« J^wa4^ ^*» ^ Q_ .,$" C3 /? 1c . 4 ^^ IE •£si *"3 Q. #w #S> fc M— O *3 5 * s 0) c w O bfl rv •s? ^ <: J> b* g Id St fe £ .^ «0 M t'J •12 *s « CO ^ ** ft O fc 1 -a CD -t-< C 8 & CO 0) S #> CL I3 « i K • ^v Fll'o M ■ * . HEAVEN. AND NOT OF M E N- OR, A moderate Difcourfe con- cerning the Baptifmof thelnfont- fced of Believers, Whereunto is prefixed, A large introductory Preface , preparing the Readers way to a more profitable perufal of theenfuingTfreatife.. / 1 By JofephvWhifton. 8 VK&fM \)& vU hhSZU 7BV IfJUrf'Zt T3 VST0«/V^7^J;< Cto7V& 'Jilt LONDON, Printed for Henry %Mim at the Bible in Fleet, ft feet. \ 6 70. r THE PREFACE TO THE READ E ik Christian Reader, IT is an old and true faying, Veritas non qn&rit Angulos , Truth is neither afraid nor aftiamed to be feen, though thereby (he beexpofedto the fevered and moft critical tryals and examinations of men* neither is (heat all dciirous to appear in fuch a drefs, as that thereby (he may iniinuate her felf into the affections of men for this end, that through their incercit in , and byafllng in- fluence upon the undemanding, it maybebri* bed to a partiality on her (ide ; her evidence and power is fuch, as makes that needlefs, Mtgna ejl & prevalebit : In the enfuing Treatifc thou h^ a Do&rine and practice maintained , whicl^I doubt not , will.be owned by our Lord JeTus Chrift in the day of his appearing , to be pare of that Faith once delivered to the Saints , for A 5 which The Treface. which it is his will they mould earnefily con- tent! ■■> which Doctrine and practice , as I have endeavoured to prefer) t to thy view, in the fole light of Divine evidence , rationally deduced from that great Luminary of the Scriptures, without immixing any thing of humane Elo- quence j Tor the bribing, the underftahdirg by Subtle iniinuations upon thy atfc drions , ( a courfe , which as my natural Genius leads me not unto, fo my indigency, as toabillities,prohi- bits my attempting of) fo the foreftalling thy Judgment, by any fubtle artifices of one kind or another, is none of my delign in the pre- fent Preface. There are only three things, I conceive necelTary to be done , to prepare the Readers way to a more profitable perufalof the Difoourfehere tendered to him. Firft, That 7 (hould indeavour to remove, at leaft allay, that prejudice that may poflibly arife in themindsof fome againfi it, as coming a- broad at fuch a 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 necelTary, in order to their reaping that benefit defigned to them by it > and thus, though there are feveral prejudi- ces may. poflibly arife in the minds of men , ac- 9rding to their previous perfwahons, relating \hepra&ice here pleaded for, yet 1 (hall only take notice of that , which may arife from the feeming unfeafonablenefs , of fending forth a Difccurfe ef 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 , poffibly thou rnayft think the Author rather deferves a Cenfureof, at leaft, indifcretion, than the Di- fcourfe ic felf a ferious perufal and examina- tion. And it cannot be denied , but that an under- taking of this nature, at fuch a time, doth car- ry , and that in feveral refpe&s , a very great (hew of unfeafonablenefs in it, and had not the fence and apprehenfion of the' prefect (late of artairs detained me under an irrefolution as to its publication , this Difcourfe might have feen the light much fooner than now ft doth > and yet had I not had the approbation of thofe, whofe Judgments I had reafon to attend unto, ithadnotnow, nonorever, for ought I know, appeared in fo publick a way 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- ceiveit unnectflary, to trouble the Reader with an account of the feveral occalions, through which my thoughts came at fir it. (b to be enga- ged , and after to be carried on in a more tho- row fearch into this Controverlie •> I dull only give him an account of the ground of my fend- ing abroad this Difcourfe ("wherein he will find the refult of that fearch I have made ) at this 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 juflfy accounted fo unfeafonable,as upon the fit tit view it may , and for a while to me it did feem to be. Wl en the pradice here pleaded for,by the unani- mous content of all parties,Iyes from among the Fundamentals of Chriftian Religion, and con* ftquently, fuppoilng the worft, it (hould at laft be found to be unfcriptural > the contrary whereunto I am raoft confident of ( whether groundkfs or.no, let the intelligent and impar- tial Reader judge ) yet the confeientious ira- bracement of it cannot be deihuftive to the Souls of men, when nothing is brought to light, beyond what was of publick and general cogni- %2ance before,when the judgment and practice of the contrary minded is no way concerned in the fufTerings they are fubjed or liable to , and confequently, the detection of their error can- not be rationally fuppofed to further their fuf* ferings , when no new Controverfie is (taTted , and confequently , no new rents or divilions like to be made , beyond what have been of fo long continuance , how the appearing in pub* lick of fuch a Difcourfe upon this Subject mould at this time, or any other time, be accounted much unfeafonable , I could give no rational account, either to my felf or to others : As for the manner of handling it , I am not confeious to my felf of having given any jiHt caufe of offence unto anyswhar thou wilt meet with here, is argumentative, not inveevtive, aiming at thy information and confirmation , in what I verily judge iht Preface. judge to be the Truth , not thy prejudice either in temporals or fpirituals : In a word , unlefs the naked propofal of my own perfwafion, re- lating to the Controverfie here debated, with the Scripture evidence, captivating my under- standing into that perfwafion , can be grievous 01 offentive unto any, I cannot conceive how the enfuing Difcourfe can be. But it may be it may be did , There is yer a double inconvenience, or a twofold ill confe-" quence may arife from the publication of a Di- icourfe of this nature at fuch a timt. Firft , The minds of Chriftians will be in danger to be diverted from what is more pro- perly their work , and about which they ought more efpecially to be taken up. To that I anfwer, I wifh the enfuing Papers may find the minds of Chriftians fo well im- ployed, as that fuch a divertiou would be indeed prejudicial to them -, but be it fo, as in refpedfc of fome, I hope, it may be, yet the exercife of a little prudence will prevent that inconveni- ence » and let me here caution theKeader to take heed, that he do not by this, or any other Controveriie, divert his mind froth the more weighty concernments of his Soul i take heed thou do not fo apply thy mind to, nor f utter thy thoughts to be taken up with any matters of controverfic,as to negleci thy growth in Grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrift, but, I f*y, a little Chriliian pru- dence will dired: in this, and obviate the incon- venience fuggefted, Bat The Pre faff e. But fecondly, It will be faid, The appearing thus in publick may occafion the revival of thefe Controverfics , which feem now almoft laid ahde and forgotten among the People of God/and confiquently may renew,heighten and increafe thofe divifions, which heretofore have been of fuch fad confequence, as to their unani- mous and concordant practice of the main tjiings 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 pradtsce, that they iruy think, fpeak, and do the fame things. Secondly, An union in heart and affedrion, that wherein they do differ in judgment and pra&ice, they may bear with, and torbear one another in Iovr. Now what means can have a more direct tendency, or be more effectual ( will the Lord pleafe to concur with his bltfling ) for the ob- taining and promoting either of thefc kinds of union, than the holding forth with a Spirit of meeknefs what light is received from the Scri- ptures, about the things, wherein the difference and difigreement is } As for the former , 'tis utterly impoffible ever to be attained among thofe, who dare not, as we ufe to fay 3 pir- their faith upon other mens • . fleeves, "he Pre face. fleeves, or practice hand overhead, whatever is propofed to them , by any means exclulive of this* 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 iffue in the quite contrary event to what is aimed at. But fuppofe this firft and mofl excellent kind of union, which we ought ultimately to aimat and endeavour, mould not be attained, the fame differences in judgment and practice mould yet remain , yet methinks J may, yea, I cannot but rationally expect, that the latter, viz. of heart and arTeclion, will be fo far from being impeded andobftru&ed , that it will be considerably ad- vanced and promoted, though diffenters may not come over to my judgment and pradlife by what is here offered , yet fure I may promife my felf, without ;fncurring the cenfure of being over confident of the Truth affcrted, or the (trength and validity of the Arguments produced for its confirmation, that it will be granted . that in cafe 1 do err,it is cum ratione^nd that I have fo much ground from Scripture to bottom my judgment and practice upon , as may acquit me , in the judgment of Charity, without itaetchmg it be- yond the bounds allowed in Scripture and war- ranted by Reafon , from a wilful periilhng in er- ror j and I hardly know any thing more effe- ctual for the maintaining love and rnendlhip among diflenting Chiiltians, then for them to be mutually, fatisficd in each other , that they do not diffent upon any other account then their refptdtive the Preface. refpe&ive confcientioufnefs of their duty to- wards God , which fatisfa&ion can hardly be given in a more effectual manner, than by hold- ing forth and declaring each toother the light thty have received from the Scriptures of truth. captivating their judgments to the imbrace- ment and practice of what they do differently imbrace and practice > fothat I cannot but hope the fending abroad theenfuing Difcourfe, will be fo far from reviving a Controverfie, almoft laid afleep and forgotten , to the ciifuniting of Chriftians>and heightening their differences and divifions , that it may be of fome good ufe for the promoting the quite contrary end, vis,theif uniting ,if not in judgment,that they may be as the ApouMe fpeaks, i Cor. i. 10. *&n?ntpkm h? r$ &'v7$ vth ^ iv 7j» autJ jV'Jp* ; Perfectly joyned together in one mind and judgment -y yet they may live together, dvtx>&m *forite; lv uyiv^ Ephejl 4.2. Forbearing one another in love ; And yet further let me add one thing more , which ha- ving its due confederation , may, if not wholly remove, yet much allay what prejudices of this nature may arife in the minds 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 one to take a more through and impar- tial review of their refpe&ive wayes and pra- &ifes, the Rod hath a vice which all are com- manded to here > Hear the Rod, and who hath appointed it, Micah 6 9. What its voice is, or what it calls for at our hands, may be gathered partly 7 he Freface. partly from what the God of Wifdom , or the only wife God declares to be his expectation, from thofe either over whom it is lift up in the threatning, or upon whom it is laid in the exe- cution, and partly from what the men of wif- dom, as the Prophet there fpeaks , have done in anfwer to this voice, what are Gods expectati- ons he tells us, Jer. 8. 6. I faith the Lord hear- tyntd and heard , but m man fpakf aright \ and wherein they failed in fpeaking aright he tells usyno 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 i the Rod calls to us to call our felyes to an impartial account, wherein we have either come fhort of,or exceeded that Rule we ought to walk by > what men of wifdom have done in anfwer to this voice of the Rod, Tee in that Lam. 3. 40. Let us fearch our vpayes andturnuntd the Lord ; when God is fearching after our fins,efpecially when the fearch is made by afflidions, when God hath us upon the rack, as Job feems to allude, Job 10. 6. fureitisour concernment to make a through and impartial fearch too : God threatens to fearch Jerujahm with Candles, Zeph, 1.12.. if is meant of his fearching by afflictions : now God feems to hive his Candle in his hand , he is fearching England with Candles, he is in fpecial fearching the profefling party in England with Candles > now it is an excellent observation of that wor- thy Expofitor upon Job, faith he, Troubles are Ai fs many Candles that God fetteth up to fearch lie Preface. Us hy, and they will be jsfo many fires inhindltd to confume us with , in cafe rve fearcb not our felves y but yet let me fay, it is not the bare light : of aifli&ions , without the concurring light of the Word and Spirit , that can difcover to any their fin i hence when God holds out the light of his Candle, it muft needs be a very feafonable time to hold forth the light 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 fo to be at ano- ther time j from what hath been faid, I cannot but hope, that what is here prefented to publick view, will by considerate perfons be (b far from being accounted unfcafonable , that it will be accounted in fome fort the morecfpecially Tea" fonable at fuch a time as this. Butfuppofe, notwithstanding what hath been faid, the fend- ing abroad of thele Papers at ,his time , (hould by any be judged unfeafbnable , I have three things yet further to offer for my vindi- cate Fir!*, I confidered, that for the Mind to hang in fufpence , and lye under thepreiTure of fluctuating uncertainties about the mind and will of ChrihVrelating to the difcharge of duty, is at any lime grievous > Lut moic cfpecially when the hand of Go is lift up , and tliat I know is the cafe of £briie truly confeientidus Christians , in reference to thq practice here pleaded for , and I judged it my duty to yield unto them what relief my mean ability would ieach unto. Secondly, The Treface. Secondly , I confidered that faying of the Wife man , He that obfervetb tbe Wind Jhallnot fow 9 and be that regardetb tbe Clouds /ball not rea^ Ecclef. 1 1. 4. And whether I might live to tee a more feaionable time was altogether uncertain unfo me > and forme to obfervethe Wind, and ftand gazing on the Clouds, till over- taken by the hight of death, where ao man can work, and laid to ilecp in the duuy and thereby have loft my feafon for the fowing the Seed, that Seed, of which I may and muftfayitiS, Mejhec as that word, Ffal. 126. 6. is reu- dred by Junius and fome others, it is, Semht acqmfitum , Semen aliunde comparatum , Seed that I have through Grace obtained from ano- tbers ftore,I hope I may truly fay from his, who, as the Apoftle faith, Mhtijiers feed to tbe fotverr and breadto tbe eater ; and that to ufe the Au- thor aforementioned his words, Prece & preth, yet not fomuch of Silver and Gold, as of that, which by the Teftimony of the Holy Ghoft himfelf is the ilTue of much ftudy, viz. weari- nefs,and I may add, wearing away of the fiefli ; I was faying,fhould 1 have obfef^ed the Winds, and flood gazing on the Clouds, till loft my feafon to iow this fame Seed contained in the enfuing Treatife , I could not hareexpe&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 unfeafonable prove a lofs to jhe Hus- bandman when the harveft comes. ■ thirdly, The Trefact., Thirdly, The fending forth thefe Pipers was neceffary to prepare a way to, and lay a founda- tion for a few practical (beets, which, if the Lord vouchfafe life and opportunity , may fol- low, wherein I intend, as the Lord (hall aflift, to make a more full enquiry into thefe four things. Firft , What are the Reafom of Gods ap- pointing the application of the Token of the Covenant to the Infant feed of his peo- pie. Secondly, What are the benefits and ad van-j tages anting to them thereby, Thirdly, What is the duty of Parents to-| wards their Children , as incorporated by Bap-j tifm into the Myftical Body of Chrift, asvi fible. And fourthly, What is the improvement tha Children themfelves may and ought to make o 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-intereft and right t© th< Sign and Tofen of the Covenant ariiing there ^ from was proved > fo that the appearing thus ir; publick ,in the defence of the pra&ice of Infant] baptifm, was in iome fort necefTiry untc me. Secondly, Another thing 1 conceive neceflarj for the preparing the Readers way to a mora profitable perufal of the infuing Trcatife, is, tq make fome enquiries , what may have had, and fiill. hath too great an in tc reft \v the fofarpre' Vailin| tie Preface*. vailing of the judgment and practice of lying oppofite to that here pleaded for > 'tis, I confefs, fomething ftrange to me, whence it fhould come to pafs, that fo many, and thofe,at leaft many of them, truly confcientious Chriftians, (hould at fo 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 pra&ice diverting them there* of. Three things have often occurred to my thought , as rendring this matter of wonder iinto me, . Firft, The plain evidence , as to my under^ handing, given in by the Scriptures'to that thehc priviledge. Secondly , The utter filence of the Scrip- rures, as to any exprefs, yea, or plainly deduced confequential denial of it to them, Thirdly, That tendernefs of arTedion natu* iral ( and fure CJrace deftroyes not Nature^ to Parents towards their Children. Hence notwithstanding what is urged or* their parts from the Scripture, yet I cannot but conceive there is either Something wholly ec- centrical to the QueQion it felfj or fome irregu- larity in the management of their enquiries , in reference thereunto,that hath had, and iiillhatU a confiderable intere(i,at leaft, in manyes rejecti- on of the Truth pleaded for , and their imbra> ring the opinion and practice oppofite there* unto, a . , . ' Now The Preface. Now it may not be altogether unprofitable to make fome inquiry what that (hould be , that fo the Reader being forewarned may difintangle himfelf, and have his mind more tree to attend to>and impartially weigh what is here tendered to him, and upon a ferious enquiry, I conceive, thefe fix things may be affigned,as of the im- portance mentioned, Firft, I cannot'but think it muft in part be imputed to a want of that tendernefsof affedti- on towards Relations, attended with the want of a right apprchcnfion and true fenfe of the . worth and excellency of fpiritual Bkflings , and Covenant- priviledges that Chriftians ought to labour after \ the Apoftle mentions it as one of. the evils of the laft times, That men (hall be without natural affection. 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 Godlinels * yet it is too ufiially found , that truly gracious Souls are more or le[s corrupted by the Epidemical evils of the times and places 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- cafe, to the taking away of their lives. Thus 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 fo far fpreading The Preface. fpreading of the opinion and pra&ice afore? mentioned i yet I do not fay , neither would t be underftood, as though I did fuppofe that this fame evil hath been , or is the caufe or occafion of all rheir reje&ion of the pra&ice pleaatd foff and complying with the oppofite opinion and prad:ice,who yet do rejedfr the one and imbrace the other : I do not doubt, but there are many among the contrary minded, who are perfens of much tendernefs of affe&ion towarns their 'Children, and have in a goodmealurea right apprehenflon and due fence of trie worth and excellency of fpiritual fcleffings and Covenant- priviledges j nor yet would I be underlie; i, as though I did fuppofe that this evil were only to be found among the ptrfor.s we now *peak of/ no, 7 fear the fame evil pr vaifc ton far in ma*y of thofe, Who yet imhrace, yea, ltand vp in the defence of the practice of Infant- baptifm, and though it dorh not appear the fame- way, yet other wayes it doth i Instances evidencing this are too obvious than here to need a recital , the Difeafc is EpidemicaKthough appearing infonbe one way, and in others another way i but this I fay i I do verily judge , that the Co 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 6c practice here oppofed; let but Parents ga a due tendernefs of affedion towards theiK Child ren,and a right apprehention and due fenle of the worth and excellency of fpiritual priyi- ie'dges , and theii minds will be much diipofed Ihe Preface, to an impartial weighing what is offered on the behalf of this pradticeof Infant- baptifm. I am aware it will be retorted by my Oppo- fers, That it is a fond, foolifh and irregular affe- ction towards Children , that hath bribed our underftanding , and byaffed us to a perfwafion, that the Scripture holds forth fome benefit or priviledge to them beyond what indeed it doth, our miftakes arife from the byaffing influences that thefe affcdlions have upon our underftand- ingsand judgments. But to this I (hall only fay , That it is not altogether unworthy our Obfervation , that Providence mould call forth fuch to appear in defence of this practice, Mr.Bajwr.Mr.Ow^, who cannot be ratio- whcn they wrote, j, fuppofed t0 havc and ray felf at pre* , . J , rr, , r c font being Batche. ,a,n under the byaf* <* anY tors, fuch irregular affections > and as for others, who, it is true, might more rationally be fuppofed 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 conventi- 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 our imbracement of, and appearing for the pra- ctice under confideration, hath been, or is from any Tie Preface. any fuch irregular workings of affe&ion as is fuggeifed; the danger lyes on the1 other hand: Ii then we would underhand the mind of Chriit > in reference to this pra6t.ee here con- tended for » labour to get a due tendernefs of aftedfcon towards Children , with a right appre- henfion and due fenfe of the worth and excel- lency of fpiritual privilcdges:adue and a regular working of the aifedtions towards any good tendered in the Covenant of Grace, hath a ipecial fubferviency to our receiving of light from God through the Scriptures , in and about his will concerning our duty relating to our enjoyment of that good. Secondly, That which hath contributed not a little to the giving rife to , and furthering the prevailing of the opinion and practice here oppofed, hath been and is the confounding fome either 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 adminifiration. Secondly , The Subjects it hath been and frequently is adminillrcd unto. tor the firft, How oft is it found, that perfons of weaker judgments are prevailed with to f eje& the practice of Infant-baptifm it ft If , by a fpecious Argument that yet only lyesagainit the way and manner of its adminiitration 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, The Pre fate. againft , that Jo the outward appearance feems, and is fuppofed by the perfons making ufe of tftts plea , to have the leaft countenance from Sett pt are i and thus the way and manner pit ., d fepon is, that of fprinkling, which way ahd manner of adminiftration. though difufed by many, if not generally by all, that with the greateft i?ren£th of Scripture Arguments have afTert'. • the practice it felf; yet is urged by the conti \) minded . as though the only way and manner of its admimftration among the Pedo- baftift. . h ice are thole frequent invectives agcnnil Intant- fprinkling fcattered up and down in the Writings , aud too common in the mouths of cut Oppofrrs > and tor the latter, how apt are people , being told and perfwaded, that themfelvcs 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 I than themfefves or others, born of fuch Parents, had i and hence perceiving the unduenefs of their own Baptifm in their infancy , are eafily brought to believe the unduenefs of the Baptifm of Infants in the general: And it is true,there are fome other things ( the irregularity of which asl fhall not de; y, fo their refutation comes not within the compals of my prefent bullnefs ) 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 pra&ice here oppofed, Buj The Preface. But now whether the /nfant-feed of be- lieving Parents ought to be, baptized , is 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 iirft of thefe Quefiions only, that is difcuffed in the infuing Treatife > nei- ther is it at all neceffary , that either of the two latter fhould be taken notice of, or touched upon, in order to the finding out the mind and will of Chriit relating unto this: Errors and irregularities, fuppoling them to be really (b, in or attending the adminiftration of Baptifrn , ought to be reformed , and not pleaded agiinft the pra&ife it felf : All therefore that I (hall fay to this is , let none confound what ought to be diftindtly confidercd i labour rlrft to find out the mind of Chrift , as to the pradtife it felf, as abitra&ly confidered, without contideration. 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 ri'ril Queftion, then the confederation of the other will be more proper and feafonable i the right metho- dizing of things highly conduceth to a right undemanding the mind of Chriit, refpedive to our duty , when the confounding or jumbling things together, that are of a diftinft confidera- tion, fubje&s to great miftakes. a 4 Thirdly, The Prefaee Thirdly, That which hath had, and hatJi a a confiderable intereft in the giving rife to , and furthering the fucCefs of the opinion and pra- ftile here oppofed , is the taking up particular Inftancesand Examples of perfons baptized, in the primitive times, upon theyr perfonal proftfli* on of Faith and Repentance, without regard had to the cafe and condition of the perfons fo baptized, antecedent to their Baptifm, and con- sequently without confidering the true reafon and ground of their Eaptifmeat that age , and upon iuch a profeflion and taking them as a full explication of that Commiffion of Chriit , Warranting the application of Baptifm, under the new Teftament adminiftration, as well ne- gative, (hewing who ought not to be baptized, as pofitive5(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, That none ought to be bapti- zed but upon the precedency of fuch a pro- feflion. But now let the cafes and conditions of the perfons, whole examples are produced, be conn"- dered,andlet the true reafon and ground of their Baptifm at fuch an age, and upon fuch a pro* feffion,beih quired into : and thus we fliall 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, the Preface. Jites, orelfe they were fuch, who were con- verted from among the Gentiles. As for the cafe of the Gentiles , the reafon and ground of tkeir Baptifm at fuch an age , an$l upon fuch a profeflion, is obvious to all, and when any are (till converted from among the Heathens, and brought over to the imbraccment of Chnitianity, 'tis readily granted thry aie to be baptised according tp the Instances produ- ced i but from thence it cannot with an) (hew of reafon be concluded , that fuch a proftflion muft univerfally antecede the application of Baptifm j and as for the cafe or the Jew- and Profelytes, who before were Members of the Church , and anfwerably had no need of any new admiflion into it, the Church (iill remaining one and the fame, the cafe and condirion of none , fincc the defolution of the Jewifh Eccletiaflical Polity can poffibly be imagined to anfwer thereunto, or correspond therewith, and therefore the Inftances produced , either of Jews or Gentile Profelytes being baptized at age, upon iheir pci'fonal prod 111 p of Faith and Repentance , ought not to be made the pattern of Baptifm , as admiuilhcd to or among the Gentiles j 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 i the reafon of their Baptifm, upon their perfonal profeflion, was,not becaufe under the new Teftamentadminiftrati- on fuch aprotellion is conftantly and univerfally to antecede the application of Baptifm, But the Reafon was evidently twofold. Firfir, "The Preface. Firft, Becaufe now a new Sign and Token of] I the Covenant was inftituted and appointed by | Chrift, which Abraham's Seed, in their Genera- J tions, were under an Obligation, by vertue of: that firft Command, to keep; and hence, as I during the continuance of the firft Token, viz. ! Circumcifion, they were, as, to be incorporated 1 into the Church, or vifible Body of Chrift, | under an Obligation to receive and bear that > fo upon the inftitution of a new Token, viz.\ Baptifm, they were full, fuppofing the continu-s ance of their Memberfhip in the Church, ob-> liged to receive and bear that > and hence, i though they were duly admitted into the my-1 ftical Body of Chrift, by Circumcifion applyed, to them in their infancy , and had no need oft another admiflion , yet when another Sign or Token was appointed , though by the ceiTatiou of Circumcifion , their Memberfhip in the Church was not nulled or broken off, yet it. was necelTary they mould receive and bear that other Sign or Token nowinftituted by Chrift, and that, that they might continue their obedi- ence to that firft Command, to keep the Cove- nant. Secondly, Eccaufe the continuance of their! Memberfhip did indifpenfably require as reformation in their judgments and pra&ifes,j which was to be begun in Repentance , fo they were to believe a new Article of Faith, viz. ihat that individual Ferfon , the Man Chrijft Jcftoi was' the Son of Cjody the protnifed MeJJiaB and'SavioHr of tb eWorld \ which Repentance! and The Preface. and Faith were vifibly to be profefTed , in order to their vifible continuance in the Church or myliical Body of Chrift > hence it was, that antecedent to their Baptifm , the new Token of the Covenant, they were to make that proftflion of their Faith and Repentance, from whence it appears, that their Baptifm upon their perfonal proftflion of Faith and Repentance, neither concludes themfelves antecedently not to be Members of the fame Church, or myftical Body of Chritf , that Baptifm admits into, nor yer that a vifible profcflion is indifpenfably ne- ceffary , antecedent to the application of Bap- tifm. Secondly, The other thing inferred from the forementioned Jnftances and Examples , and which follows upon this, is , That none ought to be baptized, but fuch as are capable of making fuch a Profeffion : 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 proftfli- on i thefe Initauces (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 no exprefs mention made of the Baptifm of Infants, in totidem verbis , yet having fufficient difcove- ries of the mind of Chrilt 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 them > 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 Inftances and Examples of perfons bapti- sed in primitive times , as though the full ex- plication, both negative and pofitive , of the Commiflion of Chrift, for the adminiftration of JSaptifm , were to be deduced from them , but take in and improve the whole of what Chrift hath left us in his Word, whether in the Old or in the New Teftament, for the finding out of his mind and will relating unto this practice : And thus,I hope*Reader,thou wilt find in the infuing Treatife, that he hath given us iufficient 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 littlencfs of good, and fmalnefsof 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 ariling from the granting of it unto them. Hence we may obferve, how ourOppofers, with all their might, endeavour to diminish the good, pleaded by us to redound to the Seed of believers, by their intereft in the Covenant and Baptifm , fuppofing the one (hould be granted as therr priviledge , and the other applyed unto them > and on the other hand, aggravate and fet forth the variety of evils, inconveniencies and 7 he Preface. anddifadvantages, fuppofed by them to follow upon the granting unto them fuch aCovenant- intereft and application of Baptifm upon the ground thereof But now all that I (hall fay to this is , as for the good benefit and advantage arifing to the Jnfant-feed of believing Parents, from both their Covenant- (tate and Baptifm , as applyed unto them thereupon, 'tis exceeding great, as will, I hope, through Diyine affiftance, be made to appear , if Providence difappoint not my prefent purpofe : At prefent let this be confi- dered , as for their Covenant- intereft and (tate , 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 iri- definite Promife, fuppoiing them grown to years of maturity , of being (o taught of God , as favingly to know him. How far the certainty of their future Salva- vation, iuppofing them to dye in their infancy, may be concluded from their intereft 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 Chrift, whenth^fe Secrets mall be made mani- feft, that vaftly the Major part of the Seed of Relievers , and tha$ by wertue 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 methinksit fhould not be account- ed a fmall matter , to be brought in any fenie, though it be never fo 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 Covenant-ftate and intereft in the Promifes And as for Baptifm , the good and benefit o£ that is hinted in the clofe of the infuing t)i fcourfe, and is more fully to be declared, if the: Lord will: As for the.evilsand mifchiefs,fuppofed to follow upon our Do&rine and practice, they are really none at all ; whatever evils may be obferved at any time to follow , they are onlyj accidental,and will be found to have iome other] Original, and not be the natural and neceffary fruits and confluences of Either the Do&rinej or practice of Infant- Baptifm. Fifthly, That which is of alike import with what hath been hitherto mentions peoples placing, at le?*ft , tco much of tu Religion in an external way7 mode or formJ attended with an erjfinefs and fj cility to bd drawn into this or t.hat way by unfoun* groundlefs motives and inducements too manfl think, that if they are but of iuch a way they] ihe Trejace. are good Chrimans , and fecured as fo their eternal ftates ; hence through the fubtlety of Satan,and deceit of their own heart?, they over- look andnegled the main things wherein the power of Religion doth indc d contift , and betake themfelves to, and fall in with this or that way , as fuppofing themfelves thereby infured for Sa!vation,and wanting judgmeht to difcern between Truth and Error , fill in with the Judgment and pra&ice under confideration, as led thereunto meerly by fome unfound and groundlefs motive and inducement \ and though it is true , truly confcientious Chriftians cannot fatisfie themfelves in a bare way or form,neuher will they be led by any motives or inducements, without any regard at all had to the Word of God j yet even in refpeft of many of them, efpecially fuch who are of weaker Judgments, fome unfound and groundlefs motive and in- ducement hath no little intereft in their im- bracing this or that way rather than any other ;; and thus the motives and iuducements leading ProfeiTors into a complyance with the way , or judgment and practice > lying oppofite to what we have here pleaded for , are exceeding yari- ous , all which to enumerate waflj r nder ml| over tedious ; all that I fliili fayTherefore is, If we would come to a right undemanding of the mind and will of our Lord Chri/t , place Religion where it ought to be placed , and then fcttmg all fuch motives and inducements afide, weigh impartially the Scriptures , and Argu- ments grounded thereupon, readily giving up our The Preface. our judgments and practices to the guidance of the light and evidence of thofe Sciipturesand Arguments. Sixthly and laftly , The perfwafion and pra* dice 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 thole 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 Baptifm 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 coniideratton had to his will, relating to the intereft of the Infants of believing Pa- rents in the Covenant and Promifes thereof: by thefe prepolkrous inquiries men put themfelvcs jUnder a threefold difad vantage, as to their find- ing out thafflbill of Chrift they are inquiring after. Firft, They terminate and limit their inqui-' ries to the Scriptures of the new Teftament , as fuppoling the whole will oi Chrift, relating _ un-j to Baptifm , it being a new Teftament Ordi- nance ,muft needs be contained in them. Secondly, ihe Prefacee. Secondly , Which follows hereupon , They fearch not after, nor attend unto the Tenour of the Covenant , as at firft eftablifhed with Abra- ham the Father of the Faithful, nor attend to the various Scriptures contained in the old Teftaraent, opening and confirming that Te- nour of the Covenant , as fo tftabhftied with him. Thirdly, Which follows from both , They loofe the benefit of thofe feveral Inferences that may rationally, and according to Scripture warrant , be drawn from intereft in the Cove- nant , for the determining and concluding what is the mind and will of Chrift concerning the application of Eaptifm. 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 much more clearnefs of evidence on the fide of the practice we plead for> would they make their tirft 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- ftablifhment of it with Abraham the; Fa- ther of the Faithful, and lo proceed regularly, as the Covenant hath been continued, from one Generation to another,to Abraham's Seed,whe- ther Natural or Myfticil , (till regulating their judgments about the additions, alterations and variations of the Covenant , together with the b . Sign The Preface. 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 (hall look upon Baptifm as abftra&ed from its ufes arid ends , and the no- tion under which it is commanded , and then limit and terminate their inquiries after the Subje&s 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 te the Sign anc Token of it , 'tis no wonder though they fal under fo great miftakes, efpeciallyif weconfr der, in the (econd place, the ufual itfue an< produces of thefe inquiries , as thus prepofter oufly managed in and upon the minds of men j and that is a ftrong conceit , that becaufe they find not in fo many exprefs words mentioi made of the Baptifm of Infants in the new Teftament , therefore undoubtedly it is not ac- cording to the mind and will of Chrift , thai they fhould be baptized i and people having their minds ftrongly poifefTed with this conceit areeafily perfwaded , that they have no interefi in,or right to the Covenant or Promifes there- of > whereas would they but, before their mind# are paiTefled with fuch a prejudicate conceit (carch after the intereft of the Seed of Beliveri ir The Preface. in the Covenant throughout the whole Scrip- tures , I doubt not , but as ;hey would plainly difcern that their interne, i > they woul J more cafily be perfwaded of their right to Baptifm, the preient Token of ^the Covenant* therefore if ever we would come to a clear under/tanding of the mind and will of Chrift , relating to the JBaptifm of Infants, let pur inquiries after it be regular. Thefe things I couid willingly hive ipokeri more fully to, but the Book (welling to a bigger 1 bulk than I had hoped it would have done, and having ftaid fomething long in the Prefs, thefe brief hints (hall fuffice. And therefore, Thirdly, That the Reader dpecially that is Itfs able to pafs a Judgment upon an Argument, may reap the full benefit defigned him by the infuing Treatife , I fhall here give him q brief Summary of what is more largely difcouried herein. Whaf I have adventured thus publickfy to appear in the defence of,as the Reader will (ee in the main Propofition, 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 pre lent ingaged in 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. fr- i The rlht Preface. The method I have proceeded in, the Reader will findin the fecond page ; the neceflity of proceeding in that method I have already in- timated,which I defire the Reader to take notice of, that when he finds himfelf l£d 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 i thofe that will find out the mind and will of our Lord Chrift, concerning theBaptifm of Infants, mail firft know his will concerning their iniereft 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 , ft leaft fo far as my prefent defig-n did require , that grand Promife of the Covenant, unto which the three fubordinate Propofitions do refer \ where the' Reader will find, that though God in that term Sled, 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 dirccft and immediate refpedl to his natural Seed, yet after a different manner, according to a twofold conlideration they fall under. Firft, The Preface. Firft, As his natural Children, as immediate* fy proceeding from his own loins. Secondly, As his natural Race and Pofterity, mediately defcending from him in after Ages. Hence the Promifeis to be confidered of, ei- ther as a definite Promife made to his Seed, di- ftributively taken , and fo it did teach to all his Children, immediately proceeding from his own loins, and as it did refpedl 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 Pofteriry i my meaning more plainly is this, That this Promife was either fo made to Abrahams natural Seed, as that each of them , as (everally and particu- larly taken, had, as his Seed, an actual in tereft in it : Thus it was only made to his Children, as immediately proceeding from his own loins, or was To made to his Seed , as though none in particular had meerly, as his natural Sccd^ an actual intereft in it : yet God did thereby figni- fie and declare his will and-puipofe , to voucji- fafe unto them, more generally confidered, and that as the Seed of Abraham , that priviledge 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 Prefaee, Now in my firft fubordinate Propofition^ where 1 fay , that God intended Abrahams natural Seed , as the immediate and next Sub- jects of that Promife, I mean his Children, as immediately proceeding from his own loins, and take the Promife as a definite Promife : This I have proved at large Chap. 2. and anfwered what Objections I could imagine might be 1 made againft it Chap. §. whether I mult refer the Reader for FulJ iatisfa&ion. And this firft Propofition being clear,the way ; lyes plain to the Second, it being a very rational Suppofal, that what Priviledgeor Bleffingthe, Father in joyed, fhould ( fuppofing it alike com- petsble to them as to him ) defcend to his Seed, as his Heirs ; and that believing Gentiles Abra- ham's myftical Seed , have this Promife of the Covenant given fo, 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 , jpnly allowing to him, as Father, that preheotinence mentioned paw 65. is evident. Firn\ From the very Tenour of the Promife, as at firft 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, for fo 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 eftabliftied with Abraham , and his Seed in their Generations , fo the Promifcs of the Covenant were to him , and to his Seed in their Generations ■> and anfwerably I have fo expreft my felf throughout the enfuing Di- fcourfe. And here let two things 'be carefully ob- feiveck Firft, That the Fromifeismade to Abraham's whole Seed, both natural and myftical, in one and the fame tenour. ' Hence fecondly, Look how the Pi omife was to bt underftood, as referring to either kinds or ipecies, of his Seed, fo it is to be underftood, as referring to the other j as it was to be under- ftood , as referring to his natural Seed , fo it it is to be underftood, a**referringto 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 fence or meaning, confident with the truth and faithfulnefs of God in his Promifcs, partly becaufe God by his after dealing with the Jews, declares that to be the fence and meaning of it , and partly becaufe the Prophets fo expound it as to be fulfilled in Gofpel times, b 4 Now The Preface Now this Promife being fo to be underftood, as referring to Abrahams natural Seed , it muft needs be fo underftood , as referring to hisi myftical Seed. Secondly, This fecond Propofition is further evident fromthe'Promifes and Prophefies of the old Teftament, relating to new Teftament times. Thirdly, From the exprefs letter of new Teftament , which affirms pofitively, that the Blefling , not this or that part of the Blcfling* but the Blefling (imply and abfolutelyis come upon believing Gentiles by Chrift. Fourthly, From feveral paffrges 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 all which things , I am ne- ceflitated to refer the Reader to the Difcourfe it ielf , where he will find them largely fpoken to. Thefe two former Proportions being efta- bliflhed, the third, as I judge, will be queft ioned but by few -, and it 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 isithe Sign or Token of the Covenant > whence its evident, that as the Covenant that Abra~ ibjm'sSeed, in their Generations, then were, or after mould be received into, had, and was to have a Sign or Token annexed to the ad- ministration of it i fo that it al waves was, and is the duty of Parents in Covenant , as to re- ceive and bear that Sign or Token themfelves, | fo to take care that their Infant feed, as joynt j Heirs with themfelves of the fame Promiies, i mould receive and bear it > and confequently \ that believing Gentiles, they being the myfticaj Seed of Abrabsm, are mil 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 alfo baptized > and as the Promife and Command are of an equal extent, lo interelt in this Promife declares the perfon fo interelted 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 vifl- ble , by Baptifm j the Promife is made unto Chrift, and only to him, either perfonally or myftically confidered 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- lldered, by Baptifm, that being the only means appointed by Chrift > for the implantation of any The Preface. any into his myftical Body : And further, wei-j rind the Apoftle grounds his Exhortation toij Uaptifm, upon intereft, cither in this or fomei other equivalent Promife, which he would never have done , had not intereft in that Pro- mife been a fuffident ground for the application or reception of Baptifm , but I mud come to a clofe. And thus Reader , though there are fome other things I would willingly have fpoken to, yet I (hall only acquaint thee with two things, and requeft 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 thou wilt rind in .the infuing Treatife, either not at all,or very little touched upon, the reafon is , not that I judged them impertinent or infufficient for the proof of that praflicei I judge they are full and pertinent, and fome of them, efpecially that i Cor. 7; 14. 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 atifwered , upon fuch Scriptures as have been more briefly touched upon The Preface. upon by them •, and would defire the Reader, as he hath opportunity, to take what they have faid from thofe Scripture , for his more full confirmation ( fuppofing any doubts may yet remain in his mind) in the Truth that I, in common with them , have pleaded for. Secondly, Another thing C Reader ) that I would acquaint thee with is this , That whereas 'tis poflible thou mayeft have met with Tome Objections which are not here taken notice ofi the reafon is, becaufe I judged, them no way able to counter-balhnce ( in the judgments of an$ of a competent underhand- ingj the evidence produced , in confirmation of what I have 3fTcrted , or elfe becaufe they wholly concern others and not my felf, in the way I have proceeded in, That which I would and to be well eitabliflied in thefe two, will much facilitate thy imbracement of the latf, the Preface. laft, wherein the main Truth contended for is contained. Secondly, Lee me requeft a favourable con- I ftru&ion of what weaknefs appears in the management of the whole Debate > thou wilt foon rind , 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 inierruptions in the fence > I am unwilling to trouble thee with an account how it is come thus to pafs , let me only fay , it comes to thee, not only through the hands of a Printer and Corrector , but of more than one Tranfcribers : I have only to requeft on my own behalf, 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 > on their behalf I fhall requeft, that thou wilt not lay the blame up- on any one of them, they have all their re- fpe&ive {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 7 he Freface. me into all truth , and through the true knowledge and practice thereof, unto that Aflembly of the Firft- born , among whom no conteft, of what kind foever, have any place. Jan. 20. Thine, in the Service 1670. of the Gofpel, fofeph Whifton. Reader, Reader, leafl; thou fihouldeft either noi underftand , or rrrifunderftand the Author fence in thefe paflages,wherein thefe Efcape have flipt the Prefs (* which are fomewhai more than is ufual in Co fmall a Treatife as this is ) thou art defired before thou readefl to correct them with thy Pen. In the Preface, page 7. line li. read incurring. P Age inline i.blot out, in alter ages; p. 18.I. 24for that r. thefeBre:p.io.l.i3.put a full (lop after family ;p.42.1. 1 ?.r. indefinite .* p.44.1.2o.bcfore the add all : 9.47.1. i.f. never r.now: p. 49.f.n.r.fr»m: p.52.l.io.f party r.parts : p.$$ l.io.f.the r.no : p.$7.1.z9. blot out vcrfe 12,. p 581 i8.r,| inconfiQent : p. 76.1,31. f.ai rc i$ : p. 78.1.x 4. f.wer. he* :| p. 84.I.7. blot ©ut that ; 1. 1 4. r.gcneral : p. 87. l.i. f.I r it ; I PP3.1 lo.r.hif : p.$4«s&: 108.I.IG f, father r.faith : I.20.I C.that ; p.ii2.1.i.blotouthirafe!f;p.ii3.1.i4:r therhoufesJ p.i23.1.28,blotoutone: p. 1 _*r. 1 24.r. concerns ; p. 142.J blot out part of the fecond and third line t p. 147.1 12.W0C out to fay that; p. 1 49.1 1 9. blot out all; p. i$2.1.2?.r care- Fully; p.i-p.l.rx r. political : p. i84.1.9,f,wasr.as: p.ip7| l.^i.f.butr. that; p.z02,.l.ult.r. their : p.ii2.1.i7.r not:p.| zi6,1.28.r.offert: p,242.Li7r.whtn,fop 145.1.24 p.2 45 I.11. {.generally r.Gentiles; p, 2-ip.l.p. f.srrand ; p-z^g, I I. 28. r. contradiflinclion . p. 272. before only add not l] p.i73.f,therer.thefe ; p. 300' 1. 2.6. r. deduced. There are,its true,foaie other miftakes of a lefs moment J which the Reader will eaflly perceive and reclifie as he j goes along, or if he difcern them not he is in no danger to I be prejudiced by thew; as fometimesthe plural number put for the lingular, fometimes the fingular for the plural. The ReadeismuA aifo take notice of a miftake in the Fo. lio's,the Folio's from i5<£.to 177. being wanting,where yet nothing is wanting in the Book of what was intended. Infant- en Infant-Baptifm from Heaven, andnotof Men. v < - CHAP, I. Tfo **** Proportion, di f cuffed iu the en* foing Treatifejaiddewn } in order to the confirmation of which, three fob or din ate Proportions propofed. The grand Pronsife pf the Covenant^ wherein Godpromifed to be d God to Abraham and his Seed in . their Generations largely explained. Tb4 foil mind and weaning of God in that vromife held forth in five Conclusions ° The fence in which the firfi fob ordinate Proportion is to be underflood>decUred. Propofition. Hat it is the ttiU of our Lord Jeftf Cbriji, thatthelnfant-feedofoMof both believing Parents fijuld be baptU zed. For the more full evidencing the truth afferf- cd in this grand Propofition > I (hall lay down • an4 CO and fpeak to three fubcnrdinate 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 thtro,asthefalvationof any particular Believer can be inferred and concluded from that univcr- fal Fropopotition f viz, ) tie thai believes JhiU be faved. Thefe fubordinate Propofitions are , Firft, That tvhinGod^ at his firft entring Cove uanttpitb Abraham, promifedto be aGodto him and te bis Seed, be intended bis natural Seed, as the firft. and next Sub'ytts of that Promife. Secondly, 7hdt this Promife in the fence after tobedeclar'd, is by God bimfelf fettled upon dttdcmfirmedti believing Gentiles. Thirdly, 7 bat all tbofe that ate under , or art the actual Subjetls of that Promife, ought, according to the will of CbrijU t° be b+p* tized. To begin with the firft: Viz. i. That when Gad at his fifft entering Co- venant with Abraham, promifed to be a God tc him and to his Seed, he intended his natural See< as the firft and next Subjects of that promife Abraham's naturalSeed were intended as the im mediate Sibjefts of that Promife,as made to hin with tefvf encc te his Seed ; The Promife I hav< xefcrenc C3) reference unto,is that in Cm. 17.7. where note, that I do not fay that they are the only, nor yet the principal Subjects of that proroife, but the immediate and firft fubje&s , the promife in the letter of it did immediately and primarily rc- fped them. Now that the fence and meaning of this Pro* pofition may more fully appear, and all miftakes about it be obviated and prevented , I Shall en- quire into three things with reference to that Promife. Firft, Who are intended in that rerrh 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 confidered as receiving that promife, or having that promife made to him by God. Thirdly, What is the true intent of that pro- mile , in regard of the extent, and latitude on the one hand, and the limitations on the other. For the firft, We may obfcrve that th* Scii- ture fpeaks of a twofold feed of Abraham. 1. There is his natural Seed. 2. There is his fpiritual or rnyftical Seed, I (hall fpeak to this term Seed, in the lat* ter notion of it , in the firft place , namely* as it intends or ilgnifieth. Abrahams fpiri* tual or my (heal feed, and thus by Cetd we are to undeiftand Chrift rnyftical, or whole Chrift, as I! may fo fpeak, including both £ \ Chiift (4) Chrift himfclf as Head, and the whole univerfal Church, confiftingboth of Jews and Gentiles, as the Body : Thus this term Seed is taken, Gal.%. 1 6. When God made promife to Abrabam.he faith not^to tbyfeedsy M of many, but to thy feed, which is Cbrijl j id eft, Chrift myftical ; and thus the Gentile-Profelites under the rirft Teftament,Ser- vants bought with money ,or born in the houfe, were accounted for Abraham's feed i all thofe that were admitted into fellowship wirh the people of God in the Covenant , and benefits, bleffings and priviledges of it , how or by what means ioever they came to have their admiffion, were accounted for Abrahams feed, and had the actual enjoyment of the good of that Covenant C J mean fo many as did adhialiy enjoy it ) as Abraham's feed , by vcrtue of this Promife , / fpitf 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 : all that inherit the good prpmiied, inheriting of it, under that notion, as his feed , by vertue of that foremeritioned Pro- mife ; and thus the natural feed of Abraham, in another ienfe were his myftical feed j thd whole myftical body of Chrift made up,, as I hive faid,both of Jews and Gentiles, is the feed here intended : And this fpiritual or myftical feed of 4&rakam falls under a twofold confide* jratiop. i. As vifible and denominative. a. As invifible and real. ■ (5; The Apoftle gives us this diftribution of A* brabams feed, Rom. 9. 6. AM are not Ifrathhat are of lfrael,&c. that is, all that are of the my- ftica* body of Chrift as vifible, are not really and truly of his body myftical as invifible i the vifible body of Chrift is of a larger extent than his invifible j 'tis all one as if the Apoftle had laid, fome are vitible , 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- (ks ; of which place more hereafter. Hence this term feed is to be understood fometimes of his feed as vifible and denominative, fometimc of his feed as invifible and real ." in the former fence we are to underftand it in the place foremenri- oned, Galat. 3.16. By Chrift wc arc to under- ftand the myftical body of Chrift as vifible, as is evident, becaufe 'tis by Baptifm that thcfevcral 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 vifi- ble 9 in the latter fence we are to underftand if, Rom. 9. 8. Seed here we are to underftand of the ele&, and the meaning is, that all they that are the children of the flefh are not elected, and m that refpecl: not the Children of God, nor ac- counted for the feed. Some that are the children of the flefh are the children of God, and are accounted for the feed, but all that arc the children of the flefh are not the children of God,nor accounted for the feed ; B 3 that (6) that is in this flridl notion and confederation of this term feed , as it fignirieth the true internal andinvifible feed of Abraham. Children of God and Seed here are , termini convertibles yoox\vcxUb\c terms : now as perfons are 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 Jly being fuchi ( faith Chrift , 'Tk not mitt to tak$ the childrens bread and give it to dogs ) it's meant of the things of the Gofpcl , primarily appertaining to the Jews , as yet the Covenant- people of God : NowChrift calls them, indefi- nitely corriidcred, children, that is children of God ; when as it appears by their (o general af- ter-rejection , 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 Ceed. Others are 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- stood j 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 fpi- ritual and myftical feed, for in that fence this term-Seed is here to be taken. Secondly, There is Abraham's natural Seed * pnly for preventing miftakes. Note, That though I di&icgutfh between Abrahams fpiritual (7) fpiritual and natural Seed, yet the difference be* tween them is only refpe&ive > the fame per- fons might be,and in refpcdl: of many were both his natural,and alfo his fpiritual Seed > of which more after: This being noted, I fay, there is Abraham's natural Seed j and this phrafe , Abraham* natural Seed, may be taken two wa,yts. i . As fignifying his Children defcending im- mediately from his own loins i as it is faidof Ijhmad he was Abraham's feed, Gin. 2113. He is thy feed, faith God to Abraham, fpeakmg of lfhmatl ; and the like may be faid of all his other children, they were his natural feed. 2. This phrafe may be taken as flgnifying his whole race or pofterity , or all thole that did mediately dtfeend from him in after ages : thus Gen. 15. 18. Vnto thy feed , faith God , have I given this lands it is meant of his race or pofte. rity, or his feed mediately defcending from him. Secondly, Under what notion, or in what ca- pacity Abraham is to be considered, as receiving this promife from God. I anfwer , That Abraham, is to be coafidered both as a natural and alfo 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, 4.11,12913. and fomtf have thought that he was eyed and looked upoit only under that notion and in that capacity \ but £ 4 that (8) fhat he was not only looked upon as the father of the faithful, but as a natural father, is evident by this Argument. iff Abrahams natural feed were intended as the immediate and next fubje&s of this promife, and that asfuch, then Abraham as receiving this promife , or having this promife made to him with reference unto them , mult needs be eyed and looked upon as a natural father > but the former is true, therefore the latter » the confer quence in the major proportion , cannot be de- nied ; for if God intended Abrahams natural feed as fuch, that is, as his natural feed, then h£ mull needs eye Abraham as a natural lather , as raring this promife to him : Now that he did intend Abraham's natural feed, will, J doubt not, be fuflciently evident by the proof of this fir ft proposition ; 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 bo looked upon as his fpiritual feed , for fuch they were not, whether we refped election or actual faith, fake it of ljhmael , he was neither elected , nor had adtual faith , as for what fome think con- cerning his future repentance 'tis wholly ground lc(s , we having no intimation of it throughout the whole Scripture i but the con- trary is intimated:, or rather plainly implied in that Ram. 9. Now if he ( and 'tis like the fame was the ca(e of fome at leaft of Abraham's Sons fey Returab) could not be looked upon as Abra- ham's fpiritual feed, he muft needs belooked up- or; (9) on, under that very notion and confideration, as his natural feed, and as fuch was intended as one fubjedt of that promife: And whereas fome 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 waseyed 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 kail in* timated by the Apoftle in that place : But not to ftay on this, it is fufficiently evident, that as 4brahatn iuftained that two-fold relation , viz. of a natural and ot a fpiritual father , Co 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 lanfwer this Queftion, let me only prcmife , that the true [determination of this Queftion conduceth not a little ( if I miftake not) to the clearing tip and determining the truth pleaded for,as the not right underftanding the true intent of this promife in the regards mentioned , hath been one considerable caufe of fo many reje&ing the truth we plead for , and their too ready imbracing of the opinion we op- pofe : Therefore I defire, that what I have to fay in anfwer to the Queftion, may be diligently attended to, t Firft (IOJ) 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- niife, the whole feed of Abraham, whether natu- ral or myiHcal,are comprehended : hence though 1 fay his natural feed, as afore cxprdTcd , were ftrfrly and immediately intended as the rirft and next fubjedts of this promife , yet not exclu- ding any other, who according to Scripture ac- count were to be reckoned unto Abraham as his feed : As we are not to interpret this term Seed of Chrift perfonally, fo as to exclude his myiii- calbody > nor ot his myfticxl body , inyihbly *nd internally conlidered , fo as to exclude any that are of his myftical body, as externally and vifibly confidered '•> nor of his myttical body, whether vifible or invidble, to the excluding of his natural feed, whether icnmediateor mediate : So on the other hand, we mult not limit it to his immediate feed, to the excluding of his mediate, nor to either, fo as o exclude his myiiical (kcd% but we are to und ~d it in its full latitude and extent, as comprehending and including his whole feed. That Abrahams natural feed, as immediately proceeding (torn his own loins , were intended, will appear by thz proof of this firft propofition* and is the only thing there to be proved Y that his whok race and pofterity as mediately de- fending torn hirri, were intended thall be granted. That That Abrahams fpiritual or myilical feed were intended is fuificiently evident, as from the knomination they bear of Abrahams feed * io ?y their inheriting ail the good of the Covenant >f Grace, as Abraham's feed, by vertuc of this /ery promife, as will more fully appear by the )ioof of the fecond proposition > fo that, I fay, :his term Seed is to be underftood in fuch an ex- rent and latitude, as to take in and comprehend Abraham's whole feed s but this I fay , that his natural feed were rkftly and immediately in* iended,as the firlt and next fubjedfo of that pro- mife. 2. Which Idefirewith the like care may be ittended to : This promife, as made to Abr*- hams whole feed, was made to them in their re- pe&ive generations, under which phrafe, their generations , we muft underftand Parents , and :heir Children immediately defcending from, their own loins : fo that the promife runs to Abrahams feed in their generations, that is, to ill his feed, and to their refpedtive natural feed n conjunction with themfelves. Secondly, We may confider the intent of this I Dromifc, in regard of the limitations of it? and thus this promife had a two fold lirniU- ! iion. i. It had a limitation in regard of the per- bns actually interefted in it. 2. In regard of the continuance of that their ntereft in, and their actual poffeffion and injoy- ,# rnent ment 6f the good of the promife they were be- fore in terefted in. I. Then I fay , this promife was given to .Abraham under a limitation , in regard of tke perfons a&ually intereflcd in it i and thus it was* limited to Abraham's feed in their refpe&ivc ; 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 ditiribu- tively taken, that is, as they were feverally and each in particular intended in it, fo it did reach to and take in only Abraham's feed in their re- fpedive generations, they and their immediate children. It's true, as it was an indefinite promife made to Abrahams natural feed, collectively or gene-J; rally taken, fo it had refped vnto his whole race and poftenty, whether mediately or immediate-: ly defcending from him ; but I (ay, take it as a definite promife rmde to Abraham's feed , di- ftributively or particularly taken : fo it was made only to each of them refpe&tvely in their generations * that is, to them and their imme- diate children. To explain my meaning , take for inftancc any parent that was related to A- hrahtm as one of his feed » let ifaac be the inftancc: Ifaac was one of Ahrahams feed, and as fo related to Abraham was under thi< promife, That God would bea God to him in hid generations : Now as in this phrafe, his genera- tions, Ifaac , and his children immediately d< fcendini (13) k cending from him Sw&WRtgefr, were perfonally J. ncluded, or particularly intended in it, it was to i Ifaac , as Abraham's feed, in his generations, to him and to his immediate children ; As this i promife is to be underftood in the extent men- tioned, as including parents and children > foit ! is not to be inlarged beyond what was the I true intendment of God in it. Now though •'■ God made it to each of Abraham's feed , whe- ther immediately defcending from his own I loins,or otherwife Handing related to him, as his i feed intheir generations, yet his intendment was not, that all that mould fuccefllvely, in follow- : ing ages,defcend from them refpe&ively, (hould be included as joynt fubjefts with them of this : promiic, fo as to claim, by vertue of their rela- tion unto them, a joynt right and title to the I ptomife with them* his intendment only was, ■ that his {eed in their generations, that is, pa- i rents, and immediate children , (hould be ac- . counted as joynt fubjeds of this promife * and i in this regard this promife was oaeand the Fame, i or ran in one and the fame tenour to Abraham^ . and to his feed,only allowing to Abraham (bme- t thing cfpreheminence ( hereafter to be explain- . td ) above any of his feed i but otherwife the i promife, for ti?e fubihnce of if, was one and the Came,or ran in one and the fame tenour to both \ i for the promife was* to Abraham and his feed > which promife, as a definite promife made to > him, with reference to his natural feed, diftri- f butively taken, extended no further than to his j natural feed , immediately defcending from his owrt (H) own loins > and was not to his whole race ancf pofterity, no not by Ifaac and Jacob, as man f feem to have very much miftaken, to the no lit* tie 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 lfaac and Jacob, but Ifhmael 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 , eved Jdcobh\m(c\{ had not an actual 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 ( otitot Abra- ham's feed ) in his generations *, and in the very fame tenour the promife runs to Abraham* feed , That as God was a God to Abraham and his natural ked, to he would be a God to them and their natural feed, that is, to them in their I generations : But that's the ti r it limitation ol this promife made to Ahr ah am awith 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 aftual poiTcflior I and injoymentof the good promifed , that thej had afore an intereft in > and thus it was limit, j ted both to the feed and their refpedive genf- ritions, as they (hould become, and continue tc j be Abraham's myftical or fpiritual feed, through I their perlonal entring into , and walking in the jftepsof theftuh and obedience of their fathei Abrabsm. * \ ~ . . Tata («5 Take Ifaac, he was one of Abraham's na- tural feed, and as fuch was intended in this pro- mife, That God would be a God to him in his generations \ that is,as before exprelTcd,to him, and to his immediate children j but now the continuance of his intereft in, and a&ual enjoy- ment of the good of the promiie , as grown up to years of maturity, did depend upon, and nc- ccforily require his perfonal acceptation and performance of the conditions or the Cove* nant , into which he had, as one of Abraham's natural feed, admiflion in his infancy i hence his childrens actual intcrcft in , and right unto the 1 promifc ( which was in part the good of the promifc , as made to him j depended upon his myfticat relation to Abraham , and not mcerly upon his natural relation to Abraham. For if fo be he had not accepted of, and per- formed the conditions of the Covenanr , his children had wholly loft that their right to and ; tnrereft in the promifc, which was granted unto ' them with himfclf , as included in his generati* ons. And hence it will undeniably follow, that all 1 Abraham's natural race and poiierity by ifaav 1 and y*c^,held their intereit in, and right to the 1 promi(e, and enjoyed the good promiled, either \ is A&ra taw's my iticaWeed, or as included in the '' generations of thofe that were his myftical feed, to for their bare natural relation to Abraham was j not enough to preferve their own intereft , nor k convey a right to and interea in the promife to » their children. A„a And from all it will follow » which I deGre may be diligently obferved , that the cafe of believing Gentiles, fuppofing the promife 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, isone and the fame, in re- gard of their own and their childrens right to, and intereft in the promife : the natural pofte- rity of Abrabamyoi the Jews, when once grown up , held their interett in , and right to the promife, not barely as his natural poitcrity, but as accepting of, and performing the conditions of the Covenant, fo far,as not abiolutely to dif- anul that their intereft in it , and consequently as Abrahams myftical feed,and as fuch they con* veyed a right to, and intereft in the fame Cove- nant and Promife, themfclucs 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,convey an intereft in, and right to the fame Covenant and Promife, they themfeWesare under, to their children,by vertue of this promiic as made unto Abraham^ with reference to his iced in their ge- nerations. The truth of what is now afferted concerning the extent and limitations of this promife, will * Ci7j I doubt notfufficiently appear when I come to the proof of the fecond Propofition. The Cam of what hath been hitherto fa id, take in brief in thele five Conclufions. r irit, That when God entred Covenant with Abraham, and promifed to be a God to him and his feed in their gencrations,he intended,accord- ing to the full latitude and extent of that pro* rnife, his whole feed, whether Jews or Gentiles, grown perfons,orinfants,all thofe who, accord-* ing to the Scriprure account , fhould bear the denomination of Abrahams fez&> 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 exprefled, yet God in it had a peculiar and fpecial regard to his natural (ccd% whether immediately or mediately defcending from him. Thirdly, 'That the natural Cetd^ race or po-» fterity of Abraham injoyed an intereft in, aid right to this promtfe, and together therewith a Covenant-ftate and relation God-ward fuccef- lively, for fo long time > not barely as his natu- ral feed , but as his. myitical feed j that is,: through parents fo far performing the conditi- ons of the Covenant, as to prefcrve their own Covenant ftate and relation themielves, con- veying to their children the fame interefi in, and right to the Covenant and Promifes thereof that themfelves had, C Fourthly, f 18) Fourthly, That in and among the feed of Abraham , as confidered thcfe various wayes aforementioned, there is a certain number afore chofen and ele&ed of God, to whom, in a pe- culiar and fpccial manner, this term Seed is ap- plicable, and that in regard of their eternal de- fignment to enjoy the good promifed *' the whole number of thofe , whom vifibly and de» nominatively 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 vifiblc denomination, were tebe accounted for his (eed% but there is a certain number chofen of God from eternity, a&ually to inherit the good pro- tniied, who in time are iavingly Wrought upon, and thefe, in a fpecial and peculiar manner, are in the efteem of 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 fubjedsof it , and that the natural feed of Abraham intended in this firit Proposition. And that is the thing that I (hall now apply fny felf to the proof of. CHAP. oo CHAP. ii. The truth of the fir ft Proportion, as Mot* ex flawed, evidenced two wayes. 1 . Adore generally, byfuch Arguments as will evince, that all Abraham*/ im- mediate natural feed, one as well as an** ther, were intended as the immediate and next JubjeBs of this Promife. 2. More particularly,^ inftancingim fuch of his natural feed , as upon a fup- pc fit ton, of wbofe being intended in the tromije, it will neceffarily follow, that all his natural feed were m like manner intended, and proving that they were indeed intended by God in that ?#*- mife. THat when God,at his 6rft entring Covenant with Abraham, promifed to be a God to him and his feed, intended his natural feed, as I immediately defcending from his own loins, as the immediate and next fubjedte of that pro- mifejmay be evinced two way ess i. More generally. 2. More particularly. C 2 i More (20) I. More generally: And thus I (hall only ' oflfera two-fold Argument. The firft (hall be taken from the Promife it felf, as taken according to the literal and molt proper fence and fignirication of thofe words it is expreft in, and it is this : : What God Ypeaks unto men ought to be in- terpreted and underftood according to the li- teral and moil proper fenfe and figmncation of thofe words he exprefieth himlelf in , unlefs there be fome ncceffary Reafon enforcing a re- ceffion from that literal and mod proper fence and fignification of his words. But according to the liceral and moft proper fence and fignification 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- jecls of it, and there is no Reafon enforcing our receffionfrom that literal and moft proper fence and fignification of his words : Therefore we ought to interpret and underftand them, as in- tending his immediate natural feed , as the im- mediate and next fubje&s of that Promife1. When God faid to Abraham , He would be a God to him and to his feed in their generations, finely the literal and moft proper fence and fignification of the words, wherein the Promife iscxprefredtmu& needs lead him to apply it as to foimfelf t fo to his immediate natural feed , and Chat univerfally. < It»s C2I J It's true,God promifed to Abraham, Thaf he x»ould maty him the Father of many Nations i and doubtlefs Abraham did underftand the Pro- mife, as reaching and taking in all thofe he fhould fuftain the relation of a Father unto. Eut no Reafon could be drawn from the words of the Promife it felf , why either Abra- ham, or any other fince, fhould underftand it, as intending 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 beobje&- ed, fer-the invalidating this argument, is, That there is a neceflity of interpreting and under- ftanding this Promife,asnow made to Abraham, differently from what the literal and proper Signification of the words feems to import: Whether there beany fuch neceflity (hall be con- sidered 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 feal or token of that Covenant whereof the Promife, under confide- 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 consideration, 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 leal or token of that Covenant ( wherein the Promife , un- der confideration , was one fpecial Article on Gods part ) to all his immediate natural feed, to one as well as to the other , and that under that very notion and confideration , as the feal or token of the Covenant, then God in that Promife muft needs intend all his immediate na- tural feed, as the Subje&sof it : but the former is true,therefore the latter. The Atfumption fure cannot once be question- ed by any that have read oyer the Book of Gt- mfis : yet exabundanti. Let me touch upon the proof of it in the fe- deral branches or ciaufes of it ; It contains three Branches. 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 oifend any, let them keep only to the other word token » it's all one as to my prc- fent purpofe. That Circumcifion t was the feal or token of the Covenant, that God now entrcd into with Abraham and his feed , is pair all doubt y Yisexprcfly called, the Tok$*of the Co- venant, (jen. 17.11. Te jhaH circumcife the fore* skj-n of your flejh, audit Jhall be s tokjn of the Co* venant between me and you* A token of the Co- venant: Of what Covenant? Why, of that, no doubt, now eftabliflied with Abraham, and his his feed in their generations ; and that Abraham did apply this token of the Covenant to all his narural Cccd^ is evident, partly from Gods Com- mand , read that Gtn. 17. o, 10,11,12,13. partly fiom Abraham's practice ,♦ mention is ex- prdly made of his circumciling of Ijhmad and Ifasc, vcrfe 23. with Gen 21.4. But fome will fay , There's is no mention of his circumcifinghis Sons by Kcturab. To that I anfwer, No more is there mention made of j^c^'sciicumcifion, nor of his twelve Sonscircumciiion, and yet (hall it be queftioned, whether they were circumcifed or no? The command of God engaging it, and the teftimony that God gives of Abrahams faithfulnefs , and his circumcifmg all his male fervants , is fuper- abundant evidence that he did circumcife them, though their circumcifion be not mentioned : So that it's undeniable, that Abraham did apply the feal 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 feed , under that very notion and confide ration 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 conlidera- tion kbrabam did apply it : That hbrabam did apply it under that notion as the feal or token of the Covenant, as he was commanded, is unque- llionable, from the forementioned teiiimony that God gave of him. C4 Now <>4) Now that God did command nt to be applyed under ttat notion and confideration, is evident, becaufe in the Command, concerning the appli- cation of it, he calls it the Covenant , My Cove- nant jhaUbeinyour flejh: that is, the token of my Covenant, and that as the token of it. 3. That what kbraham did was according to the will and appointment of God , this is paft doubt by what is already faid i kbraham aded in circumciiing his Children according to the exprefs command he had received from God * fo that the AiTumption is in every branch and claufe of it undeniable. Secondly* For the Confcquence in the Major Propofition, viz. That in as much iskbrabam did apply the feal ofctoken of the Covenant, as now exprefledj itmuft needs follow, that Giod in this Promife did intend his immediate natural feed, asthehrft fubje&sof it: The validity of this Confequence, if any (hall queftion it , will appear thefe three waves. Firft, From the famenefs of the word ufed in the Promife and in the Command , concerning the application of the feal : The Promife is, 1o thee and to thy Seed\ the Command is, Ihou Jhalt therefore fyep my Covenant , thou and thy Seed. Now who can once imagine , that this term Seed thould be ufed reitri#ivcly in the Promife, as intending only one or more of Abrahams Children : exclufivc of the reft 9 and univer- sally (25) rally in the Command, as intending all his Chil- dren. That it is to be underftood univcrfally in the Command,is paft all doubt i God explains him- ftlf in the very next words , Every Man child amongjl yon JhaU be circumcijed. Now thofe that fhould 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 hhrahstm hadjto take it in an unlimited fence in the Com- mand > 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 fome, unto whom it fig* nified and betokened nothing at all ; it mould be applyed , and that as the feal or token of the Covenant, to fome wholly unintereiTed 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 ot the Covenant, and that under that notion and con- federation , as the token of it , to be applyed to perfons neither externally nor internally in- tereifed or concerned in the Covenant, of which it was the token, let but any foberperfon exer- cife his reafon , and fee whether there be fo much as the remote ft probability of it.j It's (*0 It's true y God might have commanded the fame thing to have been a&ed upon perfons, un- der another notion or confederation , for fome fpecial end appointed byhimfelfi but that he fhould appoint the fame action , with reference unto all,and that to be performed under one and the fame notion and conlidcration, and yetrXbat fome of thefe fhould be in Covenant, and others not at all concerned in it , is a thing not to be fiippofed by any man , that hath the free ufe of his own reafon. Thirdly, It appears, becaufe in cafe thefeal or token of the Covenant had been applyed to any in the fence afore expreiTed, no way interef- ied or concerned in the Covenant , nor the Pro- roife thereof, then God had fpoken that which had been abfolutely 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 Fromife , that were intended in the Command , concerning the application of the feal, doth neceflarily rr.f.r it. Foj pray ob- fcrveit : Saith the Lord of Giroumcifior,^ (hall be the tokgn of the Covenant between me and yon% (ten. 17. 11. Now had any of thefe male- children y whofe circumciilon 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 coiifequently it had been falfe to fay , it (hould be a token of the Covenant between him and them : for according to the opinions in this hrit C «7) ftrfl Propofition oppofcd, 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 amongft rhemlhould be circumcifed , and then to fay of Circumcifion, asfoapplyed, that it mould be a token ©f the Covenant between him and them, whereas there was fome of thofe Male- children wholly unintereffed 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 poflibly 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 JhaUhe a tokgn of the Covenant be- ttvten me and them : So that to grant, that Abra- ham , according to the will and appointment of God did apply the leal 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 Promifcs thereof, is to afcribe falfhood unto God, or to charge him with fpeaking what was abfolutely falfe. And therefore undoubtedly Abrahams whole natural Seed were intended in the Promife , as the immediate and next fubjeds of it. Secondly, ^2* ; Secondly, Let us inftance in fuch of Abra* hams immediate Children , as upon fuppolition of their being intended in the Promife , undei confederation, it will undoubtedly follow, that all his immediate Children were in ir ; and thus I (hall initance in thefe two of his Children, that the Scripture makes mpre frequene mention of, »ia. IJhmael and Ifaac : and I (hall begin with the latter firft. Firft,That IJaac was intended in this Promife, asone of the Subjects of it, is fully evident from that onepaflageofGod to Abraham, Gen, 21.1 2. cited and enpounded by the Apoftle , Rom. 9, 7, 8. In Ifaac (hall thy feed be called. We read in the tenth verfe, Sarahs requeft to Abraham, to call out Hagar and her Son IJhmael : Now this was grievous to Abraham. God had pro- nufedto be a God to him and to his feed : Ifh* mael is one of his Seed > hence to caft him out, and thereby difinherit him of the bleffing pro- mi fed , was very grievous to Abraham. Now G»d to allay Abraham's grief tells him, Though he (hould anfwer Sarahs requeft , yet in Ifaac Jhould hit Seed be called i that is, in Ifaac and his line the Promife fliould have its accomplim- tnent. Though IJhmael was caft out, and there- by difinherited of the good promifed , yet the Promife fhould ftand firm , and receive its full accomplifhment in Ifaac and his line , which could not have been , had he not been intended in the Promife : had not Ifaac been intended * not exdufive of others, butinclufiveofhimfeif, the the Promife c6uld not have received its accom- plifhment in him, but had failed in the ejection oUjhmael : and hence the Apoftle tells us, That Abraham fojourned in Canaan, as a Stranger in a ftrange Land, with Ifaac and Jacobt heirs with him of the fame Promife : Of what Promife ? 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 ever- lafting pofleflion : both thefe Promifes are joyn- ed together as one Promife, Gen. 17.6. Now of this Promife Ifaac was an heir with Abraham^ and therefore mull needs be included in it as one of the Subjects of it. Secondly^ That Ifhmad was intended as part of Abraham's Seed in this Promife,is evident by this one Confederation. Not to multiply, where truth is fufficiently* evident, viz. His ejection out of Abraham's Family , and his being disherited 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 Promife thereof, while in his Family he had Servants in his houie,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 hrs ejection out of Abraham's Family, hewasdif* inherited of, or difintereffed i* the Promife, of was divefted.of his right and title to it, dotfi undeniably evidence his right and title to it antece- (3o) antecedent tQ that his ejection* for he could not be diverted or difinherited of that he never had,or was never an heir unto. Now that Ijhmael , with and by meansof his rejection out of Abraham's Family, was divert- ed of a right and title he afore had to the Co- ; vcnant,and to the promifes thereof,is evident by cbelc two Reafons. Fiift,Becaufe his eje&ion was typical of their ejection out of the Gofpel Church,and rejection horn the benefits and blefliags of the Covenant of Grace,whc under a Profclfion of Chriftianity, or of being the Covenant- people of God , do adhere to the Law for Righteoufnefs and Life. That Jjhmael's catting out of Abraham's Family was thus typical • is exprefly atfirmed by the Apoftle, Gj/, 4. 3 ©.