling , left as fome will meet with,
a Who required this at your hand } fo you (hall
meet with a Hon? durji tbourefufe this prh Hedge
at my hand ?
Secondly, As for fuch whofe judgment and
practice agree with , and anfwerably are con-
firmed by the foregoing Difcourfe , efpecially
fuch to whom God hath vouchfafed that blef-
fingof Children, let me advife, and importu-
nately intreat them, yea, in the Name of our
Lord Chrift command them , that they fati^he
not themfelves in the bare difcharge of their
duty , in regard of the application of .Baptifm
to their Seed in their infancy h know that your
work is not done when you have brought yours
within the Ycrge or under the bond of the Co-
venant i you will find in the foregoing Papers,
that your Seeds inheriting the good whizh , m
common
. (3i8 J)
common with you, they are Heirs unto, depends
much upon your faithful and wife difcharge of
your duty towards them3as growing up to years
of maturity : Abraham muft command his
Houfhold that they keep the way of the Lord,
and that to this end, that God might bring upon
him the good promifed, with reference to his,
There is hardly any thing a greater difcourage-
ment to Minifters , in pleading for and admini-
ftring Infant-baptifm, than the great negled: of
Parents towards their Children, when baptized
and grown up to a capacity of understanding
and improving their Baptifm, afore adminifired
to them i therefore feeing you lay claim to
Abraham's Bleffing, as his Children, walk in
Abrahams, fleps , both in refpedtof your own
perfonal faith and holinefs, and alfo in inftrudfc-
ingand 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 Baptifm.
Thirdly and laitly, As for fuch who are the
Seed of believing Parents, and who by Baptifm
have been dedicated and given up unto God in
Chrift, and incorporated into his myftical Body,
as vifible : Let me advife, perfwade and charge
them, that they lay no more weight upon their
Baptifm, in relation to their eternal happinefs,
than the nature of the Ordinance, and the end
of Chrift in appointing the application of it,
will warrant. Baptifm, abftra&ly taken, in-
fallibly fecures Salvation to none > neither can
2>a'ptifro
(3'9)
Eaptifm of it felf be laid as a fure ground to
bottom a plea for Salvation upon ••> He that be-
lievetb, and is baptized, Jhall be Javed ; but be
that believetb not , however baptized, Jhall be
damned, is one of thofe unalterable Decrees laid
up in the Records of Heaven : In refpeCt of
which we may fay , as Job in another cafe of
God, He is of one mind, and who fijall, that is,
none (hall,*/*™ him, Job 23. 13. Your abiding
in and injoying the benefits of the Covenant,
into which, as the Seed of fuch Parents , ]'ou
were admitted in your infancy , undifpeniably
requires your perfonai faith and obedience >
therefore be faithful in the difcharge of your
duty , and in fo doing you may , upon fure
grounds, apply and improve your Biprifm , as
Gods Seal, infallibly fecuring your mjoymentof
the good promifed.
FINIS.
1
p
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11