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 beforementioncd , in as much as then there had been no direct Analogy or pro- portion between the type and antitype. How his meer catting out of Abraham's Family mould reprefent, orforefhew, and predict thccje&ion of the perfons forementioned out of the Gofpei Church, and diveftment of all title to the bene- fits and bleffings of the Covenant of Grace can- not be imagined » for as much as others might he caft out of Abraham's Family, wfcofe ejection wa« not of any fiich typical fignifieation. Secondly, (JI ) Secondly, That Ifbmatl, together with and by means of his eje&ion out of Abraham's b*<> mily, was divtfkd of a right and title, which, while in his houfe , he had to the Covenant and promifes thereof, is evident, becaufc £*r^, ia her requtil to Abraham to caft him out , propo- fed that as her end, viz. That he might not in- herit with Ijaac her Son > Gtn. 21.10. CajisMt t hit bond woman and her Jon, for the fon vf tbt bond woman /hall not Ubiir with my fon , tytn tvitbljaac: And that it was the good promifcd in this Covenant, that (he dciires his dishe- riting of, is evident by Abrahams griefs i had it been only the temporal pofltflions ef Abra- ham, his not inheriting of which (he propofeth as her end , in defiling his eje&ion , there had been no reafon of Abraham's grief, in as much as he was under the promife of outward blef- fings, notwithftandingthat hisejt&ien: Now there had beennoreaion (ox Sarah , topropofc that end in her requcir , to have himcaitouf, unlcfj he had, and would continue to have had, during his abode in the houfe , a like vjfiblc right and title to the Promife that lfaac had, ftc might have de fired his eje&ion for fame othetreafon, but for that, that he might not inherit with lfaac , fhe could not rationally do9 it would have been an impertinent rcafon , foi hmo have ddired his eje#ion , that he mkhc not inherit with her own Son , in cafe he had no right nor title to the promifed Inheritance, whiltf in the houfe. For a woman to defire her Husband to caft out (30 out a Servant out of the family for that reafon, 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 propeunding that end of her requeft , plainly implyes , that JJhmael, during his abode in Abrahams Family, hadatleafUyiliblerightand title to the inhe- ritance promifed, which would be difanulled by that his ejection : Hence it is evident, J/hmaely as wellasl/^c, was intended in that Promife, and that both were joynt Heirs to, or Subjects of that Promife,as externally made to Abraham, with reference to his Seed. Now then feeing thefe two, viz. Ijhmael and lfaac, were intended , there can be no reafon imagined , why we mould fuppofe Abraham's other Children to be excluded j for they were either elected or not elected h if they were, their cafe was the fame with Ifaacs, if not, their cafe wasthefame with IJhmad's if'and therefore both Jfhmael and Jfaac being intended, there is no (hew of reafon to fuppofe the other excluded; but we may partly from the parity of their ca- res,with the cafe of the one or the other of thefe two, and partly from the evidence of the fore- going Arguments , poiitively conclude, that all Abrahams natural Seed,according to the intend- ment of this firft propoiltion , were intended in this promife, as the firft and next fubje&sofit: but let that fuffice for the proof of the firti pro- position. " r . CHAP. (33) CHAP. III. Objections againft tht firfi fuhordinate proportion confidereU and anfwer- THus having (een fbmewhat ffor much more might be produced,) of that evidence the Scriptures give in, for the confirmation of this rirft Proportion , I (hall now confider the Obje&ions 1 have yet met with, or can poffibly imagine may be made, that have any appearance of weight in them, againft the truth hitherto afc ferted and pleaded for : That which I plead for is this, That God in that grand Promife ot 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 andnextSabje&sof it. Now at leaft fome (I fuppofe not all)ofthofe, whofe judgment and pra&ice 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 to be extended to all indefinitely. Butyef, i C34) fbppofe, they are not agreed among themfelves, which to aflign as the proper Subjects of this Piomife j fome have denied Ifaac to be the feed or part of the feed here intended > others, and I fuppofe the major part of our oppofers , deny that IJhmael was intended , or ought to be ac- counted as part of the feed here fpoken of: As for thofc that judge Ifaac was not intended in this Promife, the only ground they go upon, for ought I have yet met with , is this Suppofition, viz. That God made a twofold Covenant with Abraham and his Seed , the one a legal ortem- poral Covenant , confiding only in temporal promifes, and requiring only an external obedi- ence s the other a Covenant of Gr.ice , conhnS ing of fpiritual promifes,and requiring internal and fpiritual obedience j and they conceive , that this Covenant enfred with Abraham and his Seed, mentioned Gen, 17.7. was only a, legU or temporal Covenant* and that the Co- venant of Grace is that formerly fpoken of, Gin* 12. 3. and again re-eftablifhed with Ifaac at the nineteenth verfe of this feventeenth Chap- ter: And then the Objection that the perfons of this perfwadon raife againft our Proportion in the fenfe given, is to this purpofe : That this term Seed is not to be underftood in that exten* five fenfe given of it, in as much as this Cove- nant, mentioned in this feventh verfe, was only a temporal or legal Covenant eftabli&ed with Abraham , as a natural Father , and his fleftvly feed,andnot the Covenant of Grace, eftablifhed with him, as a fpiritual Father, and with his fpiritual C35) fpiritual feed j mow Ifaac being a Child of prcf* mife,and confequently robe accounted of Abra~ bams fpiritual feed , could not be intended in that promife,which alone intended his fleflily or natural feed. Anfo. I anfwer, That lfaac in particular was intended in this -Promife, and that as a principal Subject of it , a$ it refpe&ed 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 , woulclfo 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 (hall therefore only in a direct oppoiuion to that Suppoiition, this Objection is grounded upon, affirm, that there was but one Covenant eftablimed between God and Abra- ham, 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 coniideration, cxprciTed in other terms. And that that Covenant men- tioned verfe 10. is the fame with this mention- ed ver. 7. Thet e are feveral branches of this ge- neral AfTertion : As, Firft, That there was but one Covenant made and ettablifhed between God ^nd Abrabam^ith reference to himfelf and his feed i I do not fay, D 2 that Cs*5 that there was but one Covenant made with the feed of Abraham^ understanding that term Seed of his RaceerPofterity in following ages , but I fay, there was but one eitablifhed with Aha. ham, wherein himfelfin common with his Seed, was concerned i now this appears from the con- stant phrafe of Scripture al waves, where fpeak- ing of rhe Covenant made with Abrahamfpeak- ing in the Angular number, the Covenant , and not in the plural, Covenants. Secondly , I (ay , this was a Covenant of Grace. , Thirdly , That it was the very fame Cove- nant for fubitance that Believers arc now un- der. Fourthly, That thatPromifc, Gmt 12.3. is one branch of the Covenant now ettablilhed with Abraham and his Seed, or rather the fame Promife with this mentioned, in our fuft Propo- rtion exprefTed in different terms *, thefe things I fhallfpeakto hereafter, and the truth of them will, 1 doubt not, fully appear by the proof of thefecond Proportion, and therefore 1 fiull fay nothing to them at prefent. Lafily, That the Covenant mentioned verfe 19. is the very fame mentioned verfe 7. this is 'iiifficiently evident to any that will but read the whole Chapter Jn the former part of the Chap- ter, we read how God promileth to cftablifti his Covenant <37) Covenant with Abraham and his Seed in their generations, for an everlaihng Covenant, that is, to endure while Abraham ihould have a Seed upon earth : Now at verfe 19. the Lord ihews jJbrabam, in which of his Seed, and his Line, or pofterity this /'romife mould take place, and have its accomplilhment , and that was Ifaac. Therefore abfcrve how the Text run9, And Cod jaid, Sarah jhall bear thee a Son, and I will ejia~ blifh my Covenant with him. Mark, here is no intimation of any other Covenant,diffcrent from that before mentioned \ he doth not fay, I will alfo make, or I will eftablifh a -Covenantor ano- ther Covenant, but I mil tftablijh my Covenant : What Covenant ? Doubtlefs that before entred in with Abraham, with reference to his Seed in their generations? and this limitation of the Covenant, as afore made and eitablilhed, with Abraham, in reference to his Seed in their gene- rations , unto Ifaac alone, doth plainly imply, that in the rirft eltablifhment of it , Abraham's whole Sied, as immediately proceeding from his own loins , were included and intended > tor what need an explanatory limitation of it , in regard of the eftabliftiment thereof, for an ever- lafting Covenant to Ifaac and his Seed , had it not been more comprehenfive in the firft pro- mulgation of it > and it is as if the Lord fhouid 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 indct (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 refpe&ive generations 5 but it is with Ifaac that I will eftabliffo my Covenant , and with his Seed, astheperfon in whom, and in whofe Seed, my Covenant (hall take place, and be accomplifhed j though thy whole Seed be in- tended in the Promife , as the next and imme- diate Subje&s of it , yet the Promife in the full latitude and extent or it , as it runs to Seed in their generations, for a Promife to continue fu«- ceflively throughout all generations , (hall only take place and receive its full accooiplifhment in Jfaac 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. Cbjeft. 2. Secondly, Others, and I fuppofe, vaftly the major part of our oppofers in the tnain truth pleaded for , conceive that it was Ifaac alone intended as the only Sabjedt of that Promife, and conftquently that Ijhmaely and the other children of Abraham, were excluded from any right or title to it : And there are three Obje&ions made againft our extending that Promife, to the including and taking in IJbmael, and the Sons ef Abraham by Ktiurab , as the joynt Subjects with Jfaac of it. (39) Firft, Say fome, as God promiled to be a God to Abraham and his Seed , Co he promifed the Land of" Canaan for an cvcrlafting poffcflion to that Seed, to whom he promifed to be a God > but the Land of Canaan was never given to, nor intended for,either i/ta^e/, or any of Abraham's other Children by Keturah^or any of their Seeds, and therefore certainly neither IJhmael, nor any of Abraham's Seed by Keturah^ could be intend- ed in that Promife * for do we think that God would promife that which he never intended to give ? or (hall we think that God would pro* niife the Land of Canaan to all Abrahams Seed, and yet never mind his promife after, nor regard to make good what he had promifed. Anfvo. To that I anfwer two things. Firft , That, in that any of Abraham's Seed did not adtually pofTefs the Land of Canaany nor in that God intended not that they (hould pofTefs it , it is no Argument they were not in- tended in, as the Subjects of,this grand Promife, wherein God ingaged to be a God to them in their generations: This is evident, becaufc fome ,r who were undoubtedly the Subjects of this Promife, never did, nor was it intended by God , that they (hould a&ually pofTefs .that Land; Abraham himfelf, who was the prime and principal party in this Covenant, according to the letter of it,and confequently the undoubt- ed Subject of this Promife, as referring to him- felf, never had, nor was it intended by God,that 'he (hould have the actual pofTeflbn of this D 4 Land ? (4°) Land » fo for Ifaac and Jacob, Heirs with him of the fame Promife, they never had, nor was it Gods inteadment they (hould have, the a&ual poffeflion of that Land. But Two things are replyed to this. Firft, Though they did not poffefs k in their own perfons , yet in their pofterity they did i their pofterity had the a&ual poffeflion of it, and God gave.it unto them only as a reverfion^ to be poffeffed by their Children , when the fin of the Inhabitants was full To that I anfwer, It is certain all their pofte- rity did not poffefs 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, confidering under what no- tion it waspromifed* viz.. as afore expreffed, a xcverfion to be enjoyed by their pofterity. To that I anfwer, It is true, and fo for what appears, the pofterity of any or of all of Abra- hams other Children, mould have had the joynt poffeffion with Ifaac and Jacob's pofterity , had not their Fathers forfeited their own and their pofterities right and title to the Promife , and their not inheriting, through an antecedent for- feiture of the Promife, is no evidence that their firft Parents , as immediately proceeding from Abraham , were not intended either in that oy or the former grand Promife of the' Cove- nant. Secondly, It is replyed , that though A&rj- bam, Ifaac and Jacob did not, nor was it intend* ed by God , that they (hould in their own per- fons, at that time, as then upon earth,enjoy the Land of Canaan, yet there is a time when they (hall have the perfonal enjoyment of it, they fhall arife again, and during the thoufand years reign of Chrift upon earth , fhall have the pro- mile in the very letter made good unto them. To that I anfwer , Not to divert to debates excentrical to our prefent Queftion , fuppole 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 Promifcs thereof, through their own or their Progenitors fin, (hall partake with Abraham, Ifaac and Jacob in that their fuppofed felicity, and therefore neither their not affcual poiftlfing , nor Gods intention, that they (hould not aftually pofTefs that Land, will prove, that they were not intended in that grand Promife, their cafe was no other than the cafe of feveral others, who were undoubtedly intended in that Promife. Secondly, I anfwer, That the Land of C*- naan was either a mcer temporal good , and the enjoyment of it only a temporal mercy , or elfe it it was a type and pledge of a higher good, .viz* of that City that hath foundations , whofe Ma- ker and Builder is God i and anfwerably taking it as a type, it was a fpiritual good, and the en- I joyment of it a fpiritual blcfling , and an eiTen- rial part of the Covenant ef Grace, the Land of Canaan mud 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 ririt notion, namely, as a temporal good, and the Jews poiTcfling of it only as a temporal blcfling, then, I fay, it was only an appendant , and not pertaining to the eiTcnceof the Covenant, and the promife of it only a definite promife* made to Abraham's Seed, collectively or generally taken , and an- fwerably the Promife was verified inxthat any of his Seed, had the pofTcffion of it : Indefinite promifesi as made to any fpecies or forts of per- sons, colle&ively conlldered^ are equivalent to particular promifes,and they are verified, in cafe only fome of that fpecies, cr fort of perfons, have the good promi fed : That this promife of the Land of Canaan , fuppofing it to be only a temporal promife, is thus to be taken, isunque- ftionable from the way and manner of Gods performing of it, had it been a promife to A£r<*- #jm and his Seed, difhibutively or particularly Ukcn^tmuft have been ma^degood toeacl? par- ticular f43) 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 fpirituai promife, or the promife of a fpirituai good, a higher and greater good typified by it : then I fay, it was of the Eflence of the Covenant, and was either in the letter , or in the fpirituai fence and meaning of if, performed both to Abraham and to all his Seed in their generations, whether Jfaac, or jjkmael, or his Sons by Keturab, who did not through a failure in the performance.cf the condition of the Covenant, loo fe. 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 coniidered, in conjunction with the faithfulnefs of God in the performance of his Promife. Thirdly, If they will fay, they look upon it under both notions , which I conceive is moft agreeable to the mind of God in that Promife, then I fay as before,'twasas a temporal promife, only an appendant to the Covenant , as a fpiri- tuai promife of the Eifcnce of it , and anfwe- rably was made and made good to Abrahams Seed, both eolle&ively and difiributivcly taken, in the fenfe afore opened i from all it evidently appears, that in that neither IJhmael, nor the Sons of Keturah, did, nor was it intended by God , that they (hould enjoy the Land of Car naan% (44) nssn, it will not follow, that they were not in- tended in that grand Promife , wherein God ingageth himfelf , to be a God to Abraham and his Seed in theic generations , they might be in* tended in that Promife, and yet not actually enjoy that Land prumifed,as many others, who were undoubtedly intended in the former Pro- mife,yet never actually in the letter iwjoyed the good of that Promife. Ohjtti.^. Say others, If Ifhmael were in- tended in this Promife , and received as one of Abraham's Seed into his Covenant , why doth Abraham pray fo earneftly for him, Gen.\j.\% > Doth not his praying lo earneftly for him, at leaft, ftrongly intimate, he had no right to, or intereft in the Covenant afore eltablifticd with Abraham, with reference to his Seed ? If ]fh- mael was under the promife of having God a God to him , what need Abraham pray to earn- eftly that he might ln|c before God > A#/i*. I anfwer, May nor a promifed good fee 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 queftion, but that he may > But the true reafon of Abra- ham's prayer for \fhmad , 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 . fhottld (45) fliould be the fpecial Child, in whom, and in whofe line the Seed fhould be called , that is, with whom and with whofe Seed the Covenant thould beettablifhcd , according to the full ex- tent and latitude of thepromifesof it , but this is no intimation at all , much lefs a cc.iclufive 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. Ob)tti. 3. And that which bymoftof out Oppofites is cfpecially infilled upon, is a fuppo- fed inconflftency between what is affirmed in this our firit Propofition, viz. That God in this grand JPromife of the Covenant intended ail Abraham's natural Seed univerfally and indefi- nitely , qne as well as another, as the next and immediate Subjects of it , confidering what the facred Story relates of JJbmael in particular, one of Abrahams Seed) affirmed by us to be intend- ed in that Promife , and other Principles and Aflertions contiantly maintained by us , who ground the infant-feed of believing parents right to and intereftin the Covenant , upon this its firft eftablifhment with Abraham and his Seed in thtir Generations i thefe Principles and Affertions, with which what is affirmed of all i/ibrahams natural Seed, and of Ifhmael'm par- ticular, is fuppofed tobeinconiiiknt, are more cfpecially thefe two. Firft, That that Covenant , now eftablifced with (40 with Abraham, 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 art immutable: and unchangeable Covenant , a Co- venant that cannot be broken, a Covenant from a Handing in which none can fall. Now it is objected, That if it be true as we affirm, that this Covenant , now eftablimed with Abraham and his Seed, was the Covenant of Grace, and that Ifhmael in particular was intended in this Fromife , and anfwerably taken into this Cove* nant with Abrahams one of his Seed there in* tended > then the Covenant of Grace mufr be granted to be a mutable and changeable Cove- nant, a Covenant that may be broken, contrary to our other principles , feeing it is evident, and granted by us , that in cafe IJhmael was ever in this Covenant, he did break it, and was caft out of it , and was difinherited of the promife con- tained in it > and if fo> then it will follow, con - trary to* what we elfewhere affirm , that a man may be in the Covenant of Grace to day , and caft out to morrow , and then may be in again within a few iayes after, and yet caft out again, and in' the "clofe finally perim. Nowitisfaid, How can Principles or After t ion's, lying in fuch a diametrical oppofition one to another , be all true > Therefore fure we muft either grant, that Jjh' ' intended in this Promife , and conucjuentJj not one of this Seed of Abraham , with (47; with whom, in conjua&ion with Abraham him- felf, God never entred Covenant, orelfethat Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace , un- der which Believers now are , or elfc that the Covenant of Grace is mutable, and may be bro- ken i that perfons may be in it , and after caft out and difpoiTefled of that good they had Some- times a Covenant- right and title to. Before I return a dired Anfwer to this Ob- jection , I (hall premife, that this Objection is urged by our Oppofites to a twofold end or purpofe. Firft, It is urged by fume, to difprovc or overthrow what we affirm of this Covenant, now eftabliuSed with Abraham and his Seed, viz. That it is the Covenant of Grace , the fame for fubftance that Believers in Gofpel times are under. Say they , This Covenant made with Albrabam, and his natural Seed, might be bro- ken, but the Covenant of Grace cannot be bro- ken i one might be in that Covenant to day,and cart out to morrow > witnefs l(hmael , who though taken into Covenant , yet wasfoon caft out again j, but it is otherwife with the Cove- g nantof Grace, and the perfons admitted into it, that is,a Covenant that cannot be broken , per- sons once in that Covenant are never caft out again; and therefore this could not be a Covenant of Grace , but a legal Covenant , a§ ibrae call it, a temporal Covenant, as others. Secondly, (43) Secondly, it is urged by others , in a way of opposition to what is affirmed concerning ljh~ matVs being intended in this Promife, 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, that IJhmael was in rhis 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- nantof Grace, fay they, infallibly fccures the good promifed in it to all that hav? admilfion 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 IJh- mael enjoyed not the good prsmifed in this Co- venant ; therefore it is ridiculous to fay, he was ever taken into it. So that we may fee our Op- poiites are not agreed among themfelves , fome granting that IJhmael was intended in that Pro- mife , and conf quently that he was a party in that Covenant , but deny that that Covenant was a Covenant ef Grace : Others granting, that that was a Covenant of Grace, but deny IJhmael to be a parry in it , whence it appears, that in all thefe three AiTertions, viz. that I/fc- mael was intended in that Promife , that the Covenant,in which the Promife is containcd,isa Covenant of Gracfe.That the Covenant of Grace cannot be broken, we have the furTrage of fome ef out Oppoiircs, as they are taken feverally. But (49) But you will fay, They all agree, they cannot be all true taken conjunctively : It is true, they do Co ■<, and where their miftake lies, either as to what we affirm , or as to the truth it felf , (hall be now coniidcred. Firft, And I (hall firft (hew in what fence we hold and maintain the Covenant of Grace, to be an immutable and unchangeable Covenant, a Covenant that cannot be broken. Secondly * Lay down fome Propofitions for the vindicating the truth aflerted in this firft Propofition, for carrying any appearance of re- pugnancy to that Principle held and maintained by us , in the fence it is held and maintained by us , concerning the immutability of the Cove* nantof Grace. • For the firft : and thus we muft obiervc a twofold diftin&ion. Firft, We muft diftinguifli between an exter- nal and vilible, and an internal and inviilbJe be* ing in Covenant , or between the Covenant of Grace, as externally and vifibly,and as internal- ly and invilibly plighted,or mutually entred be- tween God and men i that there is an external and vifible being in Covenant , or that there is an external and vifible plighting , or mutual cntring of Covenant between God and men, where yet there is not an internal and invillblc being in Covenant, nor any internal mutual en- £ tiicg C5°) tiing Covenant between God and men ; is evi- dent through the whole Scripture, and isfode- njonftrativtly proved by others , tfpeciaily Mr. Cobbettof N >**- England , that it is wholly fupetfluous to add any thing, 1 (hail therefore only fay , that unlefs wedo grant this diftin&i- on , we muftiiold , that cither Chrilt hath no vilible Body, Church, or People in the World, or elfe that fame may be of the vilible Body, Church or People of Chr'iii, who yet are not in any fence in the Covenantor Grace* the for- mer fure none will affirm, and the granting the latter will grant what 1 contend for, as wtfl ap* pear in the procti sol omdifconxfe* Secondly, We muft diftinguifti between being in Covenant , through a pergonal 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 Akrabam and hissed in their generations* that there is a Jbeing in Co- venant by a perfona! 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 under the f>romifesof the Covenanc,by virtue of the gra- cious tcnoar of the Covenant it felf,' will I hope fufikiently appear from the proof of this and oar next Propoiltian. Now when we fay, the Covenant of Grace is an immutable and un- changeable Covenant > a Covenant that cannot be broken, w&intend it of the Covenant as per- fonally. CsO ionaIly,*and that intirely and fincccety cntrci bf a truly regenerate Soul , and »ot of the Cove- nant as only externally and unfinccrely entred by hypocrites, nor of the Covenant as mad* vr ith believing Parents , with reference to fheif inatural Seed \ and the meaning of what is af- firmed concerning the immutability and un- ,<:h;ingeabknefs of the Covenant of Grace is only this , that when once a Soul is iavingly wrought upon , to a rightly clofing in with Chrtit , and a favingetoimg witjh the terms of the Covenant , that Soul fnall never totally awl •finally fall away , fo as t© furTer an abfolutc and total lofs of that Grace wrought in it, nor be absolutely caft out ef a Covenant flare and re* lation God- ward : whether tbefe pf omi£es,upon the warrant of which this iaamutability and unchangeablenefs of the Covenant is aucrtcd and maintained , will prove any more, (hall be conlldcred, at leaftfo far as concerns my prefent •puripofe , by and by. Having then given the ■fence* in which we hold the Covenant of Gracp to be immutable and unchangeable, I proceed t<> (the fecond thing promifed , the Proportions, and they are thefe. : firft, That this Covenant now eftablifhed between God and Abraham , and his Seed in their generations, which I grant, yea affirm,, that it was a Covenant of Grace, the fame in iiibftance that Believers are full under, wasand fiili is a conditional Covenant : Lex not that terra conditional offend , I intend no more than Ez what (52 ) whtt I fuppofe will on all hands be granted, viz. That as God promifed good to Abraham, with reference both to himfelf aud his Seed in their generations , Co he required the perfor- mance of duty as from Abraham himfelf , fo from his Seed in their refjbe&ive generations: In brief thus, this Covenant contained promifes of good from God , yet with a reftipulation of duty from the. parties with whom it was made, and unto whom, the promifes did appertains and this is effentia! to the very being of a Co- venant as properly taken : It is true , this term -Covenant is varioufly ufed in Scripture , fome- times for a bare promife on-Gods part, fome- fimes for the reftipulation on mans part, fome-: times for the token of the Covenant , but thefe kre improper ilgnifications of the word ; when it is properly taken, it alwayes figniries a mutual my , meaning is evident , Abraham ftood in a double capacity , as a (ingle party , with whom God entred covenant, and as a farher of children, to whom the promifes of the Covenant did in common with himfclf appertain. Now as Abraham^ as a iingle perfon in covenant, was to accept of>and perform the conditions of the Co*. .venant , he was in that capacity ingaged to by God , fo as a parent he had iomething 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 bis- performing that duty incumbent upon him as a parent, in reference to his Seed, was abfolutely> neceffary in order to his enjoying the good pro- mifed , with reference both to himfelf and his Seed : The truth of this Propofition is evident irom thefe two places of Scripture compared together , (jen. 17. i. and Gen. 18. 19. Wal\^ before we, and be tboufcrfeft , There was Abra- ham's duty, in reference to himfelf as a iingle. perfon , with whom the Covenant was entred » For 1 kpow him , that be will command [his Cb#~ dren, and his Houjhold after him , and they (hall k$ef judgment and juftice , that t,he Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath $o\$n $f him ; that is, that he may be a.Qodtohini, £ 3 and (54) and his Seed after him : There was Abraham's duty, as a Parent and Matter of a Farmly, and under this term Command all other duties, fub- ferving or referring to their walking in the way ©f the Lord, were implyed and comprehended. Now faith theL©rd,^&r*jta/» vtiUthus command kfr Children and Houjhold , that the Lard may bring upan him vthat be bath jpokjn of him : Whence it appears, that Abraham's performance of his duty towards his Children and Houfhold, was a necefTaty condition of Gods bringing up- on him, or making good to him , what he had promifed , in reference to his Children and Houmold, and that without the performance of that duty he could not expect, according to the true intent and meaning of the Promife , that God mould bring that good upon him , or do that good to him: and what is faidof Abra- ham is true of all his Seed , fuppofing them un- der that double capacity : Abraham was to be a pattern to all his Seed, both in priviiedgesand in duties. Thirdly, That whatever was the condition Or reftipulation of the Covenant as made with Abraham J was the condition or refripulation required of his natural Seed, and to be actually performed by them in their own perfons , fo fcon as they came to that maturity of age f as rendred them capable thereof, and that as in- difpenfably neceffary to the compleating and €onttnuanee of their covenant-relation witb Cod , intoWhteh the?* it Abraham's natural Seed, (55) Seed, were admitted in their in&ncy y though God was pleafed to enter covenant, not only with Abraham himfclf , but with his S^cd to- gether with him, and his accepting; ol the Co- venant tor himiclf and them , coirttarfuted a co- venant-relation between God and Abraham , and his Seed , and that covenant- relation was continued during his Seeds infant capacity upon Abraham's account, yet when they grew up to A capacity of a pcribnal ingaging^wnh God in a Covenant way, and performing the reitipulation required. Now the continuance ot that co- venant-relation between God and them ., in- difpenfably required their per tonal accepting of> and performing that reilipulation or conditio^ that Abraham m their inraucy had accepted fos them , and their non-acceptance or non- perfor- mance of that condition did, ipfofatto, difanul the Covenant , or forfeit their right to , and in- tereit in it and the promifes of it j God itood the not 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 between God and them , into which they were afore admitted, and upon that account expected the good promiied, without theur perianal per- formance of the duty the Covenant did oblige them to , had been a groundkfs prefumption. The truth of this Proportion is evident in part from what hath bcea already faid>and will more fully appear, when I come to the proof of my? fecond Propofition. Abrahams commanding his Children acd Houfhold to Keep the way of E 4 the (5«) the Lord, in order to that end , namely, their enjoying the good promifed neccflarily itippo- feth it > for why mould he command them to keep the way of the Lord, in relation to fuch an end, if their keeping that way had noneceffary reference to that end, but the end had been at- tained without their keeping that way > be* iides, were not this true, there could have been no fuch thing , as brtach of covenant , found among any ot Abraham* s natural Seed , as will be obvious to every ordinary capacity. Before I proceed further, let me note by the way, that this Covenant , now eflablifhed with Abraham, and his Seed in their generations , implyed a twofold condition , neceflary to beobfervedin order to Gods making good the promtfes of it, referring to his Seed. Firft, There was a condition incumbent on Abraham himfelf, there wasfomething of duty required of him , with reference to his Seed, viz. that he command them to keep the way of the Lord , as is obferved in the foregoing Pro- portion. Secondly, There was a condition incumbent upon the Seed, as grown up and become capable of understanding and performing it, that is, That they walk in the way of the Lord ,• and fuppofing that zither Abraham had failed in hisdutyvor his Seed in theirs, God had been acquitted of any charge of unfaithful nefs to his prottrtf^ thpugh the good promifcdj with refe- rence .' (57; jrencc to his Seed, had never been given in i God promifeth to be a God to Abrahams Seed as well as to himfelf, yet with this condition, that he iaftru& and command his Seed , and that they accept of, and perform the duty irfgaged 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 confilt in his own looiing 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 conti- nuance of that Covenant-relation he was ad- mitted into with God , and tranigreiling tho(e Commands he was obliged to the obfervation of j in brief, he fell from a Covenant-ftate, but not from Covenanted- grace , for that he never had an a&ual pofltilion of ; fo that to affirm, that IJbmael was in the Covenant , now eiia- bliflied with Abraham and his Seed , and that that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace that Believers are liill under , notwithstanding his breach of Covenant in the fence now opened, is no way incontinent with what is affirmed con- cerning the 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 verle 12. thatperfons may be in an external Covenant fute God ward, and yet want the truth of Grace , may loofe a Covenant- ftate, though not loofe Covenanted- Grace) (58; Grece, er fall fx©n**.(hfe of Gract^ But not to Ifcaw any doubt, that may arife in the minds el any, about what hath been faid,uu&ci9ixed,I am awarreo£ one Obje&ioa , and that not without a ieeming weigh.fi and ftrength iji it , will be imde againft what hath been fa id , and that 13 this. 00ja#. It wiJLbtfaid, Doth not the Scripture plainly intimate, it not positively afFert , That the Covenant of Grace cannot be broken , no rot in the fence in which it is now fuppofed I(h- mj*l did break it , and is not that at Leai one • Chara&eritfical difference between the Cove- cant of Grace and the hrft Covenant ; and the peculiar excellency , in refpeft of which the Covenant of Grace doth excel that former Co- vemnt ? Hath not God promiled to write his Law in the in ward parts, and put his tear in the heaitsof all that have admifiion into this Co- vgnanf , as the means ro prevent their breach of it t Now it will be (aid, How could Ifljmael, or awy Child of believing Parents , fuppoiing he was and they arc in the Covenant of Grace, fail in performing the conditions of that Cove- nant, unkfs God fhould fail in making good thefe Promifes, which to a firm would beblaf* g&emy , and therefore fure, had he been and were they in the Covenant of Grace, he acver had y nox they never would break Co- venant , through a failing in- performing due conditions of it>. Now Now to this I answer , That take thefc Pro- mifesas indefinitely laid down, f© they arc only made to the Church indefinitely as a collective body , and indefinite Promifes, as Co made, do not infallibly fecure the good promifed toevery individual pcrfon externally lnterefled ia them. Bur you will fay, Suppofe the truth of this firft Proportion, i/i*. That Abraham's natural Seed , immediately proceeding from his ow;n loins , were to be looked upon as the Subje&s of this Promi(e, diitributively taken, then every one in particular had a real and actual intereft in it. To that I anfwer, It is true : but condder 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 thefe pro- mifes, of writing the Law in the inward parts , &c. included in that grand Promiie, wherein God promileth to be a God to him and them , and confequently their performance of the condition was virtually included and im*- plyed in the Promife it felf , and (b the Promifc did fecure their performance of the condition % though the Covenant of Grace hath conditions, yet they are Conditiones conditionatt^ conditions which are themfelvcs promifed in the Cove- nant > hence though the Covenant be not ab- fblutely unconditional, yet it is equivalent there- unto* in as. much as the conditions axe them* felves (6o) fdvcs included, in the Promifes of the Cove- nant* and therefore furc if they had been actually under Covenant , their performance of the conditions had been fecured by this Pio- mife. To this I anfwer two things , That though thefe Promifes do hold forth the main and prin- ciple conditions of the Covenant, as Regeneia- iion, Faith, Repentance, and the like, and they fliould be included in this Profile > of Gods feeing a God to his people, and though they rua in the external tenour of fhemabfolutely , yet they are not absolutely abfolute , as I may io fpeak > they have a Subordinate condition , and that is, that the parties concerned in them do faithfully ufe the means appointed of God , in & fubferviency to his working in or beitowing *jpon thetn the good prorniicd ; 'this is evident from Es^.36. 37. where we have the very_ fame good , though in other terms or phrafes, promifed v foalfo in Prev. 2 6. thefe Promifes hold forth what we of our felves canuot attain to or perform j but they fuppufe, and require our ufe of means, which, as Mr. Fenner excel- lently exprefleth it, lye between our cm and our cannot , and though it is true, a man, while in bis natural eftate, cannot ufe the means fo, as (hall infallibly fecure the good promifed to him- fclf,yet his not uilng of them according to what* through the improvement of what ability, whe- ther natural or Spiritual, he hath received, ha might do,will acquit God from unfaithfulnefs ia denying the good promifed. But But fecondly, I anfwer, That take the Cove- nant as externally made and declared to Abra- b&m, and his Seed in their generations, as im- plying a ftipulation on Gods part, and a reftipu- lation on mans part, io thefe Promifes of di- vine teachingSjWriring the Law in theheart,efor. are not included as eiTential to this Promife , of Gods being a God to them, but are diftindfr Pro- mifes,made inderinitely,to the Covenant- people of God \ in making good of which , God ads according to his Soveraign will and plealure, ia a complyance with his eternal Decrees and Pur- poses of election and pretention, and anfwerab- jy, no individual perfon can lay an actual claim to them,afore they are at leaft initially or incho- atively fulfilled j Gods being a God to any in- dividual perfon, doth require and prefuppoie, that they do for the prefent, fuppofing them capable, or for the future,as foon as capable, take God in Chrift as their God, which that his Ele&fhall do,is fecured by thefe Promifes \ but that every individual perfon externally in Co- venanted under the Promifes thereof (hail do, is not fecured by them. If any (hall affirm, that thefe Promifes are included , as an effcntial part of the good of chat 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 lubftance of it , was made good to the feed of the Jews , and how it came to pafs, jiotwithftanding that Promife^ that they never had their hearts truly circumcifed to love the Lord with all their hearts , andail their fouls, ^ as (62) as the letter of thatPromifc , Vtut. 30. 6. af- firms they fhould. Betides, let it it be further r»oted, that the Covenant relation ttabliibed be- tween G»d and thefeed of .believing Parents, aoeerly by verfue of the external tenout of the Covenant , is notfo full and compteat as that as, which is conftituted through a Souls peribnal acceptation of tbc Covenant , and a&uail inga- $ing with -God in a Covenant way ; the Cove- nant in a proper and full fence muil be mutual 4 ^but fo it is not in the cafe of the Infant- feed xrf -believing parents , their bcingin covenant is •rather a being under a conditional Promiie of tbc good contained in the Covenant, than being properly and compdeatly in covenant with God, ■though ina fence <*od may, as be is in Scripture faid to faster cowenant with them r he enters covenant as he makes promiie of the good ot tbe Covenant to ahem , which yet he doth, as I Juvefaid , only conditionally , and the com- pleating of the Covenant-relation between -God and them, depends upon their perfanalac*- cepraace of the ttrms^Bopofed in it, when tbctf come to rtperteis or years. To put a clofe to this nrft fubordinate Pro- -pgfition, by what hath been faid, 1 fuppaie, the; truth alTcrted in it is fuitiaently evident , not- withftanding what may be objected in a way oi oppfitiontoiti and I have infukd the longtr upon this, becaufe it is the foundation to out whole Structure to be railed, in reference to the confirmation of she truth pleaded for , and the £M evidencing of this, wil 1 make our way plain to 1 C«3 ) to the following Propofitions , in as much as Abraham being the firil perfon with whom the Covenant was,at leaft in fuch a latitude,fbrmally and exprefly entred , he muft needs be the rule, meafare, or pa and when the Co7 venanfs are divers, the good covenanted cannot be one and the fame, atleaftthe 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 fpiritual Seed , could not lay claim to the old Covenant-promifes, if not defcended from Abraham by lfaac after the flefli > Co a Be- < lievers rlefhly feed , take it either of Ahra* ham , or any other Believer , cannot lay claim to the New Covenant Promifes, unlefs born to the following Propositions, in as much as Abraham, being the fad perfon with whom th* Covenant was,at leaft in fuch a Iatitude,foimal- ly and cxprefly entred,he muft needs be the rule, meafure or pattern, according to which the Co- venant, in all following Ages, ihould be entred tnd continued between God and his Seed. Pri+ mum in unofjuoqne gtnert tft regnla ant men fur a cetcrorum ejufdem gtntris. God did in Abraham fee a pattern how he would deal in relation to the tenour of his Covenant with all his Seed i and Abraham being a Father of all admitted into a Covenant-relation with God. It highly concerns us,rightly to understand and know the terms and tenour of the Covenant , as made with him , in reference to us who are his Seed » it being made with his Seed in the fame tenour* -and upon the fame terms generically considered, as it was with him i he was the great pattern, as 1 have faid , both of priviledges and duties to his whole Seed, as will appear more fully in o«ur fecond Proportion, which I now proceed Jtcu IQi i .' ■ CHAP. (H) CHAP. IV. 7ke ftcond fubordinate Proportion laid down. How to be under jiood> declared. Tbefiffi way of its confirm ationyiz. the tenour of the Fromife^ as at fir ft made to 'Abraham , propofed and profecuted. Qbjt&ions anfwered. The Second Propofition. THst the. fame Fromife that God made um» Abraham x with reference to himfelf andtiii natural Seed, 'is by God himjelK and that in the fame latitude and extent given to,and fetledufon believing Gentiles : the Fromife runs in the fame tenour, both in regard bf extent and limitations, to Abrahams Seed, whether natural or mydical, that it ran in to Abraham himfelf ■ it is continued to the Seed^ as it was firft efiablijhed with their Fa* ther. Only for the preventing mijiakes let itbt noted 9 Jhat Abraham had fame preheminency shove any of hit Seed, as it was meet the Father fhould have fomething of preheminency above bit Children* Abraham had a twofold prehem^ *tnzy% Fitft, C * 5) Firft, He had a preheminence in point of pa« tcrnity or fatherhood; he was not only ana* tural Father of natural Children , as any of his Seed may -be > but he was conftituted a myitis cal Father v to all that fhould in after ages be admitted into the fame Covenant with himfclf, whether Jews or Gentiles, Komm 4. n. ■ Secondly, He had a preheminency in regard of his natural SeedvRaceor Pofterity. He had a threefold, prehernineacy in regard of his natvi* rai Seed. Fitit , In their multiplication. God neirc* multiplied the Seed of any Believer as he ©ml* ti plied the natural Seed of Abraham* . Secondly, In their fegregatior* or reparation from other people, and their incorporaticn to- gether as one Nation, Body politick* or Gom- tnon wealth. Thirdly, In Gods (ingling them out as the fpecial Subje&sof his Kingdom > and vouch- safing unto them his Covenant, with the bene- fits, priviledges, and bleffings thereof, in io ge^ neral and extenfive a way, as he hath done, and will yet do. His Church or fpiritual Kingdom* atnder thciirft Teftamenr, confirmed inaipeeial manner of Abraham's natural Race or Poite* f ity,and he will again take his natural Pofterity., as the people wko in a fpecial manner dull F 2 «W <««)■ nijoy the good things of the Covenant of Grace, as yet to be adminittred in the world : This twofold i preheminency we grant that Abraham bad above any of his Seed, whether natural or royltical : But yet take Abraham as a natural Father, accepting of the Covenant God made with him , and ib the fame Promife , that was given unto him,is given andfetkd upon his whole Seed , and confcgucntly ( which only falls un- der our prefent confederation ) is given to , and (ctlcd upon believing Gentiles. The truth of *hi£&opoimpn I ihall ( the Lord affilting ) evidence four wayes. i Firfi, From the tenour of the Prdmife made to Abraham^ with reference to^iiis Seed, at the firft eftablifliment of the Co vc nant between God and hicmand here we mult have recourfe to what hath been already faid , for the explication of this Promife. The fum of ail is this \ That wlvtn God promifed 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 rcfpc&ive generations \ that is , to them tad their refpcclive Children , defending im- mediately from their own loins ; yet fo, as that their intcreft in the Promife, and enjoyment of the good promifed , (hould be continued and! vouchfafed to them upon condition of their walking in the Ikps of the faith and obedience of their! Father Abraham; and confequentiy, that the Promife did not a&ually appertain ci- the ■ thcr to any of Abraham's natural Race or Po- fieriry , beyond his Children immediately de- fending from him,or to any of his Seeds, Races, or Pofterities,beyond theii immediate Children, included with them in that phrafc , tfytirGtm- ratioru, by vcrtue of that their remote relation unto them. Now then all that I have to do for the proving the fcttlemcnt of this Promife, in the fame extent and latitude upon believing Genttfes , in which it was given to Abraham himfelf , by the tenourof the Fromifesasnow made to Abraham, is to prove, that this is the true fence and meaning of this Promife, as made to him with reference to his natural Seed, for look as the Promife was to be underload as re- ferring to his natural Seed , fo it is tp be, undcr- itood a« referring to his mymcal Seed,inas much as both are equally and alike intended in the Promife, as at firft made unto Abraham^ both his natural and myftical Seed ftanding in one and the fame capacity refpe&ive to the Promife, and therefore as it ought to be interpreted as it had reference to the one, foit ought to. be inter- preted as referring to the other. Nowthat this Promife,as referring to Abraham's natural Seed, was to be interpreted and underftood in the extent and latitude, and yet with the limitations before exprefled,I (hall maKe good by.thefc two or three Arguments. Firft* That muft needs be the true fence and meaning of this Promife , which alone is con- fident with the truth and faithfulncfs of God r 3 in (68) in performing it : But that fence and meaning, which is given according to the extent and li- mitations afore exprefled, is only confident with the truth and faithfulnefs of God in performing it : Therefore that fence and meaning muft 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 tnd undcrftand the Promifes of God in fuch a fence and meaning,as 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, furenone will deny. God is a true and faith- fill God i a God that cannot lye, not only will Dot, but cannot lye ; therefore that fence and meaning put upon his f romifes , which isi*on- (iftent 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 expreiTed, is alone confident with the truth and faithfulnefs of God in performing it, will be evident, by (hewing the ineonfiftency of any other fence and meaning poffibly to he 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 jpoflibly be put upon this Promife, and I fuppofc the only fence and meaning that will be at- tempted to be put upon it 7i will be this, vise. That (69) That when God promifed Co Abraham , with reference to his Seed , to be a God unto them fit their generations , his meaning was only this, That he would be a God to each of them in their refpe&ive ages or generations wherein: they fhould live * ana To by this phrafe, A* their generations, we arc to underftand only tach par- ticular or individual perfon of Abraham's Seed, as fubfitfingin their Tefpedivc ages or genera- tions j and not as including Parents and Chil* dreh. Now let us a little purfue this fence and meaning, and fee whether it be contingent with the truth and faithfulnefs of God in his Promi* fcs. And here let it be remembrcd, that Abra- ham's natural Seed muft nectiTirily be primarily intended in this Promife, as the rirft and irone* diatc Subjeds of it *, this hath been already proved, and therefore I (hall take it for granted at prefent. And it muft further be contidered, thatthough Abrahams natural Seed , as imme- diately defending from his own loins, were rliftly intended , as the primary Subjects of this Promife ; yet it had afurther refpe&, Mfctt to his whole natural Race and Pofterity , as me- diately defcending from him, in Succeeding ages i this is evident, as from other Scriptures, fo from this very phrafe, their generations i and befides, the whole Context evidently declares it. JnGen. 15. 16, it evidently appears , that <3od intended not , that Abraham's Seed fliould poifefs the Land of Canaan till the fourth gene- ration j yet it is promifed to the Seed intended f 4 io C7o) in this Promife, that they mould have the Land of Canaan^nd that for an cverlafting pulTcflion ; So that when God promifcd to be a God to Abraham, and his Seed, though he intended his own immediate Children , yet he had a further tefpeft to his natural Race and Poftcrity, as me- diately defcending from him. Now let it be confidered » how it was con- fident with the truth and faithfulnefs of God in his Promiies* to promife to ^Abraham, to be a God to him, and his Seed, both immediately and mediately defcending from him, fceingirk certain he was not a God to all his Seed,no not fo much as in an external and outward way , for when Ijhmael wascaft out of Abrahams fa- mily, and together therewith, or thereby, out of the Covenant, God ceafed to be a God to any ©f his Race or Pofterity, unlefs by their perfonal acceptation of the Covenant, they became again incorporated into the Church of the Jews , as any other Heathen might be : and the like is true of Efaus Race and Pofterity i fo for the whole body of the Jewilh Nation at this day, there is a ccffationof any adual Covenant- rela- tion between God and them Now how could God caft orF fo great a part of Abraham's Seed from being his people , and how could he ceafc to be a God to them, and yet remain faithful to his Promifcv in cafe this be the fence and mean^ ing of it > Yes,it may be fome will fay,the truth and faithfulnefs of God may be vindicated $wp wayes, ' firft (70 Firft, It may be vindicated by the confidera- tion of the nature of this Promife .* It was, as you your felves grant, an indefinite Promilc made to Abrahams Seed collectively taken, and fa was verified, in the performance of it to iome of his Seed , though it was not performed uni- verfally to every individual perion of his Seed. But to this I reply two things. Firft, That this Promife , according to the fence and meaning contended for by my Oppo- fers, cannot be an indefinite Promife to Abra* bams Seed, collectively taken, but muit needs be a definite Promife to his Seed , diftributively ta ken » 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 refpe- dive ages or generations. Now, according to this fence , this term Setd, muft needs be taken dilhibuti vcly, 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, asfo born unto him, as one of the Sub- jects intended in it. If it had been only faid to Abrabam,to thee and to thy Seed, it might have been an indefinite Promife to his Seed, colle- lively taken ; but when 'tis added, in their gcnerations,according to this fence it muit needs be a definite Promife made to his Sccd^ diftrU butively or Angularly taken i and confe- qucntly , Gods not being a God unto any of of his Seed, had been a breach of this Promife, as made unto Abraham , with reference to his Seed, Secondly, I anfwer, Though the Promife were an indefinite Promife made to Abrahams Seed, colle&ively taken , yet none ever did, or ever fhould fail of enjoying the good promifed, fuppoiing there had been no failure in perform- ing the condition of it, either by the parties themfclves, or by their next or remote Progeni- tors. Secondly, It may be it will be faid, The Pro- mife was made conditionally , and Abrahams Sczd failing in the performance of the conditi* ons,difobliged Gad from making good the Pro- mife to them. To that I reply ; That it is readily granted, that thh Covenant , and the Promifes thereof, was made to Abraham and his Seed conditio- nally .' Butobferveit -, according to the fence and meaning pleaded for by our Oppofers, every Child of any Jew, or of any of Abraham's Po- sterity , muft be in the eye of this Promife ac* counted as one of Abrahams Seed , and as lo related unto him, be in tended in it as one of the Subjects of it s And how can a Child forfeit its right to a Promife before it is born > So that fuppofe that the immediate Father had failed in thfc condition of the Promife, and thereby de- prived himfelf of ai intereft in it , yet he could not C73> not forfeit the Childs right,in as much as if this fence were true, the Child received not its right iirom the next Parent , but from Abraham hinv felf, one of whofe Seed this Child isi and hence it will unavoidably follow.that either the whole Race and Posterity of Abraham , at leaft in their infancy, before an actual forfeiture made: by themfelves, mult be under this Promife, and confequently in a Covenant-relation with God, orelfe God hath failed in making good his Pro* mile v neither of which thole that contend for this fence will affirm j therefore this fence and meaning muft unavoidably be relinquifhed, and there being 'no other fence and meaning ima- ginable, we muft necelTarily adhere to that afore- given. And indeed mould we not underftand this Promife in the extent and latitude>and with thofe limitations before expiefftd , one of thofe abfurdities will necefTarily follow : for if fo be we (hould uoderftand it of all Abrahams natural Seed) univerfally, both immediately and medi- ately defending from him , God muft either be their God, or fail in his Promife, they receiving their right to, and intereft in the promifes , not from their immediate parents , as included with them in that phrale, their generation/ , but from Abraham himfelfi which right and intereft they could not loofe by the (in of any intci«* mediate parent, they being>notwithftanding the tin of fuch a parent, ftill Abraham's Seed. And it being impoilible, that they themfelvcs, afore they are born , fhould forfeit their own right to it 9 and if we (hould grant, that parents and children (74j> children were included in that phrafe, their ftntrati(ms,zn& not limit the the piomife to par* ticular generations of A6rjfcjrtf*s»Sccd,that is, to parents and their immediate children, the fame abfurdity Will follow i for then the Seed of the Jews , who in their own perfons forfeited their own right, would yet have a right to it, by ver- tue of the piomife, as made ro their progenitors intone or more generations pall > and it fo be the natural Seed of Abraham (hould convey, a right to the promifc, meerly as fuch, viz. as Abraham's natural Seed, without confederation had to their own abiding in Covenant > (till the fame abfurdities will follow j either the Infant* feed of the Jews mull dill be under the promifc, or God is not faithful to his promifes, .neither of which will be affirmed ( as I judge ) by our Oppofers. Now then this being the true fence | and meaning of this promifc, the truth pleaded for ts-paft all qucltion evident, viz. That as God promifed Abraham , with reference to his natural Seed, immediately defending from him, that he would be a God to him, and them in their generations, i fo with reference tfrhis my- ftical Sccd^ viz. Believing Gentiles, that he would be a God to him and them in their gene- rations, the promife being made to Abraham's whole Seed , whether natural or myftical, that God would be a God to them in their genera* tionsi and furely believing Gentiles are Abra- ham's Seed , as well as his Children proceeding from his own loins , as mall be evidenced more fully by and by. But that is the suil Argu- ment (75<) ment, to prove that the fence and meaning gtveri , according to tht extent, and latitude , and the limitations afore expreiTed > is the true and genuine fence and meaning ©f this pro- mife. ■ Argum. 2. My fecond Argument is this, God in his confequent tranfa&ions and dealings with the Seed of Abraham y in reference to co- venaut-ingagements between him and them, hath expounded that Promife, according to the fence and meaning ;^re given » then that muft needs be the true fcfe& apd meaniftg of it: but the former is true , therefore the latter. Sure if the after dealings of •Godj.with. the Seed of Abraham do declare the fence and meaning r,f that Promife to be as we have afore given it, wc need not doubt but 'tis the true and genuine (ence>an4 meaning of it > wc cannot doubt but that God fully underihnds his own fence and meaning in that, as well as in all other his pro* jnifes, we may well interpret promifts as God himfelf doth, whether he do it in his Word ot by his Works : Now that God hath expounded this promife , according to the fence and mean- ing before given , is evident from tharof Dtut. 29. io,n, 12,15. For obferve it, when God deals with Abraham's Seed , in reference unto Covenant engagements between him and them, he takes in not only Parents, but their Infant- feed with them,and that as the accomplishment of this very promife. God now enters Cove- nant with the whole Congregation, in thaf extent (76) extent and latitude that he promifed to Abrs* ham.that he would be a God to his Seed in their generations, including Farents and Children i he did not only enter Covenant with the Pa-fc 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 i and his entring Covenant with thefe Children or Infante, could not be, as they were, of the natural Race and Pofterity ©f Abrabam^Aot the Reafons before given ; f'^if that promife in* gaged God to enter Cov fo with rhe fame limitations, as is evident from the Commination denounced againft him that fiiould apoiiatize to Idolatry, compare the twentieth with Chapter the thir- teenth , verfe the twelfth and thirteenth j The Seed of Idolaters was tobedeitroyed with the parents therafelves, which could not have been, in cafe the promifc had extended beyond the 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 cxprc ffecf. .krgum, 5. My third Argument is this* If rhe Prophets have interpreted this promife as to be fulfilled in Gofpel times , in the extent and latitude before exprefTed , then we a^e fp to interpret and underhand it: but the former is true, therefore the latter. But this will bring me to the lecond way propofed, for the evidencing of thisour (econd Propofition, and therefore I (hall not ftay upon itatprefenr from what hath been faid it, evidently ap- pears , that this promifc of the Covenant is to be underltood according to the extent and lati- tude,and yet with the limitations before given s .This promife was made to hbrtbtms whole Seed. OS) Seed, andanfwerably to his myfucal Seed, be* lieving Gentiles, as well as to his natural Seed I Here is no limitation of the promife to either fort or fpecics of Abraham's Seed \ 'tis no more' limicted to his natural than to his mylYicil Seed, nor to his mytfical than to his natural , but is made alike to both forts of Seed* whoever bear this relation to A^m&jfw, as his Seed, they are the Subje&s intended in this proniife , or they arc under thispromife,That God will be a God to them in their generations : Every be- lieving Gentile Ihnds related to Abraham , and anfwerably is to be looked upon in the fame ca- pacity, with reference to this promife, zslfaac did , though the foundation of the relation be different i yet the relation it felf isoqeand the fame, and the capacity of both , with reference to the Promife , alike , that we may fay as the Apoftle to fomething a different purpofe iJ IVe Btetbrtn are as Ifaac was , we ftand alike related to Abrabsm^s he did,and are the joynt Subjects of the promife with him : fo that as God pro- rmfed to Abraham-, with reference unto him, that we would be a God to him in his genera- tion, fo he prom i fed to Abraham, with reference to us believing Gentiles,tfoat he would be a God to us in our generations , that phrafe including, as then fo (till, Parentsand Children : and that which gives further evidence to this truth is, that Abraham's aatural Seed, as grown up, hcli their ownintereir, and conveyed an adfcual right to,and intcrcft, in the promifc,to their Children not as they were Abrahams natural Seed them- fcivci. (79) felves, but as they were his myftical Seed ("that is ) did walk in the fteps of his faith and obe- dience. Now let any man (hew any reafon why the promife in that extent and latitude (fcould be retrained to Abrahams natural Seed , efpeci- *ally they, as grown up, inheriting the promiie themfelves , and conveying a right to it to their Children, as his myftical Seed, and not as his na- tural > I fay, let any man (hew any folid reafon, why the promife in that extent and latitude (hould be retrained to them, and why the Gen- tiles fhould not enjoy it in the fame extent and latitude that they did, feeing that God hathpro- mi(ed to be a God to Abraham and his whole Seed in their generations > 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 , is given and confirm- ed to, and fetled upon believing Gentiles, in the very firft making of it unto Abraham* CHAP* f8o; CHAP. V. The fecond way of the foregoing Propor- tions confirmation propo fed and pro) ecu- ted 5 where it is proved, thtt by the Pro-> tnijes and Prophecies of the old Tefia- ment , relating to new Tejtament times 3 the good contained in this Promije is fetled upon^and confirmed to^ fome under the Covenant of Grace in new Tejtament times i and that it is no way restrained unto the fie immediately and direftly con- cerned in thefe Promifes and Prophefies3 andconfequently mult needs be common to all under the fame Covenant. The third way of the fame Proportions con- firmaiion^ where it is proved^ that the good contained in the forementioned Fromife #", by the exprefs letter of the new Tefiament K fetled upon and con- firmed to believirig Gentiles } the Scrip- ture wherein that fettlcment is made produced : Objections of the faid fettle- meat anfwered. SEcondJy, The truth of this our (econd Pro- portion is further evident from the Promifes and (8.) and ProphefTesof the old Teftament ; and thus rhe good contained in thisPromife made toA£ra- bsm is, in the extent and latitude before exprcn\ given and continued to,and fetled upon believing Gentiles, by the Promifesand Propheiles of the old Tdiament , referring and relating to new Teftament times : And rhus we argue , What good is by promile and prophefie given to , and ierled upon fome under the Covenant of Grace in new Teftament times, is by the fame promife and prophefie given to, and fetled upon all under the fame Covenant 5 unlefs it be reftrained to that fome either by the nature and quality of the good it fclf, or by fomeexprefs revelation of the will of God » but this good, viz. To have God a God t& them and their infant- feed, is by promife and prophefie given to, and fetled upon lome under the Covenant of Grace in new Teftament times , and is not reftrained to that fome , either by tire nature of the good it felf, or by any exprefs revelation of the will of God > therefore that good mult needs by the fame Proprieties and Promifes be given to, and fetled upon all under the fame Covenant. The Major proportion cannot be denied , without uttcrlv 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 reftrained to thole in particular to whom the Promife was riritmade5 is promifed to all that are tinder the fame Covenant with them ; G 2 and (8i) and thus the Apoftle dirc&s us to apply Promi- ses made to particular Believers, yea, when there might feem to be fome (hew or reafon to reftrain the good promifed to thofe in particu- lar to whom it was immediately made > the Apoftle applying that Promife made to Jojhni^ concerning Gods never leaving nor for faking him, to the Hebrews , is our fuflicicnt 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, Inftancein,and atfign the per(bns, who in new Teftamcnt times have by the Promifes and Prophefies of the old Testament 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 by promife and prophefie given , either of thefe wayes be* (ore mentioned , and confequently not at all. For the firft, And thus I need do no more, but produce fiich old Tcftament Promifes and Prophefies , as by which this good , of having Gad a God to them and their Infant- feed , is given to, and fetled upon fome under the Cove* narit C83) nant of Grace in new Teftament times : The perfons , or that fort or fpecies of perfons in- tended in them, is fufficiently evident from theft; Promifes and Propheiks themfelves. Look in- to thefe Scriptures , Ifai. 59. 21. and 65. 25. and 44 3,4. Jer, 3.12. E*e^. 37. 21. and 22." and compare all thefe places with Rom. 1 x. 26. That all thefe Promifes and Prophefies refer to the Jews, as yet to be called and 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 Piophefies , is fure paft all rational doubt : If all thefe Promifes and Prophefies , concerning Gods 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 aforetime , and the like » efpecially the Apoftle expounding all thefe Promifes and Prophefies by that univerfal phrafe, All Ifrael , do not fuf- ficiently alfure the Jews, that when they are brought home unto Chrilt, they (hall enjoy this. good in the latitude and extent expreit , I fee not how we can poflibly be fure of any thing held forth by way of promife and prophefie > yea,or how we can be afford of any thing paft> that is declar'd to us by Scripture- hiftory. Certainly we mud wholly defpair of under- standing any thing God fpeaks to us in his G 3 Word, C«4) Word ; if we doubt whether the foremention- cd Promifes and Prophelles do aiTure the Jews of that forcmentioned good. Therefore we may pofitivcly conclude , having fuch an abun- dant, yea, fuperabundant evidence from Scrip- ture for it,that the Jews , when the veil is taken off from their kearts , and they that turned to to the Lord fhall 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 Ptomifes and Pro- phefies given ) (ball be received , and believing Gentiles in generations are under ■> this is evi- dent, pa/t all rational contradiction , by com-' paring Jer. 31,31. with Hebr. 8 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, is the Covenant now made wi»h believing Gen- tiles > fo that though fome,thoughgroundlefljr, fuppofe,thatCovenant made with Abraham was not the fame with that believing Gentiles are now under : yet none can pretend, that the Co- venant under which believing Gentiles are, and that to be made with the Jews,at the time fore- mentioned , are different or diftincl Covenants. Suppofe the Apoflle tell us, that God made another Covenant with Believers than that he made with Ifrael of old ( 4hen that he made with Abraham it is no where faid J yet they cannot C§5) cannot fiy there is the leaft intimation that God will make another Covenant with the Jews, different from that we are now under. Now then the Covenant being one and the fame, the prOmifcs of that Covenant are indifferently to be applyed unto all under it : And for the fur- ther confirmation of this, let it be obfeWed, that the Apofile doth frequently apply thefe prcmifes , which are to have their full accom- plifliroent to rhe Jews , to the Gofpel Church under this prefent adminiftration : compare JJii. 5^.. i. with Gal. 4. 27. That promife irr in the letter dtie&ly refpe&s the Jews , yet the Apollle applyes it,as fulhlled inchoacively^n the converfion of the Gentiles : So compare ffojea 1, 1 1. and 7. 23. with Rom. 9. 25, 26. So oiiCe again, compare Amos 9 . 1 1 . with Atts 1 5 , 26. So that it is evident , that the Covenant, then to be made with , or into which the Jews ihall be received , is the very fame with that now made with believing Gentiles, and anfwe- rably thofe promifes, that (hall have their full accompli(hment to the Jews , "axe applicable to believing Gentiles. Thirdly, That this good , of having God a God to Parents and their Infant- feed , is not retrained to the Jews, by either of the waves before mentioned, and confequently not at all : Who can imagine that believing Gentiles fhould be iefs capable of in joying this good , than the Jews will be at their converfion? Why may not God be a God to Believers and their Seed now, G 4 as (86) as 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 it? They will lay fomething to the invali- dating of this Argument : Suppofe it (hould be granted (which yet I fee no reafonfor) that the Seed of the Jews will be more capable of being the Subjects of the Covenant and pie- miie thereof, than the Seed of Believers now arc? yet unlefs they prove, that the Seed of Believers are abfolutely uncapable of being re- ceived into, as joynt Subjects with their parents of the Covenant, and promife thereof, they fay nothing to the purpofe > in as much as whatever difference, in point of capability or incapability, may be afligned between the Seed of Believers then, and the Seed of Believers now, in regard of the different manner of this and that admi- niftration , yet that is no reafon why we may not apply thefe promifes to believing Gentiles,to have their firft accomplifhment in and among them , according to the manner of this prefent adminiftration , as well as the Jews may apply them to themfelves , and injoy the accomplish- ment of them in a way futable to that more excellent and glorious adminiftration : and as for the other way of Gods reftraining the good of promifes to fome particular perfons, viz. by the exprefs revelation of his will , let any fuch revelation of the will of God , in the matter under (87) under confederation, be produced, and I fhall put an end to this coin rover fie > and unlefs this good, in the extent and latitude before expretf, be fome way retrained to the Jews, we may po- iitively conclude , that the promife made to Abraham, with reference to his Seed , is by the forementioned promifes and prophefies con* firmed to, and fated 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 general rule, That whatever Promifes or Pro* phefies are given out by the Prophets in the old Tetiament, dirc&ly referring and relating to the Jews at their call and convention, yet unlefs the good contained in them be fome way retrained 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 prelent adminiftration. The application made by the Apoitle of Promifes and Prophefies dire&ly re- ferring unto them, to the new Teftament Church,and the particular Members thereof is a fufficient warrant for our fo doing. As now. for intiancc take that promife, Amos 9. u. concerniag the building up the Tabernacle of David, in the letter of it, it hath a direct refe-~ rence to the future converfion of the Jews , yet we fee, A&s 1 5 16. the Apoftle applyes it to the. erecting and building up of the Gofpel Churcji among the Gentiles. Now the Prophet Jere- miah tells us, how God will build up this Ta- bernacle"' (88; bernacle of David, of and among the Jews, he will do if, by taking in their rcfpedive families which muft needs rake in Parents and Children into Covenant with himfelf, He will be a God to all the families of the houfe of I (rati. Now let any rational account be given , why we may not apply that promife in Jeremiah, cxprcding the manner of Gods railing up this tabernacle, to his raring it up from among the GtrVfifes , as well as the Apoftle applyes thatptomife it fclf to the gathering the Church' from among them ; doubtlefs noreafon, that hath fo much as a probable (hew of rcafon or truth in it , can be given. And whereas it may be faic^ there are fom- things fpoken in Jeremiah $f. which cannof- be applied to believing G:nrifc5. To that i anfwer, 'Tis granted : But that 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 it refers to the converiion of the Jews, there is fomething which is not applicable to the Gentiles ; yet that hinders not, but that the promiie, fofaras applicable to them, was intended of them, and accomplished in the beginning of it, in thejr conveifion : So now God, as being the God of all the families of Ifrael^ will, when the Jewifh Church cometh up to the fumefs of her glory, cornnaunicate himfelf in ambre'full, gloriod^ and imiverfal manner , in refped of the indivi- dual Members of each family , than now he dothi ($9) doth i yet that hinders net at all, but that that promiic was intended of the families of Ifrael, as gathered from among fhe Gentiles , as the Apotfle calls the Gentile Church, tbelfraelof Ge^and is begun to be accomplished, according 10 the true intent of it , under this prefent ad- miniftration. But that's for the fecond way of evidencing the truth of this our fecond Propo- rtion. Thirdly, The truth of what we affirm in this fecond Fropofition may be evidenced from the exprefs letter of the new Tefhment , this promtfe 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 j by the exprefs letter of the new Te- ftament. Thus in Galatians 3. 13,14. Cbrifl, faith the ApoRlcbatb redeemed us from the curfe of the Lan>, being made a curfe for us , that the blejjtngof Abraham might come on the Gentiles^ through J ejus Chrijt , that vee might receive the fromife of the Spirit through faith. The Apo* itiewefee here doth pofitively affirm , that the very end of Chrift, redeeming the Gentiles from the curfe of the Law» was their poffefling Ahra-> ham's bleflingj and confequently is the immedi- ate ifTue and refultof a Gentiles redemption ot deliverance from the curfe of the Law,through Ghrift, as believed in. No fooner is a believing Gentile freed from the curfe of the Law, by hisr faith in Chrift,buthe,as one of Abraham's Seed, hath Abraham's blefling come rrpon him. For- th* (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 o{ A- brabamfaid 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 Chritt, in the fame latitude and extent that it was given to Abraham^ the ftrlt eftabliftiment of the Cove» nant with him. For the firft, viz. That this bleffing came up* on the Gentiles through Chrift,is the good con- tained in the aforementioned promife : This is evident from the Context. Firft* From verfe 16. where fayes the Apo- file , Now unto Abraham and bk Seed were the Tromifes made j be [aid not, unto Seeds, as of manjybut to tby Seed, which isCbrifi : This veife 1 6. is added for the confirmation of what the Apoftle had affcrted in verfe 14. For the clear- ing up of this we muft obferve, that by the pro- mifeof the Spirit, in the latter claufe of that verfe 14. and the bleffing of Abraham, in the former claufe of this verfe , one and the fame good is intended. LTis U\xeyBeza conceives two diilinci (9i ) chfiinft bl (Tings arc intended, and therefore he adds that Copulative , *5 »w> and takes that fkxafe-T he promije of the Spirit, by an Hebraifm, tor the Spirit promifed > but that cannot be, for then, as Pareus obferves, it mould not have been, %9 Inayyihfot 7* aftvptH®- , the promife of the Spirit, as it is, bu: 7$Vrtifo« tk \nryptimt the Spirit ot promife : and therefore by the pro- mife of the Spirit we mull underttand, cither that fpiritual promife, Co Pareus, orrathcr that promife whicn God by his Spirit gave unto A~ braham , and which by the infpiration of the Spirit is left upon record in the Scripture , and that is the promife containing the bleffing be* fore mentioned \ or if any (hould underitand it of the Spirit himfelf, taking it of his in-dwell- ling pretence , they (hall not be gainfaid by me. And the meaning is this, Chrirt hath redeemed us from the curie of the Law, that we, whether Jews or Gentiles , might, receive the promife of the Spirit, (viz, that bleffing promifed to Abrar bam oy the Sphk ) through faith in Chrift,that is, that being united by faith unto Chrift, and incorporated into him , as members of his my* fti*al body,' we might receive that bleffing pro- miled to Abraham , and now come upon the Gentiles through Chrilt: So that that which the Apoftle allerts in this ver. 14. is this,that the bkffing promifed to Abraham is come upon the Gcnnles,through their incorporation intoChrifv by faith i and this the Apoiile proves in verfe j 6. by the tenour of the promife wherein the bleffing aforementioned is contained; There- BOttf (90 nour of the promife is this, not, I will be a God> to thee and thy Seeds, but to thee and thy Seed, as intending only one fpecies or kind or Seed, which the Apoitie expounds to be Chriit , that i^Chrilt myltical. Now obferve it, the Apoftles urging che tenour of the promife, to prove that the bldfing of Abraham is come upon the Gen - tiles, as he had afore affirmed it to be, in verle 14 evidently declares, he muft needs intend the blefling contained in that promife > if he had intended it of any other bkfling than that good given to Abraham and his Seed by thac promife, the tenour of that promife had not prov'd what he was to prove : fo that it mull needs be that blefling proraifed to Abraham , that the Apoflle here affirms to be come upon believing Gentiles through Jefus Chriti Now that this promife, by the tenour of which the Apoitle prov'd what he had faid, verfe 14. is this very promife made to Abraham , Gen. 17.7. isevidcnt paft all doubt , in as much as the Apoftle mull needs refer to Come promife made to Abraham and his Seed in that very phrafe , To thee and thy Seed ; the itrength of the Apoftles Argument lying in the manner of expreflion, to thy Seed. Now we have no other promife containing a good eompetable to the Gentiles, exprelt in that phrafe, but this only i fo that it is evident, that this blefling, faid to be come upon the Genties through Chrift, is that blefling contained in that very pfomife,wherein God ingaged to be a God to Abraham, and his Seed in their generations. As for that promife in Ge#. 12. 3. there is no mention (93) mention at all of Abrahams Seed \ and for that Gen, 17. 19. unto which fome feem to fuppofc the 'Apoftle here hath reference, there is no mention at all of Abraham's Seed, as fuch, but of Ifaacs > and heiides,'tis not faid to thy Seed, but it is fpoken of. or concerning his Seed ; But now, I fay, the ApoiUc mutt needs refer to, and intend fome promife , wherein this very phrafe, to thy Seed, is exprefly aTed : The fircngth of this Argument, as I have faid, lying in the mari- ner of exprcllion , there being a myftery in that phrafe , implying that the bltffing of Abraham fhould 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 tha Apoftle explains it, Horn, 4; 13. Secondly , That the bltffing faid to be come come upon the Gentiles through Chiift, is that bkiTing contained in that promife of the Cove- nant, is evident from verfe 2^. where faith the Apoftle, Ij ye beCbrijii, thin art ye Abraham'/ Seed, and heirs according to promife: Heirs of what? Why verfe 14 tells us, of the bleffingof Abraham : But heirs according to what pro- mife ? Why verfe 16. tells us, that promife made to the Seed of Abraham ; Now how could they be heirsof that bUffing, according to, or by vertue of that promife , unlefs the bleffing they were heirs unto , were the bltffing or good contained m that promife ? Can any be heirs to z bltffing, according to or; by venue of that pro- mife, in which that bleffing is not contained? Or C94) Or can a prom ile convey aright to that good which is not contained in it ? who can imagine it ? Therefore doubtle(s the bkffing mud needs be the bkffing, contained in that promife made to Abraham , and his Seed in their generati- ons. Thirdly, That the bkffing of Abraham faid to be come upon believing^ Gentiles through Ghrift, is the blcffing contained in that promife, is evident from verfe?, where it isfaid , they that are of the faith are blefled , *»* ™ ™*V A0&*P> with faithful Abraham, that is, bkflfed with the fame bkffing that Abraham was blef- fed with : Now there is no bkffing that Abra- ham wasbkfled with, that can poffibly come up- on the Gentiles , but only the bkffing contained in this promife,and therefore that muft needs be the bkffing here intended. But three things will be obje&ed againft our taking this Scripture as an exprefs fettlement of Abrahams bkffing , as it confifted in that pro- mife , of God being a God to him and his Seed, upon believing Gentiles. Firft, It will be bbje&ed , That this blcffing is not meant of that bkffing with which Abra- ham himfelf was bleffed , but of that bkffing. promifed to him, with reference to his Seed, which was, that God would be a God to them# as he was to Abraham himfelf, To <95) To this I anfwer : It is all one ,' whether we underihnd it of the bltffing promifed to A bra* fc*«i,with reference to himfclf, or with reference to his Seed , in as much as the Promife made to * Abraham himfctf, and that made to him with reference to his Seed, is one and the fame : What God promifed to Abraham^ viz. That he would be a God to him and his natural Seed , that he promifed to his Seed, viz. to be a God to them in their generations > that is, as before explains cd,to them and their Seed * and befides, taking it fo , the promifc to Abrahams natutal Seed was, to them in their generations. And in like manner, astheApoftle here affirms, it runs to believing Gentiles, viz. to them in their gene- rations, including Parents and Children : But if we compare thisphrafe> » \uho$*T* *a%^, the bleffing of Abraham, withverfe?. itisevi- dent , it w* the bleffing wherewith Abraham himielf wasbleffedi the bleffing of Abraham, according to the propriety of the phrate , pro* perly fignines the bltffing that Abraham himfcli injoy'd; and to be bleiTed with Abraham, to enjoy his bleffing , and to inherit the good pro- mifed to him, with reference to his Seed, Hi- tends, in the language and deputation of the Apoftlc, one and the lame thing i an undeniable cvidence,that the promife,as made to Abrtbam, with reference to his Seed , contained the very fame good it contained as made to Abraham himfelf, the Father of that Seed. Now to nirn it was, to him and his Seed, that is, his natural Secdi and therefore it is the fame to his Seed, (96) to them and their natural Seed -, or which is all one, to them in their generations. Secondly , It will be objected , That this bleifing- is not meant of a relative good , con- lifting ma Covenant -relation between God and Abraham, and his Seed, but is meant of thefe Ipirttual bleffings of Reconciliation, Juftificati* onv Adoption, and Eternal Life vouchfafed to Abraham , as personally contidered ; and 'tis granted, that Abraham's bleffing , confining of fhefe fpkitual blcffings, is come upon believing Gentiles, through Chrift : But what i9 this to that promife made to Abraham , concerning Gods being a God to him, and his Seed in their generations, eoiiftituting an externa? Covenant* ttlat ion between God and them. I To this I anfwer, This Objection will be ©feviated- by the lecond thing propofed, for the clearing up of the fettlement made of Abra- i*fte*sbld£ng upon believing Gentiles, by the tkprefs letter of this Scripture : and therefore I $iaH only fay thusmuch at prefenc , that it is granted 5 the ipiritual benefits or bleffings now mentioned, Were included in this bleffing, fairf fere to be come upon the Gentiles through Chrift, yet not exclufiveof that relative good ef a Covenant ftate and relation between God 'and Abraham, and his Seed, but that is the firft Sfifl primary goodSntended, and that which is yie'loundatioVvo^all the remand in which they ifc jtll-wief tualfy included. . . Thirdly, (97) Thirdly, It will be further objected , That the bleffing here ftid to be come upon the Gen- tiles through Chrift, is not that bleffing where- with Abraham himfelf was bleiTed , but that blcding promifed to the Nations in him, and confequemly the Apoftle intends not the blef- fing contained in that promife of the Covenant* , mentioned in that Gen. 17. 7. but that blefling fpoken of Gen. 12. 3. where God Promifes un- to Abraham, that in him all the Nations of the earth (hould be blejfed: and that the Apoftle intends it of that blehng contained in that pro- mife , and not of that bleffing contained in that Gen 17. appears fromverle the eighth of this third of Galatians% To this I anfwer two things. Firft, That though I freely grant , that this bkflSug, faid by our Apoftle to be come upon the Gentiles, be that bleffing with which 'twas promifed to Abraham, That the Nations (hould be blciTed in him, yet it will not follow , that it is not the bleffing or good contained in that grand pTomife 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, Ianfwer, That that bleffing, with which God promifed fo to blefs the Nations iri Abraham , is the fame bleffing contained in that grand piomifcof the Covenant* and therefore ■ Ha the (93) the Apofllc might have, and certainly hith re- ference toboththefe promifes in this Chapter. For the clearing up of this , let it be obferved, that there are three thing* conlldcrable in this bleffingprormfed to Abraham, with reference to the Nations of the Earth. Firit, There is the matter of this bh fling, . and 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 bitting , and thefe are either chit f and principal , viz. Chrift as removing the curfe of the Law , and purchasing that bLfling for them by his death aud furFcfiug. 2. The fubordinite and lefs principal, viz. Abraham himfclf. Thirdly, There is the notion or consideration under which they mould receive and injoy this bkUing, and that isy as Abrahams Seed. Now in that Gen. 12.3. we ha ve a more ge- neral promife of this bltfling , with which God intended to bkfs the Narions , and alfo a fpeci- ficanon of the means, bo h fupream and prin- cipal, and alio fubordinate and lets principal, of their coming to the iojoyment of it , they (hould be bleifed in Abraham^ that is, in Abraham him- fclf, as. the lefs principal means , in Chritt, the Sud of Abraham , as the chief and principal mean*, But C99) But in this Gen. 177. we have both the mat- ter of the blefling afore promi fed, and the notion nnder which they fhould receive and injoy it » 1 trill be , faith God , a G»d to thee and thy Seed after thee in their generations. The notion un* der which God promifed to blefs the Nations in t/jbrabamjs^s they were his Seed > the matter of the blefling is, that God would be a Godtr them in their generations ; that.is, to them and theirs. So that thefe two Promtfcs, Qch. 12.3, an€ Gen. ij. 7. are not cwadiiiinft Promifcs, containing two diflinft bit flings , but they con- tain one and the fame blefling, and, as taken joyntly together , declare the full mind of God concerning his blefling the Nations of the Earth in s.brabam. The ium of all comes to thus much , That God would make Abraham as a Father of natural Children, from among whom the Mtfllih fhould come; To a ipirkual or myitical Father , and anfwerably would , through the interpofal of that one principal Member of bis Seed, viz. Chrift, be a God to him and his Seed, both natural and mvftical, in their generations > and confequently 2I1 the Na- tions of the Earth , whether of Abraham's na» tural Raceor Pofterity, or of the Gcntiks, that were detigned to be blefTed, mould be bleficd in Abraham, as his Seed, or in him, as a common Father to them all: And in hit Seed^viz, Chrift, as the procuring caufe of that their bleifednefs ; Hence it is no wonder, though the Apottle, in fpeaking of the way of the blefllngs coming upon the Gentiles, hath reference to both thefe H 3 prgmifcs3 ( I GO ) promifes, both4 as I faid, taken together, and in conjunction one with the other , containing ths full mind of God, concerning his bk fling the world: Asa clofe of all let me add , that as Clod promifed to blefs the Nations in Abrabamy as before opened , Co he made Abraham himfelf a copy or pattern,according unro which he pro- mised to blefs them in him, and that both in re* fpedt of the bkffing it felf,with which he would blefs them,and in refpeft of the terms and man- nerof their pofTcfling and inheriting that btef- fing, viz. Through faith in Chriir,expre(fing it felf in univerfal obedience, Fof the further proof of this, let it be obfcr- ved,that both the Hebrew prefix and the Greek prepoiltion we tranflate in, may be tranflated after the manner, or according to: For the Greek, fee Hebron, whence Calvin gives the (enfe thus, Non tantum fignificatifjum fore exemplar^ fedcaufam btntdidtianii \ Junius and Tremelim give this glofs, Farnili* terr/s tibi infit£ per fidem^ partieipes funt harumpromijfio* vmm benediftionnmque tuarum : And thus the Apoftle expounds this promife, of being bleiTed in Abraham , by another phrafe , bkfled with Abraham. Now then haying proved, that this bleffing, faid by the Apoftle to be come upon the Gentiles through Chrift, is that very bkffing or good contained in that grand Promife of the Covenant , and that not only in that branch of it that refers to Abrahams Seed , but in that branch referring directly unto Abraham him- felf, wherein God tngaged-to be % God to him and and his Seed , and confequcntly that this is tha blefling faid to be come upon the Gentiles. 1 come now to the fecond thing propofed, viz. to prove,that this blefling is come upon tha Gentiles , in the lame extent and latitude in which it was given to Abraham himfelf : Now this is fufficiently evident from the alone con% deration of theindefinitenefs and univerfality of the exprelOon , thebkflingof Abraham $ mc fee the A polHe affirms, thebkfling of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles, without any reftri&i» on or limitation,he doth not fay, this or thai part of the blefling, but the blefling abfolutely and unlimitedly. _ Jt is true, notwithftanding tbeindermifenefs and univerfality of the Apoftles expreffion i yet in cafe any part of the ikffing^ vouehfefed to Abraham b*of that nature, as that the Gen- tiles are (imply and abfplutely incapable of it, or in cafe : God ihimfelf hath any where clfc .withheld any part of it from them, in this ca|e a limitation andreftri&ion muft be underftood, as neceflarily implied in this general and univer- sal exprcflion b but otherwife we ought to un- xterftand the Apoftle, according to the full lati- . tudc of his expreflion>. the bkfling, that is, the whole blefling of Abraham is come upon be- lieving Gentiles. And hence we argue ; If the whole blefling .of Abrahambz come upon believing Gentihjs, f© far as they are capable of injoying itand God hath by n© exprefs revelation of his will wit fi- ll 4 held f 101) held it from them, and this, to have God a God to him and his natural Seed , was an tflentul part of his bltfling , which believing Gentiles are capable of injoying,and God hath not by any revelation 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 true,there- tore the latter. It's true , If any man can make it appear, that this part of Abrahams bkfling, viz. Gods ingaging to be a God to his Seed with him, be a bleffing the Gentiles are incapable of in joying , or that God by any exprefs revelation of his will, hath withheld that part of the bkfling from them , we (hall ceafe any further claim to it. But as for the firft, The incapacity of be- lieving Gentiles to in joy this part of Abrahams bleffing, Cure none can pretend it > for fuppofe it {hould be granted ( which is not ) that be? lievers under this prcfent di (pen fat ion are not in a like capacity to in joy this good, that Saints in future times will be* or that their Seed arc not alike capable of that good the Seed of Be- lievers in thofe times will be capable of: Yet mne can fay,that either believers, or their Seed9 are incapable of what Abraham and His natural Seed were capable of: 'tis ftrange how it is poffible for any man to conceit fuch a difference, either in the capacity of Parents or Children, or in the difpenfation of God, that Believers under thispxefent difpenfatioh frould be whol- ly (103) ly deprived of that part of the bUffing, which Believers formerly injoyed, and (hall again injoy ac the call and converfionof 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 contrortrfie 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 bleffing , yet the inde- finitenefs and univcrfality of his expreffion is a fufficient warrant for our interpreting the bleffing in this latitude and extent pleaded for. CHAP* (i04) CHAP. VL The ; fourth and la ft way of thefecondfnk* ordinate Proportions confirmation profecuted* Where feveral p*ff*ges in the New 7 'eft amen t are considered. Five Condkpns deduced frtm them 3 The third principally inffled upon'? When it is proved , that the Vromifeof Salvation appertains to the Houfes of believing Parents ^ as fuch , witbvui conffleration had to the perfonal Faith ana Repentance of any in or of their Houfejy beftdes their own , by two Ar- guments. objeUiens againft each Ar- gument anfwered. Fourthly , The truth of what we affirm iji this iecond Proportion may be further evidenced from feveral paiTages and exprclfions in the new Teftament , plainly declaring , that the Infant-feed of Believers under the Gofpci adminiftration, are included and taken in, as jaynt,Subjecl:s with their Parents of the Cove- nant and Promiie thereof, and that by vertue of their Parents relation to Abraham , as his Seed. Now (io$ ; Now this laft way of evidencing what is 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 others have already fully handled and improved thefc palTagesand expreffiorrs, 1 have reference umo, for the vindicating and cfta"bliftnng this truth, I in common with them contend for > that taadd any thing more, efpecially there being fo litthe, or rather nothing at all, replycd to any purpose by our Oppofers, may feem wholly fuperfluous^ and therefore I ftiall only produce thofepafla- gesand exgreffions in the new Tcftament, and (new what evidence they give into this fecoRd Propofition, in feveral Conclulions> neceflarily flowing from, or grounded upon them, as taken togcther,and compared one with another. *4% The PalTages and Expreffions I have reference nnto, are thciefive. The firft is that of Chrift, Mark^ i*. 10. The (econd is again that of Ghrift, Lufy 19*9- The third is that of Peter to the trembling Jews, ^ff/2. 38, 39. The fourth is that of Paul to the Jaylot, A&s 16. 31. A The laft is that of Paul to the Corinthiafts > 1 Cor, 7. 14, From all thefe Scriptures , as laid together, and compared one with anotherathefe dwe Cob- clufions do neceflarily follow. Firft, (ioO Firft, That upon Parents believing in Chrift, the Promife ot falvation belongs not only to rhernlelves , but to their refpedlive Houfes; ftyes the Apoftle to the J ay lor , Believe in tkt Lord J efts , and thou {halt be ftvedy and thine He* ft : where we fee the Apoftle propofes it as a motive and incouragement to him to believe, in th3t upon his believing, not only himfclf, but his houfe mould be faved, that is, both he him- felf and his houfe mould come under the pro- mife of falvation i or as the Apoftie Feter ex- pounds it , Ybtfrmift of falvation (hottld be t» him and bid bonft I he and his houfe fhould have felvation fetled upon them by promife , accord- ing to the true tenpur of the promife, which as it did not fecure falvation to the Jiylor Jiimfclf absolutely, but (upon condition ot his perfevc- tancein faith and obedience » He that indures to the end Jhall be faved: Be faithful unto tbe death , and I will give thee a Crownof life, faith Chriii to that Chuich, Rev. 2. 10. fiom which and the like Scripture it appears , that the pro- mite of falvation, that Believers.themfelvesare under, is not abfolute but conditional , and the fame mull be underftood of the promifes, as made to their houfes > which through their Pa- leius believing they are brought under, And as the Apoftlc promifes falvation to the Jay lor and his howfe, as a motive and incourage- ment to him to believe, fo Chrift tells Zjc/>*w, that upon his believing, falvation wa? come to his houft, that is, he and his houfe were now under the promife of falwion. As (137) As for that conceit of fome, thatl>y falvatioa here Chiitt himfelt (hould be intended j as it is wholly groundlefs , fo an evident perverting, of the words of Chrift. For firft, Let it be (hewed where Chrift as ever called falvation iiruply and abfolutcly t 'tis true , he is called Gods falvation , and Re* lie vers have appropriated him to themfelvcs a* their falvation > but that is as he is Author or EiHcient of Salvation : This term Sahatim, when ufed limply and abfolutcly. ilgnitie* Solva- tion properly and literally taken. Secondly, It is evident, that Salvation here is (aid to be come to Zacbem his houfe , as a pc* culiar good accrewing to him upon that very ground , and vouchlafcd to him for that very reafon, becaufe he was now a Son of Abraham^ and confequently was a good common to all, 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 thtir houfes , who were the Children of A* brabam, whether natural or myftical,io he might come to their houfes , who were not the Sons of jibrabam, in the one or the other fence. Thirdly, The Apoftle doth clearly expound the meaning of Guilt, Salvation wai come to bit houfe i that is , as the ApoiUe expounds it , He and his houfe were under the promiieof Salva- tion. Now did not men too wilfully (hut there «ye$ (ro8) eyes againft the light of Scripture, they would not affix a fence upon the words of Chrift , no where warranted from any other parallel Scrip* Cure, but contrary to the defign of Chrili ia them, when they have a plain Expotition made by the Holy Gboithimfe'U: we fee what Chrift faith of Zacbius's houfe, and the Apoftlc promi- fes the Jaylor, with reference to his houfe, that is faid jand promiied upon one and tha fame gTOund,z/*K.the Father of both:Chrift faith,^/-* virion U come to bit houfe \ he now believing, the Apofrle faith, his houle (hall 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- ftle expounds what that falvation was, that Chrift faith was come to Zacheut, upon his be- lieving , 'twas the fame kind of falvation that he promifes to the Jaylor, upon condition of his believing. The fecond Concluiion. Thus under this term Houft, Children are, in a peculiar and fpe- cial manner , included and comprehended : How far this term Houfe, is to be extended, whether f yond the Children of thofe , whole houic i ken of, or no, concerns not my pre- fenf purpofej that they are included and in- t< i that term Hoa/e, is all that at pre - ft ffirtt Now that the Children are in. I /ldent, partly from that phrafe5 AQs 1 6 3 j »ere * litis *«> thy houfe, verfe3i- is expounds by this phrafe, •; rfWf swVto, all of him, . C '09 ) nim,and partly from the frequent acceptation of this term Houfe, throughout the Scripture; it being peculiarly appropriated to the Children: Or mould the term be more comprchenilvc, yet k cannot rationally be fuppofed to exclude them : And yet 'tis further evident by the Apo- ftle Peter, where faith he , The Promife is to you and your Children : What Promife ? Why the Apoltle Paul tells us, the promife of Salvation \ Ibe Promije is to tbte and thy houfe , faith Paul to the Jaylor. But who are we to underftand by HouJe> Why Peter tells us, his Chil- dren. Hence again, as for that conceit of others, that the meaning (hould 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 houfe , 'tis too palpable a perverting the mind of Chrift : For let it be obferved, that by Salvation here , is meant Salvation in a propei fence,as hath been already proved ; and that by Houft here , cannot be meant that material building wherein he dwelt, but his Houfhold at Family. Now how Salvation could be faid to be come to his Houfhold, in that- it !was come to him, when as his Houfhold was no wayes inte- refted or concerned in it, is hard to imagine-, properly it could not be faid to become to his houfe,himfelf was not properly his houfe : So that this interpretation mutt needs fuppofe, that Chrift herefpeaks figuratively. Now let it be -obferved, howJutterlv improbable it is , that Chrift mould ufe af figurative fptjeth; that ha# a di^a tendency to lead men into a rriiitake about- his his fence and and meaning, when he might hate exprett himfeif without any tigure , in as few and as intelligible words, and thereby prevented the danger ot his being miftaken: Had Chrift intended that Salvation was come only to Zj- cbtus himfelf) it had been as eaiie for him to have faid , Salvation is come to this man , as to fay , Salvation is come to this houfe > and that this phrafe, tbk houfe, did fubjedt men to the danger of miftaking his fence and meaning, in cafe he had ipoken figuratively , is fufficient ly evident, becaufe that term Houfe, is fo frequent* Jy,yea,conftantly and univerfally ufed in a fence different from what this interpretation fuppo- feth that Chrift did ufe it in this place,that term Houfe, being conilantly and univerfally ufed fo fignine the Family or Children of thofe, whofe houfe is fpoken of, unlefs when it fignihes the material building it ft If : How many hun- dred places might be inftanced 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 whatfocver.that any good or evil thould be faid to be come to a houfe that is,the Family or Houfhold, when it is come only to one in the houfe, having no reference to any beyond the particular per(bn himfelf, is an cxpreffion not to be parallel'd throughout the whole Scriptures : but now 'tis the conftant phrafe of Scripture, to exprefs the Family, efpe* dally the Children, by that term HomJe\ 'tis wholly fupctflaous to enumerate places; fe that that (hould this term Houfe be ufed thus impro- perly by Chrift in this place , it 0*uft needs fub- je& all men to the danger of miftaking his fence and meaning, and the danger muft needs be the greater, becaufe the good, vizi Salvation, faid ' here to be come to his houfe,is Co frequently , both in the old and new Teftament , held forth , at lead very probably, to fay no more at prefem,iri fuch an extent and latitude as to reach the whole Family, efpecially the Children together with their Parents j thus it was promifed to Abraham^ that tht Families of the Earth fhould be bleffed in bim : So God promifes , that he would be the God of all the Families of Ifrael. Paul tells the Jaylor , that he and his houfe fhould be faved. Peter tells his awakened hearers, the promife was to them and their Children, that is, in an equivalency to them and their houses. Now when it is found in fuch va- ' riety of pa(Tages,that the promife of Salvation ex- tends to whole houfes upon the believing cf the f Parents, men muft needs be very apt to conceive, that Chrift ules this term Houfe , in a fence cor- refpondent to thofe various paflages, wherein • the fame good is at leafi 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 Chiift mould ufe i phrafein fuch a fence , as the whole Scripture is unacquainted with, and which is eonttatitl^ ufed in another fence , and thereby fubjed all men to fo great danger of niillaking his fence ancj meaning 3 and that alfo to the upholding of f #hif what himfelf , according to the judgments of ourOppofcrs,he was about to throw down,when he might have expreft himfelf with as much eafe,6c alike intelligibly5in proper terms, no way liable to be miftaken, methinksit is very ftrange how it is peflible for any man to imagine it : So that doubtlefs Chrift fpeaks properly , Sal- vation was come to Zachm his houfe, that is, the promife of Salvation did belong to his houle, in fpecial to his Children : and this a- grees, as already ©bferved > with that promife of Paul to the Jay lor. Ikon fialtbefaved and thy houfe. Thirdly, That the promife of Salvation be- longs to the houfes of believing Parents, meer- ly as fuch, without contideration had to the per- fonal faith and repentance of any in, or of their jefpe&ive houfes, and confequtndy the promife 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 thcmfelvcs. 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 tnay belong to the houics of this or that particular believing Parent, when yet none in or of the houfe have perfonally believed or repented. Now the truth of this Conclufion will be evident by a twofold Argument. Firft, («*3) f irft , What belongs to the houfes of be* lieving Parents, mecrly by vertue of fomething univerfally predicabV of all fuch Patents, muft needs belong to their refpc&ive houfes, asfuch* without confederation had to the perfonal faith and repentance of any in or of their reipe&ive houfes; But the promife of. Salvation belongs to the houfes of believing Parents , by vertue offbmething univerfally predict ble of $11 fuch Parents * and therefore the promife of Salva- tion muft needs belong to all their reipe&ive houfes, as the houfes of fuch Parents , without confederation' had to the perfonal faith and re- pentance of any in or of this houie. The Major proposition cannot be dcnyed s for if the promife of Salvation belong to the hou- fes o: believing Parents , meerly by vertue of fomething univerfally predicable of all fuch Parents, certainly then none can quetfion , but that the promife belongs to thofe houfes, as the houfes of fuch Parents > without confederation had to any thing in,or done by the houfes them- felves , or any in or of them. If freedom in fuch a Town or Corporation mall belong to th& Children of Free.men,meerly by vertue of their Parents freedom, lure none cculd qu^fiion, but that freedom did belong to them , as the Chil- dren of fuch ParentSjWithout confederation had to anything in rcfpedtof tfie Children them* felves. For the Minor propofuion : and thus I have three things to do. i i turn Firft , To fhew what is that thing predi- cable of believing Parents , by vertue of which the promife of Salvation belongs to their rcfpe- &ive houfes. Secondly , To prove , that the promife of Salvation doth indeed belong to the houfes of fuch Parents, niecrly by vertue of that thing pre- dicable of them. Thirdly, To prove, that that thing, what- ever it be, is univerfally predicable, or is univcr- Tally true of all fuch Parents. For the firft, And thus in brief, That thing predicable of believing Parents , by vertue of which the promife of Salvation belongs to their refpe&ive houfes , is their relation unto Abra- ham^ his Seed : Therefore faith Chrift of Za* chem his houfe, 'Ibis day is Salvation come to this houfe , for as much as be if the Son of Abrabam : 'Tis his Sonfhip 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, mecr* *ly by vertue of their Parents relation unto A- brabam, as his Seed Now this is evident from that paffage of Chrift concerning Zacbem his houfe, Salvation is come u this boufey for as much as be a I fa is a Son of Abrabam > that by houfe is not (H5) not meant Zachew himfelf, is before proved , it rauft needs be meant of his Houfhold, or Family, peculiarly intending his Children. Now fayes Chriit, Salvation U tome to this boufe, that is, to this houfhold or Family , for as much as he is a Son of Airzbam. Whether Ziehen* was a Jew or a Roman is all one as to my purpofe , feeing he is confidcted here not as a natural , but as a myftical Son of Abraham \ and as fuch a one, Chrift affirms, Salvation was come to his houfe > plainly grounding his houfes right to, and in- tereft in Salvation, upon his own relation to Abraham , as one of his Seed ; Salvation was not only to himfelf,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, meerly by vertue of that their relation to Abraham; is evident, becaule the Scripture affigns nothing elfe as ne- ceiTarily to concur with that their Parents rela- tion unto Abraham^ for the erfe&ing or produ- cing their houfes right to, and intereft in the promife: Chriit 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 erTc&ing or producing that their intereft in , and right to the promife. It may be fome will fay, 'Tis cafily done y the Apoftle Peter makes effectual calling a necef- fary prerequilite to the Seed of believing Parents intereft in, and right to the promifes ; for faith I 3 he, ( no $ie,. 7 he Proniifekto you and your Children, and to all that are afar off> tven to as many as the Lord our God /hall call. Whence it feems to be evi. dent , that notwithstanding Parents relation to Abraham, as his Seed, yet the promife of Salva- tion appertains not .fo their Children, but upon fuppiiiition of their being erTeclually called. To that I anfwer two things ( not to ftay upon a vindication of that Text of the Apo- itle from the unfound fence fuppofed in this Ob- jection s Firft, That Chrift doth not fay* Salvation (hall come to this houfe , but he fpeaks in the rime pall, Salvation is come : 'tis true, if it had been only a promife referring to the time to came , there had been iffme (hew of colour for the fuppofing fuch a condition to be implyed in {ti but Chrift faith , Salvation was then come, and that upon that ground, and for that reafbn, becaufe he alio was a Son of Abraham. Now fhould we interpret this affirmation of Chrift by that of the Apoftle , according to the fence given by our Oppofers , 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 already, the coming of it could not depend iipon a future condition. If the coming of Sal- vation did depend upon the performance of a future condition, it could not be faid to be come already a and therefore wemuft not interpret this" this paiTage of Chrift by that of Peter, but that paffage 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 Handing alike related to Abraham, and proper and 'pecu- liar unto them i but now to have the promife of Salvation upon condition of being effectu- ally called , is a good common to all men uni- verfally , and therefore the promife is faid to be to all whom the Lord ©ur God (hall call j but Salvation was cme to Zacheus his houfe as he was a Son of Abraham j io that we fee it was meerly by yertue of his relation unto Abraham, that the promife of Salvation belongs to his houfe,Chriftaffirming,that Salvation was come by vertue of that his relation \ and the Scrip- ture being iilent as to the necefTary concurrence of any thing elfe for the interefting his houfe in the promife of Salvation \ we may pofitive- ly conclude , the promife ©f Salvation doth be- long to the houfes of all believing Parents, meerly by vertue of that their relation to Abraham as his Seed , efpecially if we con- llder, ■ Thirdly, That this relation to Ab-raham is univerfally predicable of all believing Parents ; All believing Parents are the Children of Abra- ham , and confequently this could be noprivi- ledge peculiar to Zachw ,to have Salvation come I 4 to Cu3) to his houfe, as he was a Son of Abraham > but js a priviledge common to all believing Pa- rents, they Handing alike related to Abraham as he did. So that the Minor Proposition is un- doubtedly true, whence the Coucluiion wiU undoubtedly follow. My fecond Argument is this , If the promife of Salvation may and ought to be applied by the difpencers of the Gofpel to believing Parents, both with reference to themfclves and theit Children, meerlyas fuch, that is, as believing Parents,without confideration had t© theperfo- nal faith and repentance of any in or or their houfes,thcu the promife of Salvation muft needs belong to them and their houfes , without con- tideration had to the perfonal faith and repen- tance ©f any in or of their houfes : but the for- mer is true, therefore the latter. Certainly if a Miniflerof the Gofpel may aj?- 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 thofe to whom the application is made. Now that the promife of Salvation may and ought to be applycd in this extent and latitude, not only to believing Parents themfelves, but to their refpe&ive houles, and that meerly as fuch, without coniideration had to the perfonal faith and repentance of any in or of their houfes , is evident , paft all rational contradiction ,- by the Apoltlcs r ("9) Apoftles propofing the promife in this extent and latitude to the Jay lor. As the Apoitledid propofeitto the Jaylor , as a motive to him to believe,it might and ought to have been applied ro him upon his a&ual believing, he might have bfen allured , that now he and his houfe fhould 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 wc have already given. ) And that the Apoitle propofes this promife in the extent and latitude before exprett to the Jaylor , upon condition of his own believing, without coniideratior; had to the perfonal faith and repentance of any in or of his houfe , is evident from the exprefs words of the TtxtyTbou fbalt be faved and thy houfe j, and confequently might have been applied to him, as a Believer , upon his adtual believing * and hence it appears,that this promife did net apper- tain tohimalone,it was not a priviledgc peculiar to him, to have his hcufe under the fame promife with himfelf, but a priviledge common to all be- lieving Parents, §>uaunus iffttm, concludes de omni. The only Objection 1 have met with is this j Tnatas the Promife was made conditionally! to the Jaylor himfelf, fo to his houfe, that is,as the A pottle promifed to him, ihat if he believed he (hould be faved i> fo he promifed to him , with reference to his houfe, that if they believed they mould be faved , according to the inter- pretation given of that promife of Ieury Acts To (i2o; To that Ianfwer, That though it is readily grantedjthat the promifc,as externally propofed, was conditional! both to himfelf , and his houfe, yet I fay, that his own believing did give his houfe an adual right to , and intereft in the promife ( yet to be fulfilled , according to the terms of the Covenant) is evident, becaule there could be no reafon of the Apoftles adding that other branch of tke promife as a motive to him .to believe , unlefs 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 (tronger 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 falvation of his houfe , redounding to them by his believing, there had been nomorercafbn 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 when this confideration 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, ^#j 2. 29. It is replyed, That there were other Reafons of his mentioning their Children , then the af- ferring their right to, and intereft in the Cove* mntand Promife thereof. That fhift ( for fo I fhall call it ) can have no place here , for if it fliould fhould be granted, that the Apoftle Teter might mention the Children of thefe Jews, with re- fped to that imprecation they were under , re- corded in Mattb. 27.25. or with refpeft to that firit offer and render of Chrift and the grace of the Gofpel to be made to the Jews ; yet there could be no fuch reafon of the Apo- file 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 ro affure him, that upon his believing he fhould injoy the promife of Salvation, in the extent and latitude it was at the fir ft eltablifhment of the Covenant given unto Abraham : had not the promife ex- tended to his houie, as well as to himfclf, perfo- nally confidered , there had- baen no reafon for the Apoftle to mention his houfe , and tell kirn, that not only himfelf , but his houfe fhould be faved, had not a peculiar good redounded to his houfe by his believing : It had been a more ef- fectual motive to have told him, that the whole Town fhould have been favedjn as much as then his houfe had been included , and he had had a further intimation of the probability of other of his Friends, Relations and Acquaintance Sal- vation, Secondly, I anfwer, If we compare this pro- mife of Fanl to the Jaylor, with that fore- mentioned paffagc of Chrift concerning Z*~ '0*0 thw his houfe , 'tis evident, the Apoftle pro- poundeth this promifc , in both branches of it, to him, upon the alone condition of hisperfo- nai believing > and his meaning is , that in cafe he himfelf fhould believe , he and his houfc mould be faved, that is, as Feter ( as hath been already obferved ) expounds it, the promife of Salvation would be to him and his houfe \ and that this is his meaning , appears from that pa- rallel paffage of Chrift : Chrift .tells Zacbeus, Salvation vpm come to bis 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 Jay lor > the Apo- i|le is to be underltood , according to that of Chrift > it is as if he had faid , believe in t Jie Lord Jefus, and thereby thou wilt become a Son of Abrabam^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 hrft eftablifti- 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 Conelu- fion 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 necefTary to affirm or prove, that there were any Infants in the Jaylors houfeat this time, in order to the prov- ing, fromtheApoftles making this conditional promife to him and his houfe i that the promi- ses of the Covenant arc given to, and fetled up- on believing Gentiles , in the fame latitudt and extent that they were given to Abraham^ at the firft etlablifhment of the Covenant with him ; if he had any Infants , the promife had belonged to them as part of his houle v the pro- mife was to him,with reference to his houfe3as a Believer, without conilderation hadtetheper- fonal faith and repentance of any in or of his houfe i 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 neceiTarily to be included in this term houfe j 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 refpeftive houfes . The promife appertains to the houfe, by vertue of the Parents believing , as thereby they are ingrafted into t/tbratoanfs Family,and become one of his Seed ? and hence all that are included in that term bnxfe, have the promife appertaining unto them, and confequently Infants as well as others. And And if it fliould be faid , There might be (bme 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 have been the very fame with the cafe of the Jews, at the firft preaching of the Gofpel. The promife apper- tained to them , as of the houfes of believing Parents , but their actual refufal would have, iffo faUo^ difanulled that their right and title to the promife, and fo they, 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 repentance of the houfes , or of any in the hou- fes of believing Parents, no way oppofes,but on the other hand ftrongly 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 Gehtiles,in that the houfes,or any in the houfes oi believing Parents , were favingly wrought upon, cither 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 reaibn inferred or con- '• eluded from thence, that they had not thepro- mife of Salvation appertaining to them, meerly as thehoufes^rasofthe houfes offuch Parents, Without without confideration had to their own per- fonal faith and repentance '> but on the other hand it doth ftrongly prove , they were under the promife, as the houfes of fuch Parents, in their believing and repenting fthe Promife was verified i their believing and repenting was a vifiblc demonftration , that thepromife , in the extent and latitude before expreit, viz. as reach- ing and taking in the houfes with the Parents themfelves , was duly and rightfully applyed to fuch Parents by the Apoftle, when wc rind the Apoftle applyes the promifes of the Covenant to the Gentiles, in the fame latitude and extent that they were given to Abraham^ viz. as ta- king in their Children with them , and fhen read of the faith and repentance of their Chil- dren,immediately following upon their own be* lieving, it may more fully affure us,that the pro- mife runs itill in the fame latitude and extent that it formerly run in : why, we have not only the Apoftlcs application of the promife for our alTurance, but we have God himfelf confirming that application made by the Apoftle, in his giving in the good promiled, in that extent and latitude,in which the Apoftle did apply the pro-' mife : The Apoftle applyes thepromife in this extent, Thou andtbyhonfe (ball be faved: God by a&ually giving in the good promifed, allures us, that the Apoftles application was according tn his mind and will, that he was and would be ftill a God, not only to believing Gentiles,perfo- nally confidered, but a God alfoto their reipe- &iv£ houfes: So that whether there were any Infant Infant-children, or any Cliildrenin their Infant capacity in thefe houfes, thebaptifa) 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 fajne 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 the promife appertains to *he houfe > 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 houfes, or any in thern^ no way oppofes , but confirms their interetf in, and fight to that promife of Salvation , and confequently they ought to be baptized, as will appear from the proof of our third 'Propo- rtion. But let that fuffice, for the fecond Conelufi- on , which is that I principally aimed at , and therefore have efpeeially infilled upon it. I {hall 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 Myftical Body of ChrifU this I gather from MjtI^ 10. and i Cer.y.iq.. taken in conjun&ion with thole other new Teltamcnt Scriptures aforemention- ed* Lafiy, C»>7> Laftly, That this intereft in the promifc of Salvation accrews to the houies of believing Parents , by vertueof fuch Parents relation to Abraham ,as his Seed : This is evident from that of Chrift concerning Zacbem, Salvation if come to bis boufe , for as much as be is a Son 'of Abra- ham. And frpm all it appears , that the very fame promife, made to Abraham and his natural Seed, is ftillcontinued to, and fer led upon believ- ing Gentiles, which is our fecond Proportion i Let us how hear what is objected again ft what is after ted in it. K chap. (Irt) CHAP. VII. Obje&ionr againft the fecond fubordinate Proportion, con- fid ered and answered. Objeti. i. 5^TT*Is conceived by fome , and that not a few, X that what hath been affirm'd in the fore- going Propolltions , at leaft the latter of them, lyes in a diredfc oppofition to that Text of the Apoftle, Rom. 9. 7, 8. and therefore cannot be true. And thus 'tis objected ; How can it be true, that God ftiould intend Abrahams natural Seed C take it of his natural Seed in the fence of the firft FoGtion ) and that as fuch, in that promife , wherein he ingages himfclf to be a God to him and his Seed > or how can it be true, that this promife , in that latitude and extent feould be given to, and fetki uponbe- lievers ( "?) Ikvers under the new Teftament > when the -^poftle, having a cTiredt. reference to this very promife, pofitively affirms , That the Children oj the fleflj are not the Children of God , but the Children of the Promife are accounted for tki Seed. Say our Oppofers , Certainly it clnnot be true, that God fhould intend Abrabawi's natu- ral Seed, that is, the Children of his flefti, and that mecrly as fuch>in that promife » or fuppoie that promife might have a literal refped to A- krabam's natural Seed, as fuch, yet fure it cannot be true , that this promife is given to , or fetled upon believers under the new Teftament , Co as that God mould mil ftand obliged by that pro- promife, to be a God to them and their natural Seed i for the Wpoftle tells us in exprefs words, That the Children of the fiejb are not ths Children of God , hut the Children of the promife axe ac- counted for the Seed. * For anfwer to this Objection I flail, as the Lord (hall afllft, do thefe two thing?, Firft, Shew that there is no contrariety or re- pugnancy, between what hath been affirmed in the foregoing PropofitionSjOr either of them^and this Text ot the ^pottle. Secondly, Shew that this place of the Ape- file rightly undcrikxxUcontributes not a little to rhecitabliihnunt and confirmation of what hath been faid in the foregoing Propofuiens, Bi; • toft (»3o) For the firft , That there is no repugnancy between what hath been afSrmed and this Text of the ^poftle, will ioon appear, by declaring what is the true and genuine fence of the Apo- ftlein thefe verfes : and thus it is agreed on all h«nds, that the ^poftles defign and fcope is to open and declare how that word of promife, wherein God ingaged to b« a God to Abraham and his Seed, flood firm, and had its full accom- plishment, according to the true intendment of God in it , notwithftanding the rejection of fo- great a part of his feed. Beza, I judge, doth rightly ftate the Queftion anfwered by the Apoftle, Qui fieri poflit ut re- jefitts fit lfrael quia fimul conjlituendum vidta- iur irritum tjfe paftum Dti cum Abrabamo & tjuf femine. That was the Queftion , How lfrael could be rejected , and the Covenant that God , made with Abraham and his Seed, not made void thereby. Now to this Queftion the -^poftle anfwers in a twofold general -^fTertion. Firft , That all are not lfrael that arc of lfrael. Secondly, That becaufc they are the Seed of Abraham they are not all Children. Two Two things might be urged as Reafons, why the Jews could net be rejected without a failure on Gods part , in his promi fes to them: The latter, which they mainly infifted upon, was, That they were the Seed of Abraham, and that God had promifed to be a God to him and his Seed after him. Tfo this latter plea the ^poftle anfwers in this latter afTettion, and mews, 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^poHle doth in thefe two verfes > (b that thefe two verfes contain the ^poftles expofition of that grand promife made to Abra* bam, with reference to his Seed, Now that we may rightly underftand 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 (elf, we muft inquire into two things. Firft, What the ^poftle denyes, Secondly, What he affirms, with reference to that promife. For the fir ft , And thus the ^poftle denyes that all that were the Seed of Abrabam^znd had that promife appertaining to them , as hts Seed, were the Children of God : Thus verfe 7. Net- tber becaufe they are the Seed of Abraham , are K 3 they 030 they all Children, which is explained an the next verfe ,* where obferve, when the -^pottle fayes, 1 be children of the fie(h , theft are not the chil- dren ofGod,ht muft be interpreted by the words immediafely aforegoing,and his meaning is,they are not all the children of God , tor lb he ex- prefTts himielf in the foregoing words. In this eighth verfe the Apoftle amplifies, and further explains what he had more generally laid down in the {eventh verfe i whence it is evident, that he fpeaks of the fame perfons in both ', and an- fwerably, as by the children of the fk(h, ver.§. the fame perfons are intended that are expreft by that phtafejheSeed of Abraham, ver 7. fo when he fays of the children of the flcm,*/.?ev are » 034) Firft, Ele&ion before time. Secondly, Suppollng that perfon grown up to years of maturity , converlion or a favirig work of grace upon the heart m time. Now all that the Apoftle denyes is, That this promife did neceflarily prefuppoie , that all to whom it was made, were ele&ed or chofen of God a&ually to inherit the good promifed , or that the promife did oblige God favingly to work upon them in time ; whence in refpeft of individual and particular perfons, as they might not be elected , (6 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 this promiic > and thus he doth affirm, That the children of the promife are accounted for the Seed. Now here again two things muft be inquired snfo. 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 Abraham's Seed, or fuch children of his fleih , who were not only the children of his fleih 3 but alio the children of . i * God, God. For let it be obferved, that the queftion was concerning Abraham's Seed > or the children of his fkm,and that as fuch having that promife pertaining unto them j 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 y and confequently, by the children of the promife we muft underhand the eleft of Abra- hams natural Seed , or fuch whoamongft them had a laving 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 Apoftle, 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 in refpect of their c]e* dion before time, and their actual injoyment of the good promifed in time > they cannot be faul to be accounted for the §eed in this fence , as though none but thefe were intended in that promife, for the Reafon before given, viz. Be- caufe thequeftion concerning the whole natu* ral Seed of Abraham^ and that as they were in- tended in that promife > fo that they could not be accounted for the Seed, as though they alone were intended in that promife* for the Apo* file grants , yea, the very Queftion he anfwers, doth neceffarily fuppofe others to be intended ; in in that promife be fides them * therefore thefe can be laid 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 > nor doth he affirm , that the children 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 ele&ed , or that God was ob- liged by that promife 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 accomplifh- 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 in the accomplishment of the promife to them it is fully verified , according to the true intent, mind and meaning of God in it. Now Now then what repugnancy or contrariety is there between what hath been affirmed in the foregoing Proportions, or either of them, and this Text of Scripture? We affirm,tkat when God'promifed to Abr*- ham^to be a God to him and his Seed, he intend- ed his natural Seed as the rirft and next Subjects of this promife , and that this promife in the fame latitude and extent isfetled upon and eon- firmed to believing Gentiles : the Apoille 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 Abraham ,to whom this pro- mife did appertain , that were eledred 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 I fay, what (hew of con- trariety between what we aiHrm, and what the Aportle faith ? Now that this was the true intendment, mind and meaning of God in this promife , the Apoftle proves, by producing a twofold In- (tance, wherein God himfelf declared that to be bis fence and meaning in it, Firft, Firft , He inftances in the Subje&s of this Promifeimmediately defcended from Abrahams gwn loins, thefe were, among others, Jfhmael and Ifaac : and here the Apoftlefhews how God declared his true fence and meaning in that Pjromife, by his chufing Jp and thus the A pottle inftances in the Children of Ifaac , and (hews again how God did declare what was his mind and meaning in this Pro- mife, as it was made to Abraham's Seed in their Generations, viz. That as thereby he intended not infallibly to fecure the good promifed to all yrabaris immediate Children, fo he intended not (i?9) not thereby to fecure the good promifed to air the Children of his Seed, as included with them in the Promife, as made to them in their Gene- rations > this the Lord declared by his choice of Jacob, when he paiTcd by Ejau\ which choice was again fignitied to ljaac by promife, Tbt elder fh all ferve t be younger ; by thatpro- mife God iignified to Jfaac , that he had chofen Jacob as the perfon that (liould actually inherit the good promifed , whereby he intimated his paffing by of Efatt. Now upon the warrant of this twofold in- ftance, 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 Apoftlesexpolition of this Promife , is fufficiently evident from what hath been already faid in the explication of the words,where it hath been proved, that the Apo- ftle cannot be underftoo.d , as though he denyed that the natural Seed of Abraham , and that as fuch were intended in that Promife j the Que- ltion he anfwers being concerning Abraham's 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. Awd if any mould fay, It is true , the Que- ftion doth fuppofe and take for granted , that the (HO) ■ the Jews , or the pcrfons putting it, did con- ceive, that the Promife did intend ^Abraham's natural Seed, but that was their miftake, which the Apoftle re&ifies. But to that I anfwer , The whole context ftiews it was otherwife > and that the Apoftle himfelf doth fuppofe it,and take it for granted ; The Apoftle doth not anfwer a Queftion that might 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 iorhe 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 Apoiile is thus to be un- derstood , I {hall indeavour to make out a little further , though what hath been already faid might fufrlce to thofe that will but ferioufly 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 Eledfr, then there is nothing atallfaid by him in thiscxpofition he gives us of it ', fo much as in the leaft intimating that the natural Seed of Abraham, and that as fucn, • were 040 were not intended in that Promife. As for whathedenyes, with reference to that Promife, there is no one word intimating that Abrahams natural Seed were not intended, he only denyes, that all the Seed of Abraham were the Chil- dren of God \ which might be true , though they were all intended in rhat Promife , as con- ditionally made and externally declared to A- braham. Now if fobe he doth not reftrain this term Seed in this Promife only to the Eled , 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- llle hath faid, intended in it. And as for what he affirms , though the Eied 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 Seed.zs meant only of the Ele&, is evident by thefe three Reafons. Firft, Becaufe then he (hould in exprefs word- contradict Godhimfelf, God having declared that he intended fome in that Promife , who were not elected > .this is evident in Vent. 29. 10, 11,12,13. where the Lord tells the people of ifrjel^hc now entred into, or rather renewed Covenant with them, to fulhl this very Promife made to Abraham , with reference to his Seed : and certainly he muii needs refer to this very Promife e*40 Promite made to Abraham, with reference to his Seed •. and certainly he muit needs refer to this very Promife made to Abraham. Only to pre- vent milhkes , and that I may not be fuppofed to contradict both the Truth and my felf , let it be noted , that J do not fay they were intended in that Promife, fo as that they had meerly, as of Abrahams natural Race and Pofterity , an adua! right to , and intereft in that Promife > but my meaning is only this , That as that Pro- mife had an indefinite refpedl to Abrahams whole Race and Pofterity, collectively taken, and as thefe particular perfons, with whom God now renccved his Covenant, Were afore appoint- ed of God to be fome of thofe who mould have the benefit ©f the Promite, fo thefe were in- tended in it, and anfyverably thefe were intend- ed , not immediately and directly , but confe- qaently as they were forefeen andfote appoint- ed by God, to be the peculiar perfons that Ihould have the Promife, as indefinitely made to Abraham's 3eed , collectively taken , made good to them. Now Vho 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 Promiieonly to the E!e& , he muft needs con- tradict God in this declaration here made of his mind in it, God declares plainly , he in- tended fome not elected \ and mould the A- poftle fay, he intended only the Eled* , that would (HO would be a diredl contradi&ioh of God hitn- felf. Secondly , That the Apoftle cannot ex- pound this term Seed, as meant only of the Ele& , is evident, becaufe at leaft many per- fons intended in that Promife might be ordi- narily' known to men to be the perfons in- tended in it \ but now the Elecl 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 duty in- joyned , with reference to them > this duty was the application of the Token of the Co- venant. Now had the Ele6r 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 PrQmife did conftitute fomeof Ifrael y who yet were not elected , therefore the Apoft le cannot be fuppofed to retfrain the term Seed only to the Eleft. But two things will be faid by way of re- ply, to what hatji been hitherto difcourfed* for the clearing up the fence and meaning of the Apoitle in this expofition he here gives of that Pioaiih, fc Fir& (144) Firrt, It willbcfaid , That all thofe that make this Objection do not deny but, fome do grant, that that promife did in feme fence intend, and had refpedf to Abraham's natural Seed, and that asfuch, viz* as it was a pro- mife of a temporal gocid , or containing on- ly a temporal blcfling, that which thefe deny is this, viz. That this Fromifc ( as a Pro- mife of faving Grace , of Justification and Life ) had refpeft to the natural Seed of ^Abraham , as fuch s and that is the mean- ing of the Apoftle when he fayes , ?bt Chil- dren of the Promife are accounted for the Scedt he mean*, they and they only are accounted for the Seed , refpe&ive to that Promife, as it was a promile of faving Grace : The Apo- ftle grants the Promife was made to Abra- hams natural Seed , but there fhews what their mifiake was, that did fuppofe the Pro- mife would be made void, in cafe the Jews (hould be rejected, and (hews this to be their miitake , That they fuppofed that this Pro- mife, as it was a Promife of faving Grace, did appertain to the natural Seed of Abra* bam, as fuch. Now this miftake the Apoftle rectifies', and fhews % that as fuch a fpiritual Pro- mife, it did not at all refpedr Abrahams na- tural Seed, asfuch, but was made only to the Eleft, they only were accounted for the Seed, 045) Seed , refpe&ive to this Promife as Co under* flood. To that I anfwer two things. Firft, Letitbeobferved, that the preient framers of this Objection , in the fence now expreiTed, do grant, that the Promife in iome fence did intend Abraham's natural Seed, and that as fuch > whence it will follow, thac if it be evident, that it intended not only a tem- poral, but a (piritual good, as made to Abra- hams Seed univerfally, is well as to himfelf^ of which by and by,then our firft Propofition is true by the grant at leaft of fomeof our Oppofers, they granting that in a ierice it did intend them. But you will fay , Whatever Argument may be offered, yet the Apoftle mews plainly, that as it was a Promife of faving Grace , it was made only to the Eledfc, for faith he, ta- king the Promife in this fence , the Children §f the Promife are accounted for the Seed , anct we smft believe the Apoftle whatever Argument may feem to prove the con- trary. I anfwer to this. Secondly, Conlider the Apoftle doth no ttjore reftrainthis Promife, as a Promife of L i fevin* (t46) faving Grace to the Eled: , than he doth re> ilrain it to them as a Promifc of a meer tem- poral good, if he doth not reftrain it to them wholly, aud in an abfolute fence, he doth not reftrain it to them at all i for obferve it , in cafe he reftrains it as a fpiritual Promife , and not as a temporal Promife, . to the Eledfc, that limited reftraint mult be expreit either in the words themfelves, or inferx'd from the Con- text or .the Apoftles fcope in them. For the words tbemfelves, there is nothing intima- ting fuch a limited rcftraint , for fayes he, the Children of tbeflejh arenot' ihe Children of God , but the Children of the Fromife are accounted for the Seed. He doth not fay, the Children of the flefti are not intended in that Promife, as a Promife of faving Grace. So the Children of the Fromife are accounted for the Seedy not are accounted for the Seed , as that Promife was a Pfiomile of faving Grace. But it will be faid , When he fayes of 'tht Children cf the flejhy thy are not the Children of God, Vis all one as if he had faid ,. they were not intended in that Promife , as iris a Promife of faving Grace. To that I anfwer : Tis not all one, in as much as 'tis pofllble, that perfons may be un- der a Promife of faving Grace , as made con- ditionally (147) ditlorully to them , and yet not be the Chil- dren of God, in the fence of the Apoftle, 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, colle&ive- ly taken, unlefs they are either at prefent the Children of God , or (ball infallibly become fo for the future, it cannot be faid, 'tis all one to fay , that for the ApolUe 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 Gtace , be- caufe they might be. intended in that Pro- mife , and yet never be the Children of God. Perfons may be under a conditional promife, or an iaderinite promife ot~ facing Grace, and yet cannot be from thence denominated in an abfolute fence to be the Children of CJocS, nor proved thereby , that they mould ever become fo * fo that fuch a limited re- ftraint of this promife to the Ele&only , is not in the lcalt intimated in the words them- felves. Secondly, For, the context and fcope of the Apoltle neither doth infer fuch a limited reftraint of the Promife to the Eled only , \ or 3 necefficy of putting fuch confrrudtion upon L 3 the the words i this is evident from what hath been already faid in explaining the fence and meaning of them : The words,as afore open- ed, as fully agree to and anfwer the Apoftles defignand fcope , as if they were understood with a limited reftraint, they would do, and do as fully anfwer and fatisfie the Queftion or Objection he was to anfwer* This is fo plain , that it would be fuper- fludus 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 Apoftlesde* figri and fcope in them , to neceffitate bur. un- demanding the Apoftle to intend any fuch limited reftraint of this promife to the Ele<$ only ) if it be not wholly and abfolutely re- frained to them , it is not retrained to them at ail, for ought what appears from the Text of the Apoftle. Now our Oppofers themfelves grant,That in fomc fence the promife was not reftrained to the Eledt , but did intend Abraham's na* tural Seed, as fuch, and therefore we may conclude it was not at all retrained to* $hem. But it will be faid fecondly, That though it be granted, that this promife, as intending both CH9 J both temporal and fpiritual buffings, did in* tend) and was made to Abraham's natural Seed, and that as fuch, and confequently that the Covenant did take in Abraham *s natural. Seed under thefirft Tcftimcnt, as is affirmed in the firft Proposition > yet the ^poftle here fhews , that now under the Gofpel admini- Oration it (hould be fo no longer. Now the Children of the flefli are not the Children of God in any fence , but the Children of the Promife , that is, true Believers are only accounted for Abraham's Seed. -• To that I anfwer, Tis evident from the Context , that the Wpoftle fpeaks not at all of the extent and latitude in which the Cove- nant (hould be made with , or continued to Believers under the New Teftament, for the Queftion he is anfwering doth not all im- mediately and directly concern Believers un- der the New Testament, but whelly imme- diately and dire&ly concerns the Jewes. And obferve it , What an anfwer fhould the Apoftle return to the propofed Queftion, according to |heT judgment of thofe that make this reply. The Qiieftion was , How could Ifrsel be rejected , and God remain true to his Word L 4 of / O50-) of promife made to Abraham- th^t Father, with reference unto them; Now what doth the Apoftle anfwer to this Queftion I , Why, according to the Judgment of thefc men heanfwers , 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 tirii Teftament ad- miniftration. And wTiat had that been to the purpofc, not only the Jewifh Infants, but the Parents themfelves were rejeded. T, you will fay, That Parents were caft orT as well as their Seed is granted, yea, that is the very defign of the Apoftle to (hew, that now under the Gofpel administration the Jews themfelves;though Abrahams natu- ral Seed, could no longer continue the people of God, upon the account of (heir flefhly de- scent from A brabam^unteti they did personal- ly believe themfelves,and trofnot believing^ both they and their Children'were rejected from thofe privi ledges they had hitherto in- joyed, upon the account of their natural de- fcent irom Abraham, To To this I anfwet two things; * Firft, I deny that the Jews had their Co- venant ftate and relation , and confequently *heir abiding, in the Houfe or Family of God continued to them hitherto , upon the account of their natural defcent from Abraham^ as hath been already declared, and might be- further manifefted if needful : Hence this could not be the defign of the ApclUe , to (hew the ceffationof that privi- ledge , becaufe there was nofuch priviledge heretofore vQuchfafed to them , 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 Pro- mife, as an indefinite promife made to Abra- ham , with reference to his natural Seed , taken colle&iyely, doth dill appertain to the jews , notwithstanding the reje&ion of fo great a part of them : This the Apoftle grants in this difcourfe, and thews how it had in part its accomplishment in the non- reje&ion of many of them, and (hall 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 05») eiufe their piefent (landing in their Cove* Dint- relation with God , from which they were now cut off, was not upon the rneer account of their natural defcent from Abra- ham , and the Promife , according to the trne intent of God in it , doth ftill apper- tain to them | notwithftanding their rejcdh* on, therefore we muft necefTarily underftand the Apoftle,according to the fence and mean* ing afore given. I come now to the iecond thing promifed, . and that is to (hew , that this Text of the Apoftle rightly underftood , 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 othei Scriptures to prove the truth of it , my firft Proportion would be, paft all rational contradi&ion-, eftablifhed from this very Text $ and my fecond Pro- pofition may receive no little confirmation from it. For let it be obferved , the Apoftle doth plainly grant, yea,imp!icitly aflferc, that fome were the Seed of Abraham, and that as fuch, . were the Subjefts of that promife, who yet c Were not the Children of God , and in that • regard 053) regaid were not accounted for the Seed a whence it is evident , that the fame perfons might be the Seed of Abraham , and as fuch intended in that promife , and yet in another fence were not accounted for the Seed: they were his Seed, that is, the Seed of his flefh, or his natural Seed, and as fuch, had the pro- mife appertaining to them > but they were not the Children of Cod, and in that regard not accounted for the Seed , that is , not in- tended in this promife , as the perfons de- figned from eternity , actually to injoy the good promifed i and that notwithstanding according to the Apoftles intendment in this term Seed , they were not accounted for the Seed, yet they were the fleihly 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 A pottles anfwer to the forementioned Queftion , taken in con- junction with the ln&ances produced by him, for the proof of what he aflerts in that Anfwer. . Let but the words be carefully ob- ferved : Saith the Apoftle, Neither becaufe tbty art Abraham s Seed, are t bey all Cbil- drtny that is, the Children of God : Whence it is evident , that feme are the Seed of Abraham. C*54> Abraham , who were not the Children of Cod > and that when the Apoftlc grants, fome were the Seed of Abraham ^;. who were not the Children of God , his meaning is, that they had, as the Seed> or natural Chil- dren of Abraham, .this promife appertaining unto them, is evident. - Firft, Becaufethe Queftion he was to an- fwer wholly cencern'd the natural Seed of Abraham^ and that as iuch, having that pro- mife appertaining unto them , as before ob- served : 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 mud needs fpeafcT of the fame perfons that the QueMiou doth concern , otherwife his anfwer had been- no wayes pertinent to the -Queliion. . Secondly, This .is. evident from, the In- ftances that the Apohle produces to prove what he had- afleited in this anfwer > and thus heinftances in Ifaac , and. Jacob, and thews 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 alike capacity re- fpeclive to the promife as externally made and declar'd X® Abraham ; plainly thus the Apoftle f 155) Apoftle muft needs have reference to fom© others who were Abrahams Seed, and as fuch had a common external right to, and intereit in the promifts with JJaac and Jacob i and thefe vjtxzJjbmael and Efan ; did not the Apoftle fuppofe and granj, that they flood in the like capacity , refpe&ive to thefe promi- ilsjas externally made and declared to A bra- bamy with Ifaae and Jacob, the producing .of thefe two Inftances' had made nothing to his purpofe, nor had been any proof of what he had before averted , in way of anfwer to the Queftion propofed h for the Apoftle toaftert, that all that are Abraham's Seed arc not the Children of God , and that by way of an- fwer to the forementioned Queftion, 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 Pofterity , were intended in this promife , as made to Abrahams Seed in their Generati- ons^ being elefted , and not to fuppofe and grant,that there were fome oihers,who were alike, either of Abraham's immediate Seed, or of his Race and Pofterity, intended in this promife, who were not eled, had made no- thing at all to his prefent 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 3 that the Apoftle doth grants gran* , that both Ifhmad and Efau were the Subje&s of this promife , the one as one of Abrahams Children, immediately proceeding from his own loins, the other included in the promife , as made to Abraham's Seed in their Generations, and confequetitly that the promife did belong to Abraham's natural Seed, as fuch, which undoubtedly eftabliflies the truth of my fir ft Proposition, and no wa# oppofes, but rather confirms the fecond. CHAP* C*77) CHAP. VIII. A jtc'dnd) third^ And fourth objeSion againji the foregoing Tropofttion re* felled. J ob)m. 2. SOme objed, That the Promife, wherein God 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 arc now jnder, is a Covenant wholly divers from that :ftabliflie4 with Abraham \ and when the Co- venants are divers, the good covenanted cannot be one and the fame, atleaft 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 flefti j £b a Be- lievers flefhly feed , take it either of Abra* bam , or any other Believer, cannot lay claim to the New Covenant Promifes, unlefs N born (*7%) born again , and engrafted into Chrift by Faith. Now before I return a dire& Anfwer to this Objc&ion , I (hall a little enquire what are the true Notions and Conceptions of the perfons framing it, about that Covenant cntred by God with Abraham and his Seed in their generati- ons , that fo rightly undemanding their fence and apprehenfions ©f that Covenant , I may re* turn a more full and direft anfwer to what is objected. And thus , for ought I can yet un- derstand , ctiher by the moil ferious perufai of their Writings , or by what I can gather from their words, they exprefs and declare their No- tions and Conceptions , we are now enquiring after j one of thefe two wayes. Firft, That God made a twofold Covenant with Abraham) 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, whether Jews or Gentiles, without any refped at all to a flcftily defcent, cither from Abraham himfelf, or from any of his Seed. 1 Secondly, That the legal or temporal Cove- nant was made with Abraham and his fkftily Seed.and only with them, and that as continued in the line of I/aac and Jacob, and that this was the Covenant, the Jews, during the firft Tefla- intnt adminiftmion- were under, and the only Cove- (179) .Covenant they were under,as the flcflily Seed of Abraham. Secondly , Others declare their fence and conception thus, That there was but one Cove- nant made with Abraham, and that was a mixt Covenant , confifting partly of fpiritual , and partly of temporal Promifes ♦ and as this Co- venant was a mixt Covenant, f® anfwerably the Seed of Abraham maft be diftinguifhed off. There was, fay they, his natural Seed, and there was and is his fpiritual Seed, Now thefe hold that the Covenant, as confifhng of temporal, or as fome exprefs it , domeftick or politick blef- fings, was made with Abraham^ and his natural or tkftily Seed in their generations •, but the Co- venant, as continuing 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 out Oppofites do thus varioufly exprefs themfelves, yet they all agree in the general, that only tern-* poral bkflings did appertain to Abraham' 's natu- ral Seed, as fuch, and that fpiritual bkflings were wholly or alone promifed to Abraham , in refe- rence to his fpiritual or myfhcal Seed j and fomc 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 * though how to make feice of that notionjefpecially themfelves grant- ing a Covenant oi Grace was now eftablifhed With Abraham , with reference to himfelf and N a hi* ( «3o > his fpi ritual Seed, will, I judge, be a matter of no little difficulty » but 1 (hall leave it to the perfons concerned in it, if any fuch y^t there be. And thus 1 have given a brief, yet, I iuppofe, a full account of the Notions and Conceptions of our Objeclors, about the Covcoant now cita- blifhed with Abraham and his Seed in their ge- nerations, and come now to anfwer the Objecti- ons propofed : And for anfwer to it 1 (hall do thefe two things. Firft, Prove that there is no fuch real and (pecirical difference between thefe two Cove- nants , as the Objectors fuppofe , aud take foi granted that there is. Secondly, Shew that notwithftanding the Covenant made with Abraham, and that made with Believers, fhould be really and fpecihcally divers the one from the other , yet upon fup- pofal of the truth of what cannot be gainfaidv by our Oppofers , unlefs they (hall in expreis terms contradict the Apoftle , the fecond Pro- pofition may be true. Firft, For the fiift of thefe I (hall do two things. Firft, Prove that this Covenant , that God entred with Abraham , and hisSted in their generations , was a Covenant of Grace , and in particular, that this Promife of that Covenant, wherein God engaged himfelf to be a God to him and his Seed, was a* Promife of a fpmtual bleffing, (i8i) bleluVg.a good tranfcending any temporal good what fee vcr. Secondly, J'lrove that this Covenant, now eftabi lined with Abraham , is the felf fame Co- venant, for the Jubilance of it, mad* with Be- lievers under the New Teftament. For the fir ft of thefe I need fay but little, be- caufe others have (aid io much : See Dr. Win- ter in his Jreatife of iHfant-BaptiJm , as alfo- Mr. Bali upon the Covenant, Mr. Warrtn and others, and therefore in brief take only thefe three or four Arguments. The firft Argument of that Covenant, as eftablimed with Abraham and his natural Seed, was not only a temporal or legalCovenanc,or the Promifes appertaining to his natural Seed, wer» only temporal Promifes , then many thoufands* who were the actual Subjects of that Covenant, and the Promifcs thereof, might and did nevrr enjoy any benetit by it,and that mecrly through Gods not performing what himfelf had promi- fed , without any default on their own or their Parents part : But none* who are the adtual 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 either of the parties themfelves, or of their Parents > Therefore this Covenant , as eftabhfhcd with Abraham and his natural Seed, N 3 could fould not be i meer temporal or legal Covenant, or a Covenant confiftiag only of temporal bleflings,but muft needs be a Covenant of Grace, or a Covenant confifting of faving, benefits and bleflings. W For the confequence in the Major Propofiti- on, that cannot be denied, in as much as many thoufands, who were the a&ual Subje&s of this 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 phrafe, in their generations , might and did die in their infancy, before ever they came to reap and injoy any 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 mould be faid, Though God did deny to give them in that very temporal good concained in the Promifes of that Covenant,yet they were infallibly fayed , 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: Firft, Grant it be fo > yet they never had any benefit by this Covenant, or the Promifes of it, the a&ual Subjects of which yet they were, neither could they eajoy eternal life by vertue of that Covenantor any Prcrntfts of ^accord- ing ing to the judgment of our Oppofers, in as much as it was , according to their judgment, only a temporal Covenant. But fome will fay , Though they had not falvation by vertue of this Covenant , yet all Infants dying in their infancy , before they commit any adrual fin, are infal.ibly faved, and conftquently thofe whofe cafe falls under out pre fen t con fide ration were faved. I anfwer, Suppofe it lhould be fo yet. Secondly, I fay, That many thoufands might live to commit actual fin, and yet die before they 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 Covenant,meerly through Gods not performing what he had promifed to them , but might through their own fin fall fhort of any higher good, which may be fuppofed fhould have been given in lieu of the good of this Covenant. But now for any to fall wholly (hort 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 (tiled himfelf, A God keeping Covenant and mercy for ever * and therefore this Covenant could not, as made to Abraham's natural Seed , be a meer temporal Covenant, promrhng only a temporal good , but muft needs be a Covenant of Grace , confining o£ N 4 fpiritual Cis4) fpiritual Promifes , as Justification, Adoption, the in-dwelling prefenceof the Spirit, Life and Glory, &c. Secondly, If God ingaged himfelf to be a God to Abrahams natural Seed by this Cove- iiant and the Promifes thereof, and to have God engaged by Covenant to a people to be their God,be a greater and more excellent good, than it is to enjoy any meer temporal good whatever, then this Covenant was made with Abrahams natural Seed, as fuch, was not a meer temporal Covenant, nor the Promiies of it, Promifcs of meer temporal bltffings : But the Covenant was a Covenant of Grace, and the Promifes of it Promifes of fpiritual bleffings. But the former is true,therefore the latter. The Confequence in the Major proportion is undeniable, unlefsany (hall affirm, that there may be a good, greater and more exccllent,than any temporal good can poflibly be, which yet is no fpiritual good, or which may be given to men no way interested in the- Covenant of Grace \ if 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 thofe that enjoy it , they will do fomething to the invalidating this Argu- ment ; till then I (hall take it for granted , that Ho fuch good is imaginable. And for the Minor propofition , that is fuffi- ciently evident from that, Gen. 17.7. compa- red with Pfaim 144. and the latter end : Wc fee (■85) fee from this Gen. 17. that God did ingagc him- felf, by the Promileof this Covenant, to bet God to Abraham's natural Seed, as fuch , / will be a God to thee and thy Seed ; which Promife, as hath been proved , refpedb his natural S^dt as fuch , as the immediate and next Subjects ofc it \ betides, according to the judgment or our Oppofers, the Land of Canaan was given to all Abrahams natural Seed , immediately defend- ing frcJm him by Ifaac and Jacob , fetting aiide Ejau and his poiterity, as the proper and ipecial good intended in this Covenant , as refptding iheni. 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 fo be a God unto them, Gen. 17. 8. And thac to have God engaged by Covenant, to be a God to any people, is a greater and more excellent good, than any meer temporalgood, is evident from that pafTageof the Pfalmift, where, we fee, he plainly prefers this good above any temporal good whatfoever .*> for having fpoken of their happinefs, who have the enjoyment of temporal mercies and bleffings, he adds, as preferring this above all, Xe<*, hippy is ihatpetple^wbofeGodis Jehovah. Now how could the Pfalmift prefer an intereft in God above the enjoyment of all worldly felicity , in cafe it was but a temporal good it felfjor a good that only referred tomans temporal happinefs and felicity , or had no refe- rence to any higher happinefs than the things ef the world have ? x'ea kt me fay , did this Promife import only a temporal good , their happinefs. 1 186; happinefs, who had God, as their God, by ver- tucof it , according to the terms upon which it was now given, their happinefs, i &y, had been rather lefs than greater than the happi- nefs of thofe, whofe portion wholly lyes in the things of the world i fo that the Pfalmilt might better have prefixed this yea to the happinefs of others, than to their happinefs, whofe God is the Lord , %uid might have faid , Happy is the people whofe God is the Lord , yea, feappy is the people who is in fuch a cafe, in refpcct of worldly profperity,as is before expreffed. Objeft. But it may be fome will fay , This having the Lord engaged to be a peoples God, of which the Pfalmilt (peaks , is meant of their having him engaged as their God by the Cove* nant of Grace, and not of their having him En- gaged, as their God,by the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural Seed ; and fo it is granted,that to have a covenant-intereft in Ged, is a good,vaftly greater. and more excellent^han any temporal good whatfoever. Eut to that I anfwe/, The Pfalmift fpeaks of a covenant intercft absolutely 5 without diiiin* guilhing of the Covenant conveying that intc- jeft v and where the Scripture doth not diftin- guifh, we ought not, and confequcntly 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 po covenant-intereft , but what doth fo vaftty excel excel any temporal good whatfoever •, andcon- fequently, that the intereft the natural Seed pt Abraham had in God , was a good tranfeending any temporal good , and anfwerably muft needs be a fpiritual good i 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 Ghoftinit, intend a fpiritual good, typined by that temporal good, then that Promife, which according to the letter and outward face or the words, did intend and point to a fpiritual good, muft needs be undcrftood 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 th^ latter. For the Confe- quence in the Major Propofition of the Pro- iyllogifmj fuppofe, it will not be denied by any that are Mafters 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 C4- Wum, according to the letter, was but a tempo- rat! good.) Now if that Promife, according to a UiQtc tnward fence of the Holy Gholl, intended afpiritual good, furely that Promife, of Gods being a God, which in the letter, and according to the outward face of the word, intends a fpr- ikualgood, mull needs be understood of that I good it did in the letter and outWard face of the words intend * and for the antecedent, that I fuppofe will be denied, viz', that that promtfe of Canaan did,according to a more inward fence of the Holy Ghoil, intend and point to afpiritual good » but this is Co evidcnt,that k doth indeed admit of no contradiction, from thofe who will not profeiTedly fet themfelves to oppofe the Scriptures : See Htb. 11.9,10. //* looked for a City , who ft Maimer and Builder is God. By what warrant did he look for this City > Doubt- !e(s by the warrant of this Promife of the Land of Canaan ; but for this fee Mr. Carter, in his Abraham * Covenant opened, pjgc 23,43. ^ce alfo Mr. Tombs his Exercitation, page 2 Now then both parts of the Profyllogilm being true, it will undeniably follow, that this Covenant, as "rnade with Abraham and his natural feed, was a Covenant of Grace , or did coniift of fpiritual Promifes* and in particular, that that Promife, wherein God ingaged himfelf to be a God to Abraham and his Seed, was a Promife of faving Grace. 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, Seed , as it did refpeft his natural Seed, as fucht did intend and import a fpiritual good, or was a Promife, asfome fpeak , of faving Grace, that is, did intend fuch a fpiritual bk ding, as had a dircdt reference to future falvation : I prove thu-s, viz,. Btcaufe it did, as it doth refpeel, or was made to Abrahams my/Heal Seed , intend* as is conftiTed by all.a fpiritual good, whence we argue > ]f all Promiks made in the fame words, terms,and exprtflions to divers perfons feverally and particularly confidered , do alwayes llgnirie and intend one and the fame good , as made to one, that they do as made to another, unlefs God himfelf hath fome where or fome way declared his fence and meaning in them to be divers y as made to one, from whit ifris as made to another, and this Promife in particular be made in the fame words, terms and expreffions 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 it muft needs intend and iignifie one and the fame eood, as made to the onei that it doth as mlfie to the other,and confequently it iignifying and intend* jng a fpiritual good , as made to his myitical Seed , mutt needs intend a fpiritual good as made to his natural Seed; But the former js true, therefore the latter. That the Pro- mife was made to Abrahams whole Seed, whe- ther natural, taking that phrafe in the fenfe be* (ore opened, or myftical, hath been fufficiently proved ( 19°) proved already > and that it did intend a fpiri- tual good, or was a promife of faving Grace, as made co his myftical Seed, is not denied by our Qppufers. Now let it^e either (hewed where or by what way God hath declared his fence and meaning in it, as it was made to Abraham's natural Seed, to be diverfc from what it is, as made to his myftical Seed , or let it be proveU, that the Promife made, as before exprefTed, may carry a fence and figniheation , as made to one, different from what it doth as made to another i This latter, I judge, will not be attempted , the attempting of it will be but an attempt to raze the foundation of all the comfort of Chriftians, and whether God hath any where or any way declared his fence anefmeaning in it, as made to Abrahams naturalSeed,to be diverfe from what it is, as made to his myltical, (hall be confidered by and bys in the mean time we may evidently fee,that this Covenants made with Abraham's natural Seed, and that as fuch was a Covenant of Grace , or did confiftof Promifes of fpiritual and faving bleffings > and from what hath been faid, it ^idenrly appears , there is no fuch real and fpecincal difference between that Covenant made with -Abraham , and that Believers arc under, as this Objection doth fuppofe and take for granted i> it evidently appears , they are not fpeciiically two Covenants, but quoad fubjianti- am% one and the fame ; Now the foundation of this Objection being removed , the Objection falls to the ground, and hath no weight in it. St- Secondly, That this Covenant now midc with Abraham and his Seed, is one and the fame for fubftance that Believers, under the Gofpel adminiftration arc under : This I evidence by theie 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 ro his Church in after timcs,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 favieg mercies and bleffings to believing Gentiles in the times of the Goipel ; but the former is true , therefore the latter. Certainly it cannot be denied , but that this Covenant is full 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 , unlefsany (hill fay,there is a twofold Covenant of Grace ftill in being, one a temporal Covenant, another a fpiri- tuai Covenant, which is not affirmed by any that I have yet heard of,or met with, and there- fore the confequence in the Major proportion will not, I judge,be queftioned by any : For the Minor proposition , viz. That this Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed, was yet never difanulled or abrogated, is exprefly declared by the Apoiiie, (jal. 3. 17. Ihkl fay, Brtthrett, that C 19O that the Covenant which t?m confirmed of Goditt Chrijljhe Law which wm four hundred and thir • ty years after, cannot difanul, that it Jhould make the Promifeof noneeffeft. What Covenant the Apoltle here intends is fufficiently evident, as from the foregoing verfes, fo from the whole context, viz. That Covenant made with Abra- ham and his Seed in their generations , as bath been before proved. Now faith the Aportle 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 difanullcd 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 adminiitration m the room thereof ( and from that time fince, fure none will pretend it hath bee« difanuiled ) it had been all one as to the deiign of the Apo- ille , as if ic had been difanuiled by the Law, had it been difanuiled at the fetting up, yea, or were to have been difanulled.during the difpen- fation of the Gofpel, under which we are : The Apofile could no more have proved , that ihc blefling 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, then if it had been difanuiled by the Law, for if ic had not been difanuiled by the Law , yet if it had b^cci difanuiled at , or confequent to the fetting up of the Gofpel adminiitration > the cenour of that Covenant had no way proved what what the Apoftle defigned the proof of : ^f 0 what purpoie fhould the Apoftle have produ- ced the tenour of that Covenant , to ptove the neccflity of the Gentiles incorporation into .Chrift, in order to their enjoying the bleffing of Abraham, had it been now difanulled, in cafe it had not been difanulled by the Law^fothat it i* pa(\ all doubt f that that Covenant was not dif* anulled, when the Apoftle wrote to the Galati- artsy nor was to be difanulled,during the Gofpel adminiftration we are now under , and confc- quently there being but one Covenant , accord- ing to which the benefits and blcflings of the Gofpel) are difpenfed unto Gentile Believers , it mull needs be this very Covenant afore made with Abraham , and his Seed in their Generati* ons, which is th/thing to be proved* Secondly , If believing Gentiles enjoy the faving blcflings 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 ftill under 9 but the former is true , therefore the latter : It is roar* vellous how it can enter into the heart of arty man, that is mailer of his own undemanding, to imagine , that there (hould be a real and fpecifi- cal dirference^between that Covenant made with Abraham , and the Covenant Believers are now Q andes d94) under , when it is by vcrtue of the fundamental Procnife of that Covenant made with Abraham* that they enjoy all the good of the Gofpel , or all the laving good they arc by Chrift made par- takers of : Can they be under one Covenant, and yet enjoy all the good they do enjoy by Chrift, by vertucof another Covenant , really and fpecifkally divers from that they arc under, and which is long tince difanulled and abroga- fed? To affirm it it would be an abfolutc contra* dklion : And. that they do enjoy all the good they have by Chru%as they are Abraham's Seed, by;vertue of this very Promife of that Cove* gaqt made with Abraham* is io evident throughout this whole difcourfe of the Apo- ftle, that it needs no other proof, than the bare reciting of his words, fee Gaft g> z$c If ye are, Chrijh, then are ye Abrahams Seed, and Heirs according to Promife. But it may be tome will yet object , Certain- ly->notwithftanding all that hath been faid,.there muft needs be a real and fpecifical, difference be- tween the Covenant that: the Jews were under, during the firft Teftament adminiftration , _%n{4 the Covenant that Believers are under, during the new Teftament adminiftration , for doth not the Scripture, exprefly call them two Co- venants? doth not the new Teihment fre? quently fpeak of a new Covenant that Believers arc, now under , in a contradiltin&ion from the To To that I anfwer , That when the Scripture {peaks of two Covenants, or (peaks of a new Covenant ettabliftied with Believers under the new Teftament,it alwayes hath reference to that Covenant, made with the people of Ifrael at Mount Sinai* and never hath reference to this Covenant made With Abraham \ the words arc as plain as words can be exprefled, fee Gal. 44 latter end, Htb* 8.8. Yea , the Scripture is ex- prefs that the new Covenant is the lame that was firft entred with Abraham i $0 that, I fayy the Covenant of Grace we are now und^r, is not another Covenant5fpecincally 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 conformation of the truth of what is a£- gemed in our fecond Propofition 5 and we might add, 5. A fifth Argument thus, If the Covenant be one and the fame , then the PremHes of it mud, unlefs limited by God himfelf, run in oac and the fame extent and latitude * but the Co* venant is one and the fame , and the Promifcs are not limited by God himfelf > therefore they mud run in one and the lame extent and lati- tude : But the truth aflertcd is fufficiently evi- dent, therefore I need not inlarge upon it. I (hall come to the fecond thing piopofed in anfwei to this Obje&ion. O a Secondly Secondly, Notwithstanding the Covenant made with Abraham , and that made with Be- lievers , mould be really and fpeeitically divcrfc the one from the other, yet upon the fuppofal of the truth of what cannot be gainfaid by our Oppofcrs,unlefs they (hall in exprefs terms con- tradict the Apoftle himfdf, this fecond Propo- rtion may be true, and conftquently the avert- ing and maintaining, that the Promife made to Abraham^ in that latitude and extent, as to take in his natural Seed , as joynt Subje&s with him of the fame Promife, is given to and fetled upon believing Gentiles , in the fame extent and lati- tude , doth not neceflarily require the afferting and maintaining the Covenant entred with him,and the Covenant entred with Believers,ro be one and the fame Covenant : for the clearing up and evidencing of this , let it be obfcrvid , that the Apoftle doth in exprefs words afTirm, That if the Gentiles are Chrifts, they are Abra- hams Seed and Heirs, according to the Promife, Gah 3. 29. Whence it is undeniably evident, that believing Gentiles are Heirs to Abraham's bkfling , or to the Promife made to Abraham, with reference to his Seed , as they are confi- dcred under that notion and consideration as his Seed. Secondly, Which follows from this, that they are Heirs to that Promife , or the blefTing contained in that Promife made to Abraham, with reference to his Seed , which bkfling, as I hive prgvsd before , was the fame with that which C**7> which Abraham himfclf was btefled with : thefe two things cannot be gainfaid , but muft be granted by all that will not in cxprefs terms contradict the Apoftle. Now then let me a little argue with our Op- pofers thus* either that Covenant entred with Abraham, and entred with believing Gentles, is one and the fame , or they are two Covenants, fpecifically diverfe the one from the other : The firft they deny , the latter they affirm. Well tben> the Promiie contained in it was ei- ther a Promife of ameer temporal good , or a fpiritual good. Yes, fay our Oppofers, it was a temporal good , as the Promife was made to Abraham , with reference to his natural Seed, Well then, the blelfingor good contained in this very Promife, as it was made to Abraham, with reference to his fpiritual or myftical Seed, is cither a temporal or a fpiritual good > the latter here muft, and I fuppofe will, be granted by our Oppofers themfelves : It is evident then, ac- cording to the Judgment of our Oppofers, that the fame Promiie 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 (etled upon be- lieving Gentiles , and that by the Covenant of Grace , and that as given to , and fetled upon them, may import and fignifte 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 3 Seed* 0*8) Seed , is exprefly affirmed by the Apoftle > whence it will undeniably follow , that either the Covenant mull be one and the fame , and the Promifes thereof intend one and the fame good,asmade both with reference to Abraham's natural, and alio his fpiritual Seed, which is un- doubtedly the truths or elfe that the fame Prb- 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 re- aped: to them,may import only a temporal good, 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 > and confequently that the Promife may ?un in the fame extent and latitude , in which it was made to Abraham , as now it is made to believing Gentiles t though the Covenant , in which that Promife was contained , as made to Abraham , was really and fpecifically diverfe from that that Covenant,in which that Promife is contained, as made to believing Gentiles ; for if to be the fame Promife , as (imply and abfo- lutely confidered, may be given unto and fetled upon believing Gentiles, by a Covenant diverfe from that, according to which it washrft given to Abraham}why may not that Promife be given unto, and fetled upon bclitying Gentiles, in the fame latitude and extent in which it was Srft giyen to Abraham ; If the Promife be given to believing gentiles, why may it not be given in the full extent and latitude of it ? Certainly no fationaj account can b* given. And here let it C 199 ) be carefully obfci ved , that both we and otrtr Oppofers ace agreed, That Abrah am's bleHing, or the good contained in that Promise, wherein God ingaged to be a God to him and his Seed, is granted to believing Gentilts > all the Que- (tion is, whether it be given to them in the fame latitude and extent, in which it was given to Abraham and his natural Seed ; wheH#e it lyes upon our Obje&ors to (hew fome Reafon why, fuppofing there (heuld be fuch a difference be- tween thefe two fuppofed covcnants,thePromife may not be continued in the fame latitude and extent, in which it was at rirft given , as well as the Promife it felf, abfoltitcly taken, may be gi- ven or continued to believing Gentiles ,; not- withstanding that difference they imagtne be- tween thefe fuppofed dimndt Covenants, fo that the granting the Covenants to be really and fpecifically diverfe one from the other , no more oppofeth the truth of this our fecond Propor- tion , than it doth oppofe what the Obje&ofs themfelves do hold , at leaft which they muft hold , unlefs they will exprefly contradift the Apoftle in what he exprefly affirms : and there- 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 notne- ceffarily require the affirming or maintaining, that the Covenant is one and the fame: our Oppofers muft grant , that the Promife made to Abrabum^ cither with reference tobimfclf, ©t O 4 with C 200) with reference to his Seed , and it is all one, whether we take it the one v^ay or the other, is given to,and fetled upon believing Gentiles, wc fay it is given to, and fetled upon them, in the fame latitude and extent in which it was given to Abraham, both in reference to himfelf and his natura^Secd ; and now fuppoiing the Covenant believii^ Gentiles are under , mould be really diver fe from that entrcd with Abraham , how that mould contradict what wc affirm , more than it mould contradict what the Objectors themfelves muft grant, isimpolfible to imagine ; So that, I fay, the Covenant is one and the fame for fubftance * but fuppoiing it were not , yet our Piopofition might and would hold true. Ofytt. It is objected by fome, That the Infant-feed of believing Gentiles cannot, with any mew of reafon , be fuppofed to be taken in as joynt Subjects of the Covenant of Grace > and thcPromifes thereof, with their Parents, meerly upon the account of their Parents faith, in as much as we fee plainly, that the Jews themfelves, though they were the natural Seed of Abraham ( whofe Seed in reafon (hould have enjoyed as great privilcdges as the natural Seed of any believing Gentile ) could not upon the meer account of their fle(hly„defcent from A" hraham, be admitted into the Gofpel- covenant, but for their unbelief were rejected , notwith- standing their relation unto Abraham, as his natural. Now fay our Oppofers, if fohe, ei- ther the natural Seed of Abrabamy or the nats- (201) ral Seed of Believers, had been or were robe 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 ef fuch Parents, a right to the Ordinances and Priviledges of that Covenant, then the Jews,they being the natural Seed of irfbrakam, had had a right to the Gofpel-covcnant, and might , yea, ought to have been admitted into the Gofpel-churchby Baptifm,by vertuc of that their Relation to Abraham , as his natural Seed, and could not juiily have been refufed for the want of a pcrfonal faith and repentance of their own, they being, notwithstanding their want of a perfonal faith and repentance , yet Abraham's natural Seed > and therefore certainly the Jews had either wrong done them by the Apoftlcs, in not admitting them by Baptifm into the Go- fpel- church , or elfe we muti relinquish our plea for Infant-right to Baptifm, upon the account of their joynt intereft in the Covenant , together with their Parents ; for can we think the Apo- iUcs would fo highly wrong the Jews,as to deny them that privilcdge which, as Abrahams Seed, they had a right unto ? or can it be imagined, that they, though the natural Seed of Abra- bam, who was fuch an eminent believer,and the Father of the faithful , (hould have n© right to be admitted into the Gofpel church, and yet the feftily Seed of believing Gentiles (hould have a right to fuch an admiffion : And that which makes this Obje&ion feem more weighty to fame is s that they fuppofe we hold, that the Infant (202J Infant-feed of believing Parents do ftand rela- ted to Abraham as his Seed,and do baptize them upon that account : And how the Infant-feed of believing Gentiles fhould be fuppofed 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, but (eems to be matter of great wonder , yea, and amazement unto fume. Anfw. I anfwer, What hath been already faid,both for the explication of this term Seed, and for the removal of fome Objections raifed up againft the truth, afferted in the foregoing Piopofitions,hath 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 eafiiy fee,is grounded up- on , and receives what lhength it hath from a twofold Suppoiition. 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 from his loins, had a right to the Covenant of Grace,and the promifes, benefits and priviledges thereof, ineerly by vertue of their relation to Abraham* as his natural Seed. Secondly, Secondly, A Suppofition that we hold » that the natural Seed of believing Gen- tiles, are , by vcrtuc of that their relation to fuch believing Parents, accounted for the Seed of Abraham , and on that account to be baptifed. Now as to the former of thefe Suppofitions, it will loon appear , to all that attend to what hath been faid , that I am no way concerned in it,having affirmed, and I hope fufficiently pro- ved, the quite contrary, viz. That the Cove- nant, as at fiift eftablifbed with Abraham, did not confiitute a Covenant- relation between God and any of his natural Seed, mcerly as fuch, be- yond thofe that did immediately proceed from his own loins , but that the right and intcreft 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 of it,arofe from their relation to their immediate Parents; included with them hi thar phrafc, their Generations, and that the compleating and continuance of that Covenant- relation did necefTarily and indifpenfably re- quire their own faith and repentance, fo foon as grcTwn up to a capacity inabling them thereun- to , whence, asftich, who in their Infancy had a right to, and intereft in the Covenant, and Promifes thereof, either by vertueof their rela- tion to Abraham y as his natural Seed, thus, in xefpeft of his own immediate Children , or by vcrtue of the relation to Covenant parents , th** (204; thus^n refped of the Jews mediately defended from Abraham, during the firft Tefiamentadmi- jtiiitration , I fay, as fuch, might, when grown up to years of maturity fail in the performing the conditions of the Covenant , and thereupon be reje&cd of God > fo they having loft their own Covenant- ftate and relarion,could not con- vey a right to , or intereft in the Covenant and Promifes thereof to their Children, their ChiK drens Govenant ftate and relation (landing or failing with their own j whence it is evident, that as neither the Jews themfelves , as grown up, and as Parents, had any right to the Cove- nant, as adminiftred under th« hrft Teitament, but what depended upon their perfonal ex- ceptancc and performance of the conditions of the Covenant, asthenpropofed to, and adminf- ftred among them, nor their Infant- feed any right of admiflion into a participation of the benefits and bleflings of the Covenant , as then adminiftred , but upon a fuppofition of their immediate Parents abiding in Covenant i fo now the continuance of their right ( confider- cd as grown up and as Parents ) to the Cove- nant and bleflings thereof, as now varied and altered in its adminift ration , depended upon their acceptation and performance of the condi- tions of the Covenant, as now propofed under thispreient administration , and as the continu- ance of their own right to the Covenant , and the privilcdgcs thereof, depended upon their own acceptation and performance of the Cove- nant, as now adminiftred , fo their Children* right (205) right to, and intereft in the Covenant, and pri- vikdges thereof, flood or fell with their own; and hence the Jews , as grown up to years of maturity, or as Parents, refuting to accept of and perform the Conditions of the Covenant, as now differently adminiihed under the New Teitament, from what it was under the Old, were perfonally rejected , fuppofing them finale frerfons , and were both themfelves and their Children ( fuppofing their Children were in their Infancy ) rejected from their (landing any longer in their former Covenant-ftatc and rela- tion God ward ; So that this Supposition having no footing in any thing I have hitherto faid, the Objection it felf, fo far as grounded upon it, no way concerns the truth aiferted in the one or the other foregoing Proportions, and confc- quern iy I am not at all concerned to reply un- to it. Now for the other Proportion this Objecti- on is grounded upon , I acknowledge my fejf concerned in it, and do freely grant, yea, po{i- tivelv afrirm3 That the Infant- feed of believing Gentiles are to be accounted of, and numbreS among Abrahams my meal Seed : what refpecj we have to that their myftical relation to Abra* bam, as his Seed, in the application of Bapt)fm to them, will be mo*re fitly confidered under the laft Propofition : But that they are to be ac- counted of, and numbred among Aertbarts myfticai Seed,! aifirm, and it Sufficiently appears frona hence, v'm; That Abraham's Seed in their gene* (206) generations make up but one myftical Sce fee the Promifc, lfa. 54. 15/ J*r. 31, 34. Htb. 8. io. Anfn>. Ianfwer, This Objection hath been removed already, but yet for further fatisfa&ion I (hall lay down thefe two Proportions. a Fiaft, That fome may be actually in the G<*a yenant of Grace , who yet are not fo taught of God , as (avingly to know him : this might be evidenced from that diftin&ion formerly laid down, concerning an external and internal be- ing in Covenant .* 'It is poflible, perfons may t*e, yea, it is certain many are, externally in Cove- nant, who are not internally in Covenant » the tieccflity of this dsfHn&ion hath been already (hewed , and the abfurdities that would follow, in cafe it ftouldic deniedL declared. » Now iu lefpcci C209) refped of fuch who are only external in Cove- nam Jt is certain, though they are in Covenant* and under the promifesof it , according to its true tenour , as fo externally made, yet are not fo taught of God, as favingly to know him, for then they would be, not only externally, but in- ternally in Covenant. Secondly, That thisPromife made to the Co- venant-people of God, alluring them, that thejr (hall be all, from the leaft to the greatenV taught of God, fo as favingly to know him,doth not in- fallibly fecure the good promifed to every in- dividual perfon, to whom the promife, as ex- ternally promulgated and declared , doth, in common with others appertain. And for the proof of this Pofition I would argue thus, 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 univerfality of the terms, or by vertue of the nature and kind of the promife it felf,or by vertue ot 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 diitintftly. Firft, That it cannot be by vertue of the uni- verfality of the terms in which the promife is expreft, is evident thus, becaufe indefinite pro- mifes may be, and many times arc expreit in uiiiverfal terms, and then, though the terms be t wniverfalj univerfal , yet the promifes may n©t be made good to every individual perfon, to whom, in common wtth others, they do appertain > If I be lift uj>y faith Chrift, I mil draw all men to we, John 12. 52. The terms are univerfal , yet the promife is an indefinite promife, he would draw many unto him. So again, Acts?.. 17. I mil pour out my Spirit upon all flefh : where7 we fee again the terms are univerfal, yet the promife is verified only in fome particular perfons. But here you will fay, In this place the pro- mife is expreft with a peculiar emphaiis , 7 bey fhall all kjtow me , from the leaji to the great eft > and therefore it muft needs be underftood uni- verfally. To that I anfwer , Whether we underftand this phrale, From the leaji to tbegreateji, of age, or ftate, or condition, is not much to our pre- fent purpofe » we rind the very fame phrale uied,whenyet the fence is only indefinite, thus, Jer. 6. 13. From the leaji to the gr e at efo every one U given to covetoufnefli 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 apperraining to them, (hall be favingly taught of God , fo as truly to know (21!) knotf him.eahnot be inferred, or certainly con- cluded from the wniverfality of the terms it is cxprdf.d in. Secondly, Nor from the nature of the pro- mife s for if the nature of the promife do iii* fa llibiy fecure the good promifed to every in- dividual perfon in covenant; , as before expreft, i r muft be either, as it is a conditional, or as it i s an abfolute promife » as it is conditional, it can- not be pretended , in as much as no conditional promifes, as iuch, do infallibly fecure the good promifed to any to whom they do appertain > it is pcffible the condition may not be performed, and then God is difobliged from making good the promifes. It is true , you will fay , fuppofing it were a conditional promife, it would not infallibly fe- cure the good promifed to all univerfally , to whom it doth appertain i but it is an abfolute promife , and the abfolutenefs of the promile, taken in conjunction with the univeriality of the terms , doth fure infallibly fecure the good promifed to all univerfally to whom it doth ap- pertain. I anfwer, That the promife, though here expreft absolutely, yet is not abfolutely abfolute^ as before proved i fo though expreft in univerfa! terms, yet may be and is an indefinite promife, indefinite promifes being often ;- expreft. in uni- tferfal terms j yea3 let me fay, that abfolute pro- F % mifes,5 (217) 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 particular perfon, fneerly by thepromifes themfelves, but ©nly upon fuppofition of the eternal purpofes and decrees of God, to give the good To promi- sed to this or that particular perfon : in refpedfc of abfolute promifes , God hath referveda li- berty to himfelf, to give or withhold the good promifed, in a eommenfurablenefs to his eternal decrees and purpofes,and according as particular perfons are elected and appointed to the enjoy- ment of the good promifed , or not ek&ed or pafled by. From all it evidently appears , that perfons may have a vifible and external actual right and title to this promife , and yet never have the good promifed in prefent poffeffion, nor yet ever have it made good to them, and confequcntly it cannot be concluded from the abfolutenefs or univerfality of this promife , that the Infant- feed of believing Parents are not in the Cove- nant of Grace, nor under the promifesof it. But let that (uifice for our fecond fubordinate Proportion. C H AT. (3*3) CHAP. IX. The third fubordtnate Proportion laid down'*) how handled declared. The firfi Argument for its confirmation propofed and profecuted , where that Command^ concerning the keeping of the Covenant^ Gen. 17. 9. is largely fpoken to. ICome now to the third and laft fubordinate Proportion, viz. That all thofe that art under , or are the allurt Subjects of that Promife ,: wherein God ing*~ ged himfelf to be a God to Abraham, and bit Seed in their Generations, ought, according to the will of Cbrijljo be baptized : all that are the Subjects of that Promife are the due and f roper Subjects of 'Baptifm : There may be, its true, a tender of the Promife to fuch who ought not to he baptized, they may refufz that tender , but to whom the Promife doth adually belong, the Ordinance of ^aptif me ought, according to the will of Chriji, to be apply* id. P 3 This This Propofition I (hall endeavour to prove inbjpotbefi , or as applied to the particular fub- )C& of our main Propofition, viz. the Infant- feed of one or both believing Parents * and thus fuppofing , and taking it for granted ( as being already proved ) that they are the adtual Subje&s of that Promife , I mail prove that they ought, according to the will of Chrift, to be baptifed, and that by thcfe three Argu- ments, Firft, If it be the duty of believing Parents, not only to be baptized themfelves, but to take care that their Infant- feed , asjoynt Subjects with themfelves of that promife, be alfo bapti- zed , then it is according to the will of Chriit, that not only believing Parents themfelves, but their Infant-feed alfo mould be baptized : but the former is true, therefore the latter. The Coniequence in the Major propofition is unqueftionable, what a Believer is bound to take care be done , the doing of that muft un- doubtedly be according to the will of Chriit. But 'tis the Minor propofition will be denied, viz. That it is the duty of believing Parents, not only to be baptized themfelves , but to take care that their Infant-Seed, as jjoynt Subjects with themfelves of the fame promife, be bapti- zed. But the truth of this is evident from the ex- prtfs Command of God, Gen. 17. 9. And God faid unto Abraham, Ibottjbaltkfep my Covenant therefore, then and thy Seedafttr thee in their Generations. "*.' Now c»5; Now that it may appear, that this Command doth conftitute it to be the duty of believing Parents, not only to be baptized themfelves, but to take care that their Infant feed bealfo baptized , I (hall diftin&ly fpeak to thefe hve things. Firft> That by Covenant in this place is main- ly, if not only meant, the Token of the Cove- nant, and by keeping the Covenant, the appli- cation and reception of that Token. 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. Thirdly , That this Command requiring Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations, to keep the Covenant , obliges not only Parents to have the Token applyed to themfelves or them- felves to receive and bear it , but to apply or take care that it be applyed. according to divine appointment, to their Infant-feed. Fourthly , That as Circumcifion was the Token of the Covenant during the old Tefta- ment adminiftration, Co Baptifm is the Token of the Covenant under the New. Laftly, That this Command doth- equally and alike oblige believing Parents in their Ge- nerations , refpe&ive to Baptifm , the prefent P 4 Token (216) Token of the Covenant, as it did the Jews, re- fpe&ive toCircumcilion, the then Token of the Covenant. . For the . ftrft i That is paft all rational doubt evident s God himfelf (news what he intended by Covenant, and what by keeping of that Covenant : When he applyes this Com- mand, as more generally laid down to 4Pra' ham and his natural Seed in particular , verfe 10. So verfe 13. My Covenant /hall be in your fle(h, 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 tctmJokens the Hebrew HVIK is ufually translated by the Seventy ^fs«ey, both tfre Hebrew and Greek fignifje , Signum tarn nudum quam prodigiofum, a lign both ordinary and prodigious , and fo is expreit by the Apoitle, Rom. 411. and Co 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. btcaufe the Infants as well as the Parents are under the Obligation of the Command to keep the Covenant. Now if Co 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 fomc body, and upon whom, if not upon their Parents ? We fee that God hath throughout the Scripture made it the duty of Parents to take care of, and fee to the performance of 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- joyned the token of the Covenant to be applyed to the Infant- feed of Covenant- parents , Co he impofed the care of the application of that To» ken unto the Sct:d upon the Parents, Every man- u child (222 ) child among you /ball be circtimcifed, verie io. He that U eight dayes old, Jhall be circumeifed among you, verfe 12. The Child in the applica- tion of the Token was paffive, 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 is fufficiently 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 refpe& 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, Thy Seed in their Generations, he intended both Parents and Infant 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 J did appertain to the Parents as their ducy. And hence let it be obferved , that the will of God concerning Circumcifion, (hews us what is his will concerning Baptifm , that as the one, 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 difcovery God makes of his will concerning Circumcifion , as a comment upon that Command injoyning the keeping of the Covenant, as more generally laid down. But But net to inlarge upon this , by what hath been fal i the truth of the third particular fuffi- ciently appears. Fourthly, That as Circumcifion was the Sian or Token of the Covenant,during the old Tene- ment adminimration , foBaptifm is the Sign or Token of the Covenant under the new Teita. ment adminiftration. Where note, that when I fay , Circumcifion was, and Baptifm is , the Sign or Token of the Covenant , I would be thus underftood, viz. that Circumcifion was, and Baptifm is, that Ordinance or lnftitution that God then did annex, and now hath annex- ed to the Covenant, ferving to, and performing ofthofe 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 and ground of his annexing a Sign or Token in the general to the Covenant eftablimed between himfelf and Abraham , and his Seed in their Generations. That Circumcifion was this Ordinance or Icfxitution, is exprefly declared, Gtnefu i7. 10 II. That Baptifm is the prefent Sign or To- ken of the Covenant will appear thefc two wayes. Firft, More generally, and thus: Unlefs Bap- tifm be the prefent Sign or Token of the Co- venant, the Covenant, during this prefent admi- nistration , is left wholly dtltkure of any Sign or (224) or Token at all ; let the Sign or Tokett be pro- duced in cafe Eaptifm be not it. Tis true, it may be it will be faid , That the Covenant under , the prefer* t adminiftration , hath no external Sign or Token annexed to. it* neither is it neceffary that it mould i 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 of a Seal, makes an outward Sign or Token wholly unneceflary. To thatlanfwer : Firft, That though Believers are faid to be iealed with the Spirit, yet the Spirit is no where called the Seal of the Covenant, neither indeed can it in propriety of fpeech be fo called > for if the Spirit were the Seal of the Covenant, it fhould be given to all that are under the Cove- nant , the contrary thereunto both Scripture and experience abundantly declare , the Seal of the Covenant mutt be as exteniive as the Covenant whereof it is the Seal. Now take the Spirit as a Seal, that is, as given for that par- ticular ufe and end, viz. toaffare and afcertain theSubjeft recipient of it , of the good pro- miied in the Covenant , and fo it is certain he is not given to every one truly and internally in covenant for a long time , nor to fome poffibly while they live. How many live many years,and it may beatlaftdye without any fenfible aflu- ranceof their coveuant-ftate , or inpayment of the C"5) the good promifecU io that the Spirit cannd* properly be called the Seal of the Covenant » he is rather .(as I may foexprefsit ; a private Seal given by God to this or that particular Be- liever, according to the good pleafuieot his own Will. Secondly, I arifwer, That to feal and aflure to thofe who are admitted into covenant with God , their injoyment of the good promifed is not the only ufeand end, with reference where- unto the Sign or Token of the Covenant is ap- pointed. Hence fuppofe it fhould be granted , that the Spirit is the Seal, yea, the only Seal of the Co- venant of Grace , yet that doth no way oppofe the truth of what We here affirm concerning Baptifm, for though it fhould be not of that particular ufe , nor appointed for that fpecial end which yet it is, as will appear by and by,yec 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 him(elf,as the reafon and ground of his annexing a Sign or Token in the general, to the Covenant y fo that it is certain, the Spirit cannot be rationally fuppofed to be that Sign or Token of the Co- venant , which Abraham's Seed in their Gene- rations vrereinjoyr.ed to keep; and confequent- ly, for ought what is faid of the Spirit, unleis Baptifm be the prefent Token of the Covenant; it is wholly dettituteof any Sign or Token at all* which fiur it cannot be , hath beeit Q^ £fb*e though they (hould difagree in others, tfpe- cially there being no other Ordinance that can with any (hew of reafon be pretended to be that Token , the application and reception of which is here enjoyned Abrahams Seed in their Generations j a little may fuffice to prove, that • ZJaptifm is that Ordinance, when there is no other Ordinance that can, with any (hew of pro- bability, be fuppofed to be it. I (hall therefore only inftance in a fourfold life and end , whereunto Circumcifion, as the Sign and Token of the Covenant, was appoint- ed, and whereunto it did ferve j and then (hew the agreement of Baptifm with Circumcifion, in regard of thofe ufes and ends. The tirit and two lalt I (hall <3o little more than mention, and a little infiti upon the fecond. f Firft, Circumcifion, as the Sign and Token of the Covenant, was the (olemn Rite or Ordir nance, whereby perfons were admitted into,and incorporated in the Jewilh Church , and by the reception of which they became actual Mem- bers of that Church •> and condquently was that folemn Kite or Ordinance, whereby perfons were incorporated in , and united to the myfti- cal Eody of Chrift as vifible ; The proving of Q_2 tliis} this,! fuppofe,is needlefs, 'twill furely be denyed by none. And therefore, Secondly, Circumcifion was to feal and af- furc to the Subje&sof it,their enjoyment of the good things , benefits and bleflings pronlifed in, according to the true tenour of, the Covenant, to the adminifcration of which it was annexed : See this in a particular Inltance, viz. Remiffion of fin, or the Righteoufnefs which is of Faith : Circumcifion was a Seal of the Righteoufnefs of Faith, that is, it did feal and allure , to the due Subje&sof it, the non- imputation oi 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 rigbteonfnefi of faith, tvbieh he bad being yet uncircumcifed, Rom. 4. n. The Apoftle here (hews us one fpec'ial ufe and end of Circumcifion, refpe&ive to all to whom it was duly applyed, Qbjefi. But here it is objedted , That to have Circumcifion a Seal of the Righteoufnefs of Faith, was a priviledge 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 rightfully applyed : therefore it is faid, Here- ceived the fignof Circnmcifion, a feal of the rigb- teoitfne[s of faith , that he might he the Father of all that believe. And hence it may feem, that he receiving Circumcifion under that notion and confident ion>upon a reafon and ground peculiar and and proper to himfelf , the priviledge was pecu- liar and proper to him , and not common to any other with him, there not being the fame reafon and ground of their receiving of it under the fame notion and confideration. To that I anfwer two things. Firft , Thofe words, That he might be the Father of all them that believe , depend not only upon the words immediately foregoing , but upon the tenth verfe taken m conjunction with the former part of v. 1 1 . he did not only receive Circumcition 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, whether circumci- fed or uncircumctftd : So that he did# not re- ceive Circumcitlon, as a Seal of 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 conftquently , upon the fame account that ourOppofites appropriate cir- cumcifion as a Seal of the righteoufnefs of faith to Abraham himfelf , and deny it to be of the fame ufe to his Seed, they may appropriate the imputation of Righteoufnefs through Faith and 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, Q3 Secondly (230) Secondly, I anfwer, That th% Apoftle here lather fpeaks of the finis cm , than the finis cujus of Abraham^ receiving Circumciftonasa Seal: My meaning is this, Abraham received circumcifion as a Seal, not barely for the fake of that relation, of his being a Father of them rhat (hould believe, as it was a good benefit or privj- ledge to himfelf , but he received it under that notion and confederation, In eorum gratiam qui credituri fint, for their take to whom he (hould fiiftain 'the relation of a Father: And (o the meaning is , He received the Sign of Circumci- fion as a Seal 0f the Righteouintfs of Faith, not barely that he might lultam the relation of a Father to all that (hould believe , as that was a good to himfelf > but that he might as a Father, or common perfon , be a pattern to' all that (hould Curtain that relation of Children to him, in regard of the good which they, as his Chil- dren, thould receive. Now then having removed this Objedion, I (h ill ofter two or three Arguments to prove, that Circumcifion was appointed for this ufe and end. viz. to feal and confirm the whole Covenant to all to whom it was , according to the will of God, to be applyed. The firft (hall be taken from the end of Abrahams receiving of it , as here declared by the Apoftle : And thus I argue, If Abraham received Circumcifion , as a Seal of the Righte- oufnefs which he had through Faith , that he might be the Father of, and as the Father of a ■ , . < . patters* pattern to all that being circumcifed mould be- lieve , then to all that, being circumcifed, did believe, their circumcifion was and, ought to be looked upon and improved by them, as a Seal of that Righteoufnefs they had through Faith: But the former is true, therefore the latter. For the Confequence in the Major proportion, I fuppofe,that will not be denyed, it being part all rational doubt, that if Abraham received Cir- cumcifion undei 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, (hould 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 questioned, which yet is fo evi- dent , that to understanding and unprejudiced perfons the proving of it may feem wholly fu- perftuous. That Abraham received Circumci- fion 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 Apoftkj 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 thisisunde- niable,in as much as his paternity or fatherhood, as I may to fpeak, in part, if not principally, confiftedin his being a pattern and example to cu all (232 ) all to whom he was a Father. This title of a Father is in a peculiar 3nd fpecial manner given to , and predicated of Abraham , in this very regard, that he was fee up as the great pattern, according to which God would a& towards, and deal with, allthar fhould after believe, or be admitted into a covenant-relation with h-m- felf : Hence in this very place the Apoftle tells us, that faith was reckoned to Abraham. fox righteoufnetl, which is all one as to fay, righte- oufnefs was imputed to* him through faith , when he was in uncircumcifion , that he might fee the Father of the uncircumcifed , that righ- teoufnefs might be imputed tothemalfo, viz;. according to the pattern fet in Abraham him- felf. So again, Gal 3 . 7. Even as Abraham believed God j and it waf accoun ed to him for. rigbteouf- mfj. Mark , the defign of the Apoftle is to prove, that righteoufnefs is through faith, from the fuft pattern fet in Abraham. Now fayes he, vei(e 7. Know ye th en fore, 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 blefftd with faithful Abraham \ that is, as they are blefled with him with the fame bleflmgs, fo they are blefled with him after the fame manner, viz. through faitb. Now as Abraham had righteoufnefs imputed to him through faith , that he might be $he Father of all that believe, and, as a Father, a pattern to if hem, in regard of the imputation of righteoufc siefs: So heieceived Circumcifion as a Seal of tha$ that righteoufnefs , that he might be the Father of them that fhould believe of the circumciii^ on, and,as a -Father, a pattern to them,in regard of the ufe and end of Circumcifion, which both he and they in common received : So that it is evident, that C ircumcifion was of that ufe, and appointed for that end, viz. to be a Seal of the righteoufnefs of faith , not only to Abraham himfelf, but to all his Seed, during the continue ance of that inititution. Secondly, That Orcumcifion was of this ufe, and appointed for this end, with reference to the temporal benefits promifed in theCove- nant, is evident from hence, becaufe it could be of no other ufe , nor appointed for any other end, with reference to fome o^ them. Hence I argue, ]( Circumciiion had fome reference to the temporal good things promifed in the Co- venant , it was annexed to , and could have no other reference or refpeft but as a Seal, alluring the injoyment of them , then that muir needs be its ufe and end, with reference to thofe good things promifed : but the former is true, there* fore the latter. The Confcquence in the Major propoGtiari cannot be denyed, for if Circumcilion had fome reference toihe temporal good things pro mi fed in the Covenant, and it could have no other re-" ference, but as a Seal or Sign afluring theinjoy men t of them, then that mull needs be itsnfe and end refpecjive unto them , this will not be denyed. Secondly, Secondly, For the Antecedent , that connate of two branches. Firft, That Circumcifion had (bme reference to,or was of fome ufe , and appointed for fome end, refpe&ivc to the temporal good promifed \ this is evident from the indefinitenefs of the expreffion, Ibi Jokfn of my Covtnant j 'twas the Token of the Covenant abfolutdy 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: But this, I 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- nant, or to the Covenant as it was a temporal Covenant, ■I And therefore fecondly, That it could have aio other reference, or could be of no other ufe, with reference to thefe Promifes, but only this, viz. To (eal or allure the injoyment of the good promifed : Take it of the Land of Ca- naan s for what ufe, and to what end could Circumcifion be instituted , refpe&ive to that Promife , but to feal or allure the injoyment of the good promifed, upon condition of the obfer vation of the Articles of the Covenant ? Whence the Conclufion is undeniable,: So that, I fay, Circumcifion was the Seal of the whole Cove riant, we fee it : Firft, In refped of the fpiritual good promi fed,as pardon of fin, the righteoufnefs of faith. Secondly (235) ^Secondly, In refped of the temporal good promifed > and that Circumcifion did ieal the temporal part of the Covenant, is not only evident from Scripture and Keafon , but is the general acknowledgment of our Oppoiers them- (elves j therefore 1 (hall take it for granted, and upon that Supposition infer a third Argument, to prove that it was of that ufe,and appointed for that end, viz. To be a Seal, or an afluring Sign of the whole good, whether temporall or ipirituall convey'd , and made over by the Co- venant, and confequently was a Seal or the Co- venant abfolutely taken. And therefore, Thirdly , If Circumcifion, as the Token of the Covenant, was a Seal of iome Promifes con- tained in it, then it was a Seal of all the Promi- fes of it : But the former is true, therefore the latter. That this Covenant, now entred with Abra* ham and his Sced^ was a fpiritual as well as a temporal Covenant, or did coniitf 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 , This is tke loh^n of my Covenant \ and that as the Token it was of that ufe , and i\ appointed for that end, with reference to the temporal part of the Covenant,hath been before proved , and is granted by our Oppofers , and therefore muft needs be of that ufe , and ap- I pointed for that end, refpedive to all the Pro- mifes of the Covenant ; Vbi lex mn diflinguit '■ • ..... no£ C 236) mn diftingttendum eft, Let any reafon be (hewed why it (hould not be a Seal, or an alluring Sign, of the fpiricual part or' the Covenant, as well as of the temporal part, till which be done, the indefrnitenefs of its reference to the whole Co- venant , expreft by that indefinite phrafe, The Tokgn of my Covenant, is an undoubted warrant to take it, as of the iame ufe, and appointed for the fame end , refpe&ive to all the Promifes of the Covenant* that it was to any : from all we fee, that Circumciiion was a Seal, or an alluring Sign or Token \ and that's the lecond ufe and end of Circumcifion, the former Token of the Covenant. Thirdly, The ufe and end of Circumcifion was , to oblige and ingage the perfon receiving of it to keep exadtly to the Articles of this Co- venant \ hence is that paflage, Jtr. 4. 4. Cir- cumclje yourjelves 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 viiible Sign of their covenant- rela- tion, or to be a Sign, whereby they did vifibly appear to belong to God in Chrift , in a contra- diftin&ion from the reft of the world. Secondly , That Baptifm doth agree with Circumcifion, in regard of thefe ufes and ends, is is fufficiently evident, and con&quenrly mud needs be the Sign and Token of the Covenant here injoyned,fince the laying afide of Circum- cifion '. Let us fee ir in the particulars. Firft, For thehrft ufe and end of Circumci^ fion, viz. its being that folemn Rite and Or- dinance, by which perfons were admitted into, and incorporated in the Church , or myitical Body of Chrift , as vifible : That Baptifm is of this ufe, and appointed for this end, isexprefly declared by the Apofile, 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 of the good things , benefits and blcffir.gs promifed in the Covenant. That Baptifm is of this ufe, is fuffi- ciently evident from that paflage of Peter , 1 Per 3. 21. where Peter having fpoken of the falvation of Noah and his houfe in the Ark,fayes he,7/;e Hk$ figure wbireunto Baptifm now favetb iff , and telleth us how it faveth, both negative- ly and polltively •> negatively, itis»««r d^im , for or unto the remiffion of fin. Now under what notion or confideration doth the Apoftle exhort t5 Baptifm, refpe&ive to remiffion of fin > It cannot be under the notion of a proper ciufe, for Baptifm is no proper caufe of the remiffion of (in 1 neither is it fo much as a oecefTary con- dition, as Faith and Repentance in the adult are, for then none could receive remiffion of iiri without it > but that is falfe, as is evident in the caie of the Thief upon thecrofs, and the like is the cafe of many others;, who are converted immediately before death. Neither doth he exhort to it barely under the notion of a Sign, that phrafe , *V 4fa* «WT«>r , implyes fome inference that Baptitm hath to remiffion of fin, beyond what it would have, were it only «»- dnm Signum^ a bare Sign or rcprefentation of the remiffion of fins by the blood of Chrift, and (239) ind therefore he muft needs exhort to it under the notion of a Seal or alluring Sign : And for rhe further clearing up of this, let the cafe and condition of thefe trembling Jews be confi- dcred , as they had finned in crucifying of Chrift, and were under the guilr of that fin , and under an Obligation to futfer deferved punifihment , to they were under a deep fence of that their fin, and that wrath or puniftiment due to them up- on the account thereof. Now as the Apoftle ex- horts them to repent ( with which a faving faith in Chrift muft be fuppofed to concur with a direct reference fo 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 confidences , that they might not only have remiffion of fin in the Court of Heaven, but have that remiffion fealed and con- firmed to them, to the quieting their arfli&ed confeiences , or to the working in them good confeiences : But that is a fecond ufe and end of JBaptifm. Thirdly, For the third ufe and end of Cir- cumcifion , viz. To oblige and ingage the per- fons to whom it was applyed,to a due and faith- ful performance of all confequcnt duties requi- red in the Covenant. This is true alfo of tfap- tifm ■•, Baptifm is not only a fealing or confirm- ing Sign, but an obliging Sign, by it the peifon baptized is obliged to take Go it only enjoy ncd the application and reception of the Token of the Covenant,but did not determine what that was, or fhould be > and had God only thus generally and indefinitely commanded the keeping of the Covenant , without ipecifying what this Cove- nant (hould be , for Abraham himfelf to have been circumcifed , or to have circumcifed his Seed,had been a Sin. and an a& of will-wor(hip : but now when God had determined Circumci- fion to be the then Token of the Covenant, this general Command was to be applyed by him to that inftitution in particular , and his receiving of it himfelf, and applying it to his Seed, was warranted, yea, injoyned by this Command > fo then that particular inftitution of Circumcifion was laid ahde , and Saptifrn initituted for the fame ufes & ends: that Command was no longer to be applyed roCircumcifion,but unto 2>aptifm fet up in the Head of it > and doth equally ob- lige Chciftians to the application and reception of Baptifm, as it did the Jews, curing the fir It Teftament adminifkation , to the application and reception of Circumcifion ; the command only injoyning the obfervation of the Token of the Covenant , not determining what that was or (hould be *, as it injoyned of it felf neither Circumcifion nor JSaptifm , (o itinioyned both the one and the other, as they were determined by God to be the Token of his Covenant i fo that we have as an exprefs command, comparing this command with that, Matth%2%. 19. for baptifm ( 243 ) baptifme of Infants , as the jews had for the circumcifing their Infant feed j The command to keep the Covenant lying upon Abrahams, Seed in their Generations, which, as I have faid, as it injoyned Parents to receive or have the Token of the Covenant applyed untothcrh,and unto their Infant-feed , fo it confHtuted it to be a duty of the Infant-feed of Believers , to re- ceive and bear the Token as applyed unto them., So that what would we have more, indeed what can be more plainly fpoken : would we have had God faid , thou (halt keep my Covenant, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Genera- tions.Circumcihon betore theMelliah ccme ,and Baptifm after. I>you will fay, had it been fo expreft it would have prevented this controveriie. JBut to what purpofe mould it have been lo cxprcll ? Is it not all one , Ihou jbalt kgep my Covenant therefore, then and thy Seed in their Ge- nerations , not determining what Covenant ihould be kept , and then for God flrfl to mfti- tute Circumciiion as the Token of the Cove- nant, and then lay that atlde, and fubiiitute Zbp- tifm in the room of if, the command ftijl re- maining in its fail force , without the leafr inti- mation ot a repeal: is not the command ilill legible,' and is it not plain enough, it lyes upoti Abraham's Seed in their Generations ? And is it not evident, that buheving Gentiles are Abrar hamsSccd > And is ic not plainly expreft , that £aptifm is the prefent Token of the Covenant, 2s CireumciOoh of old was ? So that if wi wifi & 2 r&t f H4) not call for a command, and when it is.brought (hut our eyes againft it, here we have as an ex- prefs command for the baptifm of the Infant- feed of believing Parents , as the Jews had fcr the circumciiing their Infant-feed. But yet for the further explanation , illuftra- tion and confirmation of what I have in this particular aflerted, let two things be obferved. Firft, How the Lord doth vary the phrafe, when he comes to fpecifie the Covenant then to be kept ; 'tis not (aid, This is my Covenant which thou and thy Seed in their Generations (hall keep , but, This is my Covenant which ye Jball keep between me and you , every man-child among you fhall be circumcifed , and you Jhall circumcife the flefh of y out fore-skin, andit Jhall be a token of the Covenant between me and you y verfe 10, n. So again verfe 12. He that is eight dayes old Jhall be circumcifed among you, every man-child in your Generations. A plain intimation, that he purpofed a change in the Token of the Covenant, and that Circumcifion (hould continue the Token of it only during the firft Teftament administration , while the Covenant it felf was to be continued in an efpecial manner in Abrahams natural loin and pofterity. 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 old Teftament, (245) Tcftament that maft be neceffariiy interpreted and underltood after the fame manner. I mall give you a twofold inftancc in the commands of the Moral Law. Firft, Take an inftance in the fecond Com- mandment , Tbou {halt not make to thyfelf any graaen Image. Now will any fay, that this Command is only negative , doth only prohibit grofs Idolatry, according to the letter of the command. Surely 'tis agreed on all hands, that it requires fomething poiitive, viz. That the external worfhip that God himfelf appoints, be exactly obferved and performed , according to the way and manner himfelf hath determind in his Word i and thus when God had appointed and eftablifhed that worfhip, continuing in fa- crifcee, obfervation of dayes, and the like,in and by which his people, under the rirft Teftament, were to worfhip and ferve him , that command was to be applied to that kind of worfhip , and did require the exact obfervation and perfor- mance thereof, according to the way and man- ner declared by God himfelf. JBut now then that kind of worfhip was laid allde , and other Ordinances and Inliitutions appointed , in and by which the people of God were and are to worfhip and ferve himithe Command is of alike authority as before , and doth alike oblige and bind the people of God,to the exadt obfervation and performance of that worfhip now eilablifh- ed, according to the way and manner declared in the Word , as it did oblige and bind the peq- R 3 P]e C 246 ) pie of God, under the firft Teftament, with rc- fpedtothe worfliipthen eftablilhed: Though there be an alteration and change made in the particular Ordinances and Initiations , ina nd by which God will have worlhip tender'd up to hiirn ; yet the Command, as m®re generally laid down, as requiring the exad obfervation and performance of whatever worihip is of Gods own inftitution , is of the fame authority and force that ever it was ; though ir doth not ob- lige us gentVafly to the fame ads of worlhip that it did oblige the Jews unto , yet it equally obligeth us to thofe ads and duties now pre- scribed by God, as it did the Jews to that wor- ship prefcribed unto them : The Command, as more generally propofed , doth not fpecitie any paticular ads or duties , in and by which God would be worfliipped , it only requires in the general, that whatever ac^ or duty God himfelf appoints, be exadly obferved and performed, and that according to the way and manner de- clared by himfelf: the very fame is the cafe of this Command , injoyning the keeping of the Covenant. The Command, as I havefaid, as thus generally propofed, fpeciries not what that Covenant is or fhould be , only requires the ap- plication and reception of the Token of the Covenant , and confequently to Circumcifion, when that was appointed as the Token of the Covenanted during its continuance i but upon the ceiTation of that, to2>aptifme, as that Ordi- nance which God hath declared to be the pre- fent Token of the Covenant. Secondly, (H7) Secondly, Take another Inftance in the fourth Commandment, Remember the Ssbbatb day t9 kgep it holy. Here is a Command more generally laid down, injoyning the keeping ho* ly the Sabbath or reft-day,not fpecifying which day (hould be that reft-day. Now when the Seventh day was inftituted as that day of reft, this general Command was to be applyed to that particular day , and did require the keep- ingof that day holy » but when the Seventh day was laid afide, and another day, viz,. The firft day of the week , inftituted by Chrift as that reft day ; now that Command , as fo gene- rally propofed , is to be applied to this particu- lar day , and equally obligeth us Chriftians to the keeping holy the firft day of the week , as it did the Jews to keep holy the feventh > hence we have no exprefe command in the new Te- ftament for the keeping holy the firft day of the week , neitker is there any need there (hould that command, to remember the day day ot reft, and keep it holy,being equally applicable to one day as to another , and God having determined the day,thc command is to be applyed unto it as fo determined by God \ which again is tkc very cafe of this command, under conlideration j it determines not the Covenant to be kept, bat requires that the Covenant , whatever God de- termines it to be, be kept , and confequcntly as it firft obliged to the application and reception of Circumcition , fo now it obligeth to the ap- plication and reception of BaptiCm. R a Now (248 ) Now then to come to a clofe of this firft Ar- gument, we fee the Promifes are true , and confequentJy the conclufion 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 hji fttbordinate Proportion, propofed an^anaged. The feveral Injtances of Houfioldls king baptized0confidered. Ibe fecond Argument. IF the InfantTeed of believing Parents were in primitive times baptized , either by the Apoftles rhemfelves, or by any others by their allowance, direction, or approbation, then it was or ftill is according to the will of Chritf, 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 Apoitles themfelves, or by others, by their allowance, direction or approbation baptized. For the confirmation of which this one Argument may jfuffice. If the Infant feed of believing Parents were by the Apoitles owned and looked upon, as apr pertaining to , or as Members of the myiiical £ody of Chrift,as vifible, then they were,cither by themfelvesjor by others, by their allowance, direction C250) direction and approbation , admitted and im- planted into that Body by tfaptilm .* But the In- fant-feed of believing Parents were owned and looked upon by theApoftles, as before expref- fed : Ergo^ &c. Here again the Confequence in the Major proportion will be, I fuppofe, readily granted by our Oppofers, and 'tis fufficiently evident by this Argument.^ If Baptifm was appointed by Chrift , for the fblemn admiflion of (uchinto hismyftical Body, as viilble , as did appertain thereunto , or were Members thereof , and there was no other way ©r means appointed for the fame end and pur - pole,then all that the Apoftles did own and look upon, as appertaining to, or as Members of that Body, were, either by the Apoitles themfclves, or by others, by their allowance, direction and approbation, admitted and implanted into \t by Baptifm : But the former is true , therefore the latter > the Minor here alone needs proof , and that confifts of thefe two branches. - Firft, That Baptifm was appointed by Chrift, for the folemn admiflion and implantation of fuch into his myftical Body, as vifible, as did appertain thereunto, or were Members there- of. Secondly , That there is no other way o* means appointed by Chrift for that end and purpofe. Firft, For the flrft , fee i Cor. 12. 13. For by one Spirit wz art aU baptized into one Body> wbe tber w be Jews or Gentiles i ppbether tve be bond 6'r OsO pr free , and have been all made to drink into on* Spirit. What may be obje&ed 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 is, to prove, that Baptifm was ap- pointed by Chrift , for thefolemn admiflion of perfons into his Body.as vifible, which is fuffici- ently evident. Secondly , That there is no other way or means appointed by Chriit, for the folemn admiflion of any into his viiible myilical Body : If any (hall fay there is, let them (hew it and prove from Scripture what they ailrm , and I (hall readily grant the invalidity or this Argu- ment i but that doubtkfs none will attempt to do, fo that the truth of the Major proportion is unqueftionable, tor the Minor, viz. That the Infant- feed of believing Parents were owned and looked upon by the Apoftles, as appertaining to, or as Mem- bers of the myftical Body of Chrift, as viiible , This will be denyed , and therefore muft be, proved, and 1 (hall prove it by thefe two Argu- ments,both which being grounded upon exprefs and poiitive Scriptures, will render the addition of more wholly r.eedle(s. Firft, All thofe who were by the Apofde owned and looked upon, and that as perfonally or particularly confidered, as the a&ual Subjects of thePremifeof Salvation, were owned and looked upon by them, as appertaining to, or as Members of the myfiical Body of Chrift , as viiible : But the Infant-feed of believing Pa- rents I -52 ; rents were owned and looked upon by the Apo* tiles , and that as perfonally and particularly contidered,as the adiual Subje&s of the Promife of Salvation , therefore they were owned and looked upon by them, as appertaining to, or as Members of the myttical Body of Chritt , as vitible. The Minor proportion hath been already proved ;■> and as for the Major, that is evident thus, Chritt is the Saviour of his body, Ephej\ 5. 23. Now to be under a Promife of Salvation, is to be under a Promife of being faved by Chritt : hence all that are under a Promife of being faved by Chritt, mutt needs appertain to, or be of his myttical Body , for 'tis of his Body that he is the Saviour. But two things will be objc&ed. Objeft. 1 . Firft, That Chritt is faid to be the Saviour of all men, 1 Tim. 4. 10. To be the Saviour of the world, 'jobn^ 42. and there- fore though it (hould be granted , that the In- fant-feed of believing Parents are under the Promife of being faved by Chritt , it will not follow, that they were looked upon as apper- taining to , or as Members of his myttical Body. Anfw. To that I anfwer, that though Chritt 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&ually>and that for the prefent, as perfonally confiderea1 under any Promife of being faved by foitn, ( efpecially taking Salvation of fpi ritual and •and eternal Salvation J but fuch who are of, o* do appercain to his myftical Body: therefore it is faid of thtfc Epbcfians , before their imbrace* ment of Chrift , They were jlraxgers to the Cove* nants of promife^ Ephef.2.i2,They had nothing to do with the Promifes of fpirirualand faVing Mercies \ and as they were /hangers to the Covenants of promife , (b they were without hope, withoutany grounded hope , intereft in the Promifes being the alone true ground of all jiope of fpiritual and eternal Salvation : io that intereft in the Promife of Salvation, declares the per(bns fo intereiled, to appertain to, or to be of the myftical Body of Chrirt,all others being firangersco the Promifes,and therefore without hope. Ob)eft. 2, Secondly, It is obje&ed , That when it is faid, Chrift is the Saviour of his Body, it is only meant of his myftical Body, as invisible, and confequently , 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, myftical Bodyoi Chrift, it will prove, that they do univerfally appertain to his Myftical Body , as invifible, which it will be faid we our [elves deny, and therefore, this Scripture is impertinently brought to prove their relation to the myftical Body of Chrift, as viftble, which only Speaks of his myftical Body, as inviiible. Anfa, To that 1 anfwer , This Obje&ion will receive a more full anfwer by and by^where I flullnv:et with it again;at prefent I ihali pnly_ fry, (=54; fay, 'tis evident the Apoitle fpeaks of the myfti* cal Body of Chri(t, as vilibie, and not meerlf as invifible > for let it be obferved , that Body and Church, in this difcourfe of the Apoftle, are Synonimies , or words exactly anfwering one another in fence and iignirication ; whom he in- tends byfBody he intends by Church , and fo on 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 fkih, and of his bones. Mark, he takes in the Ephe- pans univerfally and indefinitely, one as well as another, as joynt Members with himofthis Body: So Efbef. 2. 19. Now therefore ye are no longer Strangers and Forreigners , but fellow - Citizens with the Saints^ and of the Houfholdof Ged. To be fellow- Citizens with the Saints, and of the Koufhold 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 perfbn of this Church were Members of the invifible Body of Chrift i what he faith, AUs 20 30. plainly declares the contrary. Now then this Church or Body , of which the ApoiHe faith, Chrilt was the Head and Saviour, being that Church or Body, of which the £f/;e- fians were an homogeneal part , and they not being (255) >eing fuppofed by the Apoftle univerfally to appertain to the Churih or Body of Chriit, as invisible j It will undoubtedly follow, that he doth not fpeak of the Church or Body of Chrift meerly as invisible , but as vifiblc. Chrift is in Scripture faid to be the Saviour of his Church or Body, as vifibly confidered, and the Infant- feed of believing Parents being under a Promife of Salvation by him, or of being favedby him, they mult needs by the ApolHes be owned and looked upon, as Members of thac Body of which he is the Saviour, none, as I have faid, being un- der a Promife 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 perfonally con- fidered, are the actual Subje&sof that Promife, wherein God ingaged hjmfelf to be a God to Abraham , and his Seed in their Generations^ were owned and locked upon by the Apoftlcs, | as appertaining to,or as Members of the myihear Body of Chrilt,as vilible: But the Infant feed of believing parents under the Gofpel admini- ftration, and that as perfonally conikiered, are the actual Subje&s of that Promife \ there- fore, &c. The Major is undeniably proved , by that pofitive Affertion of the Apoftle , Galatians 3. 16. Now to Abraham and kk Seed were the fromifes made* he faith tiot^ to hisSads, as of nsa>7yi but to thy Seed^ which is Chriji ; that is* Chi lit myiucal. Now if that Promife write made C 256 ) made to Chrift, and to Chrift only, as we fee the •Apoftle denyes it to beflnade to any other , it was not made to Seeds, but to Seed, to thy Seed, which, faith the Apoltle, is Chrift. I fay, if this Promife was made only to Chrilt , it will unde- niably follow, that whofbever that Promife was made unto , or to wh@m that Promife may by Scripture-warrant be applyed,as the actual Sub- jects of it, and that as perfonally confidered, they muft needs by the Apoftles be looked upon and owned, as appertaining to, or as Members of the myflical Body of Chriit i and therefore let none evade this plain evidence,to the deceiv7 ing themfelves or others, by faying, that there are Promifes made to others, that are not Mem- bers of the myftical Body of Chritt. Let it be remembred , the Argument fpeaks not of Pro- mifes in the general, nor of any kind of Promi- fes, but of this Promife in fpecial i nor doth it fpeak of this Promife, as anjndeiinite Promife made to any fort or fpecies or perfons,coliective- ly taken , where no tingle or individual perfon can be faid to be an actual Subject of it, as per- fonally confidered ; and therefore to produce any fuch Instances is wholly impertinent; as to the Argument in hand, let it be (hewed, that any perfon, whether old or young, might ac cording to Scripture be accounted an actual Subject of this Promife , and that as perfonally confidered , who yet was not by the Apoftles owned or looked upon,as appertaining to,oras a Member of the myftical Body of Chriit, .till which be done5which i fliail not doubt toaffirn: C =57 ) is impoflible to be done ) we may undoubtedly conclude, that all thofc that are the a&ual Sub- jects of that Prcmiie , as perfonally confidered, were owned and looked upon by the Apoftles, as appertaining to, or as Members of trie myfti- cal Body of Chrift, which is the thing affirmed in our Major propofition. For the Minor pro- pofition, viz. That the Infant- feed of believing Parents are, under the Gofpel adminiftration, fuch Subjects of that Promife *, this hath been already fully proved > whence our Conclufion is undeniable, That they were owned and look- ed upon- by the Apoliles , as appertaining to r or as Members of the myftical £ody of Chrift. Gbjea. But it will be faid, That by Chrift here we arc to undeiftand Chrift myftical , as invisible , and not as vifible. The Promifes are made to Chrift, that is, to the real and internal Members of. his myftical Body. Anfw. To that I fhall anfwer thefe two things. Firft, VHLexnori d\$higuU,non difiinguin* dum eft , Where the Law diftinguifheth not we are not to diftinguifh. Now the Apoftle tells us, the Promifes are made to Chrift > not to Chrift, cither under this or that notion or con- iideration i here is no diftin&ion between Chrift, as vifible or invifible, bur (imply and ab- (olutdy, the Promife is to thy Seed, which is Chrift. ...... , But you will fay, Though the Apoftle doth no? here diftinguifti, yet the Scripture elfewhere § warrant* ^5* J warrants that diftin&ion > and it is certain, the Promifes do not really appertain to any , but iuch as have a real union with , and intereft in Chrift, of whom his Body, as invisible, is confti- tuted and made up , therefore we are to under- stand the Apoftle,as intending only the invifible Body of Chrift. To that I anfwer, It is granted, that in order to a due application of this or any other Pro- mife to our felves , and in order to our enjoy- ment of the good promifed , we muft not only look toa vifible profeflion of Chrift, which con- ftitutesusof his Body, as vifibk, but we are to 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 it for granted, that as to particular perfons, thofe who do vilibly belong to Chrift,are of his Body, as invifibly,as well as vilibly confidered : Hence in all that it fpeaks to,or of the Body of Chrift, it fpeaks to or of it, limply or abfolutely, as his Jtody , wirhout diftinguifhing of it as vifibleor inviiible. And let it Be further carefully ob- ferved, that that diftindion of Seeds intima- ted by the Apoftle, whereof fome have the Pro- mifes made to them , and others not , doth not refpedt the Members of the Body of Chrift, as vifible , as though fome of them had the Pro- mifes made to them , in a contradiction from others, vilibly of the fame Body, who have not the Promifes made unto them, but the diftindi- onis either between fuch , who might plead an intereft in the Promifes as related to Abraham^ his ( 259 ) his natural Children, who yet cleaved to the Law for Righteoufnefs and Life : Or between fuch , who though in word they did profefs Faith in Chrift, yet did indeed fall in with, and imbrace fuch doctrines and practices as did, iffo facto, forfeit and difanul their right of member- thip in the myftical Body of Chrift, as viiible, and fuch who did vilibly adhere and cleave to Chrift in faith and cbedierice, in bppofition to the imbracement or falling in With any fuch do- ctrines or practices. Now the Apoftle affirms, that to thefc, and not to thofe, the Promife was made. Indeed this I (hall readily graf the good promifed , they rnuftact according ro their profeffion , otherwife though the Pro- mifes, as external! y promulgated and declared, are made to them, and they in foro Ecclefia had 3 right to them, yet it was none of the intend- ment of God , that upon the terms of a bare profeffion they fhould enjoy the good promifed i out this 1 fay, that the Promifes, in refpecft of the external promulgation and declaration of hem , are made to Chrift myftical , without :on(ideration had to that dlftindtion of vHible nd invihble , the Holy Ghoft fpeaking to or of men , by men fpeaks according to what viiibly ippearof them, S £ But C 160 ) But fecondly, I anfwer , That Chrift here muft needs be underftood of Chriit myftical , as villbly confidered ; This hath been touched up- on already , and for further fatisfa&ion , fee Mr. Cobbett in his Jujl Vindication^ page 57 and it evidently appears from hence , becaufe particular and individual perfons might ordina rily be known to appertain to , and be Members of Chriit , as here fpoken of by the Apoftle Now no individual or particular pcrfon can be ordinarily known to appertain to Chriit , or to be a Member of him , as inviiibly confidered > fee verfe 28. where faith the Apoftle , Te are all one in Cbuji > the Apoftle fpeaks to the Galati- ans, and faith he. Ye are all one in Cbriji i and in faying they were all one in Chrift,he muft needs acknowledge them to be all in Chriit s how could they be all one in Chrift , unlefs they were in Chrift ? But fure none will fuppofe, that the Apoftle did infallibly know them, to have been univerfally every individual perfon among them of the Body of Chrift, as invifible, therefore he muft needs fpeak of Chrift here asviiible, and not meerly as invifible ; and befidts, let the foregoing Arguments, to prove that the Infant feed of believing Parents, and that as fuch, are inrUded as the actual Subjects of this Promife, be well weighed, which fuppofing it to be true, it will undeniably follow , that the Apoftle here fpeaks of the myftical Body of Chrift, as viable, 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 Apoftle, Anc An J therefore whereas our Oppofers affirm, That Chrift here is to be underftood of Chrift myftical, as invifible, and thereupon conclude, that the Infant-feed of believing Parents can- not , as fuch , be fuppofed to appertain unto Chrift , and consequently not included as Sub- jects of that Promife, faid by our Apoftle to be made unto Chrift. We on the other hand affirm , and I hope have fufficiently proved , that they are included as joynt Subjects with their Parents of that Promife,and upon that ground ought to be look- ed upon as appertaining ro Chrift , and confe- quently that by Chriit here we are to under- itand Chrift myftical as vifible , and not meerly as invifible. Now unlefs our Oppofers (hall produce clearer evidence, that the Apoftle doth indeed fpeak of the myftical Body of Chrift, meerly as invifible, then hath been produced , to prove the Infant- feed of believing Parents, and that as fuch, to be included in that Promife , we ftiall take it for granted, that he fpeaks of Chrift as vifible,& that the Infant- feed of believing Parents do apper- tain to, or are Members of his myftical Body as vifible, and confequently, §jod erat demonjlran- dumy were either by the Apoftles themfelves, or by fome others, by their allowance, direction or approbation, admitted and implanted into chat JBcdy by Baptifm. Now as a clofeof this Argument, it may not be altogecher unfeafonable to fhew in a few words ( it needs not many ) what refpeft we S 5 have (my have to that myftical Relation , wherein th; Infant- feed of believing Parents (tand towards Abraham, as his Seed, in the application of Bap- tifrh unto them, the confiderationof which I afore referred to the handling of this lalt Pro- potition , and I know not where to touch upon it fo fealonably as here. And for this let it be noted , that in the ap- plication of Baptifm we have a dired and pri- mary refpcd: to their ftate , as joynt Subjects with their Parents of the Promifes of the Co- venant, the Covenant and Promifestfhereof be. ing entred with, and made unt© Abrahams Seed in their Generations, as with and to the Parents perfonally considered, fo with and to their Seed, as fuch : Hence both Parents and Seed are to have the Token of the Covenant applyed unto them , they being joynt Subjects of the fame Covenant and Promifes , they arealike to par- take of the Sign and Token of the Covenant Hence look what refpedr we have to the mylti- cal Relation of believing Parents to Abraham, in the application of Bapcifm unto them, the fame refped: we have to themyftical Relation of their Infant feed to Abraham, in the applica- tion of Baptifm unto them. The third Argument: If intereit in that grand Promife of the Covenant , wherein God ingagedto be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their Generations -, be alone and by it felf fufficient ground, upon which perfons may anc ought to be exhorted and moved unto baptifm cheii (263) then all thoie , who have an imereft in chat Pro- mife,may and ought to be baptized: But inte- reft in that Promife is alone and by it felfa fufficient ground , upon which perfons may and ought to be exhorted and moved unto Eaptifm : Therefore all thofe, who have aninterdt in that Promife , and confequently Infants they having an intereft in it , may and ought to be bapti- zed. The Conftquence in the Major Proposition of this Profyllogiim cannot be denied i (or if a Minifter may exhort or move one to be baptized upon this fole ground , that he hath an intereft in that Promife , he may and ought to apply JBaptifm to him upon that fole ground •, other- wife perfons might be duly exhorted to a duty, which would be unlawful for them to practice, which would be abfurd. Therefore 'tis the Minor only which, I fup- pofe, will be dcnyed, which yetji judge,will be granted by the major part of our Oppofers i and for the fatisfa&ion of others , let thefe two Scriptures be compared together, and well weighed, Gen. 17. 9. Acts 2.38, 39 faith God to Abraham, Thou fhalt keep my Covenant, tbere- ' fore thou and thy Seed in tbeir Generations : faith the Apoiile , Repent and be baptized every oneof you for the remiffion of fin , for the Promife is to you and to your Children. Now let it be dili- gently obferved , how the Holy Ghoft grounds the Command or Exhortation to keep the Co- venant,that is,the Token of the Covenant,upon inteieJt in , and right to the Promifes of the S 4 Covenant, Covenant , / mil he thy God , faith the Lord to Abraham, andtheGodof thy Seed in their Gene- tations , thou /halt hgej) my Covenant therefore^ thou and thy Seed in their Generations. Now to what end or purpofe can it be imagined, that the Command to keep the Covenant mould be u(hered in wtth a therefore , had not the Com* mand fome reference to the Promifes immedi- ately afore propofed ? And what reference can it be imagined to have but this , that Gods vouchfafemcnt of thefe Promifes was the ground and foundation of the Command? The Com- mand was given upon no other account or con- (ideration , but their intereft in the foregoing Promifes, and the ufe the thing commanded (hould be of to them , refpe&ive t© thefe Pro- mifes > fo that I fay, the Command is grounded upon their intereft in the Promifes > having thefe Promifes , Ihoufbalt therefore keep my Co* venant : In like manner the Apoftle grounds his Exhortation to Baptifm , theprefent Token of the Covenant, or enforceth it by the confidera- tion of right to, and intereft in the Promife, be baptized, fox the Promife is unto you : And that the truth of what we affirm may more fully appear, le t us enquire into two things. Firft, What Promife it was the Apoftle faith was unto them. Secondly , What the meaning of the Apoftle is in thefe words, Jhe Promife is to you. - Fkft, Firft, For the firft, And thus the Piomifc here (aid 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 effence and fub- fiance of the Covenant,as remiflion of lin, or the like , which is all one as to our prefent pur- pofe. Secondly, For the iecond , Andthusliup- pofe all parties mufi neceiTarily 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 prefent actual and peifonal intereft in it, which feems moft 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 ftiould have an actual and perfonal intereft in it , upon the Lords cal- ling of them, or which is all one, upon their repentance > 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* becaufe otherwife the having of the Promife (266) fo them, would have been no fufRcient ground - tor the Apoltles 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 mould fay , the Promife is to you by way of ofTer and tender at prefent , therefore repent, whereby you (hall have an actual interet't in it, and thereupon be baptized > and that the Apo- i\k exhorts to Repentance only , and not both to Baptifm and Repentance, in order to their having an actual intereit in the Promife, is palt all doubt,in as much as Baptifm mult necelTanly follow upon, and not precede intereit in the Promife,as a means either by it fclf, or as a joynt means with Repentance,to obtain that intereit y fo that, I fay, his meaning mult be this, repent, that you may have an intereit in the Promife, and upon your repentance be baptized for the remiflion of fin , for then the Promife is to you, that is.you then will have an a&ual right to, and intereii 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 intereit in the Promife , or makes that the motive to ex- cite and itir them up to Baptifm : now intereit in the Promife being the ground upon which,or the motive by which the Apoltie prefleth them to Baptifm , it mult needs be a fuffici- ent ground for the application of Baptifm ; and coniequently whoever hath an intereit in the Promife may duly and rightly have Baptifme applyed unto them. Objecf* Object. But it will be objected, The Apoftlc conjoyns Repentance and Baptifme in hisEx- hortation,and therefore they cannot be feparated in practice. Anjrv. i. To that I anfwer two things. Firit, That though the Apoille conjoyns thefe two duties in his Exhortation , yea, though he (hould ground his Exhortation to the practice £i them both upon the fame foundation, viz. intereit in and right to the Promife i yet that doth not nectflarily imply an infcparable con- notion between them in practice, two duites imy be conjoyned in an Exhortation, and both moved to upon one and the fame ground , and yet be feparable in their practice, and then either of thefe duties may be prefTed to and anfwerably practiced apart upon that ground, let us fee it in thefe two duties of Repentance and Eaptifm, exhorted to by the Apoitle: it is evident the Apoftle exhorts to thefe two duties , with refe- rence to two diiiincl: ends ; the one, viz. Re- pentance, with reference to their obtaining an a&ual intereit in the Promife, fuppofe that were wanting, or wifh reference to the removal of a fpecial bar, which at prefent lay in the way of their Baptifm, fuppofing them to have a prefent intereft in it; The other, viz. Bapnfm, with reference to the confirmation of their faith in, or their aiTurance of their enjoyment of the good promifed, upon fuppofition of a precedent intereit in the Promife. Now when thefe two ends are feparated , as in refpeft of many they may be , fometimes Repentance may aud ought -to C 268 ) to be preffed to and pra&ifed, 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 profelfion of Repentance, is no way neceffary , as in the cafe of Chrifts Baptifm ; fo in John Baftift's cafe , fuppofing him , he being fandtified in the womb , to have kept up the dueexercife of Grace and Holineffl| from his infancy : Now in thefe cafes thefe two duties are j*feparable in pra&ife , and in fuch cafes either of them may be diftin&ly and fe«|- rally preffed to upon this ground : what Wa fufficient ground to bottom an Exhortation up- on to the pra&ifeof two duties, mult needs, fuppofing thefe duties are infeparable in their pradfofe , be a fufficient ground to bottom an Exhortation to either of them spait upon , fo that though thefe two duties are conjoyned by the Apoftie in his Exhortation, and both ex- horted to upon one and; the fame ground i 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- miffion of any fin , may be exhorted to repen- tance upon that fele ground of his intereft in the Promife \ fo whoever hath an intereft in the] Promife , may and ought to be exhorted tc Baptifme, upon that fole ground of his inte- reft in the Promife i an Exhortation to both, taken either conjunctively or fererally , may be 0*9) . be rightfully grounded upon the perfons intereft in the Promiic. Hence fecondly, I anfwer, Let it be granted, that the Apoftle exhorts thofe trembling Jews to repentance, as a necelTary prerequilite to their Baptifm, yet that was only either in order to the confirming, continuing, and vifibly manifesting their precedent intereti in the Promife , or re- moving that fpecial bar, that lay in the way of their Baptifm , 'twas their intereft in the Pro- mife that was the proper ground upon which the Apoflle exhorts tiiem to Baptifm-, 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- tereit toche Adminiftrators of Baptifm, 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 fin afore the application of Baptifm unto them » in cafe intereii in thePromife may be known,when Repentance is not upon f uch accounts incum- bent as a duty, that is, a fufficient ground upon which to move unto and apply Baptifm : And that which fhongly perfwades us to judge, that, the Apoftle exhorts to Repentance,not as limply and abfolutely necelTary to Baptifm, at all times and in all cafes,but only as necelTary in their fpe- cial cafe, and in cales parallel with theirs, is not only his grounding his Exhortation to both thele duties, upon one and the fame ground, thereby plainly declaring their rightful practice, as con- junctively, when the cafe Co requires, fo fepa« rately, (270) rarely, or each apart by themfelves, when either of them is not neceflary or- pra&icable by the parties concerned in them upon that fole ground* bur the whole reference that Baptifm hath to the Promife, or the Souls interefl: in it. Baptifm hath no neccflary reference unto Re- pentance as already performed , fo as its ante- cedency mould be indifpeniably required , in order to a right application of it ; neither hath repentance any neceffary reference to Baptifm, fo as that Baptifm may not be adminiitred , but upon fuppofition of its antecedency, as we fee in the cafe of our Lord Jefus Chri(t , and John Baptift, as before noted i but Baptifm hath a di- rc&[ reference to the Promife , and the Souls in- tereft in that i and therefore when repentance is required as a necelTary prerequilite to Baptifm, it is only upon forne of the accounts before mentioned; 'tis intereiHn the Promife that the Apoftle 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 Fa- 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 is to you^and to your Children : but my deiign is not, Actum agere, to do that which others have done already : I (hall therefore only fay, that fuppofe it might admit of a doubt, whether Children here are to be taken , q*a. Children , as the Children of fuch Parents as thefe' (370 :hefe the Apoflle fpeaks to , or whether their right to the Promife doth not fuppofc their per- fonal (ailing: I fay, though this might admit of a debate , taking this Scripture abilra&ly in it felf> yet comparing this Scripture with tie evidence before given , that the Promife runs in that extent and latitude, as to take in Parents and Children, furely it is pair all rational doubt, that Children here are to be taken as the Chil- dren of fuch Parents , the -promife it to you and to your Children ,as they are your Children . But having fo fully proved this, i (hall add no more at prefent, fourthly, To add ftrength to the foregoing Arguments, let us take in thofe feveral Instances recorded in' the new Teitament , of whole Houlholds bejng baptized upon the faith or converllon of one or both Parents : That, to- gether with the Parents, upon their faith, their refpedtive Houlholds were frequently baptized, is in the new Teitament fully declared : See ./tfc7/i6. 14. 15. fo alfo verfe 33. of the fame Chapter, 1 Cor. 16. 16. touching all which Iniiances let thefe three things be obfer- ved. Firft, That it is very probable, if not fully certain, that at leaft fome in or of tome of thefe Houfcs, faid to be baptized , were baptized not upon the account of their own peffonal profcili- on of Faith and Repentance, but upon the ac- count o( their Parents Faith. For the clearing tip of this I fhall premife three things. Fir#, f 273) Firft, That under this term Houfe or HmfkoUt we muft comprehend and take in all the natural Children that were, at lead, then prefent, of thefe Barents , 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 neceiTary Reafon , as here there is not , otherwife to underftand him. Secondly, That thefe Houfes or Houfholds may be rationally fuppofed to be confiderably great > thefe phrafes, Houjholds, all bi*y and the like , note only a bare plurality of perfons, but that they were in fome meafure numer- ous. Thirdly, That not only Infants as new born, or in their infant- ftate, but fuch Children, who had arrived to aihigher Hate 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 profiflion of Faith and Repentance, but upon the account of their Parents ; and the Reafon is evident , be- eaufe 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 0! intervene between the Parents imbracement the Gofpel and their own, and their Houfes Bap- tiim : And the Spirit of G3d, in his ordinary way of working , works according to the capa- city of the Subjects he works in and apon., 'Vnum quodqxe recipitur fecundum modutn red. pientk C 273) pientU. Hence our Oppofers muft either (ay, that in their Houfes there were not only no Infants,but none in their childhood or elfe they muit fay, that when the Holy Ghoft fpeaksof Houfes,he intended only fome particular peifons in thofe Houfes. , But for the rirft, It is altogether in> probable,that there mould 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 ftri£t fenfe , yet improbably baptized upon the account of their ownperfo- nal pro fc (lion :and as for the latter, that would be to recede from the letter of the Text, which ought not to be without evident ncctffity t whereas here is none at all. ^nd for the further clearing up of this firft Obfervatioh, let us take I a more particular account of that one Jnfiance ofLydias houfe faid to be baptized with her > the (lory you have Afts 16.14,15. -^ndhere let three things be attended to. Firlf, That it is evident her Houftiold was with her at that ^(Tembly of Women.to whom the ApoiMe preached; for after her own and her Houlholds baptifm , (he befeecheth ?*ul to go home with her, verfe 15. Secondly, It is evident this was an ^ifembty of Women, verfe 1 j. Thirdly, Here is no mention made of the1 converiion of any but of Lydia her (elf. Now* let things have their due conlideration i Ly~ T di/J dias Houfhold was baptized, that is , all her Houfhold, or all that appertained to her, that might be properly (aid to be her Houfhold : it feems fhe carried her whole Houfhold to that ^iTembly » this Houfhold probably numerous, or confiftingof feveral perfbns, otherwife the prrticulars would in reafon have beeen menti- oned > here were no Males grown up, for it was an ^iTernbly of Women : It is true,there might be Males in their infancy or childhood, it being no way unbefeeming to carry fuch to fuch an ^lTembly , and notwithftanding them, the A& fembty might be faid to be an ^llembly of Wo- men. Now how improbable is it, that there fhould be a Family, a numerous Family, and nofr one Male among them > if there were any, they muft rationally be fuppofed to be in their child- hood ; a great Family , and not one Infant or Child in it, but every one capable of a ready un- demanding what was taught , fo as in a few hours to attain to a competent knowledge in the Myfteries of th£ Gofpel , and theie all wrought upon by one Sermon , when noneelfe in the whole ^ffembly , for ought is recorded, were wrought upon \ yet that the Holy Ghoft fhould only take notice of the converfion of Lydia her her felf , and not in the leaft intimate the converfion of any in or of her Houfhold , I will not fay, but that it is flmply poffible, that there might be the concurrence of all thefe things , but it is to me altogether improba- ble, that it fhould be fo, it is vaftly more proba-. ble, that fome, if not all, that were baptized of) hepf (275) her Houthold , were indeed baptized upon the account of her Faith , and not upon the account of a perfonal profeflion or faith and Repentance that themfelves did mrke. But here it is faid, That this Houfhold of Lydia had fome Men in it, as appears from verfc 40. and it is probable fome Women aUb, who were converted with Lydia , and they are the Houftiold faid to be baptized. But to that 1 anfwer , That it doth no way appear that thefe Brethren,whom the Apo- file, verfe 40, is faid to have feen, were of Ly- dia/Houfhold >they might be Neighbours con° verted after Paul's comming to her Houle, who now came in to fee Paul , or whom Paul before his departure went to vifit : 'Tis evident by what hath been already faid they were none of her Houfhold , faid before to be baptised with her > fo that this one Inftance , all things contl- dered, makes it exceeding probable, if not evi- dently certain, that fome in the i/oufes, whole baptifm is recorded in Scripture, were baptized upon the meer account of the Parents Faith, without confideration had to their own perfonal Faith and repentance. Secondly, Let it be obfcrved,that it doth not appear , that any in or of thefe Houmolds were converted antecedent to their baptifm , as for Ly dia s Houfhold, there is not the leaft intima- tion of the converlion of any bclides Lydia her (elf > yea, there is, as we have already feen, tan- hum nony a certainty, that at leaft fome of her Hm^old weie baptized upon [he account off t i tfct r »76 ) her fakh,and not their own perfonal profeffion- ; and as for the Gaolers Houfhold, 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, It is faid verfe 32. That they, that is, Faul and Silas , Jpakf to him the Word of the Lord-) and to all that were in bis houfe: Whence it isfuppofed , that all that were in his Houfe. and confcquently his,faid to he baptized, ver 33, muft needs be fuch as were capable of having the Word preached to them. But to that four things may be rcplyed. Firft, It is uncertain whether this fpeaking of the Word , of which Lake fpeaks , was an- tecedent to the baptifm of the Gaoler and his Houfe 5 things are not alwayes declared in that order in which they were done. Secondly, Suppoie 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 Deut. 31. verfe laft, it is faid, Mofes fpshg in the ears of all the Congregation of Ifraelthe words of this Song) until t bey were ended : Now (hall 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- fons in his Houfe, to whom the Word was fpo- ken, ken , were numerically tfeefame perfonsfaid to be baptized , all of his faid to be' baptized, feems plainly to intend different perfbns from all thofe in his Houfe , to whom the Word was fpoken. But fourthly: Suppofe the perfbns were nu- merically the fame , yet the having the Word fpoken ro them, will not conclude their conver- lion by that Word, the Word may be fpoken to thofe that are not converted by it ; fo that this paifage doth no way evince the conversion of any in his Houfe, befides himftlf alone, antece- 'dent to his and his Houfholds baptifm : I do not fay abfolutely there were none , but 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 veTfe 34 where it is faid, according as we read, Herejoyced, believing in God with all his Houfhold i but the Greek runs exactly thus, x) nyaf&iaatm, zfej^xi Tn-m&vws to) ©*«> He rejoyced with all his boufe, he believing in God: Now his houfe might re Joyce, though none were favingly wrought upon but the Gao- ler himfelf » and indeed the Apoiiks laying the ground of their joy in his perlonal believing, they rejoyced, he believing in God, doth plainly intimate , that as yet the Gaoler. alone did be- lieve , for why elfe (hould he not fay , they be- lieving in God,or at leaft that the benefit, which was the matter and occafion of their joy, did ■accrew unto them through his faith ? 'tis not T 3 foi ( 278 > foi nothing that the Apoftle makes his perfonal believing in God the ground of the joy of the whole Houfe i fo that it doth not certainly ap- pear, that any in the Gaolers houfe did believe antecedent to their baptifm. And for the Houfhold of Stepbanus , there, is nothing evidencing their or any of their faith antecedent to their bapfifra : 'Tistrue, we read that his Houfhold didaddid themfelves to the Miniftry of theSaints,i Cor. 16.15, But whether thefe, faid to addict themfelves to this Miniftiy, were converted before or after his imbracement of the Gofpel , and his and his Houfholds bap* tifm, is altogether uncertain. Thirdly obferve, That fuppofe fome parti- cular perfbns 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 alio , nor yet that the Houfholds , as generally confidered, were not baptized upon the account of the Parents faith : as fuppofe there were any conveited in the Gaolers Houfe antecedent to their baptifm, from thence it cannot be conclu- ded , that any in Lydias Hoafe 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 feqttitur : So that fuppofe it could be proved , which yet it cannot be. that fome in or of fome one or other of (*79) of the Houfes, faid to be baptized, were baptr zed upon the account of their own perfonal profeffion of Faith and Repentance , yet that would not overthrow the evidence that the Inftances of any Houfholds being baptized, as a Houfhold of a Believer , gives in to the truth contended fori the probability of any one Houfhold , yea, or any one in or of anyone Houfhold, being bapti2ed, 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 (elf, as it would do in cafe there were the fame probability , that all thefe Houfholds, and all in them, were baptized, as fuch Houfholds. From the whole of what hath been faid touching thefe feveral Inftances , and that as taken abftradly in themfelves, I fhall not doubt to conclude , that there is at leait a very great probability,that in primitive times Houfes were, 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- bable, that thefe Houfholds, faid to be baptized, at leaft fome in or of them, were indeed bapti- zed , not ; upon the account of a perfonal profeffion of their own Faith ancj Repen- tance but upon the account of their Parents Faith, as received into the fime Covenant- ltate with them , let thefe things be confi- dercd. T 4 Firfr, ( 28o ) Firft, How exceeding improbable it is, that in cafe none could be admitted into communion with the Body of Chrift by Baptifm , but upon a perfonal profeffion of Faith and Repentance, the Sacred hiiftorian , 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 Houftiold, 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 the adminiftnition and application of it , that it was under theririi Teftament, might be ratio- nally expeded by all men : hence it may be well fuppofed, that our Lord Jefus Chrift, who is expreily faid to be faithful in all his f/oufe, as At fts was in his, would if not have given fome exprefs and pofitive difcovery of his will , as to the baptifm of perfons upon the perfonal pro- feffion of their faith and repentance, exclufive of all others, which our Oppofers themfelves will hardly afrlrm thsi he hath done, yet would have given in Co full and clear an account of the Apnftles practice in execution of their CJom* million , To teach and baptize the Nations , as ftiould have evidently obviated all miftakes , in a cafe wherein miftakes fo probably would be, when it is fo evidently declared, that under the/ firft Teftament, upon perfons taking hold of the Covenant, both themfelves and Houfholds were admitted and incorporated into the Body of Chrift, (a8i) Ghrift, by the then Sign and Token of the Co- venant > and then declared in the New , that together with Parents, upon their imbracement of the Gofpel , their Houiholds were admitted and implanted into the fame Body fas the Apoftle is exprefs in Epbef. 3 . 6. that the Body is one and the fame ) by Baptifm , the preient Sign or Token oft he Covenant, and no account is given of the perfonal faith and repentance of any in or of thofe Houfes, at leaft fome of them, as the ground of their baptifm , beiides the Pa- rents alone ; Sure none can deny , but here is a rational ground to fuppofe, at leaft 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 fay, confider how extreamly improbable it is , that the Holy Ghoft (houid record the Eapufm of whole Houiholds, taking notice only of the faith and repentance of the Parents, without giving the leaft intimation of the faith and repentance of any in or of fuch Houhholds, thereby giving fb clear a ground of miftake, in cafe none under the new Teftament administration ought to be admitted and incorporated into the myftical Body of Chrift , as vifible , but upon a per- fonal profeffion of their faith and repen- tance. Secondly , Let it be confidered , how the Holy Ghoft doth vary his manner of exprcflion in his narrative of thofe primitive tranfa&ions, when he fpeaks of the baptifm of Houiholds, he fells us; the Houiholds were baptized, together with Q 282 ) with their Parents , not giving the kaft 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 AfTemblies,or concourfes of peopie, he fpeaks more diftinguiftiingly, As many as gladly received the Word were baptized^ A8s2. 41. And why the Holy Ghoft (hould fpeak fo diftinguifhingly in one place and notin the otheriis hard to fay, unlefsit Should be, be- caufein reipe&of fuch more general AfTcmbUes and concourfes of people , conhfung of grown perfons, the perfonal faith and converlion of each was neceflary to their baptifm, but not fo in refped of the Houfes of believing Parents, but that is for thefe Inftances,as taken abftra&ly in themfelves : But now compare one thing with another , and the evidence is vallly more clear > for as confidering what hath been faid, to prove the intereft of the Infant-feed of be- lieving Parents in the Covenant and Fromifes thereof, and what hath been faid, to evidence a right to Baptifm to be of equal extent to ince- reit in the Covenant and Fromifes thereof, it is undeniable to me , and I can hardly think, but it will be Co to others, who will freely entertain Light when held forth unto them , that thefe Houiholds were baptized, as the Houfes of fuch Parents , upon the account of their intereit in the Covenant > Co on the other hand, when we fee what hath been before faid , concerning the intereft of believing Parentsin the Covenant, and concerning their right to Baptifm upon that account , and then find whole Houfholds baptized, baptised , and that Co very probably, to fay no more , as the //oufes of fuch Parents , it may much more ftrongly 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 Propofition. What Objections the Truth we have con- tended for will meet with from the contrary minded, (hall now be considered. CHAP. C 2&4J CHAP. XI. Objections againft the Ltji TropoRtion anjwercd. The conclusion of the whole. Objed. i. NOtwithftanding all that hath been (aid for the confirmation of the three foregoing Propofitions,yet fome may fay,That it is not the wiHx>f Chrift,that tfre Infant-feed of believing Parents (hould ordinarily be baptised ( may be at leaft very probably concluded J from thofe various pailages that do occur in the new Te- stament , 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 adminiftred unto In- fants, nor can be truly affirmed of, or rationally required from them. See i Cor. 12. 13,21, 25. Epbef. 4. 16. Gzl. 3. 26, 27. "" Anfip. This Objection will foon vaniih, and appear to have no itrength at all in it, 11 we con. iider thefe three things , which becaufe they are ib obvious to every one of a competent undemanding, and at all acquainted with the Scriptures, f*5) Scriptures , I (hall need do Kttle more than mention. Firlt, Conlider that what in thefe or the like Scriptures is declared of, or required from the Body of Chiift, 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 Chritf , and the feveral Members thereof,tlmply and abfolutely, in all times and ages \ the Body of Chrirt is but one, fucceflivcly 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, (the contrary whereunto is moft evident ) as that in the primitive times they were not by Bap- tifm admitted inio it, as then exiftent in the world. Secondly, Confiderthat it is a thing of fre- quent occurrence in Scripture , tor things to be declared and fpoken of , or to whole Bodies or Societies, and that in the meft univeifaland indefinite terms, which yet are to be understood and applyed varioufly, with refpedt to the par- ticulars, according to ^heirrefpeclive capacities and concernments, in what is fo declared or fpoken: See this abundantly verified in that Speech of Mofes to the whole Congregation of Jfrael , recorded in the twenty nine and thirty Chapters of "Deuteronomy^ there are ferae things fpoken as univerfally true of them all ; S > their Handing before the Lord,, in order to (heir re- newal newal of their Covenant with him,, thus, Etui. 29.10,11,12, there are other 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 refped: 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 Egypt , and yet the fame things are univerfally declared of them all, verfe2. So again, there are other things affirmed and declared of them all in one and the fame expreflion , which yet were to be 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 perfons were to do it 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 Impofed upon them all univerfally, verfe 9. Keep therefore the words of this Covenant , and do them , that ye may prof per in all that you do : Yet who will fay , either that there were no Infants , or that Infants are capable to keep the Word"? words of that Covenant? So that we may fee how variouily, what is indefinitely , and in the rcoft general and universal terms fpoken to or of an AlTcmbly, or united Body of people, as col* k&ively or generally taken, is yet to be under- ftood and applyed to the particulars of that AiTembly , or Body of people. And feveral other Inilances, of a like nature with this,might be given ; See i Cor 10. begin, but I am wil- ling to coetradfr as much as maybe: Thus in refped of the paiTages the Objection is ground* ed upon , what is declared to have attended the adminiftrationof Baptifm, or what is fpoken of or to the perfons baptized , is to be underilood and applied to particulars , according to their refpe&ive capacities and concernments in what is io declared and fpoken. Thirdly, Let it be coniidered, to whom, or for whole ufe the Scriptures were written , as alfo what is the fpecial deiign of the Holy Ghoft in thofe paffages the Objection is grounded up- on : And thus let it be coniidered , that the Scriptures were written to and for the ufe nor of Infants, while in their infant capacity, but grown perfons ; and the deiign of the Holy Ghoft, in the places mentioned, is either to in* ftrudt and eftablifh in fome neceffary trurh , or prefs to fome neceffary duty i and hence what in the fbrementioned paffages is fpoken to or of the Body of Chrifi, and the feveral Members of that Body, only concerns fuch perfons, and is of fpecial ufe to the promotion of the defign aim- ed at in. them i but tliatts no Argument , that Infants* (288) Infants, to whom thefe things agree not, arid who are not concerned as fuch in them , nor are capable of improving them to the end intended, were not of that Body , and confcquently not admitted into it by Baptifm, efpecially when the mind of Chrift is fully revealed in other places as to that matter. Obje&. 2. But the main and principal Ob- jection , and indeed which hath any conftdera- ble appearance of weight in it, is that raifed fton\Mat. 28.19. compared with Marl^ 16.15, 16. where the institution of Baptifm, as is fup- pofed by many , aCommiflion authorizing and requiring the adminiftration 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 Chrift , in as much as it agrees not with the inftitution of Baptifm : the inftitution warrants the teaching and baptizing the Nations, that is, fay the Obje&ors, fuch of the Nations as are taught,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 Chrift that Infants mould have been baptized, he would have fo ex- preffed the inftitution , 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 mould be baptized i therefore their Baptifm cannot rationally be judged to be according to' his will, Anfip. f a»? ) itf»/i*>. I mall not debate the Qu^eftion, whe- ther [his cf Matthew be , or may be, fitly called the,or an institution of Baptifm,either abfolute- ly.or unto us Gentiles,though let me fay,it feems Tome thing iirange to me , how it comes to bear the denomination of the inftitufion of 7>aptifm, feeing Eaptifm was in ufe long before this Com- mand was given out, and certainly the Admini- ikators of it would not a6t without an institu- tion neither do 1 think it can properly be called the inttitution of Baptifm to us Gentiles. I doubt not, but this was only a Commiflion given out by Chrift to his Apoftles , and in them to all the Minifters of the Gofpel,authorizing and en- joyning them to adrninifter thofe two Ordi» nances , of preaching the Gofpel and Baptifm, afore inftirufed, in fuch an extenfive way , as is here exprefTcd 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 himfelf had, or yet (hould give them , rehting to that their adminiftration : But let that pafs , Call it thcinftituionof Baptifm, abfolutely or refpe- dtively to us Gentiles, or a Commiflion , it is much at one as to my prefect purpofe : As for the Objcdtion- as afore laid down',a brief anfwer may fufficc : Two things, I fuppofe, are and prill be granted by the genefalirty 6f, if not unt- verhlly by all our Oppofcrs. l^il Thar tk'is '^Hitution or Commiflion.; kail it which you will, doth ii6t of it fclf nrcef- farily exclude Infants from partaking of the p'fdmrtccof BaptifinT f &; Secondly, That this institution or Commiffi 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 will 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 Apoftles them- felves, and by others, by their allowance, dire- re&ion and approbation > which whether I have done or no , 1 (hall leave to the judgment of all judicious and impartial Readers , (o that I might difmifs this Obje&ion , the framers of it granting what I contend for : but yet be* caufe I find this Objection fo much infilled up- on, and accounted, by thofe of the ableft parts among our Oppofers , to be the main and prin- cipal Objection, to oppofethat pra&ice 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 find three things in a fpecial manner urged, as giving ftrength to it. Firtf, That that Relative *vt*$, tbem, in this Cemmiflion, mull: refer to Difciples, included in the Verb vahiTivoxn, rranflated by our Tranfla- tors teach, by others,Difciple,or make Difciples, and not to *6*h, Nations. Secondly , That Infants being incapable of teaching, cannot, be , nor in any propriety of fpecch faid to be5 Difciples. Thirdly, C 29O Ti.sidly, That (his institution or Commifliori is co be understood cxclufively , as excluding all from a rightful participation in that Ordinance of Baptism , who are not comprehended in it > and hence the fum of what is urged from this initirution or Commiffion, againft the practice of Infant- baptifm , amounts to thus much * That the Subjecis.appointed by Chrili to be baptizeds being Difciples , and Infants not being , nor rightly to be called Difciples, and all others beiides Difciples being excluded from Baptifm, by Chriits appointing of them as the proper Subje^s of that Ordinance i therefore Infants neither may nor ought to be baptized : And thus, I conceive, we fee the utmoft ilrength of this Obje&ion. tor anfwer, I (hall a little diftinclly eon- fidcr thefc three things giving flrength to And for the firft , That a*>™<, them , muft refer not to t8w» Nations, but to the Noun Di- fciples, included in the Verb fw9o7ii/c«7t, to teach a? its Antecedent or Subftantive. This I deny* and ailrmon the contrary, that it ought to be referred to Nations, and not to Difciples, fuppofed to be included in that ?erb, •and that for two Reafons, Firft, Becaufe we ought to keep to the lite- ral and plain Grammatical conlhu#ion of a Text, vvixrre there is no neceffiry Reafon to in- fo rce a receffioo from it : Now according to the literal and plain Grammatical conftrucHon af fhcfe '/?o'ids,thc7 inuit refer to Nations, wherher f 4 #e C 393 _) we tranflate that Verb , teach or make Difci- ples, faith Chrift, teach all Nations, or make all Nations Difciples, baptizing them: -bap- tizing whom? Why, the Nations, who ac- cording to this Commiflion of Chriftare to be taught, or made Difciples : And here is* no ne- cefiaryi reafon why we (hould recede from the molt literal and plain Grammatical conlhu&i- on of the words i what reafon is pretended fhali be taken notice of by and by. Secondly, Becaufe it is doubtful, whether the Noun Difciples , fuppofed to beimplyed in the Verb fwt0w7H>r*7T. were eyed by our Saviour in this Comnaiiuon > what is affirmed in this mat- ter, is atfirmed mainly, if not only upon the conceit of a Critticifm , concerning the fignifi- cation of that word, viz. That it muft needs iignifie, to teach cum effe&u, or to teach till the perfuns taught become Difciples: £ut now whether this Critticifm were attended to by Chrift , or whether he ufeth the word in that fenfe or no,is altogether uncertain : We fee evi- dently Marl^ ufeth another word in fetting down this Commiflion , Go p reach the Go$elto every Creature , which0 fay our Oppo(ers , an* fwers this, Go teach all Nations y which if true, we may read the Commiflion thus , Go preach the Gofpel to every Creature, or to all Nations, baptizing them s 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 kffcGt is produced by it, in thofe to whom it is preached ; fo that to leave (293) leave the plain Grammatical and mod literal conftru&ion of the words , and to ground a conftru&ion upon a fuppofed Critticifm , whereas it is wholly uncertain , whether Chrift eyed any fuch Critticifm or no, as ufingthat word in thisCommiffion , is altogether unfafe, and therefore,! fay, Nat ions}not Difciples, mult be the antecedent to aWfo them , injoyned by this Commiffion to be baptized ; But fome Rea* Tons are urged to prove a nectffity of taking Di- fciples, as included in that Verb, as the Antece- dent to them; The firft is this , Becaufe it is faid that Chrift (viz. by his Difciples J made Difciple and bap- tized, Jobx^.i. therefore ft4§M7W*a7e mutt 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 Apoftlcs, and other Minifiers ot : the Gofpel, were injoyned by this Commiffion to teach, cum effetiu , in refped of all they were to teach ; That they were and are to endeavour to teach foi as that the Word may be erTe(3:ual,and Hearers may be made Difciples, is unquestionable i but thac they mould be en- joyned fo to preach , as that the uncftldualnefs of their Dodfcnne mould be their iii>, as it fecms to be, in cafe Chrili eyed that Critticifm, can be V 3 no (294) noway inferred from this fucceft vouchfafed to their Miniftry , while exercifed among the Jews. But fecondly, Though the DUciples did bap- fife the Difciples made by their preaching , yet it is not faid,they baptifed only Difciples ■•> that pifciples are (o be baptized, fuppofe their cafe be the fame with thofe there mentioned, is unque- ftionable ^ but that they only are to be baptized, is not in the leaft intimated : So that from this exprciTion in John , it cannot with any (hew of reafon be concluded , that Chrift had an eye to that aforementioned Critticifm , in that word ufed by him in this Commiffion i nor if he had, that yet Difciples mult needs be the Antecedent to them > the words may be as well read,Difciple all Nations,ormake all Nations Difciples,bapfi- zing them, and yet Nations,not Difciples,be the Antecedent to them. Secondly, Another Reafon to enforce the fence pleaded for by our Oppofers, is this , be- caufe that fence feems belt to agree with the wordsor* Mar^ Mari^ 16. 15, 16. where this Commiffion is thus expreft , Go p reach the Gofptl to every Creature ', which, fay our Oppofers, an- swers this phrafe, Go teach all Nations y be that believetb, and is baptized^ Jhall be (aved, which aniwers, fay they, baptizing t hem : hence they infer,that the Subjects of Baptifmare Difciples, and thefe Difciples muft be Believers. But to that I anfwer, That there is no necef- fity of our fo interpreting the one Evangelift by the other , we may, conjoyning both together conceive (295-) conceive the whole Commiffion , as thus given out by Chrift ; Go ye therefore jeacb all Nations, baptizing tbem\ I fay , Go preach the Gofpel to every Creature *, He that believetb, and is bapti- zed, Jhall be faved, be tbat believeth not /ball be damned : And then as in thefe words recorded by Mar]^, Preach the Cjofpel to every Creature, Chrift explained himfelf, as to the extenfivenefs of his meaning, in that phrafe , All Nations, ufed by Matthew : So in the latter claufe , He tbat believetb, and is baptized, Jhall be faved i be tbat believetb not, (hall be damned : Chrift in- forms them what theiflueof their difcharge of their Commilfion (hould be , in regard ot the Nations to be taughtjOr Creatures,to whom the Gofpel (hould be preached by them, thofe that (hould believe,and be baptized, (hould be faved, but thole that believed not , however they might be baptized, yet they (hould be damned > which muft needs, according ro the unanimous confent of our Oppofers, be underltood of the adult ; whence it will follow,that Marl^ fpeaks not at all of the Subjects of Baptifm,but of the iflue of the Apoftles discharging their whole Commiffion , both in refped of preaching and baptizing , in refpeft of thofe towards whom they (hould difcharge it , in cafe they mould re- ceive the Gofpel preached , or through the preaching of the Gofpel (hould believe , and were baptized, then they (hould be faved ; but though they had the Gofpel never fo faithfully preached to them, yea,though they might fofar imbrace it , as to fubmit to Baptifri, yet unle(s V 4. they (296) they believe, they fhould, notwjthftandi^g that, be damned. Thirdly, It is yet fi fhat in cafe a'wT^ them, did refer unto ' «#rwj Na io^js with- out any limitation, then this Comnviffion would warrant the baptif i of -nyPerfon or Nation in the world, whether taught or no, which it is rigt-'ly faid, we our felves acknowledge ought not to be. To this the anfwerisat hand, 'Tistrue, it would do foin cafe there were no other directi- ons in any other part of the Scriptures , for the Minirters of the Gofpel to regulate themfelves by in the difcharge of this Commilfion ■•> but this fuppofed evil confequence is fufficiently obvia- ted in other places ot Scripture,wherethe right Subje&s of F>apti(m are furricicntly declared, viz, grown perfons, in cafe they were not afore baptized upon their faith and repentance , and with them their Infant-iced ••, and this, I con- ceive, is the very deilgn of Chrift in this Com- rniffion, to authorize, yea, enjoyn the preaching of the Gofpel, and administration of Baptifm to the whole world , by perfons duly called to ad- miniiter Gofpel Ordinances unto men, yet (b as to regulate tlKmfelveSjin refped: of both the one and the other}by fcch directions and limitations as himfelf had or mould give , in relation to a due adminifiration of both Ordinances ■•> and that the Difciplcs and Minifters of the Gofpel were and are to regulate themfelves in the difpenfing the Gofpel unto men, as well in the adminiftration of Baptifm 3 by other Rules afore (297) afore or after given by Chrift, is fufEcientJy evi- dent throughout the new Teftament > Co that notwithstanding what it urged to the contrary. I conceive, it is fully evident, that them in this Commiffion, fpecifying the Subjt&s of* £aptifm, refers to Nations.not to Difciplcs,as its Antece- dent, Now having difcovered the uncertainty, yea, fa Hi t y of this hrii Principle afllrted, and laid as a foundation to the Obje&ion propofed , the Objection is fo fir enervated, as that little need be added to the other two things , from which, in conjunction with this , it receives the whole of what itrength it hath. And therefore fecondly* as to what is avert- ed in the fecond place, viz. That Infants nei- ther are,nor can in propriety of fpeech be called Difciples, it concerns not me •, it is enough, as to my prefentpurpofe, that they may be com- prehended uncfer that phrafe, AH Nations •, I (hall therefore only fay, that I cannot but con- ceive, that will men judge impartially, fuppofe we ihould grant, that them in this Commiffion of Chrilt doth refer to Difcipks, and not to Nati- ons, and confequently that; Difciples are the proper Subjects of Baptifm \ yet they mult acknowledge , that what hath been (aid by others to prove , that Infants may and ought, according to Scripture account , be numbred among the Difciplesof Chriit, renders this Ob- jection wholly inefficient to counterbalance the evidence produced from other Scriptures, for the eftablifhrnent of the practice now pleaded 0?8) pleaded for , which is all at prefeat I contend for. And therefore thirdly , As for that AiTertion That this Inftitution or Commiffion is to be un- derftood exclufively > and confequently , that none are to be baptized, but fuch whofe baptifm is in exprels terms warranted by it. I (hall on- ly fay it is true, we ought fo tounderftand it, in cafe we had no other Scriptures for our directi- on in theadminiftrationof Baptifm, but take this Commiffion or Inftitution abfolutely in it felf,and the not including Infants in it, is not an excluding of th*m out of it. We fee here Chrift fpeaks immediately and dire&ly to his Difciples, Go ye tberefore,&c. none befides them are exprefly included in it •, and (hall we fay therefore that this Gommifljon only concerned them ? Surely no, it is a Commiffion for all that at that time , or in after Ages, (hould be called forth by Chrift to minifter in fhe 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 Inftances are brought of Commands,expreft only pofitively, 8c yet inter- preted by all Interpreters exclufivcly,as i C0r.11. 28. and the like, the Reafon is,becaufeno other Scriptures allow any others, but fuch there fpo- ken of, to partake of that Ordinance there fpo- ken of, otherwife the bare commanding perfons 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 j fothat 1 fay, the Inftitu- tion ('99^ ion or Commiflion, as abftrae granted on alf hands; fo that fhouid we jrant, that them is to be referred to Difciples, ncluded in that Verb, and that Infants are not Scripture Difaples, neither of which, notwith- standing all that is faid by our Oppoilrs , is granted , our Propofition may (land rirrn , for though Infants are not exprdly included in the Commiflion, yet they are not excluded out of if, therefore their Bap dim mult itaiid or fall by the evidence of other Scriptures, and we having fufficient evidence from other Scriptures , that it is the will of Chiift that they fhouid be bap- tized, their not being txprdly mentioned in the Commiflion, ought ro be no Remora in the way of our thankful imbracemenr of what light he hath clfewhere given of his mind and will in this mat tex. 0bje8. 3. There is an Objection or Argu- ment , which feme fLem to conceive to have a yery great ilrength in it , yea, to be unanfw'e* rable,which is carried on gradually to this iffue* fay the Framers'of it, Seeing there is no exprefs Command requiring the Eaptifm of Infants, the practice mull needs be deduced only in a confe- quential way from the Scripturcs:Now to prove that it cannot be rightly and duly deduced from any Scripture in a confequentiai way, fo as that: the (goo) the o million of it mould be a fin in.the Parents, f and their fin it mult be if it be a tin at all j againlt any Law of Chrift , it is thus argued If the omiflion or neglect of the Baptifm ol infants were a tin chirgeable upon their Pa- Tents, as being a tranfgrcflion of feme Divine Law , then fome one cr other , at one time 01 other, would in Scripture have been commended for the pra&ice of it, or blamed for the neglect of it : But no one,at any time whatfoever, is in Scripture either commended for the pra&ice ol it , or blamed for the neglect of it \ Therefore the omiflion of it cannot be a iin chargeable upon the > arents , as a breach of fome divine Law. Which Argument laid down catagorically mutt run thus. Whatever practice isconfequentially deduced from Scripture, in cafe it be from Heaven, (bme one or other, at one time or other, hath been commended for the practice of it, or blamed for the neglect cf it : But no one was ever com- mended for the practice of infant- baptifm, nor blamed for the neglect of it s Therefore it can- not be from Heaven , but muft needs be of men. And for the proof of the Major Propofition, feveral In fiances are produced of Duties confe quentially drawn, in refpect of which we find, that fome one or other , at (bme time or other, hath been commended for the pra&ice of them, or blamed for the neglect of them : thus, if I mifiake not, that action of PbittebM, in flaying Zimri \ Zimriund Cosbi , recorded Numb. 25. 6, 7, 8. is produced as one Intfance, and variety of other Imiances are reckoned up. sltiftv. In anfwer to this ObjtdfcioDjOr Argu - rhent, I (hall fay in general, that were it not for the high conceit fomehaveof it, and that the fuddtn propofal of it , efpecially in the heat of difputation, when the mind, varioufly diftrad- D ed cannot alwayes fuddenly rccal it felf to a due Weighing of what is propofed , may tor a little while leem to puzzle iuch, who yet upon a little fcrious review of it will loon difcern the ex- tream vanity of it , 1 mould wholly pafs it by, as not thinking it worthy an anfwer, the weak- nefs of it fo evidently appearing to all conside- rate perfons; but feeing it is fuppofed to be of iuch iirength , for the oppoimg the pra&ice I have hitherto pleaded for, I have judged it meet, to take it into contideration,and as previous to a dired Anfwer to it, I (hall premife theie two Questions. fcirit, 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 peribns pra&iiing or negle&ingof it , mould be exprefly , 01 in plain words, declared in Scripture? or whether it be not fufficient, that they thtmfelves may be confequentially.and by way of Argument.dravvn *and deduced from Scripture. Secondly, Whether it be neceiTary that this commendation or difcommeiKhUun> pleaded to b. ( 302 ) be (b neceiTary for the end mentioned , muft ht\ contained in tome Scripture dtftindt from thofe the- practice controverted is deduced from , 01 whether it may not be furficient that they are contained in fome Scriptures, which yet may be urged to give contenance to the practice under debate? And let the Framers of this Argu ment anfwer to thefe Queftions , as they conceive molt conducing to the end defigned in it. Thefe two Queft ions being premifed , let us come more directly to the Anfwer i and it may be anfwered feveral wayes>according to the An fwer our Oppofers fhall give to the foregoing Queftions. Firft, Suppofeitfhallbefaid, That it is fuffi- cient to determine any controverted practife to be from Heaven , in cafe it can be confequenti- ally , or rationally deduced from any Scripture whatfoever, whether urged to give countenance to the pra&ice controverted or no , That fome one or other, at one time or another, hath been commended for the practice of it, or blamed for the neglect of it : Then I fhall anfwer thefe two things. Firft, 1 deny the Minor Propofition, and fay, that we have Inftancesof peribns commended for the practice of Infant- baptifm , take thefe InftanceSj of Lydia, the Gaoler, and others. But itisreplyed, It doth not appear that they had any Infants baptized , and therefore Luk£& telling us , that they and their Houftiolds were baptized, cannot be interpreted a? a commenda- tion'* (3°3) tion to them for pra&ifing of Infant-bap- tifme. But to thatlanfwer, Lit fub judice eftt we judge they had , our Oppofers judge they had not: And who mall be Judge in^this cafe? Surely neither we nor our Oppolcrs , being both parties in the cafe controverted. And therefore, Secondly, /fay, That this Argument leaves the Controverfieasitfound it, and is of no ufe at all for the end defigned in it i Its defign is to :>rove , that the praftice of Infant-baptifm is lot from Heaven, but of men, and it leaves it as doubtful, whether it be from Heaven or of men, as it was before \ for notwithstanding fuch com- mendations or difcommendations may be pro- duced the way allowed in this Anfwer, yet the practice will be doubtful, and the Reafon is evi- dent , becaufe it may be doubted , whether thefe commendations or difcommendations are rightly and duty deduced from Scripture or no. And therefore, Secondly, I fuppofe the Obje&ors or Argu- mentatorsmuft needs fay, That fuch a commen- dation or difcornmendation, as is required, mu& be declared and expreiTed in lome plain and ex- prefs Scripture, or the confequenee be drawn to evidently , as amounts to a plain and expreis Scripture* but then how cxtreamly ridiculous the Argument is, will foon appear to every ordi- nary capacity > and the Major may be juilly de- nied, and that for a fourfold Reason, FirC ( 3o'4 ) Firft, It is evidently falfe , there are fome pra&ifes confequentially drawn, owned, and pra&ifed by our Oppolers, as well as by our felves,refpe£frive unto which no one inftance can be produced of any, either commended for the practice of them, or difcommended for the neg- ledfc of them : That Inftance of Womens re- ceiving the Lords Supper is obvious 5 that pra- ctice is only warranted in a conlequential way i for where is any exprefs Command to warrant it ? And let any fuch Inftance , as agrees with the fence of theOponentin the Major Propo- rtion be produced of any Woman , that is in Scripture commended for the practice of it , or difcommended for the neglecl: of it. Secondly , This Argument involves the Authors of it in an abfolute contradiction, con- (idering what is and muft rationally be granted by them, for the pra&ice the Argument makes head againft, v muft 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 let it, be carefully obfer* ved, that fuppofing there were any plain Scrip- ture expreily declaring , that fome one nr other had been commended for the practice of ir , or blamed for the negledr ©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 tliofe chat will be guided by Scripture light ; ibthat this Ar- gument doth imply , either that a controverti- ble 305) ble practice may be fo evidently declared in Scripture , as to admit of no controverfie about it , or el(c that there is no fuofl thing as a con- trovertible practice in rtrum natura , which is an eafie way of deciding all Controverts <; * for as for duties plainly expreft and declared in Scripture, no wife man Will move a controverfie about them ; and asforpra&ifescohtequc ally drawn , the way is moft obvious, to determine whether they are from Heaven or of men i if , from Heaven, fome one at onetime or 9. her would have been in Scripture either commended for the practice of them, or blamed for tne neg- led of them ; if no fuch commendation or dis- commendation be extant in Scripture, than they are infallibly of men : Now furely it may eaiily be found out, whether there be extant any fucK commendation or difcommendation, refpedtve to any Religious pra&ifes whatfoever , io that [were this Objection or Argument worthy of any notice to be taken of it, we mould foon have an end of all our Controverfies among all fbber Chriftians. But Thirdly, Suppoie no practice could be inftan- ced in befides that in controverfie that is ^om Heaven , but hath received its atteitation trom God, one of the wayes mentioned in this. \rgu* ment % and fuppofe the Framers of it were not involved by it , in fuch a contxadi&ion as afore declared, yetj fay, the proof is wholiy infufEci- ent. For Firft, The Inftances produced for the proof &f it are wholly impertinent , a s to the thing to X Be ( 3°6 ; be proved > for obferve it , what is that which ought to be proved, in cafe the Argument make any oppofition againft the practice pleaded for > It is 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 jtq have a Teftimonial from God. of their being from him,ih cafe they are io, 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 i if this be not proved , the practice of Infant-baptifm , though deduced only in a con- fequenjal way, may be from Heaven, notwith- fianding none have ever either been commended for the practice of it, or blamed for the neglect of it. Now mark, what do thefe Infiances produced prove only this , that fome practifes may be lawful , which yet are deduced only confequen- tially from Scripture , in as much as fome have been commended for practicing upon that ground,others have been blamed for the neglect of practifing Duties fo deduceable, Et quid hoc al rhombum , what is that to the purpoie ? the Inftances, if pertinent to the purpofe for which they are brought, (hould be of practices produ- ced, as afore expreft, which Antecedent to a lawful practife of them,have received fomefuch teilimonial from God,or his approbation of them by the wayes mentioned. Secondly, Suppofe we (hould grant ( which yet we by no means can do ) that thefe Jnitances were ( 307 ) were pertinent, yet who can fay the enumerati- on is full and compleat , yea, it is evident it is vaftly deficient , for notwithstanding we find futh and fuch pra&ifes owned to be from God, by the commendation he hath given to fome one or other for the pra&ifing of them, or by the blame he hath laid upon others for the neg- ltd of them: Yet who can fay , but that fome duties and practices might have been duly de- duced in a confequential way, from tome difco- veiy that God had afore made of his will, in refpedt of which there is no one Inftance throughout the whole Scripture, of any one practiiing of them,nor mention made of any ones btgl( dt oi them > Shall we think, that no more duties were deducabLj from the feyeral Laws, whether Moral or Ceremonial, or Judicial, then jfome have been commended for the practice of, or others have been blamed for the negledi of? It would be moft irrational to fuppofe lt.For any to infer , that becaufe fuch and fuch have been commended for the practice of fuch duties, which they have confequentially drawn from bme antecedent difcoveries of the will of God, ■)t others have been blamed for the neglect of thers that might have been confequentially irawn , therefore whatever pra&ice is duly nferred , by conference would have its at- eltation from God one of thofe wayes, m cafe it were indeed from him, is as unrea(bnable an In- . erence , as well can be drawn by any man thai rath the ufe of his own Reafon, x i Fourthly,' Fourthly, Ianfwer, That the Inftances men- tioned for the proof of the Major Propofition, 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 pradfrifcs as are deduced confequentially 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 pradtifing of them , or by fome reproof, that he at one time or other had given for the neglect of them. Now for the proof of this,feveral Inftances are brought of pradfriies deduceable only in a con- fequential way , in regard of which , we read' how God hath commended fome for the pra- dHceof them,and blamed others for the neglect 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 pra&tce that is only consequentially drawn from Scripture,may be lawful, yea, a duty, though none have ante- cedently been ever commended by God for the pra&ice of it , or blamed for the neglect of it Take that action of Pbinehas in flaying Z'imr\ and Cosbi^nd fuppofe Fbinehas to have deduced his duty in that particular only by way of confe- quence, from fome antecedent difcovery of the will of Gvd : Now it is evident, that ?bin'tb$ doil (309) doth perform that duty , and was accepted of God in it , as only fo confequentially deduced, without any approbation of it from God, either of the wayes before mentioned , was there any one at any time , either commended for killing Zimri and Cosbi, or for killing any others upon the likeoccafion , and yet we fee Ybinehas only deducing his duty in a confequential way, is faithful in it , and is accepted and rewarded of God \ and the like will be found true of all other Inttances 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 pradtife of it, nor any ever blamed for the negledr of it , yet it may be fafely pracfrfed, and none need, upon the ac- count cf the want of fuch Inftances as is requi- red , queftion their acceptation with God > we have the Inftance of Fbi/tebas , 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 inter in a confequen- tial way, and if we, following of them , do indeed rightly infer our duty , and faithfully praclifeit, we {hall be alike accepted of God, and not mifs of our reward. From all that hatht been faid , we may fee the unreafonablenefs of this Argumenr, and were it not for the Reafons aforementioned , 1 mould have judged it rathejc worthy of contempt than aferious anfwer, X 3 Thefe (3io) Theie Objc&ions being anfwered, Iconceive,! may with fafety and fecurity to the Truth plead- ed for,come to a clofe, only whereas it is by An. fcedobaptifts ufually queried, What can we ratio- nally fuppofe can be the end of our Lord Jefus Chriit, in appointing the application of Baptifm to Infants while in their infancy } Qi what good can accrew unto them by if , feeing it is certain they undeifland nor what is done unto them, neither are they capable of making any prefent improvement of it ? I judge it neceffary to offer fomething for their fatisfaclion, wherein ye? I (hall, on the account elfewhere mentioned, be very brief* and all th t! [ (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 ules and ends , with reference to which a Sign or Token in the general is annexed to t*he Co- venant : And Co I fay,thatas there were mighty ends of our Lord Jefus , his appointing the ap- plication of it to the Infant- feed of believing Parents, fo exceeding much good doth and, were it rightly and duly improved by them , as they grew up to a capacity inabling them there- into, vaitly more would accrew unto them Chereby. I (hall give this one Inftance , and that is Its ufeful fubfervency to their prefervation in that Coyenant-itate, into which they, as th Seeds (3».) Seed of fuch Parents, were afore admitted, and confequently to the injoyrnent of all the good benefits and bit flings of the Covenant, and the ufeful fubfervency 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. Aritls Mori- tanut in his Interlineal reads, In diebm tUViionum tuarum^ in the dayes of thy chufing ; the word comes from a Root , which properly iignifies, elegit^ [elegit, hence the Subitantive, by a Meta- phor,is 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 fervice, whence is that frecjuent phrafe in Scripture, of chofen men, fpeaking of Souldi- ers , or men appointed for war , or elle becaufe .youth is the fpecial time of mans choice i Man fo foon as capable of refle&ing upon himfclf, and perceiving his own indigency, as to that happinefs his natural make and conftitution venders him capable of, is forcd to look out and caft about him , for the gaining from without fuch a fupply as may compenfate that indigency he finds himfelf to lye under,and no fooner doth man begin to look abroad into the world , but as variety of objedls , fo variety of wayes and courfes of life occur to his mind and thoughts, X 4 from C 3" ) {torn whence he may conceive a hope of furnifh* ing himfelf with thofe fupplies ; and as in the general, a Deity, with the wayes and means of his worfhip 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.npr one and the fame way of worshipping & ferving him,& feeing there are variety of par- ticular Objcdfo in the world,& various ways and means of gainingand injoying this or that par- ticular pbjt (fir » 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 injoying the world , he will attempt his own happinefs, and according as the mind is fwayed towards , at leaft fo as to fix upon this or that objector this or that way or courfe,fuch ufually at lead 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 worfhip and fervice > if the mind be fwayed towards the world, fo 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 j but now if it pleafe ' the Lord to open the eyes, and ihew the Soul himfelf, and effectually draw and incline the mind to himfelf* and his wayes; with the benefit and advantages of chufing , ferving and wor- fhipping (313) (hipping him , it is unto God and hiswayesof worfhip and fervice that the man applyeshim- felf,as the only way to attain unto happines. So take it of any particular objed in the world, or any particular way or courfe of life, accord- ding as the mind fixes at the firft, to 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- iecuted,or after taken and walked in throughout the following part^of his life 5 hence it is found* at leait very frequently, as for thofe whoinjoy the means of Grace in their youth , if they are not then wrought upon to clofe in with God in Chrift his waycs and worfhip , as the only way to attain unto happinels , 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 intertft in God, and find themfelves preobliged to take God in Chriit as their God and portion, and to walk in his wayes, they find themfelves not left at li- berty to chufc what God they pleafc , or walk how or in what way themfelves pleafe, but they find themfelves afore dedicated and given up to God (3*4) 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 incumbcnt,inftru&- ed in this Obligation they are prevented by,and what is the danger of breaking of it, their baptifm hath a molt ufeful fubferviency to the prefer vation of their Covenant- ftate, and con- sequently their injoyment of all the good, blef- lings and benefits of the Covenant. And let me add thus much more , That Baptifm having a bkffing annexed to the adminiftrationof it, is one of thofe means, fuppofing the party bapti- zed come to make a due improvement of it, that God doth make ufe of effe&ually to incline the heart of the Seed of Believers, to a right and willing complyance with that Obligation put upon them by it i 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 y 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 muft 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 prefcrvation,in their Covenant-ftate and injoyment of all the good of the Covenant, but exceeding prejudicial to the iintereft of Chrift in the world, the Tabernacle of (TV*!) of David as we have before proved, is raifed up, and upheld among the G smiles, by Gods taking Families into Covenant with himfelf: Now to negled: a fpecial means that God hath appoint- ed, fubfervient (o the prefervation of thefc Fa- milies in their Covenant ftate,mwii needs direct- ly tend to the ruine and overthrow or the inte- reit and Kingdom of Chrift in ihe world : £ut not to inlarge upon this at pre fen r. From this little that hath been faid we may ealily perceive , that the application of Baptifm to the Infant feed of Believers, is no fuch vaia 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 1 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, unqueiiiorable \ how far it will be fo to others] cannot fay i only this/ know, that whatever light is held forth by man, for the diicovery of the Blind and wiil of Chrift, . relating to any practice, yet unlefs hs>who is tr.e great Prophet of his Church, (hall vouch fate ro open the eyes of themiud, and prevail upon the he-art to imbrace and fubmit unto that light held for th,the holding of it forth will be whol- ly infignificant , as to any benefit accrewing therefrom unto men. Man may, according to what aililiance is vouchiafed from Chrift , hold forth light difcovcrmg the way he would have ! his People walk in, but 'tis wholly in his own power. cf*moftof all,eothe fupportation and propagation or the intereit and Kingdom of Chrift in the world. And let me add, that when the conse- quences of refilling or claiming a priviledge are of an even fize , the refufing (uch a priviledgf \ fuppofe it be indeed granted , and ought t accepted of,is a greater fin, and more ^Hpleaf $ unto God, than the claiming and appropriaa^ of it,fuppoiing it be not granted, nor that claim really warranted by Scripture is,as is evident to every cmfiderate perfon : we fee how much God was offended at Abaz his refilling a Sign when offered co him i how much God was dif- pleafed with Mofes for neglecting tocircumciie his Child ; therefore, I fay, walk with a holy fear and trembling , left as fome wrll meet with a Who required this at your hand ? fo you (hall meet with a How durji tbourefuje this priviledge at my band ? Secondly, As for fuch whofe judgment and pra&ice agree with, and anfwerably are con- firmed by the foregoing Difcpurfe , efpeciaily fi*ch to whom God hath vouchfafed that blet- ling of Children, let me advife , and importu- nately intreat them, yea, in the Name of our Lord Chrift command them, that they fatisfie not themfelves in the bare discharge of their dury , in regard of the application of Baptifm to their Seed in their infancy » know that your work is not done when you have brought yours within the Yerge or under the bond of tlv: Co- venant i you will rind in the foregoing Papers- Chat your Seeds inheriting the good which , in common (3i8; common with you, they are Heirs unto, depends much upon your faithful and wife difcharge of your duty towards rhem,as growing up to years of maturity : Abraham mu(t command his: Houfhold that they keep the way of the Lord, and that to this end,that God might. bring upon, fiim the good promi fed , with reference to his, There is hardly any thing a greater difcourage- j ment to Miniiters , in pleading for and admini- firing Infant-baptifm, than the great negledt of Parents towards their Children, when baptized and grown up to a capacity of underflanding and improving their Baptifm, afore adminiltred to them > therefore feeing you lay claim to Abraham's Bleffing, as his Children, walk in A Grahams iteps , both in refpedtof your own perional faith and holinefs, and alfo in intrud- ing and commanding your Children , that they may keep the way of the Lord : In particular, let them know their priviledge , and the danger of forfeiting of it, by breaking that Obligation put upon them by Baptifm. Thirdly and lafily, As for fuch who are the Seed of believing Parents, and who by Baptifm have been dedicated and given up unto God in Chriit, and incorporated into his myftical Body, as vifible : Let me advifc, p.rfwade 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 Chritt in appointing the application of it, will warrant. Baptifm, abitradly taken, in- fallibly fecures Solvation to none i neither caii £aptife (3*9) 2>aptifm of it felfbe laid as a fure ground to bottom a plea for Salvation upon * He that be- lieveth, and is baptized, Jhall be faved > bitt he that believeth not , however baptized, jhall be damned, is one of thofe unalterable Decrees laid up in the Records of Heaven : In reipeft of which we may fay , as Job in another cafe of God, He is of one mind, and who /hall, that is, none (hall, f//r# him^ Job 23. 13. Your abiding in and injoying the benthts of the Covenant, into which , as the Seed of fuch Parents , you were admitted in your infancy , undifpenfably requires your perfonal faith and obedience i therefore be faithful in the difcharge of your duty , and in fo doing you may , upon fure grounds, apply and improve your Baptifm , as Gods Seal, infallibly fecuring your injoyment of the good promifed, FINIS. 3Jnftmt*2Baptifm FROM Heaven and not of M e n3 THE SECOND PART: OR A N ANSWER T O Mr Danvers his Treatife of Baptism. Wherein,as theVanity of his Authorities are, though briefly, yet fufficiently detected i fo his Doctrinal Part is efpecially examined and confuted, and Infants Right to Baptifm further confirmed. By JWPbiJlon, Mitufter of the Gofpel. 7 he lip of truth Jh all be efto-blijhed for ever, hut the lying tongue it hut for a moment, Prov. 12. 1^. • Infoedere divmo cum Abrahamo initofubftantia 0> -Ve- ritas conjlans eft C5> immutabilU, Junius. LONDON, Printed for, and fold by Jonathan ItybinJ on , at the Golden Lton in S. FauV s Church - Yar d, 1 6j 6. /■ Christian Reader. N Either the writing nor reading of Controver- sies (fuppofing the fubject weighty and im- portant) would be without their pleafure or proht,Were they managed as they ought to be. The understanding of man finds fomewhat of pleafure e- ven in fearching after, much more in difcovering truth, of what kind foever it be And that which adds not a little to the pleafure and delight of a fincere Chriitian in fearching after and finding out divine truth, is, as a con- fcioufnefs to himfelf of difcharging his duty in the fearch he makes after it, fo the great love he bears to it, and confequently the acceptablenefs of it to him when found out. And for difputable doctrines or practices to be throughly ventilated and lifted, that the utmoftofwhat may be faid either for or againft them may be brought to light , is noca little profitable •, it highly conducing to the eonfcientious embracement or rejection of them, as alfo the peace and fatisfaction of the mind, as having env braced or rejected according to the evidence appearing on the oae or the other hand. But when men (hall rife up | either in defence of, or oppofition to any controverted doctrine or practice., and manage their undertaking on- ly .with naked repetitions of Scriptures , reaibns , or obje- ctions that have been already fifted to the bran, and an- fwered again and again, with the alone addition of lome ungrounded dictates, illogical deductions, forgeries, or the like of their own, as it is matter of wonder, what content fuch men can take in writing, fo no pleafure or emolument can arife unto Readers : But on the other hand as fuch men mult needs expofe themfelves to contempt and fcorn, fo the ifTue of their writings will be the fur- ther exafperations of mens fpirits, and the difquietment of their confciences, who raving been, unwarily prefely- ted, do at lad come to difcover the cheat that hath been ?ut upon them. As for Infant-baptifm, though to me it is A Z b.rjt(*vJh The Epiftle itV*/*$iJfc£ov, yet it mutt be reckoned among wawifurdities, than fubmit to the plaineft demonftrations; And after much revolving the matter in my mind, I can-, not but affign the caufe hereof, as to the things there men* tioned, fo to their prxingagements, and in fpecialto the want of a clear underrtanding in the Covenant of Grace, both in refpect of the good granted, and conveyed thereby to the Infant-feed of believers, and the true tenour there- of, as extended to and made with them: And pardon me though I fay I cannot but think not only Antipasdobaptiih, but even Pa?dobaptiib themfelves,yea and that fome of the molr learned among them,have been greatly wanting here * in : To the Reader* in : Hence are thofe cxpreffions, in the writings of PxdG- baptiils, of an outward Covenant, a Covenant of privi- leges and the like, phraies greatiy obftru&iag the re- ception of the truth they have done worthily in the defence of. From the fame caufe in the general, it is that our oppofers talk of a Covenant with cn^ ele&, and of that grand promife of Gods being a God to people, implying; and neceiTarijy including all that good whether relativs- or pofitive contained in all the prornifes of the Covenant. Were the primitive doctrine of the Covenant revived, I fhouid not much queltion but all men of judgment and confeience would foon center in the primitive practice of Infant- baptifm, lbme elTays of that nature fhall *«*> £*£ fhortly be made publick. This I would only fay at pre* fent,that the Covenant taking it in a proper fence, as (im » plying a iripulation on Gods part, and a reitipulation on mans) is fo far from being retrained to the elect, that it is not made with any one of the Elect;, qui Elect. Ele> ction is unto eternal life, to the attaining of which they arc preaeftinated to a Covenant -ftatc, neither are any Abrahams feed meerly as elected. Hence were it evi- dent that this or that particular perfon, whether Infant or Adult were elect, yet could he not be duly baptized on that account. It is Covenant- interelr not Election that gave a right of Circumcifion of old, and gives a right to Baptifm itill: Were but the Covenant rightly underllood, this controverffe about Infant- baptifm would have vaiHy lets difficulty in it. Its true tis a ccntroverfie of long a* gitation, which renders the gaining fatisfaction about it more difficult, and cannot ordinarily be attained to with- out fome confiderable pains and diligence, as well as a freedom from all preporTeffions and premgagemen:ir . Bu£ will any ferious enquirers willing to take what pains and ufe what diligence is neceffary in fuch a aSe (fufpending for the prefent their judgment about the good and benefit that the feed of believers have by vertue of their Cove- nant-interelr. , and memberlhipin the Church, and an- fwerably waving the interpretations put upon the promi; fes appertaining unto theniy with the deductions drawa A 4 therefrcra the Efifile therefrom) throughly weigh, and faithfully compare what is written on both fides, in fpecial by Mr. Dauvers and Mr. Tombes, including his late letter to Mr. DanversM on the one fide, and by Mr. Baxter taking in the enfuing papers, and that fmali treatife often referred to in them, on the other, as I doubt not but they will be fufficiently furniflied with light to proceed by •> fo 1 {hall freely leave the controverfie to their determination and dcubt not but that though they may not at prefent fee what is the proper benefit Infants have by their Covenant-intereft, Church- memberfhip and Baptiim, nor apprehend how the one or the other can be granted to them withont fome inconveni- ences enfuing, yet will be clearly convinced that both the one and the other muft be granted to therr^and anfwerably when they come to fee the true tenour of the Covenant ftated, and thofe inconveniences feared , obviated, they will be abundantly fatisfied in the determination they have made. And therefore though I had fometimes thought to have made fome animadverfions upon that late letter of Mr. Tvmbes to Mr. Danversyyzt I (hall wave it, not doubt- ing but the Reader will find what is material in it fuffici- ently obviated in the enfuing papers, taken in conjunction with the treatife referred to. It is true Mr. Danvers hath found out a new or rather reviv'd an old device, and that is, that however confequences may be dtawn, and infe* rences made in other cafes, yet in the worihip of God no- thing as worfliip is to be admitted without fome plain and exprefs word, either by r^ecept or example, to warrant the fame : And this he faith (though according to his in- tendment moil falfely and difingenioufly) is a known a- greed rule among Proteftants, and cites according to his uiual manner ieveral Authors for it. To which I would faj^ in the words of a late worthy Author, that it muft be a defperate caufe that canaot otherwife be maintained, w£. than by denying fcripture- confequences. And let me on- ly ask Mr. Damers whether the obfervation of the Lords day be a part of divine worihip, at leaft be not acknow- ledged fo to be by the generality of Proteftants, and in fpecial by thofe Authors he cites, and whether there be any To the Reader. any fuch exprefs precept or examplejas he requires to war- rant the fame, though there is enough in fcripture to prove that it ought to be obferved which fufficiently iliews his miitake of thefe Authors. They undoubtedly take eonfequences rightly and duly drawn equivalent to ex- prefs precept and example. And let me fay, will he not allow found eonfequences in matters of worfhip, he will leave but little worfhip to be performed by the Church, and himfelf mult reject fome parts of worfhip, which yet I hope he owns and walks in the practice of.. But men that are refolved to maintain their opinions, mull fay fome- what that may look like reafon in the eyes of byafTed or weak men, how unreafonable and abfurd foever it be in the judgment of others. And yet further, let it be obfer- vedthat whereas our oppofers take it for grauted and per- fwade people that we have only eonfequences to ground our judgment and practice upon, the truth is, we have especially for what we mainly contend for, viz. the Co- . venant-intereir,, and Church- memberfhip of the feed of believers, the plain and exprefs letter of the Scriptures, and they have only eonfequences to oppofe us withal. The words are as exprefs as words can be. 1 will be thy Godt and the God of thy feed in their generations. Now take this promife as firftly made to ^Abraham himfelf, and acord- ing to the letter of rt,it mult needs intend his natural feed immediately proceeding from his own loins. And the A- poltle in exprefs words tells us that the bleffing of *A- - brabam is come upon believing Gentiles. Or take the promife according to the full latitude of it as including his Spiritual feed, yet to exclude his natural is contrary to the very letter of tbe promife,z. take it as made to his feed,fo it is to them in their Generations, which according to the letter mult include their feed with them. So the Apoftle tells thofe awakened Jews, the promife was to them and their Children. Paul tells the Corinthians in exprefs words their Children were holy, yet once again, the Apoftle . allures, the Jaylor, that he believing, not only himfelf but his houfe (hould be faved. Which promife I fuppofe our oppofers themfelves will grant is applicable to all in his" The Epijile his cafe,and anfwcrably according to the very letter takes in their Infant- feed fiippofing them to have any fuch. Here are no confequences but the plain and exprefs words of Scripture, and our oppofers have only confequences by which they endeavour to prove that theie fcriptures are not to be underltood according to the letter, but muft have another fence and meaning put upon them -• Hence would our oppofers yield to the very letter of the fcriptures, and grant the promifes of the Covenant do appertain to the feed of believers, and only fufpend their Baptifm,our dif- ferences would be very much heakd. And yet further, let me fay we want very little of the exprefs letter of the fcri- pture for their Baptifm.lt is according to the exprefs let- ter of the fcrfpture. that z^fibrab am* feed in their Gene- rations (which I have faid muft according to the letter in- clude Parents and Children) fhould keep the Covenant, that is the token of the Covenant, and what other token there now is that can poffibly be underltood in this com- mand to be kept by ^Abrahams feed, that is by believers in their generations,excepting Baptifm, cannot be fhewed. So according .to the letter of the Scripture, intereft in the promife is a furficient ground for Baptifm. Repent and be baptized, for the promife is to yon. So that would but our oppofers lay a/ide confequences and yield to the letter of the Scripture, our contentions would be, if not wholly at an end, yet greatly abated, we ftiall infallibly have what we mainly contend for, and a fair ground will be layd for our practice. And from what hath been faid, it evidently appears our oppofers are equally concerned in confequences with our Celves, and anfwerably fuch pleas muft be look'd upon but as mere pretences to fcreen off that light they are unwilling to fubmit unto. And indeed as the whole defign of our Author, fo many paffages in Mr. Tombes his latter writings fuflficiently evidence the) are now reduced to meer artifices and fhifts for the fuppor* tation of the caufe they have unadvifedly engaged in. As an evidence hereof take an inftance or two. Whereas our Author had faid, the Magdeburgcnfes tell us, that in the - lirfr. Century, they find they [only] baptized the Adult, and1 To the Reader. and being charged by Mr. TsfilU with the falsification of thofe Authors, and accufed by fome miniilers of immo- rality, as well he might,let us fee how in his reply to Mr. WilU he comes off. And to let pais his firit anfwer, which only concerns Mr. Wills, his fecond is this, -viz. that thefe words in his book are not his tranflation of their words,buc his own fence upon them. But Firfc, I would appeal to Mr. Dxnvers his own confer- ence, whether he would not have had his Reader, and to all Readers, whether they did not underftand them as their very words.' His words are exprefs,they tell us.Now who could imagine that Mr Van-vet; his meaning was only this,that fo much might be inferred from their words.But granting him this, I would then appeal to him whether he did not deiign to put a cheat upon his Readers ? For I would ask him as he will anfwer it at the bar of Jefus Chrii:,whether he was not willing that hisReader fliould, and did expect that he would believe that thefe Magdebw- genfes had af?.rmed,at leait granted fomewhat more in fa- vour of his caufe, than what is the univerfal grant of al! Pedobaptiih? otherwife what a frivolous thing was it for him to bring them in as witneifes for him, But Secondly, No fuch fence or interpretation can with a- ny (hew of Reafon be put upon them, for they are very confident none more, that not only the Adult, but alfo Infants were baptized in that age, grounding that their confidence partly upon the Scriptures themfelves, and part- ly upon the teftimonies of thofe Fathers that lived near thofe times, . Now when they make only fuch a grant as is made by ali Pedobaptifts,™*. that no exprefs Example Is left upon record of any Infants being baptized, yet ex- prefling the higheft confidence that they were baptized, withal declaring the ground they had both from fcripture and humane Authoriry for that their confidence, can any rational man interpret them as faying they find they bap* tized only the Adult, when they aflure us they find chg quite contrary, that they baptized Infants as well as the Adult. Again, Whereas he had fo diiingenioufly fa id that Tradition The Epiftle Tradition was the principal ground laid for Infant bap* tifm, and Mr. Wills had charged him with immodeily,fec how he comes off in his reply ? Why it is by proceeding from immodefty to impudence. For ; Firil, He would perfwade his Reader, that there is lit- tle or no difference between the fence in which Protectants and Papifts ufe the term Tradition, which is notorioufly falfe. taking it of Tradition in the genera^ though it is true, the Papifls fpeaking of Infant- baptifm fometimes' contradict themfelves, affirming that it may be plainly enough gathered out of the Scriptures, which is inconti- nent with their notion of Tradition . Secondly, He would perfwade his Reader, that take away Tradition, the doctrine and practice of Infant- bap * tifm (according ro our own conceffions) would fall to the ground, when he cannot but know that mo'l, if not uni* verfally all the chief arTertors of Infant- baptifm affirm >it may be proved alone from the Scriptures, though the do- ctrine and practice of the Church were utterly unknown. And if fuch men are not put to their fhifts, I know not who are. The like may be feen in Mr. Tomhes. Hence is that abfurd notion invented of the feed of the Jews being Church- members meerly by a fact of divine providence, Hence he feems todeiign the fearing his Reader into a compliance with his notions .-. Hence are thole big words fpeaking of Mr. Baxters book of Baptifm, faith he>that accurfed book , and why is it accurfed ? but becaufe Mr, Tvmbes nor any others of his party can anfwer it. So fpeaking of the epiftle of Cyprian to Fidus,. tis faith he an abfurd Epiitle, wheu he knows, be it as abfurd as it will (though fo abfurd as he pretends it is not) fo long as it is genuine, and not forged (which he cannot fay it is) it fufficiently ferves our purpofe, fully declaring that the primitive practice was for Irifant-baptifm. Yet once again, with him to affirm that Jjhmael was in Covenant, is inexprefs words to gainfay the Apoltle. And why fo ? Becaufe the Apoltle tells us he was cart out (Gal. 4.) that is out of the Covenant as hath been proved.- Now to fay he was ever in Covenant, becaufe the Apoitle , faith" to the Reader. faith he was after caft out of it, is with Mr. Tomhes to gainfay the Apoftle -, and variety of like inihnces rnigh* be given. Now furely fuch things fhew, men are redu- ced to their fhifts, they fee their caufe would utterly fall, fhoulcj it not be fupported by fuch artifices and fhifts. But I mult haften. Reader. Thou may It eafily perceive, I have not been very forward to engage in this controverfie.Thou wilt ftill find me in the rear: I am aware what difcouragements at- tend fuch undertakings, faith ^Aufiin, Bella quantum-vis jufta attamen botmnibus molefia et tnfiia videntur, nam in- ter alia qu<* rcfugit hnmanum ingenium, videbunt adverfa i rite partis iniquttatem propter quam coguntur pugnare, nee de ea nonpoterunt non dvlere ,whkh is too evidently Verified in our prefent conteits. Hence a man can hardly appear againft any error, but he will feem to be an enemy as well to the perfons holding, as to the ei rors held by them. It muff be faidjfo ill hath our prefent Author managed his undertaking- that it is hard,if poffible, to detect his mi- ftakes. but his mifcarriages will be alfo detected. And how his Antagonifl fhall be treated by him may be too plainly guelfed at, by the ill manner of his managing his caufe. Solomon indeed tells us, that he that pajjeth byy and medleth withjlrifs, that behmgeth not to htm> taketh a. dog by the ears. But be the IfTue what it will, this will be my comfort, I have not medled with aftrife, that be* longs not to me. I am fet for the defence of the Gofpel, I had more than a fingle call to this work. I fee not how I could have held my peace, without making a breach upon my peace. And if any fhall fay I need not have in- terpofed, others have faid enough, I anfwer, we account not the bringing water to quench fire got into the thatch fuperfluous,fo long as there is water enough to be brought and the fire is not throughly quenched. Others have done well , yet fomething more may be ad- ded. I muft profefs, I am fo far from judging that all is faid, that can be faid for the clearing up and elteblifliing the practice contended for, that though I will not fay lit- tle is faid in compar/fon of , what may bei yet I am very confident, The Epijile confident, much may be faid beyoad what Is. As for the enfiiing papers, they principally concern the do&ri * nal part of Mr. Danvers his book, and hence I have kept to his firrt edition, underftandmg that no material altera- tion is made in his fecond. What I have done is fubmitted to the judgment of all unbyaiTed and intelligent Readers. Others have faid enough to difcover the forgery and va- nity of his Authorities, yet they are not wholly pa/Ted by. I know all could not buy all books that are written, and this may fall into the hands of lbme,into whofe hands thofe others may not come. And befides, porfibly fome will be at a lofs no* knowing whom to credit being themfelves enable to fearch Au/hors, here they may fee Mr. Dan- -vers his witncfTes contradicting and confuting one ano- ther, and will but men ferioufly weigh his ^book, and compare his Authorities one with another, I doubt not they will find themfelves furHcientiy armed again*'!: all pretences, that either himfelf or any others may make of having humane authority on their fide. For Firft, They will evidently fee his forgeries, and that llefignedly to deceive his unwary Reader, hence as they are fufficiently warned to take heed how to credit any thing himfelf hath faid or may fay, fo they have grouni to be wary how they credit any of his perfwafion m what ever pretences they may make of this nature. Secondly, They will fee that upon the utmoil enquiry that can be made info antiquity (for fuch an enquiry it may be fuppofed Mr. Danvers hath made) but only one, 'viz. poor Tertullian and he greatly abufed too, can be pretended to have been againlt Infant-baptifm foe three hundred years after Chriit. Mr. Danvers pretends to no more. Thirdly, They will have the tefomony of two of the moft credible Authors *hat ever wro/e, viz- Chryfoftom and lAufiin, thu before the year four hundred (for Chry> foftom died in the year four hundred and five, and ^AuJHn in the year Four Hundred and Thirty) Infant baptifrn was the univerfal practice of *he Church, yea had been fo for ought 'wha* then appeared in any -record from the A- ooftles To the Reader* poiHes days. And they that will after this be deceived by any pretence cf humane Authority they mult thank themfelves, they have Mr. Danvers his book to rife up in judgment againfl them. ihine in thefervke 0f tfo GofpeL J.W. ERRATA. J2 E A D E R, by reafon of the Authors abfence from the prefs, many Erratas are efcaped^the moft material (fome of which pervert the fence) are here noted, the leflerare left to thy ingenuity to correct or pardon. Page i. line $•• read hence, p. 7*.1.2$.r. citt. p. 12. !.#|.r. thirdly, p. 52.1.32.1-. during, p. ^S.l.io.rdefs heed, p.49.1. i^.r- raze.p. ,.1.2X.r.«»ier. Chap. I. Wherein fome general. Considerations ^ re* lating to the authorities produced by Mr* Danvers 3 in favour of Antipedobap- tifm^ are laid down 5 /hewing the vanity and injignificancy of them^ as to his pur- pofe. ' T is the Apoftle Judes exhor- tation , that we (hould ear- neftly contend for the faith ^once delivered to the Saints > and there are two things in fpecial, that all Saints, yet more efpe- cially thofe5 upon whom this duty is peculiarly incumbent, ought to contend for, with reference to the Faith. Firftjts purity j Secondly, its integrity^ that nothing be added thereto, nothing detracted there-from. And the Integrity of the Faith is of equal importance, and ought to be alike contended for, with the Purity thereof: Neither is the conditions or qua*, lirlcations of any that attempt, either to corrupt it, by immixing their own Notions or Invent!- 8T oris' * Hnfant Baptifm from beaten, ons therewith, or to make any breach therein * a fufficient difcharge from this duty : In the dif- charge whereof, yet regard is to be had, both to the perfons with whom, and matters about which we do contend. Here fometimes we muft contend earnestly with thofe that profefs them- felves to be, and it may be hoped, intentionally are, Contenders for the Faith i yea, and fharply to rebuke them for, not only the oppolltion they make, but their unchriftian managing that oppoiition againft , while they pretend, and pot- fibly really intend to contend for, the Faith. As for the Doctrine of Infant Baptifm > the further vindication and eftabliftiment of which, is at prefent defigned : That it is, as I have for- merly faid, and To am more and more confirm- ed, a part of that Faith once delivered to the Saints, and confequently the contending for it, comes within the Compafs of that Exhorta- tion. It is true, a late Author, for whom I have fo much charity, as to hope he has (though great- ly failing in a due ufe and exercife of his Grace, yet) an habitual good will for Chrift, and the Faith delivered by him > has appeared not a little confident of the contrary ', and anfwerably, has conceived himfelf obliged to make the utmoft oppofition he could, againft that Dodtrine and Practice, and induftriouily to endeavour theefta- bli(hment of Believers Baptifm, in oppofition thereunto. Which of our Confidences hath the furer ground, (hall be left to the Judgment of all unprejudic'd perfons:But to lay what he hathfaid in the Ballance.Two things he attempts to prove, and 0nt> not of *pm* 3 and feems to conceit that he has done both (b effedtually, as that he feems to (land amazed, that all men do not immediately fall down be- fore the Evidence produced by him. Firft , he attempts to prove, That the Bap* tifm of Believers is only Chrift's Ordinance of Baptifm. Secondly, That the Baptifm of Infants is no Ordinance of Jefus Chriit. Both thefe he attempts to prove by Scripture^ by Reafon, and Humane Authority : and though he would feem to make no great account of hu- mane Authority, yet it feems impoffible to me, that any man of a competent understanding mould arife to fuch a height of confidence, as to the truth of his AfTertions, as he is arrived to, had he not other grounds for it, than what He hath produced , either from Scripture or Reafon. Alas ! what a poor Pamphlet would his Treatife be, were all his humane Authori- ties pared off, and it left to defend its Caufe., meerly by that evidence of Scripture and Reafon it is furnifhed with j how evidently would the Scriptures, at lead the moll of them appear to be but meer repetitions of fuch Scriptures as have been anfwefed again and again •, without any (hew of fatisfa&ion given to thofe an- fwers, or the leaft additional enforcement re- ceived from his application or improvement of them to his purpofe. What Reafon does he offer, unlefs he will call his own ungrounded Dictates, or fome frfc volous deductions of fuppofed ill Confequences M the Practice he oppofes by that name, t & 2 cannot 4 Jttfant iBaptitm from f eaten, cannot therefore but think that however he puts it off in words, yet indeed the principal ground, he lays to his great confidence, of having fo ef- fectually performed his undertaking, is the hu- mane Authorities he has produced in favour of his Caufe i they muft not therefore be wholly palled by : Yet feeing himfelf feems to make no more account of them, they being as he ex- preifes it, but Argumentum ad hominem ; ( the reafon of hisfo. expreffinghimfelfcannotbutbe guelTed at, I fuppofe he defigned them ad faci- ' endum populum.) I (hall only here offer fome few Confiderations with reference to them in general, and leave them, to every one to make what ufe and improvement of them they fee meet, and take the lefs notice of them in parti- cular, as they occurr in the procefs of his Dif- courfe. Firft, that which offers it felf to Confiderati- on is our Authors great Unfaithfulnefs in his Quotations , and grofs abufe of the Authors cited by him in favour of his Caufe : Some- times he feems to have meerly forged Teftimo- nies , and to pretend Authors to have faid , what he could wi(h they had j but what in- deed never came into their minds, much lefs dropped from their pens : Sometimes he grofly perverts their words, wrefting them to fuch a fence as apparently was never intended by them : Sometimes he miftakes , and fathers that upon one, which was fpoken by an- other *, iejlktus non iepmonivs credendum eft , &c\ but here no man can credit this Wit- nefs. And though variety of other in- ftances #ntmot or^em 5 fiances might be, and are by another hand given , of the like nature and import , yet I (hall only inftance in thofe Teftimonies he cites out of the Magdeburgenfian Hiflory (of which he gives, and that not undefervedly, a great Encomium) in the 1.2. and 3. Centuries : Ibey tell us, fays he, in his 56. page, that as to the bufinefi of Baptifm in the 1 . Century, they find to have been after this manner j and lie initances in. fix things, that they, as he faith, relate with reference to Baptifm ■> four of which,if not five, concern his purpofe no otherwife, than the furtherance of his Caufe depends upon the bulk of his Book : that which only properly con- cerns his purpofe is the firft, which he fets down thus. As to the Sutyetts of Baptifm they tell us that in this ^ (meaning the rirft Century, the Age wherein Chrilt and his Apoftles lived J) they find that they baptized only the adult or aged, whether Jews or Gentiles, whereof they fay we have in- flames in the 2. 8. 10. 16. ip. Chapters of the Acts : But as to the baptizing ef Infants they confefithey read of no Example * And he has the confidence to direct his Reader to the Century, Book and Page, where he faith they tell us all this : Whereas they are fo far from telling us all this, that they fay the direct contrary. Their words are exprefs, Baptizat&s effe adultos tarn Judtos quam Gentes exempla probant, Act. 2.8. 10. 1 6. 1 p. ~De infantihus baptizatis exempla quidem annotata non leguntut \ fed Origenes, & Cyprianus, & alii Fatres authores funt Apofto- . brum etiam tempore baptizatos effe •, conftat etiam B 3 hoe. £ Jnfant^aptifm from f eaiien, hoc ex Apo\hlornmfcriptU^ &c. i. e. 'that the Aged whether Jews or Gentiles were baptized^ thofe ex- 4mples,k&.2.%.iQ.i6.\9.prove, It is true indeed we read not of any exprefs examples of Infants being baptized : But that they were baptized e- yen in the Apofiles times ■, both Origen, Cyprian, and others of the Fathers do teflifie\ and th'vs U alfo evident from the writings of the Applies them- felvesiand then they (hew us what evidence they conceived they had from the Writings of the A* jpoftles that Infants were baptized. Now is this to tell us?that they find they baptiz'd only theAdult? Nay, do they not tell us exprefly, that they find from the Writings of the Apofiles, and theTeftimonies of the Fathers that lived near thofe times, that they baptized Infants, as well as grown perfons. As for what our Author further faith they tell us, concerning the Ceremonies attending the Adminiftration of Baptifm,as that the parties ba- ptized did freely come,and offer themfelves, pro- felling their Faithi what ever they tell us of that nature, they evidently mean it of the Adult, for fo, left they fhould be mistaken and mifrepre- fented, they do in plain words exprefs them- felves. Ante Baptifmatis impertitionem quoad adultos attinet de Toctrina Evangelii, &c. adultos edocnerunt •, they repeat that term adult twice, feeming to fear that their words might be wreft- ed in favour of Antipedobaptifm. Now then how far are thefe worthy Hiftorians from fay- lug they find they baptized only the adult •, they tell us, that it is evident from the Apoftles Writings, and alfo produce the Fathers living near thofe times , affuring us' that Infants were then 0nbnotef *pen. 7 then baptized,though no exprefsExample oftheir Baptizing isjleft upon Record. And having thus groily abufed thefe worthy Centuriators in this tirft Century, he proceeds both to abufe them, and impofe upon his incautclous Reader in what he cites out of them in the 2. 3. and 4. Centu- ries i for thus he adds page 5^. As to Baptifm in the 2. Century, 'they fay (meaning thefe Magdi- burgenfes) Century 2. Chap. 6.pag. iop. that it doth not appear by any approved Authors that there was any mutation or variation from the for- mer, and in confirmation hereof quotes what Juftin Martyr faith in his fecond Apology to Anton. Vm the Emperour. Now he would have the Reader believe they fay this with re- ference to the Subjects of Baptifm , and con- fequently that they hereby deny Infant baptifm to be as yet brought into the Church > whereas they fpeak not at all in that place cited by him of the Subjeds of Baptifm, but only of the Rites and Ceremonies attending its Adminiftration > for fo they intitle their Diicourfe, Ve Ritibus cir- ca Baptifmum : And the inftance they give of the Jew baptized in the wildernefs by his fel- low-travellers ( a Story I fuppofe our Author was willing to overlook) plainly (hews it. But when they fpeak of the Subjects of Baptifm, Chap. 4.jp.4$.they fay expreily,N>c ufquam legit ur Infan- tes hocfzculo a Baptifmo remotos ejfe^nd cites Ori- gen, as affirming that the Baptifm of Infants had been received by the Church as a Tradition from I the Apoftles. And after the fame manner does he moft grody abufe them, and impofe upon Jhis Reader in what he cites out of them in the B 4 3* and 8 2.nfani>3&aptifm from ^eaten, 3 . and 4. Century. But it is needlefs. to trace nim any farther j by what hath been faid we may fee the great unfaithfulnefs of our Author : So that look what Cenfure Erafmus put upon 0- vigeifs Works, tranflated by Ruffnus, the fame muft be paft upon his Treatife ^ no man knows when he reads Mr. Vanvers^ and when he reads the Authors cited by him. And this confider- ation alone renders all his Quotations ufelefs > in as much as no man can truft him any farther than themfelves examine the Authors produced by him *, and fuppofethey may find him faith- ful in any one, yet that is no afTurance that he is fo in any other. He that knowingly falilfies one Author, deferves no credit in what he cites from any other. But to proceed. Secondly, That which lies obvious to our ob* fervation is the utter Ufelefnefs, Infignificancy,v and Impertinency of very many, if not the ma- jor part of the Teftimonies produced by him as to his purpofe, fuppofe he hath l>en faithful in them: This will abundantly appear in a four-fold Inftance. Firft, not a few fpeak nothing at all to his purpofe -, it can hardly be imagined what came into his head to fwell up his Book with them : Thus to give the Reader a few Inftances, that he may make more thorough obfervation him* felf, and he will be fooner furnifhed with plen- ty of Inftances of the fame nature. Thus in the' 2 8 2. Page, where he attempts to prove the Waldenfes were againft Infants Baptifm, he cites two of their ancient Confefiions, wherein they grofeft themfelves to own only 'two Sacraments yviz, Baptifm? £nfcnotof ^ert. p Baptifm and the Lord's Stfpper *, and what can our Author infer from hence in favour of his Aflertion ? Did ever any make Infants Baptifm a third Sacrament > So for what he cites out of Vignier his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory^ Page 283. makes as little for his purpofe, he tells us they exprefly declare to receive the Ca- non of the Old and New Teftament , and to reject all Doctrines that have not their founda- tion in, or are in any thing contrary to it \ there- fore condemn all the Traditions and Ceremo- nies of the Church of Rome, And who among Proteftantsmay not be proved to reject Infants Baptifm, iffuch Profeflions may go for proof? For our Author himfelf to fancy that Infant* baptifm is a humane Tradition or Ceremony, and conceit, without any rational ground, that others have done fo too •, and hereupon to apply- all that they have faid or written, either for the perfection or fufficiency of the Scriptures, or a gainit humane Traditions or Ceremonies, as an evidence of their being againft Infant- baptifm, fuperlatively abfurd and ridiculous. Of the fame nature is that he tells us out of Socrates and Crifpin's Hiftories , Page 272. concerning Pope Innocent^ banifhing the Donatifts out of Rome, and the agreement between them and the Novatians, in the things there mentioned ; what does all that make to prove that they were againft the baptizing of Infants ? Muft every one that any Pope hath banifhed out of Romebt prefently an Anabaptift ; or mull: all thofe that agree in the things there exprefied be againft baptizing o£ Infants ? By fuch kind of proofs id Blnfant^baptfrm from f ea&err, proofs who may not be made Anabaptifts > But to leave the Reader to make his own obfer- vation and to proceed. Secondly, nothing can be rationally conclu- ded from others of his Authorities in favour of what he defigns the proof of by them : Thus in his 282. 283. 284. Pages he cites two more ancient Waldenfian Confeflions of Faith, with their Treatife of Antichrift •■> wherein they pro- fefs their belief: That in the Sacrament of Bap- tifm , Water is the vifible and external Sign which reprefents unto Believers , that, which by the invifible vertue of God's operating is within them : as alfo they profefs that by Bap- tifm they are received into the holy Congrega- tion of the people of God, there openly proteft- ing and, declaring their Faith and amendment of Life : So that God is worftiipped in vain, when perfons are enjoyned to partake of Sacra- ments without Faith and Truth. So they con- demned Antichrift for attributing Regeneration to the outward work of baptizing Children *for that is all they condemn him for > ) though our Author mifreprefents their words, and makes them little lefs than nonfence, that they may feem more fully to favour his Caufe. But now who can rationally conclude from all this, that they were againft Infant-baptifm i feing the ve- ry lame, or like Profeffions have been made, and the like Exprefticns ufed by the generality of the Proteftants in their Confeflions and other Writings, who yet have zealoufly afferted In- fant-baptifm. To inftance.only in the Helvetian CojifeJJton^vfhok words are thefe/T, That Baptifm did not profit Children to falvation , page 2 88. who can rationally infer from thence, that they denied lnfant-baptifm > They might deny that Baptifm profited Children to Salvation, efpecial- ly that it did profit them meerly opere operate^ which was the thing they denied, and yet not deny their Baptifm : But to haften. By what hath been (aid, it evidently appears. that our Au- thor cannot produce any one Article in all their Confeilions, nor one Paffage out of any of their own Writings, that make it fo much as probable, that the Waldenfes wereagainft lnfant-baptifm. He hath only groundlefs Suppofitions, falfe Re- ports, malicious Accufations of their Enemies, to ground his perfwafions of their rejecting ln- fant-baptifm upon j when it is evident on the other hand from their own Confeflions, and o- ther Writings, that they did, atleaft as to the Generality of them, own and live in that Pra- ctice i 2 3ttfant.6aptifm from ^eaom, &ice. Variety of other in fiances might be given, but let thefe fuffice. Therefore ■ . Secondly, other of his Authorities, though they feem, according to the Letter of the words cited by him , fomewhat to counte- nance his Affertions, yet nothing lefs was in- tended by the Authors themfelves *, neither can their words, all things confidered, be rationally interpreted at all in favour of them': Of this kind are, if not univerfally all, yet the moft of thofe TeiHmonies he cites out of the Writings of Pedobaptifts. What they fpeak of, or with reference to the Adult, he will needs prefs into the fervice of his Caufe, and apply them for- the e'xclufion of Infants from Baptifm, and eft ablHh- ment of Believers Baptifm in oppofition there-* unto. Thus all thofe Quotations out of Calvin^ Pif- cator^ Perkins and Partus , to prove, that the Commiffion given by Chrift to his Difciples muft be underftood, as retraining Baptifm only to Believers \ fo almoft throughout his whole Book. It is in vain to enumerate Inftances. It's true, he grants their Judgment and Pra- ctice was for Infant-baptifm > but fays he in his Preface, to take his own words, By how much they were againji theflruth (To he calls his Opi- nion) in their Practice, hyfo much the Power and Providence of God may appear^ fo to make their tongues and Pens to fall upon themfelves. And he takes Mr. Baxter as a fpecial Inftance of the Power and Providence of God in this matter, To which let me fay, Before he had: interefted the Power and Providence of God in matters Stub not of apen* 13 matters of this nature, he (hould have offered fomethingat leaft to, prove the inconfiftency of what they have written, with the Doctrine and Practice of Infant-baptifm •> left he be found to take the Name of God in vain, as well as abufe his Authors and Readers, which he hath not at all attempted to do : Wherein is the Contradicti- on between what they fay of, or with refpect to the Adult, and what they fay and practife with reference to Infants ? Sure unto Contradictions fo much is at leaft abfolutely neceflary , That affirmatio & negatio fit de eodem ant refpeVm ejuf dem. Our Lord Chrift fays to the Jews, Except ye believe that 1 am be^ ye (ball die in your fins > yet fpeaking of Infants, faith , Of fucb is tbe kingdom of heaven : Now who ever had fo little underftanding as to argue againft Chrift's in- tending Infants from a fuppoiition , that then he muft needs contradict himfelf in what he fays to the Jews. Again, fays Taul, He that mil not wor\ let him not eat^ yet exhorts aged women to teach young women, as other duties, fo this to love their ChiU dren, which furely includes the giving them ne- cefTary food : Now will any be To prophane and irrational as to fay, here appears the Power and Providence of God in making TauVs Tongue and Pen to fall upon himfelf. Thus Calvin and other Pedobaptifts fay, that men may rightly offer themfelves to Bap- tifm \ Confeilion of fins is required, other wife the whole action would be nothing elfe but fport, yet adding an exprefs, Notandum eft de a- ddtis hie verba fieri : and then eliewhere fays, That it Jnfant^aptifm from ^eaben, That the Covenant, and Promifes are extended to the Infants of Believers, and on that ground they are to be baptized. And now Mr.Vauvers prefently conceits here's a wonderful Power and Providence of God in £6 making their Tongues and Pens to fall upon themfelves *, yet attempts not to (hew wherein the incontiitency between what they fay with re- ference to the Adult, and what they fay with reference to Infants does appear But it may be it will be faid, however others may be reconciled to themfelves, yet Mr. Baxter cannot i for he fpeaks more figniiicantly, he fays of the Commiifion : It purpofely exprefleth the Difciples feveral works, in their feveral Places and Orders. Their rirlt task is to make Dif- ciples, which are by Mark^ called Believers •<, their fecond work is to baptize them, whereun- to is annexed the Promife of Salvation > the third work is to teach them all other things. So again he argues moft figniricantly : If there can be no Example given in Scripture, of anyone that was baptized without profeilion of a faving Faith, nor any Precept for (6 doing, then we muft not baptize any without it : But the Ante- cedent is true, therefore the Confequent : And he often ufeth excluiive terms \ faith that Jefus Chrifl hath by Scripture-precept and "Example, directed us to baptize thole that profefs true Re- pentance, and no other, and therefore we muft baptize them and no other. Now fays Mr. Vanvers in his Preface, Thefe Affertions, in the apprehenlion of fuch ignorant Creatures as we are, feem to be as contrary to his £nt> not of aspen, 15 his former Writings (he means thofe wherein he pleads for Infant-baptifm ) as light is to dark- nefs. But let me only fay, that though it is pof- iible, there are fuch ignorant Creatures in the world as he talks of, yet I much fufped he him- felf is not fo ignorant as he pretends j for I doubt not but he knows full well,that Mt.Baxter plain- ly enough declares, that they are only the Adult he fpeaks with reference to, in all that he faith of this nature : and wherein any difficulty (hould ly in reconciling all that he faith with reference to them,with what he fays,with reference to In- fants, our Author (hews us not, neither can he : for who can imagine that a man (hould contra* did himfelf,when he exprefly declares he fpeaks of, or with reference to different Subjeds. Where is the Contradidion between faying, that the Commiffion of Chrift for preaching and baptizing, as it refpeds, and is to be executed with reference to the Adult, it mult be executed in this order. Firft, perfons mull: be taught or made Difci- ples, and then baptized : But as for Infants, the cafe is different, they have a right to the Cove- nant and Promifes, as defcending from believ- ing Parents, and onthat account are to be bapti- zed. Now I fay who can rationally fuppofe this man, as thus expreffing himfelf, mould contra* did himfelf* men muft be very ignorant indeed5, that need help to reconcile fuch things as thefe, and from hence we may fee, how utterly ufelcfs and infignificant. all that our Author hath cited out of the writings of the Pedobaptiit is, as to his caufe* Fourthly, *& Jnfant'bapftTm from ^eafcen, Fourthly, Not a few of his Authorities, either fpeak expreily againft him. or if they may feem to fpeak any thing for, yet as much or more a- gainft him, whence his Caufeftands condemned out of the mouth of his own Witneflfes ; Thus at- tempting to prove that in the third Century, be- lievers baptifm was only pradtifed. Having greatly abufed (though as the Reader may eafily fee, little to his own advantage ) the worthy Magdeburgenfes, who exprefly fay in the very page cited by himfelf, and confequently Cunlefs he received his Collections from another' hand ) could not but know it, Baptizabantur an- ient in utroque fexu adulti ftmuli& infantes (Cent. 3. Chap. 6. pag. 124.) he brings in Mr. Baxter as faying in his Principles of Love, pag.7. that he fytew in the days of iertitllian, Nazianzen, and Aufiin, men had liberty to be baptized, or to bring their Children when, and at what age they pleafed. Now take his words as cited by our Author, , yet they make more againfi him than for himifor if men might bring their Children, to Baptifm' when, and at what age they pleafed, then they might bring them in their infancy, yea, MoxpojK quam editi as Cyprian's phrafe is, though there was no humane Law to inforcethem fo to do. So again,whereas he had brought in feveral coun- cels, and particular Authors to bear witnefs as he fpeaks to believers baptifm, in oppofition to that of Infants in the Fourth,Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Century, page 76,78. yet after (viz,) in the 2. Chapter of his Second Part, he brings in fome of thefe very Councils, and Authors, as or- daining and bearing witnefs to Infant baptifm, yea' and not of ^en* tj yea, and affirming that it was in thofe Very ages the practice of trie Univerfal Chflrdi, and had been fo time out of mind. For brevity fake, let us only take a more ex- ad account of thofe two renowned Authors, viz. Chryfojidnt, and Auftin, both thefe he cites as wit- neltes for believers Baptifm , Tag. 76. yet fee what he cites out of both thefe for Infant-Bap- tifm, Chryfojioni'is words as cited by himfelf, Tag. 121. are thefe, Infants ought to be Baptized dr univerfaUy received by the Catholic\Church, to take awdy Original Sin, fo that Infant-Baptifm was in Cbryfojlom's days, tbe univerfal prafiice of the Church. Auilin's words as cited by himfelf P ag. 1 52. are thefe, if there be any that do enquire for a Divine Authority for the Baptizing of Children^ let them kporf , that what the univerfal Church holds, nor was inflituted by Councils, but always retained, is moft rightfully believed to have beeH delivered by no other than an Apofiolical Authority fo that here is a Witnefs of our Authors own bringing forth, who affirms verbis rotundis. Firft, that the univerfal Church did then hold Infant-Baptifm. * Secondly, That it was not inflituted by any Council , I may add, much lefs then by any par- ticular man. Thirdly, That it had been always retained, that is, ever llnce the days of the Apoftles. Fourthly, That hereupon it is moft rightful- ly believed to have been delivered by no other than Apofiolical Authority. And what other Teftimonies to the univerfal practice of Infent*B£ptifm in thofe Ages, do we 18 JnfanMraptifm from ^eaben, need, or can we defire, than what our Authors own witneffes give. And here let it be obferved , that thefe two Authors lived in that very Age, when he faith Infant Baptifm, was inftituted, and impofed by Pope Innocent j but whether it be in the leaft de- gree probable that it was indeed fo, let all men Judge : but of that more hereafter. If any (hall fay, if thefe Councils, and Fathers were for Believers Baptifm, and yet pradtifed In- fant Baptifm , how (hall they be reconciled , how {hall we reconcile their Doctrine to their Practice > Now for that our Author himfelf hath brought forth two Decrees, the former of Ju- jiinian, the other of Juftinus the Emperours,that will fully reconcile this feeming Contradiction: Juftinian's Decree was this, as recited by our Au- thor Pa(rt 127. that Children (hould be admitted to Baptifm, but that tbofe that were come to their full growth, fhall be taught before they be Baptized. See again the decree of Juflinus to the fame pur* pofe, in the fame Page •, whence it appears, that thefe Councils, and Fathers, were for the Bap- tizing of Believers afore unbaptized, (as we (till are) and alfo for the Baptifm of their infants. So that as our Author hath {hewed us, how to underftand the Fathers, and confequently all o- ther Pedo-Baptifts,when they fpeak of Baptizing grown Perfons, or of Prerequitites to their Bap- tifm, fo he hath rendred the fumm of all his quo- tations, either out of the Fathers , or modern Pedo*Baptifts, utterly iniignificant and ufelefs, as to his purpofe : And how his pen comes thus to fall upon himfelf, and his own Caufe, I {hall defire #nt> not af apen. ip defirc him to enquire, and kave all other men to judge. Other inftances of this nature might be taken notice of, as when he cites Dr. Owen to prove that that Promife Gen. 17. verf. 7. belongs only to the fpiritual feed of Abraham Fag. 210. the Doctor faith the ejfelinal difpenfationof the Cove* nant is peculiar to them only. Plainly, implying that fome grace is difpenced to others, though the eftedtual difpenfation be peculiar to them, but let that fuffice for the Second Confederation relating to his Authorities. Thirdly, That which yet further is to be Con- fidered,is the incredibility, and unregardabknefs of thofe Teftimonies produced by him? that do more plainly, and exprefly favour his affertions, and they are incredible and unregardable, either in regard of the Authors , or the Teftimoniesr themfelves. Firft, Some arc not at all to be Credited in re- gard of the Authors whofe Teftimonies they are: Thus for all thofe teftimonies (excepting .thofe taken our of their own writings, the ufeltfnels of which we have already feen) cited to prove the Waldenfes to be oppofers of Infant Bap- tifm. They are either the Teftimonies. of the, Papifts,their inveterate Enemies,orof Proteftants only relating what the Papifts charged them with} unto which Charges, themfeivesgavenp, Credit : though as to thefe laft, our Author fo fetsdown their Teftimonies, as that his Reader may believe, they are the Teftimonies of thofe Authors themfelves, concerning thefe Waldenfts^ when as they only relate the Charges the Papifts C 2 loaded 20 Jnfanrtiaptffm from beaten, .loaded, them with •, thus in his Tag. i%6. fays he, the Magdeburgenfes, Cent. 1 1 . Chap. 5. Tag. 240. tell us , that Beringarius did in the time of Leo the Ninth, about the Tear 1049. publicly maintain bis herefy, which theyfet down to be denying oftran- fubjlautiaticn^ and Baptifm to little ones. Now an incautelous Reader, would think thefe Magde- burgenfes themfelves, had fet down thefe things to be Beringarius his hereiies, when as they only tell us, what the Papifts charged him with, the truth of which charge, themfelves believed not. So again in his Tag. 2po. fays he, fpeaking of Feter Bruit, another worthy Minifter ameng the Waldenfes, whofe Doctrines and Pofitions for which he fuffered , we have recorded by the Magdeburgenfes , and Lucas Ofiander , among which, we find thofe about Baptifm, &c. Here again ordinary Readers unacquainted with thefe Hiftories, may think they fet down thefe to be the Doclrines and Poiitions,for which this worthy man fuffered, when as they only fet down what the Papifts charged him with. And what Credit is to be given to the Papifts, kt all men judge. But it may be, it will be faid they did not on- ly charge them with denying of Infant-Baptifm, but fome of them at leaft wrote largely in Confu- tation of thefe Doctrines and Pofitions,and furely that they would never have done, unlefs they had certainly known them to hold and maintain them : To that I would only fay •, I fuppofe our Author would think himfelf, and his party hard- ly dealt with, if all the Tenets and Pra&ifes char- ged Upon them by fome of their Oppofers, and in Sfobnotefflpen- %t in the confutation of which, and that as their Tenets and Pradtifes they have largely written, (hould be believed as true of them. Would he be willing that men (hould believe that to Bap- tize naked is the ordinary practice of all, yea, or the generality of Anabaptifts, becaufe Mr. Baxter hath fpent fome pages, to (hew the evil of that practice. Alas, how common, yea too common is it for men, and that (bmetimes good men too, fudden- ly to take up ungrounded reports concerning the Opinions and Practifesofthofe who dhTentfrom them, and then apply themfelves to a zealous confutation of fuch Opinions and Practifes, alas, if fuch things may go for proof, who may not be proved to hold what their fouls haye abhor* red, or to reject what they have zealoufly avert- ed, and lived in the belief and practice of, Secondly, Other of his Teftimonies deferve no credit, or regard, in refpect of the Teftimo- nies themfelves, thus to inftance in thofe Tefti- monies produced out of Authors living fince the Fifth Century, as Wihftid , Strabo^ Boemius , Ludovicus Vives 3 or any other Contemporary with, or confequent unto them, to prove that Infant-Baptifm was not pradtifed in the primitive times, or rirft ages of the Church, What ever they fay of that import, yet no ra- tional man can give any credit to their words, they producing no Authorities, offering no Rea- fons upon which they grounded their atfertions. It is true, the laft mentioned, viz. Ludovicus Vi- Wy who faith as our Author relates his words, fag, 88. and of whole Teftimony great ufe is C 3 rnadf 22 Jnfcnt #aptifm from ^eauen, made by the men of his perfwafion, that none were Baptized of &ld, but thofe that were of Age ^ who did not only underhand what the'myftery of the water meant^ but desired the fame^ he feems to have bottomed this Affertion upon a twofold ground. Firft, That as he fuppofed they continued to Baptize the Adult in Italy even in his days. Secondly, His other Ground feems to have been the propofal of Queftions, (a cuftom then hi life) unto Infants at their Baptifm, which were anfwered by their Sureties for them : But now that thefe Grounds are too weak to bear his After- tion is evident. For ,' Firft, As for his firft Ground, it was his mere miftake, there was no fuch practice of Baptizing the Adult, exclufive of Infants in Italy in his days, and therefore Bellarmin citing this pafTage out of Ludovicus Vive /, leaves out this Ground, knowing ( himfelf being an Italian ) the falfity of it, as Gerard obferves, lorn. 4. Tag. up. Secondly, For his other Ground , it proves nothing, in as much as that cuftom of propoling Queftions to Infants had its rife , not from the Way of procedure in primitive times towards the feed of believing Parents, as grown up,but from the cuftom of interrogating the Adult, convert* cd from among the heathen, antecedent to their Baptifrn* whereunto fome conceive the Apoftle Teter alludes, when Infants were alfo Baptized; So that as he had no true Ground for his AiTerti- on, fo the other, whofe Teftimonies are of the fame import, offer no ground, for what they do affert, we have only their bare words 5 how they eame 1 &nunotof ^en. 23 came to know what they affirm, they tell us not* and that they had indeed no real Ground for what they fay, is fufficiently evident from what hath been already faid5and will more fully appear here- after. Now, who can give any credit to a few ob- fcure Authors, when they have only their naked Aflertions without any (hew of proof, and for which, it evidently appears they had no Ground, Now then, confidering our Authors great un- faithfulnefs in reference to his Authorities, the apparent ufelefnefs and infignificancy of fo great a part of them, as to his purpofe^ the incredibi- lity and unregardablenefs of others, that fpeak more home and full to his purpofe > furely the great variety and multiplicity of his Quotations, cannot much move any rational or unbyaiTed perfons. And hence , to add any thing more with reference to them may feem fuperfluous,yet let me juft mention two things more. And therefore Fourthly, Confider, which our Author himfelf calls us to do, of how little force humane Teftimonies are, for the weakning or eftablHhing any Doctrine or Practice in the minds and Judgments of thofe, in whom that prophecy takes place, they Jhall wait for the Law at bis (id eft) Cbrifts Mouth. Si quid dicitur abfque fcriptu- ra claudicat auditorum cogitatio ,faith Chryfoftom, and that of Aujiin is known, alios ita lege^ ut quant alibet fanciitate, doUrinaque prdpolliant^ non skdeo verum put em quia ipfi ita fenferuni, fed quia tnihi vel per illos Authores canonicos^ vel probabili ratione quod a. veritate non abhorreant perfuadere po» tuerunt. And furely to note it by the way, nei- C 4 ther ! |i 8n&nt»36apttfm from ^eaben, ther of thefe would take up Infant-Baptifm mere? Jy as a tradition : It is Divine Authority that can only eftabliQi the minds of fincere ChrifUans •■> the Judgment of this or that man is of no great weight to thofe who have chofen Chrift, as their teach- er, and Governour, as well as their Prieit to fave them, It is true, in matters of Faft, credible witneffes are to be regarded, and in doubtful ca- fes, it gives no little eafe to the mind, to be cre- dibly informed in the practice of the Church throughout all Ages paft. Laftly, Let it be confidered, that would we appeal to, and put the decifion of the prefent con- trovert! e into the hands of humane Authors,how infallibly it would be determined on our fide* for this I dare appeal to Mr. Vanvers himfelf, at leaft to his book. But to pafs from this, from what Jiath been faid, It evidently appears to how little purppfe our Author hath beftowed fo great pains> and that at laft, as he and all that expedfc fatisfa- flipn in and about the practice Controverted, rnuft, fo we freely do appeal from Humane to Di- vine Teftimonies • And anfwerably, I (hall pro- ceed to the examination of what he hath faid from Scripture in confirmation of the one, and the o- therpfhi/Affertion/o CHAP, antiaotof^ctT, 25 CHAP. II. Wherein his Six Particulars, to prove that the Baptifm of Believers is only Chrijis Ordinance of Baptifm , are examined their Weaknefs and Vanity fully dif$o- vered. HpHeFirft is this, (viz.) lhat the Baptizing of Believers, is only to be ejieemed Chrijis Ordi- nance of Baptifm, this he attempts to prove. 1 . From Chrifts pofitive inftitution and Com- miffion commanding of itsand having recited the words of the Commiffion,he concludes, Here we have this plain order of Chrifl laid down, 1. 'that men (hould be taught the do&rine of Faith. 2. that being fo taught they Jhould be bap- tized. 3. "that they Jhould in his School or Churchy whereof they are then made members, be injlrucl- ed in every thing elfe they ought to learn. With reference unto which , I may fay in Jobs words to his friend Bildad : How ba[l thou helped him that has no power > How faveji thou the arm that hath no ftrength > Job 26.2* Can our Author think that the bare recital of a Text of Scripture , that hath been anfwered over an4 oyer, again and again with a crude$ where we have this plain order ofChrijl laid down, can fatisfie an impartial enquiring mind, that Baptifm 2£ anfant ftapttftn from l^eatien, Baptifm muft neceffarily , and that univerfally be adminiftred exa&ly according to this order here laid down > Surely it concerns thofe that will plead the Caufe of Believers Baptifm, in oppofitiom to that of Infants, both to (hew the infufficiency of thofe anfwers given , and alfo evince the neceflary exclufion of Infants from Baptifm by this Commiflion, as expreft and laid down in the order infilled upon. May fuch infipid repetitions, and crude affertions de- termine Controverfies > thofe whofe lot it is to fpeak laft , will infallibly carry the Caufe, and have the Truth determined on their fide : whence I might fairly difmifs this his rirft par- ticular , with only this reply : 3Tis fully an- fwered already. But though I have largely fpoken to the arguings of our opponents from ■ i- this Commiflion elfewhere *, yet Infants Baptifm , r , . r„ r , J from neavcn Pag. became they intift (o much upon 288.pag.290. jtj an(J feem t0 think that tne bare recital of it is fufficient to eftablifh their practice •, I (hall confider it a little further, and lay down a threefold conclufion with reference to it. 1. That this Commiflion (Inftitution, it is not) taken abftra&ly initfelf : does not necef- farily exclude Infants from Baptifm; And if it do not neceffarily exclude them, they may be Baptized ( fuppofing their Baptifm elfewhere in Scripture warranted ) notwithftanding our Lord Chrift has expreft himfelfashe has done*, and that this Commiflion does not neceffarily exclude Infants from Baptifm is fufficiently e- vident thefe two ways. 1. From i . From the general acknowledgement of our oppofers themfelves •, they Univerfally,for ought 1 have yet underilood from any of them, pro- fefs that in cafe Infant-Baptifm could be clear- ly proved from any other place of Scripture, they would readily own, and practice it : which would be abfurd., in cafe this Commiffion did neceflarily limit Baptifm to Believers : For that would be to fuppofe that the Scriptures might warrant a practice in contradiction to themfelves. And how vain is the bare recital of a Scripture , which themfelves grant does not neceflarily prove, what it is produced for the proof of. 2. This is evident, becaufe as here is no ex- prefs mention of Infants h So no Word, Ph*afe or Claufe, that can be rationally interpreted, as neceflarily excluding them. I know it will be faid, That our LerdChriji not mentioning of them^ together with the order expreft, for the adminiftra- tton of baptifm , is fujficient ground to conclude that they were excluded. But to that, I anfwer, That that is no fufficient ground to conclude they are excluded, will undeniably appear from adouble confideration. i. That it is poflible Chrift may have given this Commiffion, only with reference to the a- dult , and may have fufnciently declared his will concerning the Baptifm of Infants, in o- ther parts of his word : which fuppofe we fhould affirm he has-, As our oppofers would have the or* der pleaded for, exactly obferved by us>fo no pre- judice would arifeto ourCaufe thereby, feeing our only enquiry then muft be, whether Chrift has in \% 3nfanM»aptirm from f eaum, in any part of his word warranted the Baptifm of Infants, For I fuppofe no man will deny that Chrift may declare his mind, as to the admini- ftration of Baptifm, to fome in one part of his word j and his Mind and Will as to its admini- ftration unto others in another. Whence it is undeniable, that Infants are not neceffarily ex- cluded from Baptifm by this Commiflion. Sup- pofe they are not included in it > yet its impofll- ble to evince their exclusion by it, feeing it is pof- fible it may wholly refpecl Subjects of a different Species, But 2. That our Lord Chrift might not, as it is certain he did not intend this Commiilion, as folly and absolutely dire&ive of his Apoftlesand Minifters in the Adminiftration of thefe Ordinan- ces of Preaching and Baptizing, unto the admi- niftration of which they are in the general com- miffioned and appointed: 'Tisno way neceflary \ (neither can I thkik our oppofers will dare to af- firm that it is. ) that our Lord Chrift (hould ex- prefly declare his whole mind in any part of his word, no not in the Commiilion it felf, for the adminiftration pf them : Concerning the admi- niftration of any of his Ordinances, he may give out a more general Commiflion warranting their Adminiftration and yet further Directions elfe- where, relating both to the adminiftrators, man- ner of Adminiftration, and Subje&s to whom they are to be Admin iftred. And hence it will undeniably follow, though Infants are not ex- prefly mentioned in this Commiflion, yet they may be included and comprehended in it. Be- eaufe though the \yill of Chrift concerning them? is . is not plainly here declared, yet it may be found among the various further directions he has elfe- where given, relating to the admifriftration of thofe two Ordinances, of Preaching, and Bap- tizing : And that our Lord Chrift never intended thisCommiilion, as fully directive of the Apo- irles and Minifters of the Gofpel in the execution of it, is fully evident from the indeterminablenefs of all queftions and cafes relating to the right ad- miniftration of the fore-mentioned Ordinances by the Commiflicn it felf, I (hall initance in thefe Five or Six, 1. How the Nations were to be Vifcip!edy whether only by teaching them, or by Baptizing them > Some have thought ( whofe Judgment yet I approve not( that Bftptifm is appointed as the ^peans by which the Nations mould be Difcipled or made Difciples *, and plenty of in (lances may be brought to (hew that the participle is frequent- ly ufed to denote the means by which any end is accompli(hed, and why it may not be fo ufed here, our Oppofers will be hard put to it to e* vince from the Commiffion it felf. 2. who among the Nations or among thofe to whom the Gofpel is preached, ought to be accounted Difciples, and as fuch the proper fub- je&s of Baptifm? We know what a conteft has been among fome, what that Faith or Embimce- ment of the Gofpel is that qualifies men for Bap- tifm, neither is it poffible for our oppofers to determine that queftion from the commiiEon it felf. 3. Whether the Nations were to be Baptized as difcipled, or as men? Neither does, this que- iUon 30 Blnfanr^baprifmfrom^eatien, ftion admit of an eafie decifion from the commif- fion it felf,(though from other Scriptures it does J feeing that Pronoun, them, does evidently refer to Nations as its proper antecedent, whether we tranflate ^ua^MT<^/(^£Tfc, teach or make ag* *91' difciples as has been elfewhere proved. 4. After what manner Baptifm ought to be adminiftred, whether by dipping, or by pouring, or fprinkling water upon the face or body of the Party Baptized : That Baptifm be adminiftred after a fight manner, our Author looks upon as efTential to that Ordinance, and confequently that a defedt therein nullities it, and makes it no Ordinance of Chrift s yet that the word ufed in the Commitlion does not determine what the manner fhould be, is certain pad all rational ex- ception. Our Author mult unavoidably take the afliftance of other Scriptures, for the determin- ing that controverfie, and yet mull leave it in medio when he has done. 5. Whether only Males, or both Males and Females mould be Baptized is not expreft in ^ei- ther is it determinable from the Commiffion it felf, auT?s tranflated them being of the mafcu- line gender, may feem to reftrain Baptifm, only to Males, and is as clear a ground, for excluding Females, as the order laid down by Chrift is for the excluding of Infan'ts. 6. whether Adult Perfons only upon their DifcipleChip, or they and their Infant feed with, them, are the proper Subjects of Baptifm*, and feeing that we mult of necefiity have recourfe to or r revelations that our Lord Chrift has made ©This vv ill, relating-to thefe two Ordinances of Preaching, Stab not of: $$z% 3 1 Preaching, and Baptizing, for the determining the Five former queftions or cafes. Let our Au- thor^ or any other (hew any folid reafon, why we may not do the fame for the determining this laft , which I (hall exped ad Grtcas calendas. From what hath been faid, it undenyably ap- pears that this Commillion, as abftra&ly taken in it felf, is not a full and compleat direction for the right difchargeof thofe duties, it doth more generally authorize and require the performance of. Whence will follow, as mining with a noon- like light , the truth of this firft conclufion> That the Commillion does not exclude, but on the other hand may include the Baptifm of In- fants, though they are not mentioned in it, yet the Will of our Lord Chrift concerning them may be, as we affirm it is, fufficiently declared in thofe other rules and directions, relating to the due difcharge of it. And this Firft Conclu- fion (the truth of which appearing with fo much clearnefs of evidence) does fo fully anfwer and obviate all arguments and objections pleadable from this Commiffion, againft the practice we contend for, that I might well difmifs this firft Argument without any further reply. But if any {hall yet fay furely if it had been the Will of our Lord Chrift, that Infants (hould have been Bap- tized, he would have plainly declared it. Anfw. To that 1 anfwer, that it was v'aftly more neceflary, that feeing it was his Will that Females as well as Males (hould be Baptized, he mould have plainly exprefTed that > and yet we fee he hath not done it. Yea,let me fay^ofwhicji more hereafter, that in cafe it had been the will of 3 a 3nfartt*farpttfm from ^abett, of our Lord drift, that Infants (hould riot be Baptized, it had been much more neceflary that he (hould have plainly declared than than,it being his Will they (hould be Baptized,' it was neceflary he (hould plainly declare that : So that there is no reafon why it (hould feem ftrange to any that upon fuppofition of its being the Will of Chrift, that Infants (hould be Baptized, yet he hath not plainly expreft it in the Commiflion. We fee there are other things that it is as neceflary, yea, and more neceflary, that they (hould have been plainly expreft, and yet they are not v yea> the very not mentioning Infants, does ftrongly im- ply his Will that they (hould be Baptized, in as much as had it been his Will that they (hould not be Baptized, it had been vaftly more necefla- he (hould have clearly expreft it, than it being his will they (hould, he (hould plainly exprefs that. But for the further fatisifyiug of this fcru^ pie, IftialUay down a Second Couclufion. 2. That our Lord Chrift having elfe- where fo fully reveiled his will concerning the Infant-feed of his people, both as to their inrereft in the Co- venant, and right to the feal and token thereof* the Commiflion though not exprefly mentioning them, yet does fufficiently warrant and authorize the Minifters of the Gofpel to Baptize them, as well as the Adult upon their profeiiion of Faith. For the clearing up and illuft ration of this, let either of thefe two fuppofitions be put. i. That God had fent his Prophets or any of thcm,having the firilTeftament adminiftration,to preach the Gofpel , as then reveiled unto the hea* thens or any Nation among them in order unto the &nt> not of f>ett $% the uniting of them to, or incorporation of them in the Jewilh Church: Or,N 2. That he had continued Circumciiion un- der theGofpel Adminiitration, either of which things he might have done,had it fo pleafed him. Now I would ask any rational man,whether this very Commiilion, only fubftituting Chcumciii- on in the room of Baptifm, had not furHciently warranted the Circumcifion of Infants as well as grown perfons, though they had not been ex- prelly mentioned ? had it not been enough to have faid,Go Teach or Difciple all Nations, and let them be circumcifed to the Lord ? would any in either of thefe cafes have fcrupled whether In- fants fhould have been circumcifed upon that ground, that their Circumciiion Was not expref- ly mentioned ? Surely no fcruple in either of thefe cafes would have ever entred into'the hearts of men : And why any fcruple fhould now arife feeing the Covenant is one and the fame, only there is afubititution of Baptifm in the room of Circumciiion,as the ilgn or token of it^no fatisfa- clory account can be given. But yet to make things more plain let me put this one fuppofition more. Suppofe our Lord Chrift had in more words expreit himfelf in this Commiilion thus, Go teach or difciple all Nations baptizing them, for the Co- venant with the promifes thereof, (hall now he ex- tended to, and ejiablijhed with both the Jews and Gentiles and their boitjholds, infpecial their Chil- dren, as it hath hitherto been to and with the Jews infpecial: Had he thus expreit himfelf, he had pot come much mort of menticning!nfants:\Yhy, D let 34 3nfant=bapttfm from fzmrt, let but Scriptures be compared together, and it is tantamount, it is all one as if he had To ex pied himfelf. Says Feter to thofe awakened Jews, Repent and be Baptized, for the promt [fe is to yoii and your children : Says Faul to a Gentile, Belize in the Lordjefus, and thou [halt he fayed and thy houfe. Now lay the words of thefe two Apo- ftks together, and fuppofe them fpoken by either of them, at one and the fame time, and that both to Jews and Gentiles., alike awakened to a fenfe of their fin and miiery •, and it had been all one as if he mould have (aid, Repent and believe, and thereby become the difciples of Chrift, and be bapti- zed, for then the promife of Salvation is to you, that is, it does appertain to you and to your chil* dren andhoujholds. And thefe words, as thus fpo- ken, muft needs be fpoken by vertue and in pur- fuance of the Commiffion they had received from Chrift, and confequently they muft needs have warrant from the Commiffion thus to fpeak. From whence it undeniably follows , that fo much is virtually included in the Commiffion : And it is all one as if Chrift had expreft himfelf in the Commiffion, in the very words or to the fence afore declared. And what attempts our oppofers make toobfeurethe evidence that thefe Scriptures taken fingly and feverally give to the practice of Infant-baptiftn \ the fame they might as rationally have made, in cafe our Lord Chrift had fo expreft himfelf in the Commiffion: Let truth appear never fo plainly fome will cavil a- gainft it. But poffibly fome will yet fay, If In- fants ftould be Baptized, then the Order of Chrift is crofted, Anfa.- and not of ^en* 35 Anfrv. To this I (hall fay only in the general, thatChrifts order cannot be crofTed by the obfer* vation of thofe rules and directions himfelf has given for the guidance of his AmbafTadors, in the difcharge of that duty required in this Com- miffion '•> as the Baptifm of Women no way op- pofes the mind of Chrift, he having elfe where given dire&ion for their Baptifm, though this Commiflion,according to the letter, only refpedts men * fo the Baptifm of Infants no way crofles Chrifts order, he having elfewhere declared his Will that they mould be Baptized, though accor- ding to the letter the Commiffion might feem only to refpedt the Adult. But that I may give more full fatisfa&ion to this objecYion, I Qiall lay down a third Conclufion. Concluf.%. That not with (landing it is the will of Chrift that Infants (hould be Baptized, yet it was very rational,yea neceffary,that he (hould ex- prefs this Commiffion in and according to the or-. der he hath done. For let but three things be confidered. i. what was the ftate and condition of the Nations to whom the Apoftles were now fent *, they were in a ftate of darknefs and ignorance,' wholly eftranged from God and his ways.Hence the preaching of the Gofpel antecedently to the adminiftration of Baptifm was ahfolutely necef- iary : The Parents muft be difcipled before Bap- tifm could be regularly adminiftred , either to themfelves or to their Children. ;; 2 .' Confider the gradual procedure the Gofpel, {hould, and anfwerably has made in fabduing the.. Nations unto Chrift? there always has been and, t> 2 flai 36 Jufant'taptifm from ^tatien, ftill is fome Nations to be difcipkd and brought home toChrift,and all attempts to difciple them and bring them unto Chrilt , mull be by rirfr preaching the Gofpel to them: The difciplethip of Parents, (till preparing the way to their own and . their Childrens Baptifm. Hence this Com- miffion as exprelt according to this order was ne- ceflary, not only for the Apoftles who were-to be- gin the work of difcipling the Nations, but for all Miniitcrs -in fuccceding ages, as they mould be called out to perfedt. that work. 3. Conhder,that when Nations are difcipled, yet the preaching of the Gofpel has a precedency to the administration of Baptifnr, the feed of be» lievers Baptized in their Infancy, mult be taught and thereby brought to a tincere emfcuacement and performance of the conditions of the Cove- nant, into which as the feed of fuch Parents they were afore received in order to their conveying unto their Children a right to the Covenant, and Baptifm as the feal and token thereof. Now then let but thefe three Conclulions be laid to- gether, and I mall freely appeal to all rational men,whether this Commiflion can with any (hew of reafon be interpreted as retraining Baptifm to Believers only, to the exclulion of their Infant- feed. We fee the Commiflion does not nec:{fa- 'lily exclude Infants => it does fumciently warrant their Baptifm,though they are notexprefly men- tionedi and it was necelfary, though the Will of Chrift be that they mould be Baptized, yet that he mould exprefs the Commiflion according to the order he has cootie. But to proceed. 2, Our Author argues from the Apoftles do- ag- 26z> to farily imply it. 3. That they did Baptize whole houjholds, and that fometimes fuch in which we read not of any converted faveonly the Heads or Chief Go- vernours, which, efpecially conlidering the two D 3 fore- 3$ Jnfant-Baptifm from ^eattfn, foregoing particulars, makes it vaftly more pro* bable, that they did baptize fome Infants, than the lilence of the Scriptures,as to particular initan* ccs of Infants being baptized, that they did not baptize them. When the Apoftles (hall pofitive- ly aiTert that the promifes of the Covenant do belong to the houfes of Believers , and that as fuch v and then in their dodtrine lay intereft in the promife as a fufficient ground for the applica- tion of Baptifm > and now (hall baptize feveral hou(holds,in fome of which there is no intimati- on that any were Believers, fave only the Heads or chief of them. Surely here is a vaftly more probable ground to conclude, that as in their do» dhinethey did teach, fo they did practice Infant- baptifm, than the Scriptures barely not record- ing the Baptifm of any Infants, is to conclude thatthey did not. Why may not theScriptures not mentioning the faith of the houfhold, be as ftrong an argument to prove that fome in fuch houfholds had not a perfonal Faith, as their nofmentioning the Baptifm of Infants is to prove that no Infants were baptized. But to pals that 4. That the Scriptures not recording that the Apoftles did preach or practice Infant-Baptifm, is no argument to prove that they did not both preach and pra&ife it : Could our Author have produced any one Scripture wherein the Apoftles in their dodtrine did exclude Infaats from Bap- tifm, or in their practice did refufe to Baptize them,he had faid fomewhat to his purpofe>aridtill that can be done,the multiplication of Scriptures, which alone concern the Baptifm of believers, fignifie juft nothings inafirwch as they might teach 8nunotefspen. gp teach and adminifter Baptifm, as is declared in thofe Scriptures,and yet teach the dodtrine of,and pra&ifelnfant-baptifm alfo. 4. Our Author further argues from the fpiritu- al ends and ufes of Baptifm : And thus hefeems to argue, If believers are only capable of the Spiritual ends , and ufes of Baptifm , then they are the only proper Subbed of Eaptifm j but the Antecedent is true, therefore (b is the Con- fequent. Anfrv. Would he have concluded any thing to his purpofe by this argument ,he mould have proved at leaft one of thefe two things. 1 . That Infants are not capable of any of thofe ends with reference unto which Baptifm is appointed Or ; elfe, 2. That none ought to be baptized, unlefe capable of all the end and ufes for which Bap- tifm is appointed : but neither of thefe things does he or can he rationaly affirm ^ and hence this argument fignifies as little as any of his former. I (hall therefore wave the particular^ Confideration of thofe feveral ends aud ufes of Baptifm mentioned by him, and only in brief prove thefe two things. Only remember that at prefent my work is not to prove Infant-bap- tifm , only to (hew the infufficiency and weak- nefs of this argument, taken from the ufes and ends of Baptifm , to prove that none ought to be Baptized but only believers. i. That infants are capable of fomeof the ufes and ends with reference unto which Bap- tifm is appointed. The truth of this will ap- peare above any rational doubt, by the bare men- D 4 tloning 4^ MantEaptifm from beaten, tioning fome of the ufes and ends, of that Ordi- nance. Take only thefe two. i. To Teal con firm and ratify the Covenant, with the PromifiS thereof, unto thofe with whom it is eftablimcd : And. 2. To give thofe a folemn admiflion into* the vifible Church, who have an antecedent right thereunto : that thefe are two of the grand ends and ufes of Baptifm has been elfewhere proved, and is granted by our Author himfelf. Now that infants are capable of both thefe ends and ufes of Baptifm is paft all rational doubt. If God has extended his Covenant to them, why may ;he not feal , confirm and ratify it unto them by an outward fign and token / if it be his will they mould have a place in his Church or Family, why may they not be folemnly ad- mitted thereunto by Baptifm > But not to fpend time in the proofe of that which no bo- dy will or can deny. Therefore. 2. That Infants may be baptized, as capable of fome, though it mould be granted that they are incapable of other, of the ends and ufes of Baptifm •, this is fecured, both by the acknow- ledgment of our oppofers themselves and it's own light and evidence from any oppolition , efpe- cially from them. Our Auibour affirms (how truely may be feen after ) That Circumcifion was applyed to Abraham for fuch ufes and ends of which none of his feed were capable , io both Mr. lombes and himfelf ( with what contingency with his own Principles ipft videriti ) acknowledge that Circumci(ion did' jreprefent and flgnify Heart- circumcifion, which Sinn not of ^en. 41 it conic! no more do to Infants, . then Bap- tifm can Regeneration a yet that hindred not its application unto them: And if Circumcifion, the former token of the Covenant might be applied to Infants as capable of feme, though incapable of other ends and ufes, with reference unto which it was appointed , why it may not- be fo with Baptifm no rational account car. be given : yea , though we fet atide their refpe-1 dive- reference to the Covenant as the Signs, and Tokens thereof h if one Ordinance may be, appointed for, and applyed to feveral Subjects* with reference to feveral ends and ufes , fome of which all the Subjects are capable of, others only fome of them , why may it not be fo with any other Ordinance? But further j That our Lord Chrilt may appoint the application of Baptifm to Infants , as capable of fome of the ends and ufes of it, though it mould be granted they are not capable of others , is undeniable from the fole confederation of his fovereign Lordfnip over his owne houfe : It's true, could it be Proved that they are (imply and absolutely incapable, of any of the ends and ufes of Bap- tifm , it were rational to conclude our Lord Chrift had not appointed its application to them : But to grant that Infants are capable of fome, yea the main and* Principal Ends and ufes of Baptifm, and yet. to argue againft their Baptifm meerly from their incapability ofo- ther ends and ufes of it j 5. The difference between the New and Old Teftament-difpenfation is urged as another Ap» gument to prove that the Baptifm of Beleivers is only Chrifts Ordinance of Baptifm. And there is a two-fold difference afigned by our Author between the Old and New Teftament-difpen- fations. The fir ft refpedts the Subjedb, or Per- fons of whom the Church under the firft Tefta* rnent was,and under the New is conftituted and made up : Under therirft Teftament they were, faies lie , the fejhly feed of Abraham , whom he conceives might , and that as fuch without a perfonal work of Regeneration be admitted into, and continued then in the Church. Hence that Church was only a Carnal Church , as he fpeaks,/>4g. 221. But now the Subje&s^or Perfons of which the Church under the New Teftament is and ought to be conftituted and made up, are and ought to be profefied Beleivers , and confequently viiibly the Spiritual Seed of Abraham. 2. The other Difference he affigns between thefe two Difpenfations refpefts theWorfhip,then and now tobetendred up unto God*, Then he conceives the Worfliip both in refpedt of the Mat- ter of it, and Meanes or outward Ordinances , in and by which it was to be performed,wasfutable to the nature of the Church :, as the Church was a Carnal Church . fo the Worlhip was exter- nal, performed in and by carnal Ordinance ; Ihey the% */;>*, fays he, had a Worldly Santiuary , Carnal Ordinances, a temporal Prieflhood^ and a multitude of Ceremonies : but now under the New Tene- ment, it is , fays he , othcrwife , now the Worjhip is fpiritual and the Ordinances are fpiritualj and this rporjhip mull he offered up to God by an un- changeable Frieilhood. And hence he conceives, that however Infants might be admitted infothc Church under the Old Teftament, yet now they ought not : Now 'tis molt meet and futable,that only a fpiritual Seed (hould attend the fpiritual Worfhip, and fpiritual Ordinances. Anfv, As for this Change made in the new Teftament-difpenfation, whereby it differs from the Old, as it refpe&s the worfhip to be perfor- med, whether in regard of the matter of it, or the Ordinances in and by which it is to be'perfor- med , how either Infants or their Baptifm (hould be concerned in it, is impoffible to imagine \ they are as capable to the full of holding Communion with the Church now in fpiritual Ordinances^ and to offer up a fpiritual worflrip by an unchange- able Priefthood, as they were to hold communi- on with that carnal Church,as our Author calls it, or to partake of thole carnal Ordinances, or to worfhip God by that temporary Priefthood ; That is, they neither were nor are capable of the one nor the other : And then how their Baptifm or Church-memberftiip, (hould be any way con- cerned iri xhis.chznge, our Author neither does nor can (hew \ neither can I well think that himfelf did think thefe things would figniiie any thing to any rational man: But thefe terms and phrafes of worldly Sanctuary, carnal Ordinances , &c might 44 Jnfantbapftrm tatii ^eaben, might excite paffions in perfons of weaker Judg- ments, and thereby his Caufe might be fomewhat promoted among fuch. And therefore that which we are here alone concerned in, is this change in the New Teftament difpenfation, whereby it differs from that under the Old Teftament, as it refpe&s the fubje&s or perfons of which the Church then and new was and is to be conftitu* ted and made up of. And this we abfolutely de- ny, that the New Teftament difpenfation does fo differ as is here fuppofed from the Old : We ab- folutely deny that flefhly difcent from Abraham wa§ a fufficient ground for the admitting or con- tinuing any in the Church under the Old Tefta- ment beyond his Children, immediately defend- ing from his own loins: But the Church was then as now to be conftituted, or to con II ft only of Abraham's fpirituzl or myfticalfeed inclutive <&f their Infants 5 and confequently that Church was a fpiritual Church or Corporation as the Gofpel L hure'h is. We grant that a greater mea* lure of thefpifit,'is granted to the Church, un- der the New Teftament, than was under the Old; and anfwerably the true and fmcere mem- bers have, or at leaft may have, fpiritual life in more abundance^ as our Lord v.hrift fpeaks, than the members of the Church ordinarily then had. But as then there were fome hypocrites, fo there isftill : So as now the Church according to divine appointment, ought to coniift of vihble Believ- ers, among whom fome are fincere, fo it was then. In a word, as there was a mixture of IV he at and Chaff in the floor ofChrifl then, fo there is flill ; But the Church then, might and ought to &nbnotctspetT. 45 to be denominated a fpiritual Church or Houfe as^t may and ought to be now. So that the New Teftament difpenfation, differs not at all from the Old h in regard of the matter or fubjeds the Church is conftituted or made up of s they were then the fpiritual feed ot Abrahamjnduding their Infants,and fo they are (till. This (hall be further manifeft when I come to the refulution of that queftion, Whether Circumcifion wasadminiftred to Believers as Believers,and to their feed as fuch? But yet let me here offer thefe two Arguments to prove that the New Teftament difpenfation, does not io differ, in refped of the matter or fub- jedsof the Church, from the Old, as is pretendedi 1 . If the fame attributes may be,and are by the Holy Ghoft himfelf, given to the Church, tin* der the Old Teftament, that may be'and are gh ven to the Church und er the New, then the New Teftament difpenfation, as it refpeds the matter or fubjeds of the Church, does not fo differ as is pretended from the Old : But the antecedent is true, therefore the confequent. That the antecedent is true (viz.) that the fame attributes , may be and are by the Holy Ghoft himfelf given to the Church under the Old Tefiament,that may be and are given to the Church under the New,isundenyable,by compa- ring Exod. ip.5,6. with 1 P*f.2.p.As the Church now is a peculiar people unto God^oit was then: As it is now a royal Yrie\\hood; fo it was then: As it is now an holy Nation •-, fo it was then. And from the Holy Ghoft's thus giving the a me attributes to the Church then •, that are gi- ven to the Church now, it will undenyably fol- low. ifi Jnfant'fcsprifm from beaten, low, that there is no fuch change made in the New Teftament difpenfation as is pretended. Can that Church be denominated a carnalChurch any more than the Gofpel- Church may, when it was a peculiar people, d royal Priejihood, a holy Nation, as well as the Church now is. But 2. If the Church under the tirft Teftament was the myftical Body ofChriftinto which Be- lievers under the New Teftament are incorpora- ted,and asfo incorporated make up and continue the fame myftical Body of Chrili in the world > then the New Teftament difpenfation, as it re- fpedfc the matter or iubjects of the Church, does notdiffer as is pretended from the old: But the fcr- iiieris true, therefore the latter : The antecedent is undenyahle from that Epbef. 3.6. from whence ttfe conclufion will necetfarily follow* But of this more hereafter. From what has been faid,we evidently fee, there is no fuch change of difpenfa- tion as our Author fuppofes, and an/werably this argument is of no force at all: And hence for what he after nonfenfically talks of Johns difcharging that privilege of Abraham's natural feed that ad- mitted into the old Church, from any fuch Rite in the New, it figniries nothing, be his meaning what it will: John did not discharge them from any privilege they afore had, only rectifies a mi- itake they afore lay under. But 6, Our Author endeavours to con firm believers Baptifm to be the only true Baptifm, from the confiitution of thePrimitive Churches^^v rvere^ fays he, framed not of ignorant Babes y but of pro- f effing men }and women: And th is, as-he- judges, is further 'evidenced, by the dedication oftheEpifttes ) fiht fitotmotof^er. ;47 fcnt to the Churches, as well as the contents of the fame. Anfrv. This Argument prefuppofes, and takes for granted, that which is by many, if not by moft, denyed {viz) That Infants either by Baptifm are or at leaft immediately upon their Baptifm ought to be admitted as members into particular Churches •, hence it only concerns fuch as are of that perfwafion. I (hall only fay thefe two things. i. That Infants Baptifm may be fufficfently proved, though that be, as furely it may very ra- tionally be denyed > hence unlefs our Author can prove, which he attempts not •, (he is better at begging than proving-, whence it may be faid to him in the Poets words. toi fjivSoi (pihoi 0ck£/tw eloiv.) I was faying,unlefs he can prove that Infant-bap- tifm does neceflarily fuppofe, and require that they are either by or immediately upon their Bap- tifm to be admitted as members into particular Churches, his Arguments fignitie juft nothing at all. 2. Suppofe we (hould grant him that, yet to fay no more, his proofs are wholly infufficient : Infants might be admitted as members of parti- cular Churches, notwithftanding what he faith concerning theOrder directed to in Chnjis Cowimiffi- 00, and what we read concerning the Apoftlerob~ fervatim of that dire&icn\ or the nnconcernednejr of Infants, both in the dedications and contents of the Epijilesfent to the Churches* As tor the Commiffion, and the Apoftles Pra- ctice, 48 Jnfant^apHfm from ^eaben, d:ice,I have already (hewd the infutfkiency of the one and the other, to prove believers to be the only true fubjects of Baptifm : I (hall therefore only touch upon the unconcernednefs of Infants in the dedication of the Epiftles fent to the Churches, or in the Epiftles themfelves, Unto which I would fay, \tour Author judged that that Argument to prove Infant- baptifm, drawn from their federal holinefs deferves the left hand, it being fo lately,not above an hundred and twenty years ago, brought to light, he has no reafon to be angry, if we give fomewhat the lefs heed to this Argument , to difprove the Church members- (hip of Infants , feeing it is as I fuppofe. -of a much later date, and comes (hort of that hi \ in point of antiquitymot Lis than an hundred and eighteen years. But for the Argument it felf, I would only ask our Author thefe t w o Qn e ft io n s , i. Whether Infants were more concerned in the prophecies and writings of the Prophets.than Infants are in the Epiftles written to the Church? yet they were members of the Church then. 2. Whether he fuppofes, that the Apofdes would have expreft themfelves, otherwise than they have, had Infants been members of the Churches } But not to walk time upon fuch trifles*, by what has been faid, ( for I (hall fay no more than what I have done to his humane Au- thority which makes up his feventh Argument ) I fay we may fee what poor grounds the Antipe- dobaptifts have for their firft aifertion (viz,.) that Believers Baptifm is onlyChrift's Ordinance of Baptifm. I proceed now to his fecond* CHAP. #nb not of fljpeit 0 i » J CHAP, III Wherein the Authors two Firji Particulars to difpirove Infant- baptifim are conjider- ed 5 with reference unto which two things remarked } a full Enquiry made ± whether what filence may be truly predi* cated either of the Scripture or Anti~ quity^ concerning that praffice, does not more tend to its eflablijhment than over- throw. The Affirmative fully proved. TTHat I may haften to the vindication of thofe Scripture Grounds which Pedobaptifts have laid for their judgment and practice from the at- tempts of our Author to raife, at leaft darken and obfcure them, (which is that I principally intends I (hall take the two tirft Arguments or Confidera- tions he hath laid down tor the difproof of In- fant-baptifm together > the former of which is drawn from thefuppofed total filence of the Scri- ptures '■> the latter from the alike total filence of Antiquity about the pra&ice. This Firft Confederation he thus expreffeth. If Infant- b apt i fin bad been an appointment or ordi- nance cf Jefus Cbriji , there would have beenfome precept^ Command or example in Scripture tp war~ rant the fame : But inafinuch as the Scripture is fa wholly filent therein^ there being not one Jy liable to he found in all the New Teftament about any finch E ptaftice 34 anfatu=baptffm from ipeabtn, pfattice, it may be concluded to be no Ordinance of JefusXhrifl. His fecond is thus expreft. 7be next thing we {hall make appear />5 that as there was no Scripture Authority to inforce it, fo there was no humane Au- thority to enjoyn it till above four hundredyears after Chrijh And in purfuance of this latter Argu- ment, he undertakes not only to (hew the filence of Antiquity as to this pra&ice, but over and a- bove to (hew the time when, theperfons by whom, and the ends for which it was injhtuted and brought into the Church ^wherein had his fuccefs been pro- portionable to his confidence, he had done fome- thingconfiderable, and (hould (I dare boldly fay) have had many hearty thanks from the moft zea- lous aflertors of Infant-baptifm themfel ves ', and indeed he had well deferved it : but falas ! ) how hath he failed, and who can do that which is impoilible to be done > Impoflibilities will non- plus the wifeft and ableft of men, let their dili- gence and induftry be never fo great* and there- fore it hath been ufually hidjmpdflibilium nullus eft conatus. Wife men ceafe endeavours where impoffibilities appear : But more diredrly to my purpofe with reference to both thefe coniidera- tions, Khali rirft remark two things. Secondly, Inquire,whether what may be truly faid of the [Hence of the Scriptures and Antiqui- ty about the pradtice fuppofed, do not make it vaftly more probable, that Infants ought, than that they ought not to be Baptized. Firft, That which I would remark is, how little our Author hath done for the promoting the Caufe he hath ingaged in j by all that he hath faid Stab not of 9*n» 3$ faid in purfuance of thefe two Arguments : As for the Scriptures , that they are fo filent as he pretends, hath been fufficiently evidenced elfe- where, and may be further (hewed hereafter % As for his various quotations, whereby he would make his Reader believe, either that fo many Paedobaptifts have acknowledged thefilenceof the Scriptures ', or that fo many have affirmed that the Adult alone were baptized in the fitfc Ages of the Church : What regard is to be had to them may alfo appear from what bath been already faid, and (hall immediately be further confidered. I (hall therefore at prefent only a little review the account he gives us of the time when, theperfons by whom, and the ends for which ■, the Baptizing of Infants was (as he faith) infti- tuted and brought into the Church. And thus the whole account he gives us, we have compri- zed in about fourteen lines at the lower end of his 1 1 4 and the upper end of his 1 1 5 Pages, and 5 or 6 lines at the lower end of his 117 Page. In brief it is this : It is true, faith he, towards the latter end of this Century ( that is the fourth Cen- tury) it is faid, that in fome farts 0/* Africa, they did Baptize children, and quotes the Ma gdebur- genfes for it > and that fome of the Greeks Cbzrch did begin to approve of it. Gregory Nazianzen //. faid to admit Infants to be Baptize din cafe ofnecc-f- fity. And then he further adds, Jerome is faid to incline to it alfo^ after Origen and Cyprian y then in his 1 1 7-Page tells us,that,fpeaking of the Fifth Century, that was the Age wherein Infant-r Baptifm did receive its fantiimi by the decrees of T(pes and Councils, Here's the AH that our Au- £ i $0? 5* 3[nfanM3aptifm from ^ eaten, thor^ after his utmoft enquiry into Antiquity vcan fay about the time when, and theperfons by whom Infant- baptifm was lnftituted. And how well he hath performed his great undertaking let all judge. As for the time when Infant- baptifm had its rirft rife, he leaves us wholly in the dark > for though he talk at random of its being pradifed by fome in Africa about the latter end of the fourth Century, yet himfelf grants it was pradi- fed long before that time : for he tells us before, (paged 2.) that liertullian oppofed himfelf by feve- ral arguments againftfome that affirmed Infant-bap- tifm. Secondly, he quotes both Chryfoftom and Auftin, who fas hath been before taken notice of) were contemporary with Pope Innocent and lived in that very age, wherein he would infinu- ate Infant-baptifm received its rirft fandion, as affirming that then it was the univerfal praUice of the whole Church , and hath been fo time out of mind. 3. He himfelf intimates that both Origen and Cyprian did, if not pradice, yet incline to it, for fo are his words*, Jerome isfaidto encline to it, af- ter Origen and Cyprian : fo that Origen and Cypri* an did incline to it, and that they did not only incline to it but alfo pradife it, is fufficiently evi- denced by other hands. Yea, 4. Himfelf denies not that it was pradifed be- fore, only faith, there was no humane Authority to enjoy n it till above four hundred years after Chrifi. Which fignirles juft nothing. And 5-> Let me add this one Obfervation more, that Pelagiur, in all his contefts with Aufiin about Original fin, durft never deny Infant* baptifm^ though £nb not of fl^etr. ^ though it had highly fubferved his intereft to have done it* feeing that practice was, made fo great ufe of by Attftinfcv the confirmation of the do&rine of Original fin oppofed by him, and the reafon is given by Au[lin himfelf : Velagianos mn ftt:(Te infos negate Baptifmurnparvulorum quod vi- dcrint nimis aperte cum Ecclefia tota s Ger, d , pugnwdnm fuijfe , fi eum negarent : Baptifmo pag. An undenyable evidence that Infant- 57°' baptifm was then univerfally pra&ifed, and had been fo for ought what then appeared, from the Apoftles days : Foi could he have proved that it had been an innovation,and rot the practice of the Church from the Apoftles days, he would un- doubtedly have done it > his caufe being fo near- ly concerned in it. Now can cur Author , or any others think, Cnay doth he not expreily grant the contrary) that that could be the age wherein Infant-baptifm had its firft rife > So that we are yet for ought what our Author hath faid, utterly at a lofs a^ bout the time when it was inftituted. As for the perfons by whom it was inftituted, here we are at as great a lofs, as we are at about the time.Indeed he tells us in fome partso(Africa9 they did Baptize Childremthis was in the Fourth Ccntury,but he tells us not who they were, and confequently the Authors of Infant baptifm are ytt tofeek »• and befides, thefe were not the firft! that Baptized Children,as appears from what he" faith oilertullian: So that it is evident not only fome among the Africans and fome among the Greeks, but fome among the Latins, yea the univerfal Church, and that before the Fourth E 3 Century ^8 Jnfant'^apHfm from l^eaben, (Century, did Baptize Children. And as for thofe Fathers, viz. Gregory, Nazianzen, and Je- rome, as he doth not affirm them to be the inven- tors of Infant- baptifm, only faith they inclined to it-, fo it is certain they were not, it being, as confefled by himfelf.the univerfal practice of the Church in their days : So that our Author him- jfelf is wholly at alofs about the time when, and the perfons by whom Infant-baptifm was infti- tuted : We cannot therefore derive its original from men, we muft fay it is from heaven and not of men. As for the end for which he fuppofeth it to be inftituted , if he affign any, it is the taking away of Original fin. But feeing neither the time when,nor the perfon by whom it was introduced into the Church can be found, we may fafely con- clude it is no other than the lnftitution of Chrift himfelf , and not brought in by men for any fuchEnd \ only fome through miftakes did in after ages attribute too much to it with reference to that end.Fromall,how little hath our Author faid in purfuance of thefe two firft arguments |br the promotion of his Caufe Secondly, Let it be confidered,how greatly he Jiath abufed and wronged , as his Authors , fo his Readers, himfelf and his caufe, in what Jie.hath faid. He hath greatly abufed his Authors, either in Fathering that upon them which they never faid, or groifely preverting their words, contrary to what they Evidently declared to be • their fence and meaning in them. This he tells us (V age 1 08.) 'that it was the known Cufiqm of the Primitive Church to Baptize the Adult, and; them jantmotef spen. them only^ at leaftfor tbefirft aves, is fully attefted by Eufebius , Beatus Rhenanusy See. whereas not one of them, except Ludovicus Vives ( of whom I have fpoken before ) fay any fuch thing. As for Beatus Rhenanus hee either fpeaks of Hea* thens, or el fe his words declare, he was a man that (pake either he knew not , or cared not what. Let their Teftimonies be read as quoted byhimfelf, Pdgf63.68.73.7p. and 88. They fay indeed that the aged were or ought to be Baptized ,( which no body denies ) but they fay not they only were Baptized. So for at leaft vaftly the Major part of thofe he quotes, Pages $>8.pp. and 101. as acknowledging that there is no command, precept, or example in the Scriptures for the Baptizing of Infants » where* as they only acknowledge that there is no exprefs command or precept, that is a command or precept*/* totidem 'verbis , nor any exprefe mention of any Infants being Baptized. This he wrefts , and would have his reader believe, they acknowledged there is noe warrant from Scri- to Baptize them. And what greater abufe ci wrong can be done to any Authors, than thus groffely to prevert and wreft their words. Can any man think he had any true adrual fear of God before his Eyes when he wrote thefe Pages? And by thusabufing and wronging his Authors, he hath greatly wronged his Reader, himfelf and his o wne caufe v fo that whereas he boafteth in his 1 07. and 108. Pages what he had gained by his learned Authorities ', the Truth is , he hath only gained fuch a blot to his one reputatioa* as ( unlefs pubiick repentance be manifefted ) E 4 will %6 Jnfant Batptifm from f eaberf, will never be wiped oflfin this world *, however (fuppofmg him to have the truth of Grace ) he may obtain Pardon hereafter. And how highly injurious hath he been to the caufe he pleads: for Will not his Book remain as a publick Evidence of the Forgeries s Falfities, un juft and injurious dealings, the oppofers of Infant-bap- tiftn are forced ( for want of any Scripture or rational ground ) to make ufe of, for the up- holding and maintaining their Opinion and Practice. And the truth is, had I not fome rea- son to think the Author is reaj, in what he pleads for , I mould much fufpect him to be * Tuta frcquenf. n0 Friend * to the Anabaptifts i be qutvu efifubji. fure he hath given a fore wound ViCtfaltnnomen. fQ thdr caufe; But. Secondly, Let us breirly inquire , whether what may be truely faid of the iilence of the Scriptures and Antiquity about Infant Baptifm, doe not make it vaftly more probable that they ought, than that they ought riot to be Baptized, This I might greatly enlarge upon, but let only thefe Five things be well weighed. Firft, That in cafe it had been the will of our Lord Chrift that the Covenant-intereft of the Infant-feed of his people fhould have been difcoritinued, and the applicatiqn of the token of the Covenant unto them on that ground ceafed *, it had been, if not abfolutely neceffary, yet exceeding ufeful to his Church , that he fhould have expreflely and plainly declared it : How many Confiderations offer themfelves to Evidence this, let this only be obferved, fhat np ^Iteration ought to be made in o% about Bnfcnotof^en. 57 about the Covenant beyond what our Lord Chrift himfelf hath made . Hence had he not declared his will, that Females as well as Males fhould be Baptized, we had had no ground for their Baptifm. Soon the other hand, feeing he hath not declared his will that the Covenant- intereft of, and the application of the token thereof unto the Infant-feed of his people (hould ceafe , we ought not to deny them the one or the other. Suppofethe newTeftament had been wholly filent about the will of Chrift relating to Infants/ which yet it is not) we oughtwholly to have guided our Judgments and practice re- lating unto them, bythefirft Eftabltfhment of the Covenant with Abraham the Father of the Faithfull j where we Evidently finde the natural feed , and that as fuchjboth of Abraham , and all that werex according to the true intendment of the Promife to be accounted for his feed, recei- ved into the fame Covenant , and had the fame token applyed to them with their Parents. And who could without hazard of fubje&irg them- felves to hisdifpleafure , make any alteration or change in the Tenour of the Covenant or any thing relating thereunto, beyond what our Lord Chrift himfelf hath made? Secondly, Let it be ferioufly confidered, how utterly improbable it is, that an alteration of fuch a vaft importance could have been made, unlefs the will of our Lord Chrift had been exprefiy I declared, without fome oppofition made by the unbelieving Jews, or fome doubts and fcruples aiifing in the minds of Believers , efpecially the converted Jews, about it, \yhofo (hall atten- tively *a 3rifanl>baptirm from feafjen, tively read over the facred records relating to the New Teftament-times, and coniider what doubts did arife in the minds of Believers about, yea, what oppofition was made by them, as well as by the unbelieving Jews,againft changes of a vaft lower importance, will hardly think this to car- ry the lead or loweft degree of probability in it. Were they fo tenacious of the diftin&ion of Days and Meats, and would they fo eafily part with the Covenant-intereft of their Chidren ? Were they fo hardly brought to part with Circumcifion itfelf, though they had Baptifm fubftituted in the room and ftead thereof? And yet would they without any difficulty at all comply with, not only the taking away the token from their Children, but their intereft in the Covenant and Promifes alfo, without the fubftitution of any o- ther privilege in leiu thereof: Credat Afpella * for my own part I cannot do it. Thirdly, Let it be further confidered , that there is no error or erronious practice introduced into the Church, but it may be traced up to its fit ft rife, at lead the time may be (hewed from Antiquity , when it was not in being in the Church. This the Lord Brookes and others have taken notice of i what a worthy account our Au~ tbor hath given us of the rife of Infant-baptifm hath been already declare i \ neither is it poffible for any to give a better than himfelf hath done. But Fourthly, ConGder yet further, that the very firft mention wt have in Antiquity, cfany doubts or debates relating to Infant-baptifm does plainly imply, and prefuppofe it t.o have been antece- dently £nt>notoffl£en. 43 dently prac'iifed. Let our Author or any other produce the hrft mention that is made of any thing of that nature in Antiquity. I doubt not but it will be made evident,that that does prefup- pofe the pra&ice thereof to be in ufe before that time. Fifthly, Let it yetbeconfidcred, that.the firft that we rind to have fpoken or written any thing with a direct reference to the pradtifingoflnfant- baptifcn, was toadvife and perfwade to the de- ferring of it. As for Jutiin Martyr^ and hentuf^ though they let fall fuch pafftges as may be at leaft a probable ground to believe that it was the practice of the Church in their days, yet they Wrote not dire&ly either for, or againft it. And as for Cyprian, what he wrote about it to Fidus^ did only relate to the time of its admini- ftration, whether it might be ad miniftred before the eighth day or no. So that lerudlian feems to be the firft that wrote with a direct reference to the practice it felf. From whence we may ra- tionally conclude, that before T'ertullian aro(e, the Church had continued from the Apoftlesdays in the univerfal practice of Infant* baptifm. That he found it the general practice of the Church is evident from that kind of eppofitian he makes againft it i and nothing appears as the leaft int> mation that it was not univerfal '•> for he wrote nothing againft the lawf ulnefs of the pracl:ice,but only perfwades by feveral confiderations, (fuch as they zrt) to deferr it. And here we might again take notice how grolly our Author abufeth both Tertullian, and the Magdebnrgenfes, as relating etertullian>s opi- *o Jnfant faaptiftn from ^eafjen, nion , he abufeth both in two things. Firft, In faying they, that is the Magdebur* genfesf.z\\ us, that 'tertullian did cppofe himfelf againft fome that afferted Infant-baptifm, where* as they only .fay (having given an account of Cy- prian's refolution of the queftion fent him from Fidus, viz* that Infants might be baptized imme- diately or prefently after they were born, moxpofi quam editi ) that Tertullian thought other wife, Contra quod tamen rturtullianus cenfuit in libro de baptifmo: So that as he did not, fo they do not (ay that he did ,oppofe himfelt againft any, only was of a different judgement from Cyprianzs to to the time of baptizing Infants. Secondly, Our Author grofly abufeth both,by pretending that they tell us that iertultian oppo- fed himfelf againft Infant-baptifm abfolutely, whereas they only tell us, that ^ertullian faid the differringof Baptifm was more profitable accord- ing to the Condition, Difpolition, and Age of all perfons, efpecially Infants. Their words are fro cujufque inquit^ viz. Tertulli anus \pei font £on» ditione, Vifpofitione^ etiam JEtate cunhatio baptif- mi utilior efl^ prtcipue tamen circa parvulos. So that 7'ertullian only ad vileth to delay the baptifm of Infants, and that not only theirs, but of all o- ther unmarried perfons. The next that wrote any thing dire&ly with reference to the pra&ifing of Infant-baptifm , feems to have been GregoryNazianze n ( whom our Author again together with the Magdeburgenfes groily abufeth, (as almoft which of his Autho- . rities that he cites in favour of his caufe, doth he nof ) and it may feem he vyas at kaft in part of Statonotof ^en. 6i tfertullian's mind, yet withal affirms, that omni £tati Baptifma convener e, that Baptifm doth agree to every age : And from the opinion of thefe two men probably it was that fome Children of be- lieving parents had their Baptifm deferred , of which our Author makes fo great ufe. But that is by the way. Now let all men judge whether what filence may be truly fpoken of theScriptures and Antiquity do not make it fomewhat more than probable, that Infant- baptifm was the unj- verfal practice of the Church in the Apoftlesdays and the ages immediately fucceeding: It had been, if not (imply and abfolutely nece(Tary,yet exceed* ing ufeful that our Lord Chrift (hould have plain- ly declared that his will about the difcontinuing the Covenant-intereft of the feed of his people , and the ceflation of the application of the token of the Covenant to them on that account, had it been indeed his will that the one (hould have been difcontinued, and the other left orT> but no fuch declaration can be found. How unlike- ly that fuch a privilege (hould be withdrawn from the people of God, and no fcruple arife in any mens minds about it, nor one Scribe, Phari- fee, or unbelieving Jew, fo much as taking the lead notice of it, or impro v iug it as an argument againft the imbracement of the do&rine of Chrift. No man can be found as the firft inventor of this practice of Infant- baptifm \ the firft mention of it in Antiquity imply ing,that then it was in ufe, yea the general practice of the Church. The firft that wrote any thing with a direct reference to the praftifing of it, only ufeth fome frivolous reafons *p 3ttfant baptitm from ^eaten, reafons to perfwadeto the delay of it, neither oppofing that practice as unlawful, nor fo much as taking the leait notice of the novelty of it, or of the practice of the Church to be otherwife. Now can any rational man imagine in cafe Infant- baptifm(as oar Author pretends J had been hardly 5'et in ufc, only afTerted by fome few in order to the future pradice of it, that lurtullian, who it (eems did fomewhat diilike it , would have only perf waded to the deferring of it, and that by fuch mconfiderable reafonsv and not rather fethimfelf directly and downright againft the practice it (elf, and that as an innovation unheard of hither- to in the Church* he could not be ignorant what the practice of the Church had been.: And had! he known that the univerfal pradice of the Church had been to baptize the Adult only, he would undoubtedly have urged that, if not as the only, yet as a main argument againft it, or at lead as a main motive to perfvvade to the defer- ring of it. But when fuch a man as 'tertitlhan was, (who fo fully vnderftood the affairs of the Church, not only in his own days, but in the a* ges paft) {hall only advife to the delay of Infant- baptifm, and that too only as more profitable, and not at all either oppofc the practice as un- lawful, or fo much as take the leait notice of the pradice of the Church in baptizing the Adult on- ly, it is to me (what it may be to others J can- not fay ) little lefs than a full demonflration that Infant-baptifm was then the known and appro- ved pradice of the Church, yea and had been fo from the Apoftles time. Surely a man that is i*ot a ftranger to all principles of Reafon had need of of fomevery cogent arguments to fatisfie himfelf that Infant-baptifm was not pra&ifed either in the Apoltles days, or in the ages immediately enfuing. But to proceed CHAP. IV. Wherein his third V articular for the dif proving of Infant- Bap t if m is considered: In what fence Tradition h laid by us as & ground of Infant- B apt if m declared: That ground in the fence in which it is laid by us,t vindicated from Mr. Danvers his attempts to overthrow it. TTHirdly, the fuppofed erronious grounds botlf •*• as to fabulous Traditions , and miftakgn Scri- ptures, \ upon which the pr aft ice of Infant-baptifm bath been both formerly and laterly founded , is brought by our Author as his third argument or confideration to difprove the pra&ice thereof Anfvp. As for the former ground , viz. Tra- dition , upon which he faith the practice of In- fant-Baptifm hath been both formerly, and laterly founded , I (hall not fpend much time in the vindication of it > only I might here a- gain deted his difingenuity and unworthy deal- ing, yea downright falfities and untruths. Thus he moft difingenioufly and falfly affirms, that the iirft and principal ground that hath been laid for this practice, hath been Ecclefiaftical and Ape- 6\ Jnfant-baptifm from f eaten, Apoftolical Tradition > and I doubt not but he thought the very name of a Tradition would considerably advantage his Caufe > thofe that will but attentively read his own Book , muft have a very great Charity for him not to believe that he affirms this contrary to his own know* ledge. For Firft, himfelf acknowledgeth,that the ip. Mat; 1 4. was of old called the Scripture-Canon for In- fant-Baptiftn^?age 177 j fo again Page 260. Secondly , he knows full well that Circumci- ilon was frequently pleaded for it. Thirdly, he knows Aufcin denies it to be a Sacrament without the word of inftitution, Tageic%. Laftly, he cannot but know how thefe Fathers underftood the word Tradition. See Doctor Ames his firft Book, fixth Chapter, Page 67. de Verbo Del , where he iheweth how the Anci- ents ufed this term Tradition , quoting that known pafTage out of Cyprian , Si aut in Evan* gelio pr&cipitur , aut Apojlolornm Epijhlif , ant aUibus^continetur, obfervatur certe h&c fancta tra- ditio. But this is ad bominem, nonadrem, I fliall therefore pafs it by, and only (hew how far Infant-Baptifm is founded upon Tradition , and then take a brief account in one particular in- fiance, how our Autthor hath acquitted himfelf in razing this Foundation , as he calls it , of In- fant-Baptifm. For the firft , and thus we cOn- fiantly affirm, that the Scriptures are only and alone in a proper fence the ground and foundati- on of our Faith and Practice in matters re- lating ito the Worftiip of God » the whole Faith &nb riot of $*en* 6$ faith and practice of the Church as fuch ought to be refolved into , and grounded upon the Scriptures* *and consequently the i j • i • i * Sunt Fenpuri only proper ground upon which ^wifift this practice in fpecial hath been, pa^Jkm z>e- and is founded by all Orthodox TkumUntV" and found Divines are the Scri- ptures: And anfwerably we take in Tradition (by which we underft and no more than the difcove- ries that have. been made in and by the Church, whether doctrinally or practically of the del- cent of this practice from the times of Chrift and his Apoltles to our dayes J) as a fubordinate means^ whereby we come to know, and are more fully confirmed that it was indeed e(tabli(hed by Chrift and his Apoftles, and contained in the Doctrine of the Gofpel. Neither do we fay that this Tradition is the principal means whereby we come to know this : But the prin- cipal means are , the Scriptures themfelves , as compared one with another s this is only a fub- ordinate means \ fo that the practice we plead for is founded upon Tradition , but in a very in- feriour way, viz, as that is a fubordinate means whereby we come to know , and be more fully allured that it is according to the will of Chrift: re veiled in his word. But Secondly, let us fee whether our Author hath rendred this ground wholly dilferviceable , as to' the ufe we make of it \ whether he hath fuffici- ently proved that all traditional Testimonies (as he fpeaks). produced by us for the eftablimmert of the practice under debate, be indeed fabulous and fictitious, as he pretends. And here I (hall f cnl/ 66 3nfant-2&apftrm from beaten, only fingle out the teftimony that the Epiftle of \ Cyprian to Fidus gives , as to the practice of ln- fant-Baptifm in his days , and fee whether it may not be as much regarded and leaned to after he hath faid the utmoit he can , as it might before s yea whether it might not before , and confequently frill be greatly regarded, and fafely leaned upon 5 fo far as humane Authority may be leaned upon. And as previous hereunto , it muft be obferved how fubtilly our Author en- deavours to conceale the main, yea in erfec! the \ whole of the Evidence given in by that Epiftle j for our aflurance, that Infant- Baptifm was then the univerfal pra&ice of the Church. This ap» pears thus: Whereas oucFidus a Minifter having written I to Cyprian to give him his judgment , whether the eighth day was not alike to be obfrrved by 1 Chriftians as the time for the Application of j Baptifm to Infants , as it was of old for the Ap- j plication of Circumcifion > Cyprian aflembleth 66 Biihops to debate that Queftion : They all unanimoully agree, that no fuch obfervation ought to be made , but that Infants might law- fully be baptized, moxpofiquam ed'iU^ immediate- j ly after they were born : Hereupon Cyprian writes | back to Fidns , giving him an account of his | own and their Judgments in that particular. J Now from hence we infer three things. Firit , that Infant-Baptifm was then generally \ pra&ifed. Secondly , that it had been fo time out of j mind. Thirdly , that in as much as they lived fo near I the the Apoft les days , it mult moft probably be the practice of their times. And that which we ground thefe inferences upon is this, viz. That neither Fidtts^ norCyprian, and thofe 66 Bifhops with him, did at all qudHonthe lawfulnefsof Infant- Bap tifm \ the former only queftioning , the later only determining about the precife time of its application. Now it feems altogether irrational to imagine^ that fo many on the one hand , and on the other (hould not rather queftion the pra&ice it felf, than the time of its ad miniftration, in cafe it had not been the general practice of thofe , yea of the Apoftles times \ feeing they cannot be ratio- * nally fuppofed, unacquainted with what was the practice of the Church even in their days. Cy+ frian, and confequently thofe other Bifhops con- temporary with him , flourilhed about the year 240, or 250. and confequently about eighty years after the death of Policarp who was one of the Apoftle John's Hearers and Difciples, for he was martyred in the fourth Perfecution un- der Vecius the Emperor , which was in the year 16%. Now can it be imagined that io many Bi- fhops could poffibly be ignorant of what was the practice of the Church in the Apoftlesdays, fo nigh unto which they lived ', or can it be ima- gined, that had they known Infants were not baptized in their days $ there fnculd onlyarife a doubt among them about the time of its appli- -cation, and none about the practice k felt. Bn t •thefe things our Author thought meet to concealed and cartfy on his Diic'jurte, as though the fcruph t i had (& JnftmMraptifm from ^eantn, had been about the pra&ice it felf. And from what hath been faid it evidently appears,that the only queftion relating to this Epiftle of Cyprian is this, viz. Whether this Epiftle were indeed written by Cyprian or no ? whether Fidus did write to him for fatiffa&ion in that cafe > And whether he wrote back to him that Epiftle where- in he declares his own, and thofe Sixty fix Bilhops judgements about the queftion propofed to Fidm> And hence our Authors rirft con ii deration to enef vate this teftimony of Cyprian figniries nothing at all 5 inafmuch as Cyprian medleth not at all with thepra&iceit felf, but takes the lawfulnefs - of that for granted, as having been the univerfal practice of the Church in and fince the Apbftles days, and only determines the time when Baptifm may be applyed to Infants. As for his fecond Confederation , which a- lone is of any weight , viz. that there is good ground as he faith to queftion whether this was Cy- prianV and the fe Sixty fix Bijhops conclufion, we (hall eafily difcover the vanity of it. Let us therefore fee the grounds he hath to queftion that. Firft, His firft Ground is, hecaufe we meet with no fuch Council, nor doth it appear where it was held. To which I would fay three things. Firft, that the Ancients did generally, yea u- niverfally for ought it appears to the contrary, own and acknowledge this to be Cyprians Epiftle, and confequently that there was fuch a Council held, £nt) notof $en. 69 held , though the place where is not exprefh This appears by their frequent citing of it , and for us who live fo many hundred years after them, to call it into queftion upon this ground, when they did not? is irrational. Secondly, That there was fuch a Council or Synod ( for it is expreft fometimes by the one term, fometimes by the other) and that it was held in Africa^ (though the particular town or place where be not expreft, J is exprefly declared by the Magdeburgenfes, Century the third, Chop. p. fag. 205. Thirdly , Some affirm it was held at Car* thage. His fecond Ground is , becaufe the grounds upon which the Conclusion is grounded are ft weak. Anfa. AlLthe Grounds are notfo weak and frivolous as our Author pretends^ but how weak foever , yet not more weak than eIertullian\ by which he perfwades to the deferring of Baptifm, and yet thefe are lookt upon by our Author as conliderable i and vvhofo is acquainted with the Fathers, will find fomewhat of weak- nefs in the reafonings of the moA noted among them, • *•- • Thirdly , His third Ground is , hecaufi it is a dohrine fo much contradicted by his great Mafter Tertullian, whom he fo much reve- renced. Anfwo fertuflhn doth not abfolutely oppo'fc F 3 Infant- «.« ?o MatU^baptffm from ^eaben, Infant-baptifm, only advifeth to deferr it as more profitable : Hence this do&rine doth not abfo- lutely contradict not of open. 71 CHAP. v. A Vindication of the Scripture-grounds of Infant-baptifm entred upon. Two Things remarked with reference to the Oppofition made againji the Argument drawn from their Federal Holinefs : The Arguments drawn from the Covenant confidered. Three of the principal with reference to that Covenant propofed. The unfoundnefs of Mr. Daxivers Refoluti- ons of them evidenced : The true Refo- lutions of them given. SEcondly, to proceed to the other ground> viz. Scripture Authority, upon which In- fant-baptifm is founded, and this is that we are principally concern'd in. Suppofe he hath (which yet he is far (hort of) rend red the ground of Tradition utterly unferviceable, and of no ufe to us \ yet if the ground of Scripture Authority lie firm, the practice we have founded thereup- on ftands fure. But here again I (hall not fpend time in the vindication of all thofe Scriptures that out AuthoT hath thought meet to beftow his pains in rendring ufelefs unto us. He hath it feems judged it highly conducing to the furthe- rance of his caufe to attack where he forefaw his conquell fure ; though he could not but know F 4 that 72 SSnfant 3&aptifm from ^ eaten, that (excepting in the judgment of fuch who conceit the caufe is gained when aScripture is baf- fled,that however made ufe of by fome,yct really is impertinent to the queftion in controverile) neither our caufe is prejudiced, nor his promoted f hereby. I (hall only remark one or two things with reference to the opposition he makes againft that argument Pedobaptifts make ufe of, drawn frorn, the federal hplinefs of the feed of belieyjng Parents, grounded upon i Cor. 7. 14. for the eftabliming the pra&ice of InfanNbaptifm, and come to what I principally intend. Firft, It may be obferved, of how little ad- vantage to our Authors caufe, that weighty ob- fervation is (for fol fuppofe he conceives it to be) fhat he hath made, pr rather taken up from Mr. T'ombes, concerning the antiquity of this argu- ment. His words are thefe, fpeaking of this ar- gument, of which Zuinglius about one hundred and twenty' Tears fince^ for as ranch as I canlearn^ was the firft founder^ wherein he was fmgutar from alt that went before him. With reference unto which let thefe few things be obferved. I. That it may be (hrewdly fufpedted that he grofly belies his own knowledge, dcnyes himfelf itobe able to learn what he cannot, (fuppofing him as well read in Authors as he pretends) but know. For I. Mr. MarjW (whom doubtlefs he hath read) in his anfwer to Mr. Yombes, (hews him that the Ancients were not wholly ftrangers to the fede- ral holynefs of the Infant- feed of Believers, and inftanceth in Athanafius and lertullian^ the one fc Greek, and the other aLatine Author j and Gerard^ GcrardTom. 4. ?4g. 593 . inftanceth in two more, viz. Auftin and Jerome, interpreting this very text to the fame fence, though it (hall be granted that AujUn in one of his Epiftles was of another mind. Put 2 . Our Author himfelf elfewhere grants, fas is before obferved) that that Text in Mattb. jp, ver, 14. was fo commonly urged for Infant- bap- tifm, that it bore the title of the Scripture- canon for that practice \ and he cannot but know that Circumcifion was frequently urged for the efta- blifhment of the fame practice. And can our Author or any one elfe imagine that learned men, having fo great acquaintance with the Scriptures as they had, (hould affirm Infants to belong to the kingdom of heaven, and yet know nothing of their Intereft in the Covenant of Grace, by vertue of which they can only belong thereunto. Gr can any think that they underftood not, that Circumcifion was a token of the Covenant, and anfwerably was applied to Infants as fuch ? It is plain they did : Au)\in in his Fourth Book con- cerning Baptifm, Chap. 24. determines that the iSacrament of Circumcilion w^s a feal of the righ- teoufnefs of Faith to Ifaac^ even in his infancy when he was but eight days old. So Cbryfojhm and Jbeopbilad cited by our Author himfelf, af* firmed it with the Apoftle, to be a feal of the righ- teoufnels of Faith > which righteoufnefs is un~ doubtedly one of the bleflings promifed in the Covenant of Grace. And hence it cannot be ra* tionally fuppofed, but that they muft apply Bap- tifm to Infants under the fame notion under which Circumcifion was applied to them of old. /' ' Would 74 Snfant'taptifm from paten, Would they plead for Baptifm from Circumcifi- on, unlefs they took it for granted that Infants ftill had the fame ground for Baptifm, viz. in- tereft in the Covenant, that the Infant-feed of the Jews had for Circumcifion. Now the fede- ral holinefs of Infants that we plead for, and make one ground of their Baptifm is the fame thing expreft in other words with their Cove* nant intereft, or ftate, at leaft is the immediate xefultofit. But 2. Can it be any advantage to his, or preju-. dice to our caufe that fome arguments have been found out of late^ beyond what have been for- merly made ufe of. I fuppofe our Author will, not think the caufe he pleads for is prejudiced by any thing he hath brought to light, de novo. 3. That it is the ftrength of Arguments, not the Antiquity or Authors of them \ that the caufe is concern'd in : Hence if this be a valid Argu* inent, it matters not who was the firft Author; of it. But 2. I mud remark his confident affertion, pag. 198. where faith he, fpeaking ftill of this Argu-r ment, we have two things ajjerted^ but not at all proved : What thofe things are he tells us. Firft, That the holynefs in the text is meant of federal holynefs. . Secondly, That federal holynefs qualifies for Baptifm. Neither of thefe , faith he , is at all proved. Had he faid not fufficiently or fatisfa&orily pro- ved, it had argued fome modefty *, but, not at all proved, is too high for one no better skill'd in Ar- gumentation, ttaau fcr what appears in his Book he is* Whether Whether what our Author hath faid, be of more force to difprove, than what others, efpe- cially Mr. Baxter hath faid toprove,that this fame. federal holincfs is intended in the text, I (hall refer to the judgement of all unbyaiTed and un- prejudiced men •, and come to what I more efpe- cially aim at, and that is to vindicate thofe Ar- guments drawn from the Covenant as eltablimed with Abraham and his feed in their Generations, for the confirmation of the practice we plead for, from the attempts our Author hath made to inva- lidate them. And that the Reader may more clearly fee how we infer and conclude Infant*baptifm from the? Covenant as fo eftabli(hed, he muft carefully ob« ferve and remember four things. Firft, That we diitinguifh between the Cove- nant-intcreft, or (as it is ufually calFd) federal holynefs of the Infant- feed of Believers, and their right to Baptifm. Secondly, That it is their Covenant-interefi: that we principally contend for, and design the proof of, from the Covenant at tirft eltablilhed with Abraham the Father of the faithful. Thirdly , That we plead not for Infant- baptifm merely from the Analogy it bears with or to Circumcifion, as though the Analogy be- tween ^them were a fufficient ground of the ap- plication of Baptifm to Infants, asw Author would bear men in hand that we do. Fourthly, Though we judge it a very rational fuppbfal, that the application of the token of the Covenant (hculd be as extenfive under the New Teftament, as it was under the old : Yet do we ; not jS Jnfant-baptiTm from l^eaden, not ground our practice merely upon that fuppo- fal, but upon the command obliging Abrahams feed in their Generations to keep the Covenant, that is the token of the Covenant. And hence we fay that Infant-baptifm may be fufficiently proved from the Covenant fo tar as we defign the proof of it therefrom, as made with Abraham and his feed in their Generations j though little confideration be had of Circumcifion. Whence it is but a fubtil infinuation to prejudicate the minds of unwary Readers to talk of our Argu-> ments from Circumcifion^ it is not from Circum- cifion, but from the Covenant that we plead for Infant* baptifm. Hence the Refolution of thefe four queftions is neceflary and fufficient for the difcovering whether Infant-baptifm may , or tnay not be truly inferred and concluded from the Covenant as now eiiablifh'd with Abrahams Firft, Whether the New or Gofpel Covenant, and this mentioned Gen. 17. be one and the lame > Or more plainly, whether the New Co- venant, the Covenant under the New Teftament adminiftration, under which Believers are* be not the fame with that mentioned Gen. 17. 7 ? Secondly, Whether the Infants of Abraham and his feed, and that asfuch were not included and comprehended in this Covenant, and that both in the promiflbry and preceptive part of it* Thirdly, Whether Circumcifion was the to- ken, fign, or feal of the Covenant both to Pa-. rents and Children? Fourthly, whether Baptifm be not the token, fign, or feal of the Covenant under the Gofpel adminittration I The Slntjnotof^en. 77 The fatisfa&ory refolution of thefe queftions would be fuflicient for the difcovery of the mind and will of God relating unto Baptifm, fo far as it is held forth unto us in the Covenant, as at firft eftablifhed with Abraham and his feed in their Generations. For if fo be it be indeed certain, that the Covenant believers are now under, be the fame with that eftabliOYd with Abraham^ and the Infants both of Abraham and his feed, and that as fuch > were included and comprehended in the Covenant , both in the promiffory and preceptive part cf it : and confequently as the promife fo the command concerning the applica- tion and bearing of the token of the Covenant did tend to and concern them: And that Circumci* fion was the fign, token, or feal of the Covenant both to Parents and Children, and Baptifmdoth nowfucceed in the place, room, and ufeof Cir- cumcifion in that general notion and confiderati* on, as a fign or token of the Covenant *, then paft all rational doubt, according to the true in- tendment of God in this Covenant,Infants ought to be baptized, as of old they were circumcifed. But if thefe or any of thefe things be not fo, but are mere miftakes on our part, I {hall confete, we have no fure footing for the pra&ice of Infant- baptifm in theCovenant,as" at firft eftablifhM with Abraham and his feed in their Generations. But feeing our Author rhath judged it more conducing tohiscaufeto tread in a different path, I muff follow him in that, and fee what he hath gained by his fo doing > with this provifo, that I mall more lightly touch upon thefe queftions wherein the pradfcke in controverfie is lefs > and more en- large 7$ Jnfant baptrfm from 1£eatot, large upon thofe wherein it is more neerly con- cerned. His Firft Particular or Enquiry is, whether Cir- cttmcifioncalPd the Gofpel Seal, did of old belong to all in Gofpel Covenant. This he refolves in the Negative, and gives us two reafons of that his refolution. Firit, Becaufe fome that were in the Gofpel Co- venant were not fealed. Secondly, Becaufe fome that were out of the Co- venant were fealed therewith. Anfw. This queftion but little (if at all) con- cerns the main queiHon in controverfie-, fo that fhould his refolution prove right, we are not hurt thereby : And rue reafon is evident, viz, becaufe we ground Infant-baptifm upon their Covenant- intereft, arifing from their relation to fuch Parents who are to be accounted Abraham's feed, contidered in conjunction with the com- mand obliging all his feed in their Generations, ( i. e.) both they and their Children to keep the Covenant \ ( i e ) the token of the Covenant, Hence unlefs our Author prove,( which he attempts riot) that Circumciiion did not belong to all A- braham's feed in their Generations, including^ before, Parents and their Infants,and confequent- ly that there were fome Infants, who though the Children of fuch Parents as were to be accounted Abraham's feed, yet neither had any intereft in the Covenant, nor were tb be ciicumcifed. Hisinftances of perfons in Covenant who were not circumcifed, and of perfons out of Covenant, who were circumcifed, (fuppofingit were (o as he faith ) iignifte nothing to his purpofe. Let Gcd God difpofe of his own inftitutions as himfelf pleafeth. Let us mind our own duties: Now this is evident, that as Abraham's feed in their generations are under the promife that God will be a God unto them i fo they are under the com- mand that they in their generations do keep the Covenant ( i e) the token of the Covenant, Let our Author either prove that Infants were not included with their Parents either in the promi- fes, or in the command concerning the applicatt* on of the token of the Covenant, or elfe that Circumcifron ought not to be applyed to all in- cluded in the Covenant, otherwife he faith no* thing to purpofe. Therefore • Secondly, Whether the New or Gofpel Cove* nant and that mention'd Gen. 17. be one and the fame ? Anfw. In refolving this queftion our Author fpeaks warily and indeed gives no refolution at all, but leaves his Reader in the dark. I fuppofe he knew that to have abfolutely denyed, that the Covenant here mention'd is one and the fame with the New Covenant under which Believers now are, had involved him in inextricable diffi- culties \ and yet to have affirmed that they are one and the fame, had given a fhrewd blow to his caufe Hence he judgeth it meet, only to caft a mift before his Readers eyes by needlefsatid impertinent diftindtions about a double capacity that Abraham flood in, and two different forts of promifes made to him. But how thofediftin- dions conduce any thing to fatisfie the Reader about the queftion put, he declares not. So that A the Reader mult needs remain at the fame uncer- tainty So anfcrnt baprtfm from $ea-fatrt, tainty , whether that Covenant , and the New Covenant be one and the fame, or whether they are two diftincl Covenants,that he was at before* It is true he inftanceth in feveral promifes , and among the reft , one in the fifth Verfe of this Chapter, which is made perfonally to Abrahami and wherein none of his Seed have any part with him> and pretends to mention another, that he faith, in an ejpecial manner belongs (a dark and doubtful expreflion ) to the New Covenant, I fay pretends, beeaufe it is uncertain , whether there be not a miftake in the Printer , putting the eighth Verfe for the feventh •, though I very much fufpect there is not, and if not fo , he wholly paffeth by the Covenant , or that pro- mife in the feventh Verfe, about which the main and proper queftion between our oppofers and us is mainly (if not only) concerned. Seeing there is no fuch promife as he mentions in that Verfe he points to, it can be but a pretence meer- ly to blind the eyes of his Reader i and lead him blindfold through this Queftion i the right de- termination of which is of fuch vaft impor- tance for the clearing up the main Queftion in controveriie between us. To the next queftion , which he judged he could give a more plaufible anfwer to , without expofing himfeif to any fuch incon- veniencies as a plain down- right Anfwer to this would have done > and if there be a miftakey the eighth Verfe being put for the feventh;, then we have the full of what wedeiire : But feeing onr Author hath thought it convenient thus to divert from the queftion , himfeif propofed , I Would £nb not of flgteri. 81 would defire him, (it ever he write again) plain- ly and diftin&ly to refolve thefe two or three queftions , abfolutely neceflafy for the unfold- ing this dark and confufed Difcourfe , that he pit tends as a full fefolution of this question. Firfi , whether this Covenant mentioned in. the feventeenth of Genefis , were made with A- braham as a Natural, or as a Spiritual Father , or confidered in both thefe capacities ? We fay as confidered in both ; upon what ground he may fee in my Infant-Baptifm from Heaven, Page tht feventh and eighth. Secondly , to what Covenant thefe promifes that he mentions as made to Abraham as a Natu- ral Father, with fefpedfc to his Natural Seed, did belong ? Did they belong to the Covenant of Works, or (as fome call it) the Covenant of Na- ture > or was there any other Covenant afore made with Abraham, unto which they did be- ! long ? or did they belong to no Covenant at all * We fay they belonged to the Covenant of Grace, or New Covenant, though fome of thern at leaft were indefinite promifes made to his Seed in general*, not definite, made to any in- dividuals of his Seed -, or (as others exprefsit) they were promifes, not of the efTence of, only appendices to the Covenant. And the reafon is, becaufe we judge them to be Covenant-Mercies,' and can rind no other Covenant they can witH any (hew of resfon be fuppofed to appertain unto. If out Author will help us out here, he ail have hearty thanks for his pains.' Thirdly, whether. k was a m iftake of thz times ^ in patting down the eighth Vcrfe tor Q iter $2 MarttOSaptttrnftom ?eafoen, the feventh, cr no > If it was not, (as I fuppofe he will be unwilling (for reafons he knows) to grant, that this promife in the feventh Verfe doth belong to the New Covenant , or Cove- nant of Grace, under which Believers are , un- der the New Teftament ) I would ask him , or any other man that is Compos mentis , whether the promife of the Land of Canaan in the for- mer part of the eight Verfe, and the promife of God's being their God in the latter part of the fame Verfe , were not made to the fame perfons } Let the words be but read. And I will give un- to thee , and unto thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a Stranger , all the Land of Ca- naan , for an everla[ling poffejpon , and I mil be their God. Now ask but any Child that hath learned his Accidence * what is the Antecedent to, their ? Surely he will prefently reply , thy Seed^ mentioned in the former part of the Verfe, unto whom the promife of the Land of Canaan is made. Now then thefe two promifes as thus con* nedted and made joyntly to the fame perfons, they muft needs belong to one and the fame Covenant* which being granted, as infallibly it will by all that have any regard to what they fay \ I would ask any man , whether they do think they belong to the Covenant mentioned Verfe the feventh or no > Did I think it were neceflary , I (hould add fomething to prove that they do. Now then. let things be laid together* and feri- oufiy weighed :That the promife of God's being a God to Abrahams Seed mentioned in the eighth Verfe 8nunotef#en- 8j Verfe belongs to the Covenant of Grace , is po- fitively afTerted by our Author. That the pro* mife of the Land of Canaan , and this promife were made to the fame Seed is undeniable , and that both thefe promifes belong to one and the fame Covenant is as undeniable as the former. And yet further, that the Covenant they belong to is that mentioned Verfe the feventh, is as much above any rational queftion as either. Now he acknowledgeth , that the promife of the Land of Canaan was made to Abraham with refpedt to his Natural Seed i and from all it will appear , even from what our Author himfelf ac- knowledgeth, as though written with the Beams of the Sun, that the Covenant mentioned Gene* fif the feventeenth, and the Ceventh, is the Cove- nant of Grace, or the New Covenant > the fame with that Believers are now under, and that this Covenant was made with Abraham as a Natural, as well as a Spiritual Father , with refpedfr to his Natural as well as his Spiritual Seed \ and fo we have both this and the next queftion anfwered together. And yet further , that the Covenant mentioned Verfe the feventh , eftablilhed with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations , is not only a Covenant of Grace \ but the Cove- nant of Grace , under which Believers in New Teitament times are , is fufficiently made out dfe where s and indeed isfo evident from that Difcourfe of the Apoftle i^nt-Baptifm , • . i , ^ j l i trom Heaven , in the third to the Galatians , that p3ge 191, i$>%. it is to admiration how any man cm pretend to own the Writings of the Apo* ales , and yet queftion it. That hehath refe- G 2 rence ** JnfanMraptifm from ^eaten, renCe,Verfe the fixteenth,tothis Covenant ispaft all doubt, in as much as there is no other pro- mife expreft in thefe terms , to thy Seed, (where* in the very ftrcngth of the Apoftles Argument lies J but only this: And that the Covenant in which that promife is contained was never dif~ anulled i but is that Covenant according to which Believers enjoy all the bleffings of the Gofpel , is as evident as any thing in the World can be made by words , as is fufficiently (hewed in the forementioned Difcourfe. So that I need add no more > only I (hall fay that the promife, Genefis the feventeenth, feventh Verfe, doth not only belong to the Covenant of Grace under which Believers ftill are, but is the very fum and fubftance of it, as to God's part , and our oppo- fers (hutting their eyes againft the Scripture- Light evidencing the Truth hereof, is one fpeci- al caufeof their falling into , \ and continuing in that Errour they fo pertinacioufly maintain. But to proceed i What Seed of Abra- Queft. 3. ham it it to whom that promife (Genefis feventeenth, feventh Verfe) doth be- long, whether his Natural ^ or his Spiritual Seed > Our Author adds another Queftion , viz. Who ifrofe Children of promife mentioned in the fecond ofAUs the thirty ninth Verfe are} which at prefent I (hall not concern my felf about. Let oneQue- ftion beanfwered firft : And though our Author do not expreily declare his Sentiments at firft, yet after he doth, and is very peremtory and po- sitive (upon what grounds will prefently appear) that that promife did not at all , or in any fence Wong to A braham's Natural , but wholly and alone alone to his Spiritual feed. And he conceives the Scriptures themfelves give us fuch a full and plain expofition of this promife, as might feem to be enough to determine the queftion, without anymore ado: What is the good contained in this promife, I (hall (if the Lord will) open here* after, that which we are at prefent to enquire in- to is, whether this promife did not belong to Abraham's natural feed, and that merely as fnchi as well as to his fpiritual feed ? And thus in a di- recTt oppoiition to what but of how lit- tle ufe as to his purpofe will immediately appear. Hisfirft Scripiure is, Gal. 3. 16. where faith the Apoftle, norv to Abraham and his feed were the promifes made \ he faith , not to feeds as of many ', but as of one^ and to thy feed which is Cbrijl. So that the promifes were made to Chrift, and our Author thinks it will infallibly follow, that they were not made to his natural feed. But how he inferrs this he tells us not: That by Chrift here wc are to underftand Chrift myftical , that is the Church, including Chrift himfelf as the head .* I fuppofe he hath more underftanding than to deny. Now we affirm, that Abraham's natural feed, as fuch, did, as being under the promife, belong to the vifible body or Church of Chrift, as then gather'd in or conftituted of his Family. So that the children of Believers and that as fuch during their Infant ftate ', belong to the fame myftical body of Chrift, as upheld and continued yet in the world : Yea we lay this their relation to the Church as one ground of our application of Baptifm to them. Now what a vain and fri- volous thing is it to imagine, that the Apoftles af- firming that the promife is only made to Chrift G 4 (hould S£ Jnfant Saptifm from f eauen, fbould expound it as excluding Infants from any jntereft in it, when we do conitantly affirm In- fants to appertain unto Chrift, to whom the pro- mife is made. But I am much perfwaded, that our Author never intended his book for the fatis- fa&ion or convi&ion of any that either had any conilderable flock of reafon, or would make ufe of what they had, but he wrote it for the ufe of another fort of people. To as little purpofe is his citation of the 29 verf. of the fame Chapter, If you be Cbrifls, then are you Abrahams feed j Ei & V/$£ yi^isS. If ye be of Chritf or appertain unto Chrift as members of his myftical Body, then are ye Abrahams feed. And we fay (and our Author hath not proved the contrary^) that, the |nfant-fced of Believers are of, and do appertain f o Chrift. 4s for his fecond Scripture, viz. Rom. p. 7. 8. that is fo far from expounding the promife in favour of his fence, that it doth neceflarily imply infant-baptifm $?'&&& contrary, as hath been chap. 7. Pag. made to appear el fe where : The A* poftle doth plainly imply, thatihere were fome who were Abrahams feed, and as fuch were the fubje£l:s of the promife who were not the Children of God in the fence there intended by the A poll )e> fuch was Ijhmael as he (hews in the following words : But fee this text fully o-> pened and vindicated in the forementioned trea- tife. For his third Scripture, namely Row. 4. 13. 14. how that mould expound the promife in fa- vour of our Authors fence is hard to imagine, but to fome the bare mention of a Scripture is full proof, proof, how little foever it make to the purpofe. How far and in what fence the Infant-feed of Be- lievers as received into the fame Covenant with their Parents • are interefted in or made partakers of the righteoufnefs of faith may be enquired into hereaftenlet it atprefent be onlyobfcrved thatboth Jfaac and Jacob were joynt-heirs with Abraham of the fame promife during Abrahams life time. Hence it isfaid,£fc&.i i p.Byfaitb hefojourned in the land of promife as in a grange Country ^dwelling in tabernacles witblfazc and Jacob the heirs with him of the fame promife. Now Jacob at Abrahams death was but fifteen years old, and the Apoftle fpeaks of his living with them for fome time before his death in Tabernacles, as being then coheirs with him of the fame promife. Now faith the ftpo- itle in this text ,both Abraham and his feed, among which feed wemuitnecelTarily include Ifaac and Jacob^ both he and they were heirs through the righteoufnefs of faith. Whence it is plain that Jacob (and the fame is true of JJaac) in his In- fant (rate was an heir of the World, (as the Apo- file here fpeaks ) through the righteoufnefs of faith, when he had not a perfonal faith himfelf i but as the Child of a Covenant-Parent. Whence it appears, that the Infant-feed of Believers may be heirs of the promifes through the righteouf- nefs of faith, though themfelves not perfonalty believing. Now then let all men judge, whether thefe Scriptures do fo fully confirm as our Author pre- tends, yea or do give any rational or probable intimation, that not Abrahams natural, but on- ly his fpiritual feed were intended in thatpromile: $o anfant-tmptifm from Jj&aben, As for the difmalconfequences ( as h§ calls them) fuppofed to arife from what we affirm, they arc meer Chimeraes feigned by our Author , through his darknefs, partly about the true and proper good contained in, and conveyed by the Cove- nant as extended to the Infant-feed of believers, and partly about the true tenour of the Covenant as made with Abraham and his feed in their ge- nerations : Of the former I (hall ( if the Lord wilD fpeak more fully hereafter ; Of the latter I Whether our Authors Reafons do out-weigh thofe Arguments ? I (hall there- fore briefly confider his Reafons and quickly dif« mifstbe queftion. That Circumcifion was a feal to Abrabamjur Author cannot deny, but he conceives it was a feal only to him, and to no body elfe . The proof of this his conceit he feems to effay two ways, Firft by Reafon, Secondly by humane Authori- ty, his reafons feem to be thefe two. Firft, 'The thing that it was a feal, confirmation , f$A ratification of to Abraham was incompatible to Infants \ Infants \ for fo he exprefTeth Wmfelf, its true^ it was a feal ^confirmation and' ratification of the faith that Abraham hadlongbefore he was Circumcifed^ but fo could it not be faid of any Infant that had no faith. Aufw. It is a grofs miftake to fay that Circum- cifion was a feal, confirmation or ratification of Abrahams faiths the fcripture faith no fuch thing, neither do the Authors he cites fay any fuch thing: They fay according to Scripture, it was called a feal of the right eoufnefs of Faith , becauje it was gi- ven to Abraham as a feal and'teftimony of that righ* t eoufnefs he had acquired by faith : They do not fay as our Author^ that it was a feal, confirmation or ratification of the Faith which Abraham had before he was circumcifed, but of the righteouf- nefs of faith. Now that Infants are capable of the righteoufnefs of faith, though they cannot acl: faith themfeVes •, is evident from that in- ftance of Jacob before mentioned, and I fuppole our Author himfelf will not upon fecond thoughts deny it : For I would ask him whether he thinks any Infants are either any way concerned in A- dams fin, or have any pollution or corruption of nature inherent in themfelves ? In a word, whe- ther there be any fuch thing as Original {in, ei- ther Originans or Originatum> if there be, hoW come any Infants that dye in their Infancy freed from it, do they carry the guilt under which they came into the world into Heaven , or are they univerfally thrown into Hell ? Certainly if any of them be faved, it muft be through the righte- oufnefs of faith, that is,Gods non- imputation of the guilt to them s and his acceptation of them there- ?4 Jnfanttbaprtrm from beaten, thereupon as righteous through Chrift. Now if they are capable of the righteoufnefs of faith, let him (hew any Scripture or Reafon, why they might not have that righteoufoefs fealed and confirmed to them by an outward and vifible fign. So this fir ft Reafon is a mere trifle, fignifies no* thing at all, let us fee his other therefore. Secondly, He argues from the Angularity* or fpeciality of the promifes made to Abraham^ and thus he inftances in four promifes. Firft, that he Should be the Father of many Nations £tcov\6\y, 'the father oftheFaitbful.Thud\yfIbe heir of the world. Fourthly, lhat in him all the Families of the earth fhould be blejfed: Now he acknowledgeth that Gircumcifton was a feal or confirmation ( witnefs he calls it, but that's the thing I judge he intends) of thefe promifes to Abraham, but becaufe none of his feed had any of thefe promifes appertaining to them, therefore he conceives it could not be a feal unto them. Anftv: Let it be obferved, that our Author had in his anfwer to his fecond queftion, inftanced in Cat leaftj fome of thefe promifes, as the promifes that were made to Abraham as a fpiritual Father, and of which he faith, they in a [fecial manner be- long to the Covenant of Grace > and here he faith that Circumcifion was a witnefs to, or did feal and confirm thefe promifes to Abraham \ fo that according to out Authors own acknowledgment, this carnal Ordinance of Circumcifion, as our oppofers u fually call it, might be , yea was a feal of the moitfpiritual part or promifes of the New Covenant to Abraham: Yet (fuch is the power of prejudice J. he will not allow it to be a feal, fo much much as of the moft carnal, or temporal promifc to any of his feed. But fure he will not meet with many (unlefs alike prejudiced with himfelQ but will beeafily perf waded, that feeing Circumcifi- on was a feal to Abraham, of the moft fpiritual part of the Covenant, it might (if it pleafed God fo to ordain it) be not only a feal of the tempo* ral, but alfo of the fpiritual part of the Covenant to any or to all of Abrahams feed* whether grown perfons or Infants, as well as it was to himfelf : And the truth is, Circumcifion was the token, (ign or feal of the whole Covenant, though it did feal and confirm the particular promifes contain- ed in it, to particular perfons according as they were refpe&ively intereiTed in them. Hence it is called the tokgn of the Covenant, without any limitation of itsufe to any particular promifes, it (hall be ffays God fpeaking of Circumcifion) a tokgn of 'the Covenant between me and you, Cen. 17. 1 1. But I (hall leave this to the Judgment of all men, yea of our oppofers themfelves, whether our Author hath faid any thing to render it fo much as probable,that Circumcifion was not a feal to a- ny, unlefs to Abraham himfelf. But however, be this firft thing true or no, yet he feems to be paft all doubt , that Circumcifion could not be a feal of the New Covenant to Believers, and their feed ; therefore fays he, much \efs was it a feal of the New Covenant : This he endeavours to prove by this reafon, (viz*) becaufe nothing is the feal of the New Tejiament, but only the fpirit, for which Efhef.i. 13. and $. 30. are cited. Anfw. As it is fomewhat difficult to guefs at what he would fay, fo unlefs he purpofely defign* ed $6 Jnfontfiaptirm from f eaben, cd to beguil his Reader, it can be hardly though? himfelf knows what he does fay : For to what purpofe does he talk here of the New Teftament • taking that phrafe in the New Teftament fence. The New Teftament fure he knows took not place till the death of the Tefiator, when Cir- cumciflon had a period put to it: And that the fpi- lit was promiftd or given to the Jews or people of God under the firft Teftament,to be unto them as the feal of the Covenant as then adminiftred, is an affertion that muft owe its original to Mr. Vanvers. But to bring the Reader out of this maze of nonfenlical words, I (hall affirm in a di- re&oppofition to what he affirms, thatCircum- cillon was not only a feal to the people of God and their feed under the rirft Teftament, but was a feal unto them of the Covenant of Grace : It. was a feal unto them of that Covenant eftablifh- ed with Abraham and his feed in their generations, But that was the Covenant of Graces Therefore Circumcifion was a feal unto them of the Cove- nant of Grace : That that Covenant was the Co- venant of Grace, the fame under which Belie- vers ftill arev and that Circumcifton was a feal of that Covenant to all thole whether grown per- fons or Infants, whc as under the Covenant had it duely applyed to them*, and that Infants were under that Covenant hath been proved already : Hence the Conclufion is undenyable. I (hall only add one Argument more to prove what is affirm* ed, (viz) That Circumciiion was a feal of the Covenant of Grace to all, whether Infants or grown perfons,that were the due and proper fub- je&$ of it, and Co dihmfe this queftion. Argi when £nu not of ftar. $y Arg. when any Ordinance is appointed foi^ or applyed to feveral fubjedh under one and the fame notion, look of what ufe that Ordinance is interpreted by the Holy Ghoft himfelf, to be un- to any of them-, of the fame ufe it ;s,and ought to be fo interpreted unto all,fuppofmg them capable of fuch an ufe, and God hath no where declared hiswill that it fhould not be of fuch an ufe to them for whom it is appointed, and to whom it is : du- ly applyed. But Circumciiion was appointed for and applyed to Abraham and all his feed,whe- ther Believers or their feed under one and the fame notion i and is interpreted by the Holy Ghoft himfelf to be of this ufe (viz. ) a feal of the Covenant of Grace unto Abraham : Therefore it is and ought to be interpreted of that ufe to all his feed, whether Believers or their feed,who are ♦he due and proper fubje&s of it. For the major ^ropofition, the truth of thatispaft all rational: doubt, the denyal of it will give a (hrewd ftrbke to the faith and comfort of all believers . For the minor pfopofition, that confifts of two branches, Firft, that Circumciiion was ap- pointed for and applyed to Abraham and all his feed under one and the fame notion (viz.) as the token of the Covenant, this is the exprefs words of the text, Gen. 17. 11; I Secondly, That it is interpreted by the Holy Ghoft himfelf to be unto him a feal of the Cove- nant of Grace : Ir is interpreted to be a feal of the promife of the Covenant of Grace, and cqnfe- quently of the Covenant conftituted and made ap ©f thofe promifes \ that it was^a feal of the pro- hufes o£ or belonging o the Covenant of Graces $S anfemto&aptifm from f eaten, our ^tttfofrhimfelf acknowledged^ and is uncle* nyable from that Rom. 4. u. and hence our conclufion will undenyably follow. We fee then firft, that the Covenant eftablithed with Abraham and his feed in their generations was the Cove- nant of Grace, the very fame with that Believers are ftill under. Secondly, that the promifes of the Covenant, and consequently the Covenant it felf, did belong to Abrahams natural feed im- mediately proceeding from his own loyns, as well as to his (piritual : And Thirdly, that Circumci* fion was the feal of the Covenant of Grace \ that Covenant of which it was the feal being the Co- venant of Grace: As for what our Author adds in thcelofe-ofthte tftfeftion concerning Baptifm, as it concerns not the prefent queftion, fo it is of fcoconhderation in it (elf, though I may touch Upqn it in its proper place, yet let me fay, as it cloes greatly rerJed: upon any to write, fo it feems fomewhat to retted upon the underftanding of all men, toanfwer fuch trifles as thefe : It argu- ing a very low ebb of humane reafon that any man (hculd need help to fee the vanity of them : But to proceed, '5. The fifth thing our Am hor propofes for his examination is, Whether Circumcifion war admi* niilred to Believers as Believers^ and to their feed after them as fuch ■, to which Baptifm was to corref-* ffond. This our Author vehemently denyes, witfl what reafon will foon appear ', only as previous to the consideration of his determination of this queftion, and giving the true folution of it, I mufi; a little open the true fence and meaning of it: And thus, when it is queried, whether Ch> cumcifion ctimcifion was adminiftred to believers as belie- vers ? the meaning muft needs be (otherwife we are not at all concern'd in it>) whether Gircuna- cifion was de jure, according to the inftitution adminiftred, or to be adminiftred to believers,' as believers? that it might be defa&o adminiftred to others than de 'jure it ought to be is unqueftiona- ble : How or to whom it was at any time admi* niftred, concerns not us \ but how or to whom it was adminiftred,- when adminiftred according to the mind of God in the inftitution. So then the queftion is, whether Circumciiion according to the will and appointment of God,was or oughc to be adminiftred to Believers as Believers > Whf our Author ufeth New Teftament terms and phra- {es, when fpeaking with refped to the Old Te- ftament times he knows beft. But by believers we are to underftand fuch as according to that administration were to be accounted and reputed the Covenant people of God, fuch who accord-* ing to the terms then propofed, might warranta* bly lay claim to that promife of Gods being aGod to therm what was a fure ground for fuch a claim we determine not, it concerns not our prefent purpofe : Our only enquiry at prefent is, whe- ther Circumcifion was according to the will of God adminiftred to the Covenant people of God, Or to perfons as perfonally accepting of, and per- forming the terms or conditions of the Covenant as then adminiftred,and that as fuch, and to their feed as fuch ? Or whether it was not adminiftred to men upon fome other account, as fuppofe their relation to Abraham as his natural poiterity 01 the like, and confequently whether the; e be H 2 in i *© Mant'taptirm from ^eaten, in this particular, a correfpondcncy between the adminiftration of Circumcifion and the admini- ftration of Baptifm, fo that this one queftion may be branched out into three diftindfc queftions. I (hall begin with the Firft : And that is, whe- ther Circumcifion was according to the will of God adminiftred to believers as believers , that is, to perfons as perfonally accepting of, and per- forming the conditions of the Covenant of Grace, as adminiftred under the firft Teftament and that asfuch> Our Author is (till on the negative part , he is very pofitive it was not, and he gives this reafon of his perfwafion : For, fays he ^ it was an Ot di- Htnce which by the institution belonged to all the na* tural lineage andpoflerity of Abraham, good or bad, without anyfuch limitation as is put upon Baptifm, if thou believeji with all thy heart thou mayft : But fure he could not but fufpe&,there would befomc Jincere enquirers after the mind of God relating to Infant-baptifm, who cannot pin their faith upon his ileeve, cannot reft fatisfied with his bare word > therefore he {hould have proved this his alTertion, which he attempts not to do, either by Scripture, Reafon or Authority : And therefore without any more ado I muft enter my diflent* and do on the contrary affirm,that Circumcifion whenever adminiftred to the Adult, in cafe it was adminiftred according to the institution, it was to believers 3s believers, taking that term believers as before opened. Now the clearing up and proving this fo highly conducing unto the eftabliflhing the Doctrine and practice of Infant- baptifm, I (hall fomewhat largely infift upon it* and Sntmotofflpen.' i&t and for the proof of it I would offer thefe two Arguments. Firft, If all the Adult or grown perfons that ever had Circumcifion duly adminiftred unto them were believers , and there was no other ground upon which it could be adminiftred to them, then it was adminiftred to them as belie- vers : But all the Adult or grown perfons uni- verfally, that had Circumcifion duly adminiftred to them were believers, and there was no other ground upon which it could be rightfully admi- niftred to them, Therefore^* The confequence in the major propoiltion, I conceive will meet with no oppofition : I fup- pofeif it be evident, that all grown perfons uni- verfally, none excepted, that had Circumcifion adminiftred according to the inftitution were be- lievers, and there was no other ground but only their faith, or perfonal acceptation and perfor- mance of the terms of the Covenant, upon which it could be rightfully applyed to them, then this confequence will evidently follow, they muft needs have it adminiftred to them as believers. ?Tis therefore only the minor propoiltion that needs proofs and in order to a more clear pro- ceeding in the proof of it, we muft neceiTarily diftinguHh of the Adult or grown perfons who had Circumcifion adminiftred to thenr, and thus fome of them were fui juris, had a full liberty and freedom of choice whether to accept or not ac- cept of the Covenant upon fuch terms-, others were alterius juris, under the dominion and dif* pofe of fome other perfon : Thus for all the A- fiult in Abrahams or any other believers family, H 3 who jp2 Snfant^aptirm from leautn , who were fervants either born in the houfe, or bought with money : Now what was the cafe pf this latter fort of grown perfonfc, and.how far the determination of the queftion before us as it relates unto them concerns our prefent purpofe fhall be confidered hereafter. At prefenr, let- it be remembred , that what I affirm, it is only of perfons who were///* jitris^ who were at their own difpofe, and I fay in refpe& of fueh all I and that univerfally.that ever hadCiicumcifion right- fully adminiltred to them, they, were Believers in the fence before opened : This will appear by Infrancing in all thofe that the. Scripture records to have had Circumcifion adminiilred to them,, when adult or grown to ripenefs of years > and Shewing that they were believers. . And thus the Scripture gives us no account of any circumcifed >yhen adult, but Abraham and thofe of his pofte- rity whofe Orqumcition was omitted in the wil- dernefs, and fuch who from among the Gentiles became profelytes to the Jewtfih Church, and ail £ho& theScripture evidently deduces to have been .believers. Firft, For Abraham h\mte\$,> none will deny that he was a believer : And: therefore Secondly, For thofe ,of his. posterity whofe Circumcifion was omitted in the wildernefs, and who were circumcifed at their Hrfti entrance into the land of Canaan^w account of which wefaave jfqfh. 5. i.&c. Now that thefe were.beJievers, is iufEciently evident, for Firft, God himfeif gives this tefiimony of them, that they were fuch as bad cleaved to him when others had apoftatized from him, Vent. 4, 3,44 Secondly, Stab nat of spen* 103 Secondly, They were fuch as had newly re- newed their Covenant with God, they had a- vouched God to be their God,and he had avouch- ed them to be his people, twenty fixth of Went. 17,18. Verfes, compared with the twenty ninth of Deuteronomy ,the beginning ; Thefe two things fufficienrly evidence thefe to be Believers , and tbc*y had done nothing to evidence their infin- cerity , but had feveral waves evidenced it, and therefore Thirdly , for fuch who from among the Gentiles did become Profelytes to the Jewijh Church : Now I do not remember that the Scri- ptures do record any particular inftance of any of thefe to have been circumcifed j but that fuch were to be , and that fome fuch were circumcifed is fufficiently clear from Scripture , and that when any fuch . had circumciiion rightfully ad* miniftred to them , that they were believers is evident. Firft , from the qualification prefuppofed to their regular receiving circumcifion , theyr ohttfr be fuch as would keep the fajfiyer to thehvri^ twelfth of Exodus forty eigbth-Verfe, Mark, - it was not enough that they ^iddeiire to keep trie Paffover, but they mutt be fuch as did profe^e^- ly propofe tjiat end to themfelv.qs^i^j t&^epzzi to the Lord) and Paffover heife jfe4ms to he put per Synecbdocben partii , fpr ihe-iwliole, Worthy of God =, and fo the meaning is this .1 if any woulfl give upthemfejves to God , and take him: for tkeir God, and wprfinp and ferve him aceo-rding to the Ordinances of Worthip then inllitured, they mult be circumciitd : ;So, tbstt the quapca- H 4. tions ??4 3tnfimt4mptifm from ^eatoen, tions requifite to their circumcifiondo neceflarily imply them to be believers. Secondly , this is evident from God's alike entering into Covenant with them, as he did with the Jewes , Veut. 29. 1 1, 15. Now God's entering into Covenant with them doth necefla- rily imply them to be Believers, in as much as the Covenant, when entred with grown perfons, is mutual , as God ayoucheth fuch to be his peo- ple i fo they muft avouch him to be their God, otherwife the Covenant could not be entred with them. Thirdly , this is yet further evident by the defcriptions the Holy Ghoft gives of fuch Pro- felytes j thus they are fometimes defcribed by their putting their trttft under the wings of the God of Ifrael , Ruth 2.12. Sometimes by their taking bold of the Covenant , and joyning thvm- felues to the Lord.^ 1 fat ah 56 \ which, though it be a Prophefie of the conversion of the Gen* t*/*.r in New Teftament Times , yet plainly al- ludes to the Profelytes under the firft Teftament, me other ground upon which circurncifion wasadmini- ilred to them, let that ground be (hewed *, If the Scriptures declare no other ground, then we may conclude there was none *, But the Scripture$ declare no other ground, Therefore we may con- clude there was none •, and that there was indeed no other ground upon which circurncifion was admrniftred to them will more fully appear by our fecond Argument, which is Secondly , if none ot Abraham's Lineage or Pofterity, beyond thofe that did immediately proceed from his own Loyns could have cir- curncifion duly adminiftred to them upon that ground or account of their relation to him as nis natural feed , then none could have it right- fully adminiftred to them upon any other ground than their own perfonal faith, or acceptance a^nd performance of the terms of the Covenant \ and confequcntly all that had circurncifion right- fully adminiftred to them it was as believers : But the former is true *, Therefore the latter. For the confequence in the major Proportion, that is grounded upon this fuppofition (vizh That mens relation to Abraham as his Children, though mediately defcended from him, is the chief and principal ground that can be imagi» ned to be a furHcient ground upon which cir- curncifion could be rightfully admihifhed to any$ how' if it could not be rightfully adminiftred upon that ground , much lefs upon any other ; But t judge (and therefore (hall furceafe any fur- ther proof of it) this will receive a ready ac- knowledgment from our oppolers themfelves, hence io£ Jnfant'baptifm from ij&aben, hence our Author only inftanceth in this as the ground upon which circumcifion could be ad- min iftred to perfons whether good or bad. It is the Minor that requires proof, our Author afferts the direcl: contrary , but how unreafona- bly we (hall now fee,;, That then which we are to prove is this, viz, that none of Abraham's Po- fterity or Lineage beyond thofe,immcdiacely des- cending from his own Loyns, could have cir- cumciiion adminiftred to them according to Divine Inftitution upon that ground, viz. their relation to him as his Children, and confequent- Iy none elfe could have it rightfully adminiliied to them upon any other ground wbatfoevcr i but whoever had it rightfully adminiftred to them , it was as they were believers j "this I (hall prove by this Argument ', If circumcifion could be adminiftred to none of Abraham's Lineage or Pofterity , whether Infants or grown perfons y but upon the account of their precedent intereft in and right to. the Covenant and the promifes thereof , of which it was. the token i and none of Abraham's ad alt feed mediately proceeding from him had a right to or int^reft in that Cove- nant , but fuch as did perfonally accept of and perform the conditions thereof, then none of bis adult Lineage or Pofterity mediately defcende4 from him could have Circumcifkm rightfully adr miniftred to them upon the ground or account of that their relation to him as his natural Chil- dren mediatly defcended from hjrru But the. for? mer is true \ Therefore the latter : Here again the Confequence in the Major Propofition will have no gainfay , but the Minor Deeds proof. Now ' that 0nbnotof^en. toy that confifts of twoPropofitions. Firft , that none ought according to the JnfitT tution to have Circumcifion adminiftred to th$m> but fuch as had a precedent intereft in , and right to the C ovenant and the promifes of it , this is too evident to admit of any rational contrafc dioni for Firft , it is evident from, the notion node j which circumcifion was commanded > it was commanded under that notion, viz. as the token of the Covenant : Now how unreasonable would k: be to imagine that God mould appoint cm cumcifion to be applied to any under that notion as the token of his Covenant, who had no right to or intereft in the 1"^;$$ Govenant \ how could it be the token of the Covenant to any unintereffed in the Covenant > but of this more elfewhere. Secondly, this is evident, becaufe the appHca? tion and reception of Circumcifion was a keepr ing the Covenant '-> now how the Covenant cas be faid to be kept by the application and recepti- on of Circumcifion, unlefs the fubjeds to whom it was applied were in Covenant is impoflible t© be imagined i can a perfon keep the Covenant that is not in Covenant > what is keeping the Covenant , but a performing the conditions of the Covenant on man's part ? And can any man perform the conditions of the Covenant , and yet have no right to, or intereft in the Covenant, or the promifes of it> Thirdly, this is further evident, becaufe inte- reft in the Covenant is the ground of the comr rnand concerning the application and reception pf cirGumdfioiv Fourthly, toS Jnfant'bapttfm from featjen, Fourthly, this is yet further evident , becaufe other wife God could not truly fay of Circumci» (ion , when duly applied , it is the token of the Covenant between him, and the party to whom it is applied » of both thefe things I have fpoken largely in the place forecited. Fifthly, it is evident from hence, viz. becaufe otherwise it had been the universal duty of all Abraham's natural feed, whether thofe descended from Jfbmael and Efauy or from Ifaac , to have continued the practice of circumcifion , not- withstanding their utter apoftafie from and re- jection of God, and his utter rejection of them from being his people ; But who can imagine that circumcifion was or could have been duly applyed to the Edomites or Ijhmalites when act- ing in wayes of greatefl: oppofition to, and re- bellion againft God > and what abfurdities would follow upon fuch an afTertion might eafily be de- clared : It is alfo inconliftent with what our Au- thor himfelf hath elfe where affirmed of circum- cifion : But why fliould I enlarge upon the con- firmation of that, the truth of which (nines forth with a noon-light clearnefs. And from what hath been faid, it undeniably follows , that none were circumcifed by vertue of any command from God, but fuch as were received into Cove- nant > contrary to what our Author affirms in his refolution of the firft queftion > but let that fuffice for the confirmation of the firft Propo- fition. 2. Trofof. The fecond Propofition, is that none of Abraham's adult feed , none of his na? tural feed grownup to years of maturity ,had an intereft SinD not of ^m. io* intereft in or right to the Covenant or promifes thereof, but fuch as did perfonally accept of and perform the terms or conditions of the Co- venantor according to our Author's Phrafe,wcrc believers. This I have proved by three Ar- guments elfewhere , let me add ^^fytofh! thefe two or three more. Arg. i. Firft, if any of Abraham's Lineage or Pofterity, beyond thofe that did immediately pro* ceed from his own Loyns , had a right to or in- tereft in the Covenant meerly as of his Lineage and Pofterity, then all his Lineage and Pofterity had a like right to and intereft in the Covenant > But all his Lineage and Pofterity had not an inte- reft in , or right to the Covenant : Therefore none had meerly as of his Lineage and Pofterity : The truth of the confequence in the major pro- pofition ftands firm upon that universally re- ceived Maxim, A quatenus ad omne valet confe* queHtia\ look what may be predicated of , or may be laid claim toby any one man , quatenus homo , meerly as a man, that may be predicated of, and laid claim to by all men univerfally > fo in this cafe , but now it is infallibly certain that all the Lineage and Pofterity of Abraham had not an intereft in the Covenant , therefore none of them had meerly as his Lineage and Pofterity. Arg. 2: Secondly, if Abraham's natural Li- neage and Pofterity, beyond thofe immediately proceeding from his own Lovns, had had an in- tereft in and right to the Covenant meerly as his Lineage and Pofterity , then Covenant breaking en their part had been impoffible-, But Covenant breaking i io anfanf'baprtfm from f eaten, breaking on their part was not impoffible,There- fore, &c. The confequence in the major propofition is evident by this , viz. Becaufe then their relation to Abraham as his Lineage and Pofkrity had been the only and alone condition of the Covenant on their parts, nothing more had been (imply and abfolutely necefTary to their intcreft in and right to the Covenant •, but only that their re- lation to Abraham : As in the cafe of his Children immediately proceeding from his own Loyns, they had an intereft in the Covenant meerly as his natural feed , and hence nothing more was necefTary to that their intereft , but only their defcent from and relation to him as his Seed or Children : So in cafe the Covenant had extend- ed to all his natural Lineage and Pofrerify , as it did to thofe immediately proceeding from his own Loyns , their cafe had been one and the fame : Now there can be no breach of the Co- venant on man's part, but through his failing and coming (hortin the conditions of the Co- venant : Hence fuppofe the >Jcr»s meer relation to Abraham as his Lineage and Pofterity had been the alone condition of their intereft in the Co- venant , it would have been impoffible for them to break the Covenant ; in as much as their fin, whether of omiflion or commiifion could not diffolve that their relation to Abraham: No mo- ral evil can diilblve a natural relation •, hence while their relation to Abraham as his Lineage and Pofterity had continued, their Covenant in- tereft would have continued. But now ( which is our minor PropoiitiorO that Covenant break- ing £ntmoto£8pen. m ing was not impoffible unto them, the rejection of JJhtnael and his Pofterity , of Efau and his Pofterity , of the ten Tribes firft , and after of the Jews , is abundant evidence : How fuch as are received into the Covenant of Grace in their infancy , may be faid to break Covenant •, and how that their breach of Covenant is confident with the unchangeablenefs of the Covenant of Grace, and with the Doctrine of the Saints per- feverance I have (hewed elfewhere. Arg. 3. \{ Abraham's natural Lineage and Po- fterity , beyond thofe proceeding from his own Lcyns, had w* anintereft in , and right to the Covenant, meerly as fuch, then none of them could have been juftly and righteoully , finally cut off, excluded from, or caft out of, either the Covenant or Commonwealth of Ifrael either by the immediate hand of God , or by any Ec- clefiaftical cenfure > But fome of the Lineage or Pofterity of Abraham might be juftly and righte- oully cut off, excluded from , and caft out of, both the Covenant and Commonwealth otlftael^ and that either by the immediate hand of God, or by an Ecclefiaftical cenfure *, Therefore, &c. The confequence in the major Proportion is firm upon this ground , viz, that nothing could be a juft caufe for fuch a cutting off, or excluding from , and calling out of either the Covenant or Commonwealth of Ifrael^ but what did nullirle their intereft in the Covenant : To deprive a man Of what he hath a juft intereft in , and title to is unjuft j now if the intereft of the Jews in the Covenant, did meerly depend upon their relati- on to Abraham 3 as his Lineage or Pofterity , it is impoffible 1 1 2 Mant baprifm from i^eauen, impoffible their, intereft could ceafe while, that their relation did continue, and confequently for them, or any of them to have been finally cut off from, or cart out of either the Covenant or com- monwealth of Ifrael, either by the immediate hand of God, or by any Ecclefiartical cenfure,hact been unjuft or unrighteous : But now that fome of them or any of them, in fome cafes might be juftly and, righteoufly Anally cut off, excluded from, and cart out of either the Covenant, or Commonwealth of ifrael, and that either by the ' immediate hand of God, or by fome Eccleiiafti* cal cenfure, is evident both from Scriptures and jewi(h Authors, To what end were threatnings given out,unlefs their execution had been jut! and righteous? now how often does God threaten that whofoever fhould be guilty of fuch or fuch. fins, they fhould be cut off from their people? and fome of thefe cuttings off did extend to a final ex- clullon from the Covenant, and all the benefits of it: So that not to enlarge (though other argu* ments might be added J from what hath been faid, it evidently appears that none of Abrahams lineage or porterity beyond thofe immediately proceed- ing from his own loyns,had an intereft in the Co- venant merely as fuch, and if none,then not the Adult, and confequently unto their intereft there was indifpenfibly required their own perfonaj faith. Thus we fee both branches of our fecond argument fully proved : And hence the conclu- sion undenyably follows (viz.) that none of A" brahams adult feed, beyond thofe that did imme- diately proceed from his own loyns, that were fitijttrif^ (fox of fuch we are yet fpeaking ) had Circumciilon fcircumcifion duly adminiftred to them by vertue of their relation to him as his natural feed* and confequently whoever of them had Circumciiion rightfully adminiftred to them, it was as they were believers. But Secondly, I (hall a little touch upon the quefti- on, as it may concern fuch who were alterius ju- ris, who were at the difpofe, as being under the dominion,of others > of this fort were all thofe who were born in the houfes of or bought with mo-, ney by Abraham, or any of the Covenant -people of God in after ages, who had Circumciiion admini- ftred to them when adult: The command was, that he that was bought with money or born in the boufejhouldbe circumcifed^zs well as their natural children* and feme of thefe might be, (as it is e- vident Come of them in Abrahams family were) adult or grown perfons : Now the queftion is; whether it was neceffary in order to thefe,having Circumciiion adminiftred to them, that they (hould be believers, or whether fuch might not, yea ought not to have Circumciiion adminiftred, as merely appertayning to the family of the peo- ple of God whether they were good or bad ? Now for this I (hall but briefly touch upon if, becaufe it concerns not the practice in controver- fie between us, I (hail therefore only offer to con* fideration thefe few things, and come to the fc- cond queftion. Firft, That fuch as wc now fpeak of had the, promifes of the Covenant, and confequently the Covenant it feSf extended to them, as well as they had or were to have Circumdfion admini- fired totheiri, this U evident both a priori, and ii4 3ntont4mpttfm from ^eaben, Firft, A priori, and thus it was promifcd to Abraham,that all the families of the earth Jhould be biffed in him, Gen. 12. 3. that is in him and in his feed, for To the promife is expreft when re- newed to Jacobs Gen. 28. 14. and by feed,though we are to underftand Chrift as chiefly and princi- pally,yet is the myftical feed of Abraham jls fubor- dinately and lets principally, intended : So that both Abraham and his myftical feed are accord- ing to this promife made and conftituted a blefling to their refpedive families, or their refpedive families are bkiTed in them > and let it be obser- ved, it is not only their natural children but their families that are interefted in this blefling : Now this blefling was, intereft in the Covenant, and hince it is that God promifes, to be the God of all the families oflfrael, Jer, 3 1 . 1 . and hence falva~~ tion is faid to come to the houfes of Believers', falva- tion is this day come to this houfe, fays Chrift of Zacheus his houfe : So the promife of fal vation is made to the houfes of believers, Believe in the Lordjefis andtboujhalt befaved and thy houfe Jays Paul to the Jay lor , Ads. 1 6. All which Scri- ptures do (hew, that Abrahams feed are blef- iings^o their refpedive houfes, and that they are foas they do convey an intereft in the Covenant and promifes thereof unto them. Secondly, This is evident a pofteriori, from the reference that Circumcifion had to the Cove- Kant, it was to be applyed to none but to fuch as were in Covenant, as has been before proved : So that I (ay, thofe to whom Circumciiion was or was to be adminiftred, they had a precedent right'io and intereft in the Covenant, they were under Under a promife of Gods being a God to Hem. Secondly, I would offer this to confideratiorfj that as Abraham^ fo all other Matters Or Cover* nours of families, they had a right to difpofe o% and anfwerably they ought to dedicate thofe, we now fpeak of, up to God, and thereupon teach them his ways and command them as to ta&God for their God, fo to walk in his Ways, And hence it is to be obferved, that none were 'to be circumcifed but fuch as they had a right and pow« er to difpofe of in a fubordination unto God,they were to be fuch as were properly their own , and hence it muft needs be their duty to dedicate and give them up to God, and innrucl: them in his ways '<, and this God does,as I may fo fpeak, pro- mife to himfelf concerning Abraham, Gen. i8.£. For Ikpore Abraham that he mil command his chil- dren and his boujhold, and they Jhall \etf the way of the Lord : He will not only command his chil- dren but his houmold. Thirdly, That as when the people of God are faithful in the difcharge of their duty, God doe* ufually concur with them therein with his blefc ling* fo this command concerning the Circumci- (ion of the perfons we now fpeak of, feems to be grounded upon a fuppofal of both, (viz.) that the people of God were and would be faithful in the difcharge of their duty towards thofe borft in their houfe or bought with their money, arid that they had a bleffing attending them therein. And hence we may Fourthly, conclude, that all thofe born in the houfe or bought with money, who were adult, did make fuch a vifible profeffion of their owning I 2 God i id? Jnftnt teptirm from ^eauen, God as their God, and accepting of the Cove- nant as entred with them, as did give a rational ground to hope they were fincere therein. It cannot rationally be fuppofed that fuch (hould be received into the Church by Circumciiion of whom they had juft ground to conclude they (hould be immediately caft out again, as in cafe of their manifefting their non acceptation of the terms of the Covenant by any overt a&, they ought to be. Surely iijfhmael one of Abrahams natural feed, was caft out upon the firft difcove- ryofhis rejection of the Covenant, it cannot be rationally imagined, that any grown perfons fcouSd be received into it, but upon a vifible ma- nifeftation of their acceptation of it : So that the true refolution of this queftion, as it refpecls the perfons we nowfpeak of,is this, that though the Covenant extended to them, and they had a vi« fible title to it as of, or belonging to fuch a Fami* ly, yet m order to the regular adminiftration of Circumcifion to them, it was neceffary that they did vifibiy manifeft their perfonal acceptation of it, and refolution to keep it : But this not con- cerning our main queftion, I (hall add no more to it, but proceed to the fecond queftion, and that is, S^jt^h 2 . Whether Circumcifton was admimlhed U the feed of Believers as fuch . for we have feca already, that none of his lineage or pofterity had a&ual and perfonal intereft in the Covenant, be- yond fuch as did immediately proceed from his own loyns, by vertue of their relation to him i Hence , their intereft muft needs *• rife fromGods extending his Covenant as en- tred with their parents unto them s and the truth is that the promiie to the feeda giving them I 3 their Ii8 JnfanMjapttfm from 1|eabtn , their interefl: in, and title to the Covenant is a branch of theCovenant as made with the parents; Now unto the parentsentring&reception into the Covenant,their perfonal faith was required :From all,it will undenyably follow,that all Infants that had Circumcifion duely adminiftred to them, it was as they were the feed of believing parents. And from all it will yet further follow, as I have elfe where noted and defire may be carefully pbferyed, that all Abrahams natural race and po- sterity beyond thofe proceeding from his own Joyns, and that in their Infant ftate *, had the Co* tenant with the fign and token of it continued to Jbem, and held their intereft therein, till rejedtr fd of God (Firftat the tranfportation of the ten tribes by Salmanazar, and after at the coming in of the gofpel-adminiltratiqn) not merely as his natural but as his fpititual or myftical feed ; Chil- dren as grown up to years of maturity were to accept and take hold of the Covenant into which fhey had admjffion in their infancy, as the feed pf believing parents by perfonal faith and obedi- gnce : Whereupon the confideration pf their na- tural relation, either to Abraham, or their believ- ing parents was laid afide^ and they ceafed to fUnd under the Covenant , by yertue of that fheir natural defcent, either from Abraham or arjy of his feed, and now were continued under }t, as being believers themfelves, andasfuchdid cpqvey a right to the Covenant and token of it (p thejr natural feed : So that the Church of the Jews was a fpiritual and myftical not a carnal Church, as Qur Author without any true ground ftptn fcriptu^e ox xeafon calls % it was constitu- ted £nb not of *pen. U9 ted and made up of Abrahams my ft teal feed, in- cluding their natural children immediately pro- ceeding from their own loyns, and that only du- ring their infant ftate : For being grown to years of maturity they ought, fuppofing their rejecti- on of the Covenant,to have been by Church dif- cipline ejected and caft out of the Church. I know what it is that makes what we now affirm fo difficultly received by our oppofers (viz.) the variety of evils, as Idolatry and the like fo fre- quently charged upon that Church and people y but to the mind of wifdom, as our Author fpeaks, ferioufly weighing the large meafure of the fpirit then given forth, together with the terms of Co* venant inrereft then propofed,and adding to both the confideration of feveral of the NewTeftament Churches, immediately after their plantation by the Apoftles,the difficulty will foon be removed : But not to enlarge upon this, let that fuffice for the fecond queftion propofed for examination, unto this fifth particular. gueft.%. Thirdly, whether Baptifm do cor- refpond to Circumcifion as thus adrainiftred to Believers as Believers,and to their feed after them and that as fuch. Anfa* To which it is readily anfwered,that it does, and fuppofing the truth of what hath been faid, will beeafily granted by our oppofers themfelves : That Baptifm is to be adminiltred to believers as helievers,when the adult, as being unbaptized before, become the fubje&sof it, is granted on all hands-, and that it is to be admini- ftred to their feed after them, and that as fuch, is affirmed, and we hope fufficiently proved by us. I 4. And Uo 3nfatrt4raptifm frum ^eaten, And fuppofing what hath been faid in the refolu- tk>n of the foregoing queftion be true, will not (I cannot but think) begainfayd by any. Whence to add any thing more to this would be but a needlefs expence of time, only I (hall add one Argument to prove, both the Covenant-intereft and JBaptifm of the Infants of believers, and fq proceed to thelixth queftion, and it is this. Arg. If the Gofpel Church be fo incorporated into,and a continuation of the myftical or fpiritu- al ijody of Chrift and houlhold of God, of which the Jews under the Old Teftament were, as to make up with them but one body or houfhold i and the natural feed of the Jews by vertue of their Covenant-intereft were of,and by the then token of theCovenant were incorporated into that body or houihold \ then the natural feed of believers by vertue of the fame Covenant intereft are of, and by the prefent token of the Covenant ought ft ill to be incorporated into the fame body of Chrift or houfhold of God,But the former is true, Therefore the latter. But to proceed 6. That which is further enquired into is, whether Baptifm do fuceeed in the room, place, ufes, and ends of Circumcifion > Here our Author denyes two things, and gives usfeveral reafons,fuch as they are,of both hisde* nyals. Firft, he vehemently denyes that Baptifm, does fncceed in the room and place of Circumcifion, What he means by room and place , is fome- what queftionable, that which only concerns us to enquire after is, Whether Baptifm be the pre* fent fign or token of the Covenant, as Circum- cifion was of old I Now that it is, andanfweta- bly bly does fucceed in the room and place of Cir- cumcifion , in that general notion infant.baptirm and conilderation of it, I have elfe- from page a*; wkere abundantly proved ,and (hew- to Hu ed the vanity and intlgniricancy of what is object ed concerning the fpirits being the feal of the New Covenant, and therefore need add no more: I (hall therefore only briefly weigh our Authors reafons and haften. Firft, His firft feafon is, becaufc in cafe Bap- tifm did fucceed in the room and place of Cir- cumcifion, then only males and not females would be baptized, becaufe of old only males were circum- cifed. To which I would reply, by asking our Author who told him fo,how came he to know it would be thus qr thus in cafe Baptifm did Cuc- ceed in the room and place of Crcumcifion > Might not God if it pleafed him ordain a token of his Covenant, under the firft Teftament, that Males only were capable of,and upon the account of the incapability of Females not impofe it upon them, and then lay that afide and ordain another token of the Covenant, to fucceed in the room and place of the former, in that general notion of it, (viz.) as the token of it, of which Females were as capable as males, and thereupon require the application of it to them, as well as to Males? I fay, why may it not be thus, if God fo plea* fed .? As we fuppofe it is fufficiently evident it hath fo pleafed himi who (hall di&ate unto God or enjoyn him as Elihu fpeaks, the way he Jh all pro- ceed in towards hisChurchJ Men may as well fay were God fo good and juft as he ftiles himfelf to be in his word, he would have made man other- wife i2* infant teptitm from feaben, wife,than he hath done* as fay,ln cafe this or that be true, then he would have ordered his Difpen- fations otherwife than he hath done i but what acceptation fuch bold queftions , why baft thou made me thus} Will find with God, the Scrip* ture fbi ;(hews us i but Secondly , in cafe Baptifm do Caccccd in the 100m and place of Circumctfion5then our Aptbor thinks not all butonlyfome adult believers (hould have been baptized, and the ground of this his conceit is becaufe, as he takes it for granted , not all hut only fame believers were circumci fed. Anfa. This reafon is much of the fame na- ture with the former , only here is one tniftake fuggefted, which was not in the former, and that is , that fome, consequent to the Inftitution oi Circumcifion, who were to be accounted Abra- ham's feed , were not (he muft mean as not be- ing under any command from God) circumci-- fed i this our Autbor dictates but attempts not at all to prove » and therefore I (hall let it pafs as a fond conceit, without the leaftihewof ground in Scripture , and only fay , fuppofe this were truev yet how it fnould prove that Baptifm does not fucceed in the room and place of Circum- cifion, as the (ign and token of the Covenant appears not, and therefore what was faid to the former reafon , may be faid to this : But I fay this reafon being grounded upon a grofs mi- itakeit vanilheth, and comes to nothing y could our Autbor inftance in any one perton that was to be accounted one of Abrab^s feed, and (hew how , or where he had been exempted from the obligation of that Comrmnd, enjoying A~ krafiam braham and his Seed in their Generations to keep the Covenant , he would fay Come what, though not much to his purpofe. Thirdly ,,his third reafon is, becaufe then the circumcifed needed not to have been baptized : Surely the Reader will judge me a man of no great employment , to throw away time upon fuch trifles i Is our Author alone ignorant, that upon the Inftitution of Baptifm, -ircumcilion ceafed to be the Token of the Covenant? or does he think it meet that any , that through their faith in Chrift are continued in the Cove- nant, (hauld be exempted from bearing, or had no need of the token of the Covenant > But of this elfewhere : We fee now of what confedera- tion our Authors reafons are , whereby he endea- vours to confirm his firft denyal *, and there- fore Secondly , let us fee how he hath proved his fecond denyal, viz, "That Baptifm does not fucceed Circumcifion in regard of the ufe ^nd ends of it : How far it is neceflary that there mould be a cor- refpondency between Baptifm and Circumcifion, in order to the proving the practice of Infant- Baptifm , hath been already declared > and from what hath been faid, it will appear , that mould z\\ our Authors grounds, as he calls them , upon which he bottoms his denyal be good, yet Bap- tifm may fucceed Circumcifion as the fign and token of the Covenant , and as fuch ferve to fome ufes and endspf Circumcifion \ But let us fee his Grounds > Firft, fayes. he, Cirmmcifwn was a §gn of Chrifi to come i\% theflefh , but Baptifm a fign that he was already 1^4 2nfant*bapf!fm from l&ahtn, already come^ witnefpng to his Incarnation, Burial, andRefurrettion. Anfw. I (hall here again ask our Authorxhis onequeftion i whether he thinks it was poifible, for God to inftitute any fign or token of his Co» venant, when once Circumcifion was laid afide > I fuppofe he will hardly deny this poffible to in- finite wifdom and power, if he fay, it was flmply and abfolutely poffible in it ftlf , I would know, whether this Ordinance , whatever itihouldbe, muft needs be a fign of Chrift to come in the flefh ? if it muft , then Chrift muft be alwayes to come in the fle(h •, fuch kind of doughty grounds Anabaptifts build their perfwafion up* on , but it may be his other grounds are more fubftantial \ Therefore, Secondly, fayes he, Circumcifion was to be a par- tition wall between Jews and Gentiles , but Rap* tifm teflified the contrary, viz. that all are now one in Chriji. Anfw. I muft again ask our Author whether he think there is no difference between a wall and a door in the wall , and whether both muft be of one and the fame ufe> I alwayes judged that a wall was to keep out, a door to let in^ and Circumcifion was z$ our Author himfelf acknow- ledged, afolemn Ordinance for the admiflion of perfons, whether Jews or Gentiles, into the Church * he expreily calls it a door, Page 27. and fois Baptifm* the truth is,Circumcilion was not the wall , nor any part of it, fo that here they agree, being both of one and the fame ufe ', but Thirdly , fayes he , Circumcifion initiatetUbe earnal Seed into the carnal Church J and gave a right &n¬of$ett. J25 right unto carnal Ordinances > but it is quite other- wife with Baptifm. Anfo. I mull yet once more defire our Au- thor to refolve me one queftion further , and herel would be ferious with him , and that is, whether he thinks Chrift had any vifible Church or Myftical Body, of which himfelf was Head, under the rirfl Teftament > if not , how is the Church of the Jews called his Spoufe, his Wife ? If yea , who were the perfons this Church or Body of Chrift was conftituted and made up of? But I hope I have fuificiently proved , that the Jexvijh Church was a myftical fpiritual Church, or the myftical fpiritual Body of Chrift, and fo Circumciilon and Baptifm ferve for the fame ufe and ends , viz, to initiate or give a fo- lemn entrance and admifllon into the myftical Body, Church, or Kingdom of Chrift, as vifible here upon Earth. Fourthly, Our Author adds another Ground, viz. Circumcifion , fayes he , was to be a bond and obligation to kgep the whole haw of Mofes , but Baptifm witnefled that Mofes his Law was made void^and that Chrift's Law was only to be kept. But of what ufe was it before the Law was given ? ' And if it was of fome ufe before the Law was in being i why may not Baptifm be , if not of the fame ufe ( which yet certainly it is) yet of fuch ufe , both to the adult and Infants , as .might be a fufficicnt ground for its Institution and Application to both , though the Law be now abrogated : But to Cay that Circumciilon was an obligation to keep the whole Law of Me* fif, any further than the Covenant of Grace efta- bli&edl i*5 Jnfant-baptifm from ©eabert, blimed with Abraham and his Seed in their Ge* iterations did oblige them thereunto , is a great miftake, Circumcifion obliged to keep the Law of Chrift, and To does Baptifm. Fifthly, the fifth ground our Author layes to what he hath afferted, viz. that Baptifm does not fucceed Circumcilion to the ufe and ends of it, as he fpeaks, is this, Circumcision ^ayes he, was ad- minijhed to all Abraham'/ natural Seed , without any profefjion of Faith, Repentance, or Regenerate on, whereas Baptifm, to he adminiftred to thejpiri- tual feed of Abraham , **>as only upon prufefpon of Faith, Repentance and Regeneration. Anfw% But what does this concern the ufes and ends, either of Circumcifion or Baptifm ? This only concerns the Subjects, the one was, and the other is to be adminiftred to. Reply. But it may be it will be faid , though it do not directly concern the matter in hand, yet eonfequentially it does, for if fo be, the Sub- jects of Circumcifion and Baptifm are fo vaftly different , the ufe and ends cannot be one and the fame. Anfw. But then we abfolutely deny the grounds from whence this confequence is drawnv we deny that Circumcifion was adminiftred to all Abraham's natural Seed \ yea, that it was ad- miniftred, according to the Inftitution, to any of his natural Seed , as fuch , beyond thofe that did immediately proceed from his own Loyns : And fo that Baptifm is to be adminiftred only upon Profeilion of Faith and Repentance^ our Author knows, it is the qucftion between us, and eonfe- qucntly , _the bare averting of it is petitio prin- cipii, tipii^ a begging the queftion. Reply* But it will be faid, there are feverai in- stances produced, which being compared do ir- refragably prove it. Anfw. Take his inftances feverally , each a- part by themfelves3and they are but a begging the queftion three times over ••> and how we (hall compare them together, fo as to make any thing more of them, I know not, neither does he give us any .direction to help us therein i for where- as Firft, the firft of his inftances, as he calls them, is this, fayes he, a carnal Parent^ and a flefhly be- getting by the legal birth priviledge gave right to Circumcifton^ whereas '*# a fpiritual begetting^ by a fpiritual Parent ogives only a true right te Bap- tifm. Anfo. To let pafs the odnefs and uncouthnefs of bis phrafes,the thing that is aflerted is this,that a natural difcent from natural parents, be the pa- rents what they would,gave right to Circumciti- on, whereas tis only faith & repentance as profef- fed, give right to Baptifm, which is the thing in queftion, and is denyed by us: So for his other in- ilances, they ftill amount but to this,that none ought tobe baptized but theAdult,capable of per- fbnal holinefs and of believing, which is ftill the queftion between us & is denyed by us.But not to waft time about fuch trifles,could eur Author have produced any one inftance of any one who, neg- lecting to take hold of the Covenant, did yet con- vey a right to Circumcifion, to his child pen, he had laid fomewhat more to the purpofe : But I foall willingly refer it to the judgments of a-H u»p byaffed kzS anfant baptifm from t^eabert, byafled perfons, whether thefe ihftances do more fatisfa&orily prove, that Gircumciilon was to be adminiftred to all Abrahams natural feed, than what I have faid in handling the laft foregoing queftion does prove the contrary. For our Authors fixth ground, l (hall only fay thus much$that as Circumeifion was a fign and token of the whole Covenant, as then admini- ftred*, fo Baptifm is the fign and token of the Co- venant as now adminiftred : That is for his fixth queftion, hisfeventh (hall be eonfidered, if the Lord will, hereafter. Now then thefe queftions being truly dated and refolved,our Argument drawn from theCovenant for the eftablifhment of the pra&ice we plead for iiot only abides firm.but is confiderably ftrengthe- ned:For iffo be theCovenant believers are ftill un- der be the fameCovenant ofGrace that was at tirft entred& eihblifhed v/khAbraham as theFather of the faithful, & this Covenant as then entred with him did extend to&take in his natural feed imme- diately proceeding from his own loyns & that as fuch,and was continued in the fame extent and la- titude to all the people of God under the firft Te- flament full extended to & taking in their natural feed immediately proceeding from their own loyns, &this not as either parentsor children flood related to Abraham as his natural lineage & pofte- rity,butas the immediate parents were believers Jthemfelves*, (all which things we have proved^ Then the Covenant muft needs be continued in the fame extent and latitude fxill, (viz.) as ex- tending to and taking in children with their be- lievlag parents, And thit k evident not only from from the utter filence of the Scriptures as to any alteration or change that God has made in the tenour of the Covenant,but from variety of fcrip- turedemonftrationsthathe has indeed madenone^ but does continue it in the fame ex- tent and latitude as formerly he did. i^B^tZ Whence that the Covenant does (till from " Heaten belong tothelnfant feed of believers £°™8>page °l is abundantly evident: And in as much as the Covenant does belong to them, the token of theCovenant does alfo belong and ought to be applyed unto them> which again appears not only from that command Gen- ij. 9. which is ftill in force,and alike requires the application of Baptifm the prefent token of the Covenant as of old it did Circumcifion, the then token of the Covenant : But from the Apoftle Teters laying intereft in the promife as a fufficient ground for the application of Baptifm,as alfo from our Lofd Chrifts having appointed Baptifm for the folemn admiflion of all thofe into his vifible body, king- dom,and family who according to his will ought to be admitted thereinto:But thefe things arelarge- ly proved in that forementioned difcourfe whr- ther I mnft refer the Reader. CHAP. 130 JnfanMiaptifm from f eaten, CHAP. VI. the Authors fourth, fifth^fixth andfeventh Particulars to difprove Infant -Baptifm considered 3 their weaknejs and vanity fiewed, with fome fpecial Considerations to fatisfie Chriflians about the validity of their Baptifm 0 as adminijired by fprin^ling or pouring Water upon the Face : ihe clofe of the whole. Fourthly i a fourth Argument that our An* thor layes down for rhe difproof of Infant* Baptifm is a fuppofed alteration or change made in the Ceremony of Baptifm , viz. from dipping or plunging into fpr inkling , or pouring a little water upon she head or face ; whence he concludes it cannot be Cbr ill's Ordinance of Baptifm. Anfa. Firfl , were it granted that fuch change were made , how that mould difprove the pra&ice of Infant- Baptifm, as abfolutely conlidered , he neither attempts to , nor can (hew. • Nay his reafoning feems to grant, that Baptifm when ad miniltred untc ihemby dipping is Chrift's Ordinance of Baptifm. For the old : rule is, Veritas affrmati axiomatis eft fundament um veritatis negat'u Now to fay that Baptifm as ad' miniltred by dipping is only Chrift's Ordinance of Baptifm, plainly implies that when it is fo ad- miniilred (as it is certain in fome places, and by fome £n8 not et\<©cri* 131 fome it hath been , and (rill fsj) then it is his Or- dinance of Baptifm. So that as this Argument feems to grant that fomefimes Infant- Baptifm is Chrift's Ordinance h fo the utmoft it can prove is7that as fomctimes adminiftred,it is none of his Ordinance-, But . Secondly, That there is any fuch change or alteration is denyed, and notWithftanding what our Author hath laid ftill wants {oYid proof. But forthisjee the preface of my Infanf-baptifrnfrom Heaven, as alfo Mr* Witts his anfvver to Mr. Vanvers, and others, that have largely handled this queftion,a queftion wholly diftind from that concerning the fubjedts of Baptifm, yet I (hall touch upon it by and by. Therefore to go on. Fifthly, His fifth Argument is drawn from the variety of mifchiefs, abfurditics, and contradi- ctions that he imagines may be juftly charged up- on the practice of Infant-baptifm. And a pra- ctice juftly chargeable with fo many mifchiefs^ abfurdities, and contradictions as our Author con- ceives this to be, is no ways like to be an ordi» nance of Chrift. Anfi In the general it may beobferved, how eafie.athingitisfor men to imagine and cry out mifchiefs, abfurdities, and contradictions, and by certain artifices,as ambiguous terms and phra- fes, putting that for the caufe which is not, &c. make them feem really fetch to perfons of weaker capacities* whereas they are either merely imagi- nary, or elfe not at all to be charged upon the doctrine or practice oppofed. whilft themfelves are guilty of no fmall abfurdities and contradicti- ons m framing and charging them thereupon, K % This 1 3 2 JnfanMiaptirm from f eaten, This is too evident in our Authors cafe : Let us briefly view his charge in the feveral branches of it. Firft, For the mifchiefs that he fuppofeth In- fant-baptifm may be charged with*, and he reck- ons up no fewer than ten. Firft, By it Cbrijh order in the Commijpon is al- tered. Anfa, That this is merely imaginary, is evi- dent from what hath been already faid, to which I muft refer the Reader. Secondly , By it the fnb]eVxs of Baptifm are changed. Anfrv. But that's the queftion under debate, and to beg thequeftion and then bring in what is begged, and charge that upon the practice con- troverted as a mifchieftodifproveit felf, is nei- ther civil nor rational. Thirdly, By it all the holy ends of Baptifm are fruflrated. Auftv. That Infants are incapable of all the ends of Baptifm our Author himfelf hath not yet affirmed : Now if it be the will of our Lord Chrift that itfliould beapplyed unto them with refpeel unto thofe ends they are capable of (as I hope it fufficiently appears that it is) the application of it unto them cannot be rationally fuppofed to be a fruftration of any > much lefs of all the holy ends of Baptifm. It cannot be a fruftration of thofe ends with refpect unto which it is not ap- plyed, nor c*an it be a fruftration of thofe ends they are capable of, and with refpedt unto which it is applyed. Were all the holy ends of Cir- cumcifion fruftrated as it was applyed to Abra* hams £nt> not of f>en* 133 hams feed, becaufe they were not capable of all thofe ends for which it was applyed to Abraham himfelf? Fourthly, By it the right order and manner of the adminijlration of Baptifm is altered^ viz. from dipping into ffrinkiing^ or pouring a little water up- on the Head or Face. Anjw. This we have had but juft now. I (hall only fay, will Mr. Darners bring a plain Scripture to prove that Baptifm Was by the Apo- files adminiftred by dipping or plunging, I (hall engage to bring a plain Scripture for the Baptifm of Infants: But fuppofe that fuch an inverfion or change •> yet it is very unreafonable for him to charge it upon Infant»baptifm, he knowing full well,that that manner of baptizing was in ufe, though not beforelnfant-baptifm was indeed pra~ difed, yet before he will allow it fo to be*, he knows who fpeaks of clinical Baptifm. Fifthly,By it many errors andfalfe doftrines have been introduced. And he inftanceth in five. Fir ft, That it is to takeaway Original Shu Secondly, To rvor\Grace and Kegeneration^and to effett Salvation by the rvor\ done. Thirdly, That it is an Apoftolical Tradition. Fourthly, That Children have Faith^ and are Vifciplesof Chrifl. Fifthly, That all Children of believing parents are in the Covenant of Grace ^ard, federally holy. Anfw. As for his third and fifth fuppofed er« rors,they are ^taking Apoftolical tradition in that fence in which the Fathers and all Orthodox Di- vines take it"] great truths. As for his three o^ thers, I (hall only fay that Baptifm is no way K 4 chargeable J3.4- Hnfcnbbapttfm from ^eafcen , chargeable with them > neither hath our Author 1 attempted to prove that it is:To charge all the er- ijors that forne have held with reference to any pra&ice, upon the practice it felf, is abfurd and ridiculous : Will any be fo vain as to charge the Lords Supper with all thofe errors that forne have held about or with reference to it ? Sixthly, By defiling and polluting the Church, &nd that three ways . Firft, By bringing falfe matter thereinto^ viz, fuch who are not Saints by calling, Anfrv. 'Tis no defiling the Church to admit thofe to whom God hath given a place in it. Secondly, By laying a foundation to much igno- rance and prof hanenefs. And Thirdly, To joyn them together by confound- ing the IVorld and the Chmch. Anfvv. Our Author himfelf acquits the Pra- ctice of Infant-baptifm from both thefe charges a little after, only let it be obferved,that ail Infants in Mr, T>anvers his account are of the World.Now our Lord Chrift is exprefs, he prays not for the World: And how any can be faved having no benefit by the intercelfion of ChrifU if he doth, I muft profefs my felt not to know > Seventhly, B\ it thofe many humane traditions and inventions of ' Antichrifi , it is attended with, as pratiifedby that party, are introduced and efiablijhed. Anfo. Mult every Ordinance be charged with introduction of all thofe humane traditions and inventions tis attended with amongft fuperftiti- ms men : Alas / what ordinance then would be irft to the Church. Eighthly, Infant-baptifm, by the good will of xino nor or aspen, 135 9ur Author ,muft bear the blame of all thofe debates and contentions amongii men, relating to'the pratlice of it. Yea, and Ninthly , Of all that bitter hatred, wrath , ftrife, enmity and persecutions that are found among men a^ainfl thife that oppofe it. Anfw. If fuch trivial reafonings be fufficient to difprove any do&rine or practice ■> not only theChriftian but even all Religion in the gene- ral, that at leaii ingageth men to morality,would foon be cafhiered out of the world. Our Author knows, fuch reafonings make as much againft what he pleads fpr,as what he oppofeth. Tenthly, The laft mifchief our Author hath feen meet to load Infant* baptifm with is, that by it the whole Antkhnftian interest is confirmed. Anfw. This is a heavy charge indeed could it be proved, but let us fee what he hath faid in or- der thereunto, frnd here he refers us to his pre- face, and he thinks he hath made it fo plain that every one that runs may read it : Strange confi- dence ! but a little to examine what hath been {aid, and it is this. If the very ail of /printing er pouring water upon the head or face of the child^ with the charms attending mnji give Grace, Rege- nerate, take away fin, fave the foul , add to the Church , give right to all Ordinances, as Mr. Popt hath ordained ? Ihen theje two things will follow. Firfl, Tbdt Cbrijh converfion, and the powerful preaching of the Go/pel, his means to ejfetl it mufi be flighted, ignorance and prophanenefs the truein* ter-ejl oftbatftate neceffarily brought in. Secondly, Hereby the nations neceffarily oblige themfelves by receiving his law to embrace alfo his dofirine, * K 4. Anfw, 136 jnfanMraptirm frc,m f eaten, Anfw. But what if the pra&ice of Infant-bap- f ifm dp not neceflitate any to afcribe any of thefe things to the very ad: however adminiftred > And what if vafily the major part of Orthodox Pedo- baptifts whether Ancient or Modern do difclaim the afcribing of any of thefe erte&sunto the very acl: of Baptifm, and on the other hand do receive and walk in the practice of it, in obedience to the law of Chrift, and that looking upon it as one of bis holy inftitutions appointed tor fuch holy ends and purpofes as Infants are capable of, what then will follow but this > That Mr. Darners is one of the moft unworthy and difingenious men that e- yer put pen to paper. Secondly, For the abfurdities he conceits may be j uftly charged upon that practice we plead for* And thus the Firft abfurdity is, 'Ihatperfons may have regene- ration and grace before calling, Anfe, I judge our Author will have hard work tq acquit himfelf of this abfurdity, unlefs it be by running into a greater, I would only ask him whether he thinks any Infants are faved , Or whether they can be faved without regeneration? But Secondly, Suppofe this (hould be an abfurdi- ty, which yet it is far from > how Infant- baptifm (hould be juftly charged with it, he neither doth ?ior can (hew. Secondly, Jhatperfons may be vifible-Church fnembers before converfion, Anfw. If he had laid members of the yifible Church, he had (hewed more ingenuity. But be they eitfyer members of the vifible Church or yifibk vifible Church members, wherein the abfurdity lies he tells us not. Its certain they fometimes were members of the vifible Church i mutt then all the wife difpenfations of God be abfurd, be- caufe they fute not every mans fancy ? Thirdly, lhatpexfons may believe, repent, be baptized and faved by the faith of another.. Anjw. But a little before Infant- baptifm was charged as laying a foundation to this error, viz. that Infants have faith, here it is charged with a quite contrary abfurdity. Surely it cannot be juftly charged with both that error and this ab- furdity. But if any have been fo weak as to af- firm the one or theother,yet it is difingenious to charge that upon the practice it (elf. Fourthly , 'that types andffjadows are profitable, when the antitype and fubftame is come, introdu- cing thereby the legal birtb-priviledg , the carnal feed. the typical holinefsjbe national Churchy with no body kporvs what more, to the reviving Ju- daifm and outing Chrijlianity. Anfw. Fortiter calumniare, et aliquid harebit, feems to be one of Mr. Vanvers, as well as Ma- chiavels maxims. Thatthe^birth-priviledge of the feed of Believers which is their intereft in the Covenant or federal holinefs and right to the ilgn and token of the Covenant did either appertain to the ceremonial law,or was typical of any thing undertheGofpelisinfmuated, without the leaft (hew or (hadow of proof, either from Scripture, Reafon, or humane Authority. Therefore let him pleafe himfeif with his own fancy ,only with this memento, that of every idle word, whether written or fpoken> men muft give an account at the day of Judgment* Fifthly 1 3$ Jnfantfiaptifm from ^eaben, Fifthly, 'that the better to exclude Believers *B&p\frnjiew Church Covenants are invented^ to en- ter the vifible Church byjnftead thereof. Anfiv. This can proceed from no other origi- na],but either grofsignorance of his oppofers prin- ciples and practices, or from meer prejudice if not fomething worfe. Let it be proved that Baptifm was appointed for the admiiiion of per* fons into particular Churches , or produce the Author that hath invented fuch new Covenants for the end here fpecified by him. Latt ly , For the Contradictions our Author fup- pofeth Infant- baptifm may be juftly charged with. And thus Firft, He conceits that this practice doth con- tradict what the pleaders for it do aflert concern- ing Baptifm: %hey affert (faith he) that Baptifm is afymbol of present Regeneration wr ought \and yet apply ed to ignorant^ unconverted babes uncapable of Regeneration. Anfw. This is no other contradiction than what might be charged upon Circumcifion ac- cording to the acknowledgment of our oppofers themfelves. They acknowledge that Circum- cifion was a fymbol of heart Circumcifion, (fee our Author page 223. See Mr, Tome s his examen page 83.) and(T fuppofe) by heart Circumcifion they mean Regeneration ■> and yet Circumcifion was applyed to Babes as ignorant, and as unca- pable of Regeneration as any Infants now arc Will they reconcile the contradiction as it refpe- ctes Circumcifion > And, I doubt not, they will fave us a labour of reconciling it as it refpects Baptifm,. Put Secondly » £nt>notofvaptifm,will appear if we coniider that thofe that affirm the one or the other to be a fign or fymbol of prefent Regeneration, mean, it is fo with re- fpect to the Adult : Now I have already (hewed that both Circumcifion and Baptifm might be appointed for different ends and ufes, with refe- rence to different perfons, and yet ferve to fome general ufes with reference to all. What con- tradiction is it to fay that Circumcifion was and Baptifm is a fymbol of prefent Regeneration actu- ally wrought, when applyed to the Adult h and yet apply the one or the other according to di- vine directions to Infants for thofe ends with re- ference to which it is appointed unto them : And what hath been faid for the reconciling thefe con- tradictions may fuffice for the reconciling his third and fourth imaginary contradictions, and as for his fecond I (hall coniider it under the iixth particular laid down for the difproof of Infant* baptifm. And therefore to come to his Fifth which he thus exprefTeth. 5. 7 hat the baptifmal Covenant enters into the viable Church, and yet they deny to Church mem" hers the priviledges thereof , and fepar ate from them without any warrantable caufe (hened, or orderly proceeding either againji them, or they that do own them asfucb. Anfw. If eur Author knows of any that are guilty of thefe contradictions, he may do well to convince them of their errours, but let not their miftake be irrationally charged upon the practice it felf- Sixthly x+p 2nfanM»aptifm from f eaten, Sixthly, Ibat wefeparatefrom Rome at tbefalje Church, and yet own their Baptifm the foundation ftone thereof: And others that pretend Reparation from national and parijh Churchts, and difown the baptizing of all good and bad with the finf ulcer emo^ nies attending it, yet if Papiji or Protejlant upon their own terms tender them] 'elves to their fellow* flrip, they are received without renouncing their fin" ful Baptifmy and performing it in that way they judge right. Anfw. Had our Author any (olid reafon to op- pofe our practice by,fure he would not fet up fuch bugbears that himfelf knows can only fcare chil- dren. But for this pretended contradiction it confifts of two branches. Firft, That u e feparate from Rome as thefalfe Church, and yet own their Baptifm,the founda- tion ftone thereof. Anjw. That Infant- baptifm is either Romes Baptifm, or the foundation ftone thereof, is (as mayjuftly befufpectedjfuggefted by our Author meerly to caft an odium upon that practice, and that contrary to his own knowledge : That any Pope, or popifti council was the inventor or in- ftitutorof Infant- baptifm, he hath not made fo much as in the loweft degree probable,Ifuppofe he will not have the confidence to affirm that whate- ver doctrine or practice hath been confirmed by any Pope or popi(h council is Antichriftian. If he (hould he muft by his own confeffion caft out the Baptifm of Believers, as well as of Infants. Let this then pafs for a meer calurony,without the leaft (hew of reafon for it. Secondly, For the other branch, that concerns not anfcnotofaperi. 141 not Infant- baptifm at all as fuch, in afmuch as our Author knows full well, it is all one as to our re- ceiving or not receiving fuch as he mentions, whether they were baptized in Infancy or when Adult. And therefore to divert to matters whol- ly excentrical to the queftion would be but a meer difpendium temporis : I (hall only fay, if any of thofe mentioned can receive no fatisfadtion about their Baptifm will they be baptized again? fuppo- fing they will take in their Infant- feed with them, they (hall not be oppofed by me. Seventhly, Our Author hath not yet done, he hath one thing more that he conceits a contradi- ction attending Infant- baptifm, and that is this: 'that m that plead for it do own the dottrine ofper- feverance, and do difovon falling from Grace , andyit baptize all the Children of believers , hecaufe we conclude them to he in the Covenant of Grace, and yet teach them converfwn, and in cafe of unbelief rejeft them as reprobates. Anfvo. As this proceeds from,if not wilful,yet very great ignorance, fo it fully acquits us frOfn two of thofe mifchiefs he hath afore charged the practice of Infant- baptifm with, for if we teach the feed of believers converfion, (as he fpeaks) and in cafe of unbelief re jed: them, how can our practice lay a foundation of ignorance and pro- phanenefs, or how can we be faid to confound the Church and the world ? Can teaching Con- verfion be a foundation for ignorance and pro- phanenefs ? Or can the rejecting of unbelievers confound the Church and the World * But to have done, let all men judge whether the practice we have pleaded for can be juftiy charged 1 42 3nfanf-bapH fm from ©eaten, charged with fuch mifchiefs, abfurdities, and contradictions as our Author hath been pleafed to load it with > Or whether bimfelf be not much more to be charged with abfurdities and contra- dictions, and at laft this mifchief, that he hath unjuftly reproached the good ways of God? Sixthly, Our Author endeavours to difprove the practice of Infant- baptifm by the fuppofed nullity and utter insignificancy of it. It is faith he, no ways fafe for any to reft contented with that Bap- tifm they received in their infancy, becauft fuch their Baptifm is a meer nullity and infgnificant no- thing in refpeci of the New iejiament ordinance of Baptifm. And this he endeavours to make out by thisreafon in the general, viz,, beemfe , faith he, there is that wanting in it which is fo effential to true Baptifm : And he inftanceth in a twofold fuppofed defect in Infant- baptifm. Firft, Ihere is , faith he, the right fubjea of Baptifm wanting. Secondly, Ihe true external form is alfo want* ingy as it is praUifed with us Anfvv. That Infants are the true and proper fubjects of Baptifm, hath been I hope fufficient- ly proved, and therefore I (hall pafs that, and only briefly enquire, whether to adminifler Bap- tifm by fprinkling or pouring water upon the face, be fuch a defective manner of ad mini ft ra- tion, as that it renders it a meer nullity, and in- figniricant nothing : So as that none may fafely reft contented in their Baptifm as fo adminiftred to them. Now for this I (hall only offer thefe few things to confederation, which I deiire may be duly weighed* Fird, Firft, That the way or manner of adminiftring Baptifm is not clearly and plainly determined in the Scriptures, neither the fignihcation of the word, nor any of the inftances left upon record of perfons baptized will determine it. This is fo fully demonftrated by others,in particular Mr. Wih^ that I (hall add no more for the evidencing of it. And therefore Secondly, That as there is but a probability that Baptifm was at any time adminiftred by im- meriion or dipping, fo there is a probability ( to fay no more) that fometimesit was adminiftred by pouring or calling water with the hand upon the face of the party baptized. Thus when fo great nnmbf rs were baptized together, and per- fons were baptized in their houfes at midnight. Thirdly, Let it be confidered, that Baptifm adminiftred by pouring water upon the face, doth anfwer and perform the ufes and ends of Baptifm, as well as it doth when adminiftred by immerfion dipping or plunging. For the making out of this I (hall not need to inftance in all the ends and u« fes of Baptifm, I (hall take only thefe four, 1 . The firft is to reprefent to, and as it were fet before the eyes of the mind the good, contain- ed in and conveyed by theCovenantofGrace.And hence Baptifm is ufually calPd a (ignihcant Ggn. 2. The ufe and end of Baptifm is to feal, and confirm unto the foul its own intereft in and en- joyment of that good. according to the true terms and tenour of the Covenant. And hence it is called a fealing or confirming fign. 3 . The ufe and end of Baptifm is fo far to re- prefent and hold forth the ways and means through 1 44 Jnfartf baptifm from f eaten, through which the foul comes to have an intereft in and enjoy that good, as may through the con- curring light of the word and alliftance of the fpi- rit raife the mind up unto due apprehenfions of, and advantage it, in the acting of its faith in and upon them, and enjoy the comfort of the good vouchfafed by 3nd through them: Thefe means are two fold according to a twofold kind of good contained in and conveyed by the Covenant of Grace. The firft of which is wholly extrinfecal to the foul, as the wafhing away the guilt of fin. The fecorid is intrin fecal as wafhing away the * filth of fin, and the railing of the foul from a ftate of death to a ftate of life. The firft is Chrift, as having born the curfe of the law, and thereby fa- tisfying the juftice and law of God in his fuflfe- rings, death, and burial, aud deliverance there- from in his refurrcction and exaltation. Secondly, The fpirit, as given to or poured out upon the foul, or (hed abroad (as the Apoftle elfewhere fpeaks ) in the heart. But. Fourthly, Theufe and end of Baptifm is to re* prefentand oblige the foul to its duty required onto or upon its reception and enjoyment of the fore-mentioned good : And this duty in the ge- neral is to die unto fin, and live unto God. And Baptifm is appointed for, and doth perform thefe ttfes and ends from a certain analogy and propor- tion that it bears as to the good contained in and conveyed by the Covenant of Grace , and the means through which that good is vouchfafed : Soto the duty required unto or upon the fouls reception of the good through thofe means.NoW Secondly, Smonototipn- 145 Secondly, I fay that Baptifm as admini/tred by pouring water upon the face, doth anfwer and may perform all thefe ufes and ends as well, audi as effectually as it would do if adminiftred by plun- ging of the whole body into water. For the clearing up of this I (hall offer thefe two things. Firft, That Baptifm?as adminiftred the one or the other way, doth not bear a full and adequate Analogy and proportion to all thofc things unto which in the performance of its ends and ufes it hath reference. As for inftance take Baptifm as adminiftred by immerfion, it bears not a full an^l adequate Analogy or proportion to all the things it hath reference unto-, this is evident, to inftance in two things amongft others. Firft, It doth not fully and adequately repre- sent the means through which the foul comes to be warned and cleanfed from the guilt of fin, the chief and principal means is the death of Chrift or the (bedding of his blood : Hence we are faid to be reconciled by the death of Chrift, Rom. $. to be xvafhed in his bloody Revel, i . Now Baptifm as1 adminiftred by immerfion, represents only his bu- rial and refurre&ion. but not his death or pouring out of his blood. Secondly, It doth not, as fo adminiftred, at alj reprefent the means whereby the foul is wa(hed from the filth of fin, that is the pouring of the fpirit upon, or (bedding him abroad into the haart of the patty baptized . So that fuppofing (as we deny not j that baptifm as adminiftred by pour- ing water upon the face, doth notbeai! an exad£ and adequate proportion or analogy to all the 1 46 Jnfant-bapttfm from ^eaben,' things, in the performance of its ufes and ends, it hath reference to, no more doth it as adminiftred by immerilon. Secondly, That Baptifm, as adminiftred by pouring water upon the face, as it doth bear fuch an analogy and proportion to all the things it hath reference to, as that it may through the concur* ring light of the word, and afiiftance of the fpi- rit perform all its ufes and ends as erTe&ually as if adminiftred by immerilon, fo it doth bear a more full and exacl proportion to fomeof them, than it doth as adminiftred the other way. This confifts of two branches. Firft, That Baptifm,as adminiftred by pouring water upon the face, doth bear fuch an analogy and proportion to all the things it hath reference unto, as that, as fo adminiftred,it may through the concurring light of the word, and afliftance of the fpirit, fufficiently perform all its ufes and ends to the party baptized. That I may not enlarge, I (hall only give two inftances, about which the greateft doubt muft rationally ariie. Firft, Baptifm,as thus adminiftred,fo far rcpre- fents (Thrift as dead, buried, and rifen again, as the means through which the foul comes to enjoy all the good contained in and conveyed by the Covenant of Grace, as may raife up the mind un- to him, and help the foul to ad its faith upon him for that good. This will appear by thefe two ob- fervations. Firft, That the death of Chrift, the main and principal means through which the foul comes to enjoy all the good of the Covenant, is in Scripture expreft hy hti pouring out his f&ttl unto death. Jfai. Stab nor of spten. 147 Ifai. $3. 1 2 . So all the fufferings of Chrift are cx- preft by this phrafe, I am poured out like voater^ Tfal. 2214. So the death and fufferings of Chrift are reprefen ted by pouring out the wine in the Lords Supper. And hence the mind being gui- ded by the light of thcfe Scriptures, and a (lifted by the fpirit,may raife it (di up unto due appre- henfions of, and may duely a& its faith upon Chrift, as dead, buried, and rifen again, by the fight of water poured upon the face, as well as by the light of the parties baptized immeiiion or plunging into the water. Secondly, That the burial, and refurre&ion of Chrift are in fome meafure figured and repre- fented by Baptifm as adminiftred by pouring wa- ter upon the face, as well (fuppofe it be not fo clearly J as by Baptifm adminiftred by^rnmerfion. Theres the pouring water upon the parfon repre- fenting the covering of the dead body with earth, which we know is by carting and as it were by pouring earth or duft upon it, and then there is the freeing the body from the water poured upoa it, or the party baptized raifmg himfelf up from under the water, fomewhat reprefenting the rai- ling of the dead body from under the earth thrown or caft upon it in the grave: So that Baptifm as adminiftred by pouring water upon the face,doth fo far reprefent the death, burial, and refurre&i* on of Chrift, as may through the means afore- mentioned perform its ufes and ends with refe- rence to the party Baptized. Secondly, The other inftance I would give, is in Baptifms reprefenting and engaging the foul to }ts duty, viz, to die to fin, and live to God in L 2 the ?4$ Jnfant^apftfm frcm^eatttt, the due exercife of Grace,and practice of holineis.' And thus Baptifm as adminiftred by pouring wa- ter upon the face, may as efTe&ually reprefent and engage to that duty, as though adminiftred by immcrfion or plunging. This is evident from What hath been already faid, for look how far Baptifm as adminiftred the one or the other way, doth reprefent to the mind the death, burial, and *efurre<3:ion of Chrilt, fo far it doth reprefent and oblige the foul to endeavour after a conformity to him, in dying unto fin , and arifing up to siewnefs of life. Thus from the Analogy and proportion that Baptifm bears to the death, buri- al, !and refurretftion of Chrift, the Apoftle infers, an obligation put upon all that are baptized, by ithat their Baptifm to die unto fin, and live unto pod. Now Baptifm as adminiftred by pouring Water upon the face, as it doth more fully repre- fent the death of Chrift, than as adminiftred by unmerfion, fo it doththough fomewhat more ob- scurely yet alfo fb far reprefent his burial and re- furre&ion , as may effectually reprefent to the mind, and oblige the foul to its duty/ Secondly, For the other branch of the fecond particular, namely that Baptifm as adminiftred by pouring water upon the face5doth bear a more full and exaft Analogy and proportion to feme of the things it hath reference unto than it doth as adminiftred by immerfioh. Let us inftanc/in that one great end and ufe of Baptifm, viz, to re- prefent to the mind and thereby raife it up to due apprehenfions of, and acting its faith upon the great means whereby the foul comes to be warned from the filth of fin, and rai&d up from a ftate df r * death death to a ftate of life. This means is (as I have (aid) the fpirit as poured out upon the foul .Now the pouring out of the fpirit is more fully and plainly represented by Baptifm as adminiftred by pouring water upon the face, than as adminiftred by plunging : This carries its own evidence along with it : From the whole of what hath been faid we may evidently fee, that no certain argument can be drawn from the nature, ufes , and ends of Baptifm, to evince the way and manner of its ad- miniftration to be by immerflon, inafmuch as being adminiftred by pouring water upon the face, it doth anfwer and may perform all its ufes and ends as really and effectually, as though admini- ftred by immerfion. But let that fuffice for the third consideration. Fourthly, That which I would further offer to Confederation, is the practice of,at leaft vaftly, the major part of the univerfal Church and people of God not only for the prefent, but for feveral hun- dred years by paft. Thus the way and manner of the adminiftration of Baptifm hath been and is by iprinkling or pouring water upon the face. And here we may conllder the qualifications of the per- fons fo pradtifing of it. They have been men as of the greateft parts and abilities, able to fearch in- to, weigh, and determine aright about the mode or manner of practices, as well as about the pra« Sices themfelves, fo men of the greateft fincerity acquaintance, and (as I may fay) familiarity with God, Now in doubtful cafes the pra&ice of the Church of Chrift ought to have its due regard : Au% Vei teftimoitw aliquid ejfe confirmandum ant e~ tram qui Vei amkifuemnt7 faith Plato in Twuto. And iSo anfant'bapttfm from Ij&aben, And furely when wc have the teftimony of fo ma- py friends of God, we ought not rafhly to change our pra&ice: The Apoftle takes it for granted that the cuftom of the Churches of God will by fin- cere faints be duly attended to, and therefore ci- ther to fupprefs that unbecoming cuftom among the Corinthians , of womens praying and prophe- fying unvailed, or to put an end to all thofe con- tentions that might arife or be continued about that pra&ice,he tells them they bad nofucb cuftom, nor the Churches of God, i Cor. 11 j6. That of Auftin cited by Partus, being duly bounded and rightly applyed, hath its weight in it, In quibus fcriptura nihil certe definit, mos populi Vet, atque inftituta major um pro lege habendajunt. But Fifthly, Let the bleffing that Raptifm3as fo ad- miniftred, hath been attended with to many thou- fands,as alfo how acceptable to God and comfort- able to themfelves they have walked through and finifht their pilgrimages here upon earth, as only baptized that way in ufe among us: be feriouily weighed : Of how many thoufands who have on « ly been baptized by fprinkling or pouringwater up on their faces, may it be faid as theApoftle faith of 'Enoch, they had this teftimony that they pleafed God, and have enjoyed the full benefit and bleffing of that practice. Now when God hath evidently attended an ordinance as adminiftred after this or that manner with a bleffing and that from one age to another and manifefted by variety of ways, his acceptation of fuch wh© have continued under it as fo adminiftred, we ought not rafhly and with- out good warrant from Scripture to attempt an alteration in fuch a manner of adminiftration.But Sixthly^ Sixthly, Let it be yet confidered, what ha- zard the adminiftration of Baptifm by immerfion or plunging expofeth the adminiftrator as well as the parties to whom it is adminiftred, to fall un- der the breach of fome Moral precepts, in fpecial the fixth and feventh. It is true, were it plain • ly determin'd in Scripture, that baptifm mould be adminiftred that way, we might expecl: pre- fervation from thofe evils, but when the manner of adminiftration is left abfolutely undetermin'd in fcripture, and confequently it is purely an in- different thing, whether adminiftred the one or the other way , how fuch prefervation can be groundedly expected, concerns thofe, who infift fo much upon that way of adminiftration, to con- ilder : I might yet add the incapability of many thoufands who are the proper fubjects of Baptifm, and ought to be baptized, to receive it that way. I mean it of grown perfons as well as Infants t Thus all that are converted upon dying beds and the like,now it feems wholly improbable that our Lorcj Chrift (hould make that manner of admini* ftration indifpenfibly neceffary , which would remedilefsly deprive many thoufands of the or» dinance it (elf. But to come to a clofe by what hath been faid we may fee, whether there be fo much as a probability that the adminiftring of bap- tifm by pouring water upon the face, which is the way I efpecially approve of, yea or by fprinkling doth render the ordinance a meer nullityand infig- nificant thing, and whether believers may not reft contented in their baptifm fo adminiftred to them. Yet this let me add, let every one be fully perfwa- ded in their own minds,only remembring tbat the manner of the adminiftration of Baptifm concerns not at all the fubje<3s of it. Laftly, i 52 ManMmptirm from f eatjen, Lartly, Our Author atterrps todiiprove Infant-baptifin by the eminent witnefs that hath been (zs he faith) born againit it from fir 11 to lali %.4nfvi. What heed is to be given either to Mr. Dan- vcrsin producing,or to the teftimonies of his witnelTes pro- duced by him, hath been afore confidered. I need add no more, only let me fay, it cannot be judged an unequal or irrational requeft, if I defire both him and all others of his perfwafion, that they will give a like attendance and cre- dit to the Authors cited by himfelf, in what they fay m favour of Infant baptiih, as they will give them or any 0- thers in what they are conceived to fpeak again (1 it. Now hoth\Auftin and Chryfafiom (whofeteitimony our Author allows) pofitively aiTure us, . that in their days Infant-bap- tifm was the univerfal practice of the whole Church, and the one of them, that it had been fo from the Apoilles days thitherto. So Eellarmine (whofe tefrimony he ought not to reject feeing it is produced by himfelf) faith, that Infant- baftfyn is written in the books of aJmoji all the ^An- cients. The vanity of what he faith of its being an Apo- ftolical tradition not written, becaufe it is not written m any Apoltolical book, appears from what hath been alrea- dy faid, that it is written in the books of almo/t all the cAncien'ts, is that our ^Author and others of his perfwa- fion are at prefent defir'd to attend to. And let me add that as it is written in the books of almolt all the Ancients, fb ne 79J quidem not the leair. word or fyllable is written in any of the books of any of the Ancients in a direct op- position againit k} either as diflaliowed by the fcriptures, or introduced into the Church by men. Now would but men give attendance to,& receive that three- fold teltimony with thatobfervation added thereunto, I doubt nor but they will be convinced that as Infant-baptifm wants not fufticient teftimony from men, fo it is their chief wifdom and anfwev rably will have their minds fomewhat the more difpofed to attend unto and embrace the teftimony it hath from God, Where he in exprefs words faith ,1 -will efiabhjb my covenant htween me and thee and thy feed after thee in their generati- ons for an everlajlirig covenant, to be a God unto thee and tly feed after thee. Ihoujb alt keep my covenant threftejhou arid thy feed after then. FINrS. •o O 3 53 03 A N E S SAY To Revive the \ Primitive Dodrine and Pra&ice of INFANT-BAPTISM In the Refolution of four QUESTIONS. . I. What are the Reafons of God's appointing the Token of the Covenant to be applyed to the In- fant-feed of his People > "II. What is the Good or Benefit they receive thereby ? HI. What is the duty of "Parents towards their Children as bearing the Token of thte Covenant? IV. What is the Improvement that Children, as grown up to years of Maturity, may and ought • to make of the Token, as applyed to them in their Infancy. ■ - 0 ' •■■ ■ " -■ — — — By Jojefh^Whfftunl Minister of the Gofpel. Maajfball run to andfro^ and knowledge {bail le tncreafed, Daniel iz. 4. Nil tru^efiff Veritas nift ahfcondi, Terra). LONDON, Prmtedtor Jonathan Rch'inf'.n^ at the Golden- Lion in St. Vj.uU Qhmch-Tard. 1676. % O T H E Judicious Reader. \He- Subject4 matters treated of in thefe Ejfayes are confeffedly weighty and importanvfomethingstn them,it mujl be acknowledged to many, if nn to mo/i in this age will feem newy and at leaft 5 before a through weighing of the whole, and diligent collation of one thing with another, fomewhat jiran?e* and no wonder j feeing none ofUte have 'prof ejjedly handled the I two former qu eft ions (wforein what is dubious andfuh- jell to cenfure will efpecially be found) here difcujfed* Whence Icannot but expe& thatfome, pojpblynot a few, fofoon as they underfiand how high I have carried the priviledges of the feed of Believers, and how great a* good 1 have aligned to them, and that univerj 'ally , will rejeft the whole as novel, unfound and errfinemj, though * upon no other account thin the different apprehenfionj themfelpes have hitherto had together with a prejudicate perfoafion of the impofjibilityofyeeldingfo much to the Seed of Believers, and that univer folly, and yet main- taining thofe great dotlrines ofEle&ion, &c. So long contended for by the generality of Proteftants. 'fa fitch I hive little tofy, Jave only to ajjure thejn that Iholdy and *m ready, according to that J mall Talent I- have re- A 3 caved ceivedy to contend with them for thoje Vottrines, as to the Sum and Subfiance of them, that they are jttftly jea- lous of having any breach made upon, and had I appre- hended any inconfijlency between what is here offered and thofe Vofirines, thefe Papers had never feen the Light : Eat as for ethers, who by humility, fence of imperfeUU ons, and confeioufnefs to themf elves of not having made jo thorow an inquiry into thefe matters as may be made, are kept apprehenfwe of a pojjibility of receiving an addition to that light they have received about them\ I hope I may without offence humbly recommend thefe Ejfayes to their ferious perufid, not defiring a fudden comply ance from any \ that a tbrougb-fearch b made in- to what is here offered, and things duely compared the one with the other-, is all that Iexpeft. 'that jotne Ef- f ays of this nature (hould be made feems neceffary, it being fufficiently \nown by all how great a let to the im- braemwnfand comfortable w dicing in the praUice of In- fant Baptifm the v?ant of a fatisfaHory refolution of thefe quejiions hath been andjiill is. What more frequent | in the mouths of the unwxcy rejetlors of that practice than fitch queftions as thefe ? Eor what reafin can it be imagined* that God fltoufd appoint fuch a folemn and weighty Ordinance as that of Baptifa tf , to be applyed t& Ignorant Babes* who can make no ufe or improvement of it ? or what good have they ly it '< or if we will affign any good to them that is wmh contending for, how can i we maintain ihoje do&rims of Eletlion and fpecial Grace, &CC. we fa zealpufly offert ? 7 he removal of of which ftumbtyyg-blocfcj jeems necejfary, and is here dc- fgned. Hhat the Infant- Seed of believing Parents are interejiedin the Covenant of Grace, or are confederates zvith their Parents, and have, aright to the tok^n If the " Covenant) which %ow ii t:afiijm, are ht re taken for granted %o w Uttmctous meaner. granted^ and lie as the Foundation to theenfuing difcourfe : and indeed both thefe now appear with fo much clearnefs of evidence, and meet with fucb feeble oppofition from Mencontrary*minded, that I cannot fee bow any can rationally expett the further eftablifhment of either, but may juftly expeBwe fhould build upon thofe Foundations laid. And to nothing can the [lead- fajinefs of the generality of judicious Cbriflians, whe- ther learned or unlearned, in their Judgments and Fracfices refpe&ive to the Covenant-Intereft andBaptifm of the Infants we fpeafyf, befo properly, and according to any principles of Chriftianity, attributed on thttftde the watchfull eye of the great Shepherd of the Flocf^as to the clearnefs of that evidence, efpecially confidering how little inquiry hath been made into, and how little fatis- f action hath been given about the question here debated. Neither ought nor • rationally can any different appre- benfwns difcernable about the refolution of thefe quefti- ons, wherein the jhutlure to be raifed doth confift, be interpreted as a wearing to the Foundation laidjthougb fuch an evil conjlruftion ii put upon them by fome: For my felf, however I may be apprehended, by fuch efpeci- ally that (iand aloof off, and view my worl^at a di~ fiance, to have built but Hay and Stubble h yet upon a through fcrutiny and jufi trial I cannot but hope, yea, and am greatly perfaaded, it will be found what will abide the Fire. Indeed in my fe arch after the good, be- nefits, and advantages accruing to the Seed of Belie- virs by their Covenant- Inter eft and Baptifmjbave wal- ked in a Vath much unfrequented of latter years by the Foot of Man, and have fe en many dangerous Rockj and Precipices both on my right hand and on my lefty and that not at a great dijlance only , but very neary which \>ow to avoid I muft fay hath c but the jerious confideration that it is a Covenant of Grace that ii extended to them, and taking duemeafures eft he unfe arch able Riches of the Grace of Cod, the (hewing forth and illuflration cf which i* de- fignedby his entring Covenant with Man, will be of no fmalt ufe unto any that jhall purfue the enquiry I have entnedkpon* 'Tvi certain, Wvs a mojl glorious exprtfjioht (Tftfbe J&raee of Cod, that he fljould extend his Covenant to fhfj&edff bis People with themfelvei, and grant fv much %o tfie SJutiiciottS ftea&et. much good to them thereby, lea lthin\it maybe faid, tis one of the moft glorious exprejjions God hath made of his Grace to Men, next to that unfp eatable Gift the Son of his Love. But feeing 'tis a Covenant of Grace, and God the Author of it vs fo unfearchably rich in Grace, why jhould the Glory of it obflrutt our9belief? Why Jhould itfeem incredible \th at God Should extend his Co- venant to Infants, and grant them all that good that hath been affignedfreely, though themfelves are utterly uncap able of performing any duty antecedently as the condition, or confequently immediately by way of grati- tude, when where he doth impofe a condition oa in re- Ipett of the adult, yet himfelf gives it, and wh§t fruit of gratitude he receives, is found (as the Prophet^ Ho- fca /peaks) in himfelf > It's true fome of our oppofers, to the prejudicing of their own minds, and for the lay- ing liumbling-blochj in the way of others, have pretend- ed that we hold thejame conditions are incumbent upon Infants even in their Infant-ftate, that are incumbent upon the Adult, only thdt Parents are taken as proxies to perform the condition in the room and Jiead of their Children. A great miflake. We fay the Covenant is wholly free to Children during their- pure Infant-ftate% and that no condition at all is incumbent upon tbemjnly that they be the Seed of Believers* Hence, when we fpeal^ofthe condition efClildrens Covenant-lnterejl^we mean no more, but that it is necejfary that they be the Seed of Believers, the promifes being to Abraham's Seed (and fuch confejpdly true Believers are,) in their Generations. And why the greatnefs and glo- ry of that Good) and thofe Triviledges and Benefits af- figned to them, Should jiumble any, I can fee no juft rea- Jon, if it be confidered that it is the Covenant of Cjrace that k extended to them, and due meafures of the Grace Grace of God be tahfn> and both confidered in " corijnnftion ninth bit design in ejlablijhing bis Covenant with, and granting all tbe Grace and Bleffrngs of it unto Men. 'though truth, as its Autlm neither needs > nor is much advantaged as to its entertainment by thefe,whofe care it is to receive tbe Law from the mouth of the Supreme Law-giver by the teftimony of Men i yet vphen any Man bath a Cat to expofe to public^ view, rrhat be conceives to be jo, which carries an ap- pearance of difimancy from tbe kriovpn fentiments if the generality of Orthodox Divines contemporary with him, to evidence the correjpondtncy thereof with the Principles and Judgments of former Divines, of equal repute for Orthodoxy and Soundnefs in tbe Faith, may be ufeful, both as a means to fecure bim- felf from tbe cenfure of fingularity, and what be tx- pfeth to view from rejection, before a through-enquiry be made into it. As for what I have ajfirted, I am willing it (hould undergo tbe mofi fevere Scrutiny by all unbyaffed and judicious lovers of Truth, and anfwer- ably tbjt it fhould be rejetledy or embraced^ according to the Evidence it carries along with it. Neither jbaQ I make much jearch after the Judgment either of an- cient or modern Divines h neither have L as the Cafe at prefent ftands with me, a convenient opportunity to do it : Tet this may be fatd in the general, *tis well \nown to all that have any considerable- acquaintance with their Writings, that the generality, if not the univerfality of the Fathers living in the firf Ages, did grant, jea ajfert the full uf what I hive done, andy m mofi thin^ fame what more t but therein I doubt not but they will be acknowledged by thofe I have now a fpcciil refpeci unio to have exceeded the bounds of Iruth) and confequently that what they have allowed , be- %o tile jmmctottS Wearier* beyond what I haveafferted* mufl: be reckoned inter nsevos. That wherein (it is true) they have declared their Judgments mofi clearly and fully in and about* U thofe two Benefits I have affigned to the infant- Seed of Believers* viz. The ir difcharge from the guilt and condemning power of Original fin , and a right to fu- ture Salvation-, and confequently their infallible enjoy* ment of it* in cafe of their death in their pure Infant- ftates. But they that have granted them thefe two Benefits* cannot be rationally fuppofed to deny the third* viz. Their inter eft and propriety in God* feeing pardon of fin and propriety in God are infeparable. And yet that they did universally ajfert the nhefifity of their perfonal Faith* and clofure in with the Covenant* when come toy ears of maturity. ,is undoubted. So that* I conceive* it mil be readily granted* jtbat the Judg- ment of the generality, if not the univerfality of the Primitive Fathers* lies en my fide > and that wherein I diffent^from them* they themfelves diffented from the Truth. Indeed it muji not be denied that at leaft too many fecm to* pnjfjbly fome really did* afcribe thefe things too abftracledly to Baptifm* not having that re* gard to the Covenant that they ought to have had '■> but that all* yea, or the major part, efpecially in the purer Ages of the Church* dtd fo* it not only more then can be proved* but the contrary may be rationally conclu- ded from variety of pajfages fcattered up and down in their Writings* As for our modern Divines* efpe- cially thofe of the prefent Age, I fiull readily grant they have been* and Jlill are* as to the major part of theft otherwife minded. Their miftakes I humbly con- ceive need rectifying in order to a through ejiablijhmem of the minds of Men in the practice I in common with them plead fori and therefore their bare tejiimonies ought UTo $e 3fuDtctottJS Header; ought not to be improved again/} me. Tet I am not wholly fingular, fome in this prefent age, and more in the ages laft foregoing, bavefufficiently declared their Judgments in a nigh if not exaft correfpondency to what I have affirmed. The 17 Article of the Synod ofDott, in their firft head of DoHrine, viz. Predefli- nation, come up fully to part of what I have affirmed, and therefore 1 thin\meet to tra»firibe it. It is this, Quandoquidem de veritate Dei ex verbo ipfius nobis eit judicandum, quod tefhtur liberos fidelium eftk San&os, non quidem nat ura, fed beneticio foederis gratuic,in quo illi cum parentibus comprehenduntur pri parentes de Ele&ione & falute fuorum Hberorum, quos Deus in infantia ex hacvitaevocat, dubirare non debentWhkhfeems necejfarily to require, as might eafilybemideout, considering their judgments in all tboje five controverted points, that theyfljould hold the full of what I do. And as thefe worthy Divines expref- ly declare their Judgments to be for the Ele&ion and infallible Salvation of all the Infant- Seed of Believers dying in their Infancy ; So IJball quote one famous in bis day (to let pafs particular Divines of that Synod) exaWy concurring with what I have faid concerning the difcharge of all Infants we mwfpesl^ of from the guilt of Original Sin ; thit is famous Urfm ; Hi* words are thefe. Peccatum Originale in Biptifmo formale tollitut, Ted materiale manet ; that w, as himfelf ex- pounds, tollimr quoad reatum, miner quoad pravi- tatem. Some others of the fame mind with me as to the main Good benefits and Priviledges aligned to the feed of Believers might b* mentioned^ and a further fearch into t\ye Judgment of Authors concerning that way I have proceeded in,tofecure myself from thofe Rochj bor- dering upon it, was intended) but an unexpected Pro- vidential xo m 3itttitctottsi Mtitntt. vidential removal of me from my ftudy, when I was a- bsut to put the laft hand to the enfuingfljeeetsy preven- tedy by means whereof the Booj^ap fears, more naked than otberwife it might have done. But to baft en- The Reader may take notice >tbat the firft draught ofthefolu- tion here given of the two firji queftions was drawn up about four or five years fmce'y but I was not without fome Iwpes that feme abler Ten might have performed this Workf and when I J aw a call to it, I was willing ra - tber to go gradatim than run? that I might tread more fecttrely. Upon both which -accounts .with fome others, my firji promife hath beenfoUng unperformed, and now at laft it being performedjmujt fay two things greatly cheekjny expectations as to the'defired effe&s of this my undertaking* 'the firft is the curfory reading and overly perufal of Books by the generality of Readers. How few jhall we find that will be at the paines, or allow tbemf elves fuf- fieient time throughly to weigh and well digeft what they ready and with the noble Bereans/^rc& the Scrip- turcs daily, whether the things they read heft? How do moft curforily read Books coming to their handstand if any thing appear to correfpond with their precedent jenti- ments, they readily embrace that or if any thing dif agree therefrom^ they as fuddenly re-fed. without a due weighing of what is written, and comparing one thing with another : But alas 1 Divine Truths jfpecially thit lie more towards the bottom of ihofe Golden Mines con* tained in the Scripiures, or are obj cured by the different fentiments and reafonings of Men, wiUjiot be found out or difcerned in themfelvesy and diftinguifljsd from errors atfeeafya rate- 'Thefecond if thofe grofs negh&s} that Parents are ge- nerally guilty of towards their Children* Ob the mur- ders Xo tlje JttHicions Header* ders even of their own Children that mofl Parents will be found guilty of ! I mean it not of their Bodies, but of their Souls. Caufa Caufa? eft Caufa Caufati U a fure maxim, 'the Apofiacy of Children is the caufe of their Death, but the negletl of Parents is the great caufe of their Apofiacy* Parents will pop bly catch at what makes for their comfort with reference to their Children, efpeciallyfuch of them at have been either carryed from the Womb to, or takfn out of the Cradle, and laid a- fleep in the Grave;yet I much fear but few will be (tirred up and effectually moved to a vigorous performance of their duty towards thofe'whofe lives are prolonged, and that arrive to that ripenefs of age, that capacifies them for the performance of the conditions of the Covenant themfelves. Let but Parents throughly ftudy their Cbil- drens Priviledges as Confederates with themfelves^ and faithfully apply themfelves to t\ye difcharge $f their duty towards them, and it will give good ground of hope that both he that hath fown, and they that reap, viz. both Parents and Children^ (hall have a time, or rather an Eternity torejoyce together. 'Thine in the Service ofChrijifor thine own and thy Childrens Souls, "December 14. Jo. Whiilon. 1575. the 'the Principal Errata s. PAge 41. Line ult. for in read//#/*. p. 107. J.J. £01 fen fet.hye. p. m. 1. 10. forajfured r. ?/Vre. 132. 1.6. after 4&a3kthat. p. ifo. 1.2. for impoffibtlityx.imfrobabtUty. 'the Author having not feen the firft and the three lafi fheets "'tis probable fomt faults are there efcaped, which the Ingenuous Reader it defied to pardony or amend. ftnmt* ^ww^^7-/s Treatife of Baptifm. Where- in as the vanity of his Authorities are, though briefly, yet fufficiently dete#e(J jj fo • his Do&rinal Part is efpecially examined and confuted, andlnfants Right to Baptifm fUrthcr confirmed. . & Both fold by Jonathan Robinfon at thfc Golden- Lion in St. Paul's Ghwch-Tard* An Effay to revive the Pri- mitive Doftrineof In- fant-Baptifm, CHAP. I. An Introduction to the whole en filing Difcourfe. The fur grand Enquiries propofed. The Reafons ofGoa's ordaining the Application of the token of the Covenant to the Infant- feed of his People^ reduced to three heads : The fir ft ( viz. ) thofe respecting God*, entred npony three Reafons respecting God aff/gned* Virft^ his oven Goodnefs, Grace ? and Sove- raign pleasure. 2. The Reference that the. Application of the token of the Covenant hath to his Glory y the Ways how it refers there- unto^ opened. 3 . The reference it hath to the fupportation and enlargement of the Kingdom of his Son Jefrn Chrifl. T Hat all Ordinances and Infticutions that arc indeed of Divine Original, have a direct re- ference to the glory of .God, and are iignal- lyexprelilve or his good will unto Men> is above all comroverfie among thpfe thai bear the name B of 2 %$t $*imftfte Doctrine of of Chriftians : yet wherein their reference, at Ieaft o^ fome of them to that end, and of what ufeand ad* vantage they are unto Men, and confequently wha{ good will is expreffed by them, is not difcerned by many who have the truth of Grace. Hence it comes to pafs fometimes, that fome Ordinances whofe claim to that Original is moft juit, yet are neglected by fome, and utterly rejected by others, and that with the greateft fiercenefs of oppofition, as judged of a quite contrary reference and fignification. This ( efpecially of later years ) hath been the lot of that great Ordinance of Infanr-Baptifm ; the main reafon whereof fee ms to be the fad Corruption, or rather utter lofs of the True Doctrine of the Cove- nant, efpecially of the Signs and Seals thereof, under that Antichriftian darknefs, that fo long prevailed over the face of the Chriftian World. Neither is it to be thought grange, that a practice which is not apprehended to have any reference unto the glory of God, or the good and benefit of men, /hould be (u- fpe&ed as to its Original, and anfwerably rejected by Confcientious Chriftians. Hence the revival of the true Doctrine of the Covenant, and initiatory Seal, and Token hereof, at leaft fo far as the feed of Believers are concerned in the one or the other, muft needs have a great conducency to the eftabliiliing of the practice it felf, as well as to the due improvement of it both by Parents and Children. Some fmall efiays or that nature are at prefent de- figned ; only the Doctrine of the Covenant fhall be no further lanched out into, than the rcfolution of four Inquiries relating to the Application of the Seal and Token thereof to Infants (the difcuflion of which hath been fometimes fince promifed) makes neccfTary. JJnfanr^iBapttun tii>fo% $ neceflary. The rofolution of thofe Inquiries is the to* ipyov of the enfuing Difcourfe, whereby I am nor without feme hope, that at leaft, fome little light may fhine forth for the difcovery of what re- ference this Ordinance hath to the glory of God, and how great a (ignificacion it carries, and fignal cxpreffion it is of his good will to men. And as pre- vious to a more clear procedure in what is intended, ir muft be remembred, that three things are at prefenc prefuppofed, and taken for granted as being elfewhere proved. i. That the Infant-feed of Believers are Joynt- Confederals with their Parents in the Covenant of Grace, or have a true and proper intereft in the Co- venant of Grace. 2. Thac as Circumcifion of old was, fo Baptifm now is the outward Sign or Token of chat Covenant. 3. That Infants as being within the Covenant, and under the promifeof it, ought to have the outward Sign or Token applyed unto them. Thefe things being already proved, I fhall imrne- diatly come to the difcuiTion of che aforcfaid enqui- ries, which are. 1. What are the reafonsof Gods appointing the Application of the Token of the Covenant to the Infant-feed of his People. 2. What are the Benefits and Advantages arifing and accruing to them thereby. 3. What is the duty of Parents towards their Children as bearing the Token of the Covcnanr. 4. What is the Improvement that Children them- felves, may and ought to make of the Token of the Covenant applyed to them in their Infancy, as they grow up co years of Maturity. To bigin with B 2 -au The 4 %i)0 $iimitiU 2D0ttrtne of r. Thefirft, viz. Why God hath appointed, or what are the reafons of his appointing the Application of the Token of the Covenant to the Infant.feed of his People ? Anfo. That all the Laws and Ordinances of Di- vine Iuftitucion, yea even thofe, of which no other reafon can be alfigned by us but the fole will of the Legislator, are mod rational, as agreeing with the higher! and moft per feci: Principles of true Reafon, is abundantly fecured by their alone Relation to him as his, whois the only wife God. Nothing irracional can be the efTccl of Inftnk Wifdom. Hence, arc we allured that any pradtice is of Divine Inftitution, we ought, and fo far as our hearts by renewing Grace are brought to their due obedience and allegiance unto Gad, we mall readily comply with them, as acqui- efcing in their rationality as commanded by him, who is wife in Heart-, as well as mighty in Tower or Authoricy. And fierce it muft needs be our Wif- dom, as well as our Duty to bend our inquiries more after the will of God, consuming what ihallbe our Duty, than the reafons of his conflicting this or that to be fo. Are we allured of his will, his Wifdom fecures his willing .nothing but what is moft rational, or what there is fufricient reafon he mould command •. and his will alone is a fufficient warrant for our obe- dience. But yet God having made Man a rational and intelligent Creature, and given him eyes to fee with- ail, he deals not with him according to mere Sove- raigncy, but indulgeth him a liberty, or rather in- joyns it as a duty to enquire after, and fatisfy him- felf about the rationality of his commands : only a twofold Pr ovifo being attended unco. i. Thac 3tofanfc23aptffm retiib'D, $ i. That he keep himfelf within the "".''..'. bounds of Sobriety, and prefume not %™$0"J£ to be wife above what is written. Secondly, That in cafe the rationality of rhis or that command appear not, either as not revealed by God, or as above the reach of his fhallow onder- ftanding to difcern it, he yield comere Soveraignty, and anfwerably refolve to obey, though he fee no other reafon,but only this that God hath commanded it. And for Chriftians ftill attending to thefe Pro- vifoes, to fearch after, and acquaint themfelves with the reafonablenefs of Divine Commands,or the reafons of God's commanding this or that as a duty, condu- ceth not a little, as to their cheerful and complacential walking in ways of Obedience; fo to their pleafing and honouring God in and by chat their obedience : Per though it is true, Reafon as darkned and corrupt- ed in fallen manrifech up with a ftrong oppofiriori againft whatever is of God, the to (p^Jvwp.0L tvK octrme of * and his feed ; tor it was given to him Pjfcator )„ uCQt not only for himfeif, but for his feed alfo : AUs 7. 8. He gave unto Abraham the Cove* nant of Circumcifwny the Covenant fealed and con- firmed by Circumcifion. . For God to give to Ahta- ham and his Seed the Covenant, was a glorious ex- prcflion of his goodnefs to him and them j but to add an outward Sign for the confirmation of it was an aggravation of that his goodnefs. The confirmation of the Covenant by an outward Sign adds to the va- lue of the Covenant it felf, and is a higher exprcflion of the goodnefs of God both to his people and their feed. Hence for Parents to accept of and apply the Covenant with the Sign and Token thereof onely for and to themfelves, buttorefufc to do the like for or to their Seed, is to reject no fmall part o£ that good- nefs he defigned for them, and had by the true tenor of the Covenant granted to them ; which fuppofing it may not be interpreted fuch a defpifingof his good- nefs as the Apoftle upbraids the Gentiles with, and by which, as he tells them in Rom. 2. 4, 5 . 'they trea- fund up to themfelves math* againft the day oftpratb^ B 4 and s %rje pnmmue apotttme ot and revelation of the righteous judgment of God : yet it comes fo nigh to, and participates fo much of it, as fhould make all tender Confcientious ChriftianS greatly cautious of it. We fee how mu:h God was provokt by Ahaz in refufing a Sign when offered for the confirmation of a particular.promile. How much more provoking may it be, when Parents not only refufe the Sign of his Covenant, but his, Covenant alfo though not for themfclves ytt for theirs ? 'Tis above queltion tome, that it is lefs dangerous to err on the right hand, and would be vaftly lef; difpleailng unto G^d, for Parents to claim the Covenant for their Children, and apply the Token of it to them, upon a fuppofal of their intereft therein, fuppofing the one not to extend, nor the other to appertain to them 5 than to reject and refufe the one ar.d the other, fuppofing the one doth extend, ^nd the other apper- tains to them. Favoresfunt ampliandi, Favours are to be inlarged. 3Tis cenainly more dangerous to nar* row and (traiten the favours of God to men, than to overamplify them in cafes that are dark and doubtful, though here I conceive the cafe is notfo, but -If peak upon fuppofition that it were indeed fo. The undervaluing or refufing any exprellion of the Grace and goodnefs of God unto men is greacly pto- voking to him. Efau to this day bears the brand of a profane perfon for parting at fo low a rate with his birth-right, Heb. 12. 16. 3Tis dangerous either to have our eye evil becaufe God is good toothers, of to undervalue or reject any expreilion of his goodnefs to our fejves, or ours, but that's by the way. Now I fay it is from the goodnefs and free Grace of God, guided in the various expreffions thereof by the alone Councel of his own will, that he hath extended his Covenant Covenant with an outward Sign and Token annexed, either to Believers, or their Seed, (o one fpecial reafon of the one and the other muft be afligned thereunro. But then fecondly, The next reafon refpe6ting God is the reference and fubferviency that the Application of the Token of the Covenant to the Infant-feed of Believers hath to his own glory, he is greatly glorified thereby, and that feveral waves. 1. His Goodnefs, Grace and Love in extending his Covenant unto (hem is made more manifefl: and con- fpicuous unto men. As in the administration of the Lords Supper, the death cf Chrift is openly fhewn forth ( as often as ye eat this bread, and drin\thls cup KotTDtjyeMeTe, ye openly declare, preach or flier? forth the Lords death, faith the Apoftle, 1 Cor. n. 26. ) and confequently both the Grace and Love of the Father in lending his only begotten Son, and the Grace and Love of the Son in giving bimielfto he a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the fins of men is publickly manifcftcd, and made after a fort viiible unto men. So by the Application of the Token of the Covenant, whether to the adult, 01 to Infants, the Covenant between God and them is publickly folemnized, and thereby his Goodnefs, Grace, and Love, in entring it with them refpe&ively is openly declared,and made more confpicuous unto men. And confequently as God's extending his Covenant to the Infant-feed of his People is a furtfur and higher expretfion of his Goodnefs and Love, than his entring it only with themfelves • fo by the Application cf the Token to them there, is a further manifestation of that his Goodnefs Grace and Love made unto them : and by how much the more clearly and openly any of the Attributes of God are mamfefted unco men, by io much io %tje Ubimitfot SDoctrme or much the more meet objects they become for their acknowledgments, admiration, and adoration ; and confequently fuch a manifeftacion ol his Attributes hath a direct reference to his glory, and ic is the duty of all men to yield him the glory of his Attributes by futablc acknowledgments , admiration, and adora- tion according to the manifeftations he makes of them. Ob ! Sing unto the Lord a new fong, for be bath done marvellous things : his right band, and bis holy arm hath gotten him the ViUory. 'the Lord bath made hpmn his Salvation : bis Kigbteoufnefs bath he openly fhewn in the fight of the Heathen, faith the Pfaimift, Pfalm.pS. i, 2. The full explication of this Scrip- ture is not defigned. That which alone concerns our prefent purpofe is, the PfalmiJFs, exciting men tofing ancn> fonguntothe Lord* upon this ground, or for this reafon, that he bath made \ytown bis Salvation* tnd openly fhtwed his Kigbteoufnejs in the fight or be- fore the eyes of the Heathen » by making known his Salvation he hath openly {hewn his Righteoufnefs. The more vifible God makes any of his Attributes unto men, be the way or means by which he doth it what they will, the more is he to be praifed,admired, I and adored by them : So Rev. if • 3, 4. when God hath executed judgments upon Babylon , the blcffed Aflembly of Victors over the Beaft are brought in as fingiflg the fong of Mofis, and the fong of the Lamb, part of which is, If ho Jhall not fear thee 0 Lord and glorifie thy Name ? as if he fhould (ay, fureiy every one would do it • or oh how great is the ftupidity of men that they do not do it ? And Mcufant Mundi what is the matter? why fhould men ftupcrem^ quod conjideratione mlrabilium Dei tperum 4d turn timtndttm £? glorificandumnonpermo'vtntur. fear* rjMtant-2i5aptatn teuurD n fear God and glorify his Name now rather , or more than formerly ? They give the reafon. 'thy Judgments y and confequently thy Jufticc, Holinefs* and Power in the execution of them are manifefl. The more vifible God makes his Attributes, the more he is to be glorified by men, and the more inexcu- fable is their ftupidity in cafe of failure therein. Now I fay by the Solemnization of the Covenants extend- ed to, and entrcd with the Seed of Believers, by the Application of the Token thereof unto them, the Goodnefs, Grace, and Love of God is made more manifeft, or is openly fhewn in the fight, or before the eyes of men, and confequently hath a peculiar fubferviency to his glory. And let it be farther ob- fcrved, that as God's extending his Covenant to, and entringit with the Infant- feed of his People is an expreflion of greater Goodnefs, Grace, and Love, than the entring it with the Parents alone would have been; fo there isfomewhat in that his extending his Cove- nant to Infants for the Illuitration and Manifeftation of the riches, and freenefs cf his Goodnefs, Grace, and Love, beyond what there is in his entring it with Parents, or any adult perfons whatfoever. But of that more hereafter. 2. Hereby the Soveraign Headfhip of our Lord Chrift is publickly owned, and practically acknow- ledged by Parents, who in obedience to his revealed Will have the Token of the Covenant apply ed to their Seed, and that two ways. i. Bythefolcmn and vifible dedication of theirs unto him, and entring them as Subjects of his King- dom. The Apoftle tells us that for this end £hri(i both died? and rofe and revived^ that he might be Lord hth of the dead and living, Rom, 4, 0. As the Fa- ther n %$t fyiimitiU IDOftrine of ther hath given him an Univerfal Headfhip over all Creatures ; Co he hath acquired the actual exercife thereof by his Death and Refurrecfton. Now as the adult by receiving the Token of the Covenant, and dedicating themfelves there6y unto Chrift as his Sub. jedh and Servants do publickly own, and practically acknowledg his Headfhip over themfelves ; fo by having the Token of the Covenant applyed unto theirs, and dedicating them unto Chrift thereby, and entring them as joynt Subjects of his Kingdom, they alike own and acknowledg his Headlhip over theirs , and confequendy openly own and acknow- ledge the Univerfal Headfhip of Chrift. They have only an abfolute power over, and right to dedicate themfelves and theirs, who, as the Apoftle fpeaks, are 61 auTCov, theirs, or of them, unto Chrift and un- to God in him. And hence they go to the utmoft bounds of that power and light that God in Nature, or his Word hath inverted them with, in their endea- vours to promote, and propoxate the Headfhip of Chrift over a-H. Now thus publickly to own, and pra&ically to acknowledg the Soveraign and Univer- fal Headfhip of Chnfl: grcacly redounds not only to the glory of Chifl: as Mediator, but to the glory of God the Father. God hath highly exalted him, and given him a Name above every name, that every tongue fhould confeft that Jefujis the Lord to the glory of God the Father, Phil. 2. 9, 11. And let me fay, hath our Lord Chrift defervedfo ill at their hands, whom he hath redeemed with no lefs price than his .own pre- cious Blood, that they fhould grudg him his Univer- fal Htadfhip, or fhould refufe to dedicate them up to him, and enter them as Subje&s of his Kingdom, whom ^nfanr^Saptifm teWfc 15 to/hom God and Nature hath inverted with a power and right fo to do. 2. By a f jlemn dedicating of their Infants unto Chrift, and entring them as Subjects of his Kingdom, by a Right or Ceremony of his own Inftitution,they do vifibly own, and practically acknowledg his Head- fhipovcr his own Houfe or Kingdom, as Lord and Law-giver thereof, which again greatly redounds as to his, fo to his Father's glory. The ApofUe infor- ceth his exhortation to Liberality to the Poor by this argument, that they-, viz. the poor woul d glorifie God for their profejftd fub'jettion to the Goflel of Chri\\y 2 Cor. p. 13. A practical proftflion or. cur fubjedHon to the Gofpel of Chrift, or to the Laws and Ordi- nances of his Kingdom, redounds more to his and his Father's glory then a mere verbal profedlon doth. A verbal profeQion may be without the belief of the heart, but practice evidenceth a real belief of what is profefled in words. And as by realizing cur belief of his Soveraignty and Headfhip over his Church, we do our felves more immediatly honour and glorifie Chrift; fo others will be provokt and ftirred up to glorifie God for that our profefled fubjeChon to his Gofpel. And here kt it be obferved, that as in pra- ctice to fubmit to any Command and Ordinance of Chnft is fo far an owning and acknowledging of his Headfhip and Soveraignty .• fo by how much the more purely fuch a Command or Ordinance proceeds from his foveraign will and pleafure, by fo much the more full and apparent is our owning and acknowledging of his abfolute Soveraignty. Hence in as much as pofitive commands ( and fuch is that concerning the Application of the Token of the Covenant ) do more cfpecially proceed from the foveraign will and plea. fure 14 Xt)e 0tfmtttfce a>ottttne of fure of Chrift, we by our profcfTed fubjection unto them do eminently own and acknowledg that his ab- folme fovcraignty. On which account it fcems to be (a thing not un- worthy our obfervation, ) that all more efpecial pro- bations, or trials of men have been made by fomc pofitive command. And yet further, fome Laws and Ordinances of this kind ( at leaft quoad nos, ) proceed more purely and absolutely from the mere foveraign will and pleafure of Chrift then others do. Some have the reafon, yea (co»fideratis confiderandis) neceflity of their Inftitution ingraven in legible Cha- racters upon them, and men by a little ufe and exercifc of their own reafon may be convinced of the neceflity of fubmitting to them, in order to their enjoying rhe good conveyed by them ; and anfwerably may fubmic rather out of fclf-love, then from a fence of the fove- raignty of Chrift ; whence their fubmitting to them is not fo evident an acknowledgment of his Soveraignty. But now others, however alike rational, andnecefla- ry in themfelvcs, yet their rationality and neceflari- nefslics more remote from ordinary obfervation, yea maypoffiblyfeem (at leaft to many ) to be if not irratioual, yet ufelefs and unneceflary. Yea it muft be further obferved in refpedt- of moft , if not all Laws of this kind, (viz,, Pofitive Laws,) though fatisfa- 6tory reafon of their inftitution may be afligned, yec fomewhac of foveraign will and pleafure muft be owned as the original ground of their inftitution. And this is neceflary, that as men beholding their rati- onality, and feeing how they are adapted and fuited to that end whereunto they are ordained, fhould ad- mire the wifdom that appears in them ; fo being non- fluft in their enquiries after the fullreafon of them, fhould fhould yield unto Chrift the honour of his loveraign- ty by a ready fubmiflion to that, the full rcafon of the inftitution of which muft be refolved into his So- veraign will and plea(ure,who is the fupremeK»fcr im Jacob. An inftance hereof wc have in this Command, requiring the Application of the Token of the Cove- nant, efpecially as thefe particular rights, Circumci- fionofold and Baptifm now was and is the Token, ard Infants were, and are the Subjects to whom the one was, and the other is to be applyed ; for though a fatisfacWy account of thefe particular lights being appointed, and of the Application of the one and the other to Infants as Confederates with ,cheir Parents may be given, yet the command muft be granted to carry no obfeure impreflions of abfolute foveraignty ; After our utmoft enquiries after the reafons either of fuch rights being inftituted, or of their Application to Infants, we muft leave fomewhatto abfolute So- veraignty. Ard anfwerably Parents by dedicating their Infant-feed unto Chrift, and entring them as Subjects of his Kingdom, by fuch a particular Right or Ceremonie, as they openly own, and practically acknowledg his Headfhip over his own Houfc in common with their fubje&ion to any other of his. Commands 5 fo in a fpecial manner they own and acknowledg the abfolutnefs of ibat his Soveraign Headfhip, that his alone will ard pleafure inftamps fuch Authority on his Commands, ss that on the fole account thereof all men ought to fubmit, and yield cheerful obedience unto them. By our chearful and ready obedience to fuch commands, as we eminent- ly evidence our own fincerity, fo we both glorifie Chrift as Mediator, and God t be Father who hath put all power into his hand. 3. Hereby is %u $?t'mttfte Doctrine of 3. Hereby Parents give a public k commendatory Teftimony to the Covenant of Grace, they openly teftifie their approbation and liking of it, they practi- cally profefs their high value or' it, they declare their willingnefs that their Children mould come under the. bond of it, and that they (hould enjoy the good pro- mifed upon the terms required in ir} and cpnfequent- ly that it is a great good, and advantage unto men to enjoy that good upon thofe terms. Now that is a greac commendation to the Covenant, and doth re- dound to the glory of God eftablifhing of it. As in cafe a man hath had aleafe of a Manor or Farm du- ring his life, and when he grows old, and comes to die, heiswiihng anddefirous his (on fhould have rheleafe renewed to him, and that upon the lame terms and conditions himfeif had poflefled it, he thereby gives a commendatory Teitimony tohisleafe. So when a Believer "(hall put his Children under the bond of the Covenant, and do what in him lies to intereft them in the good contained in it, and that, Upon the terms and conditions himfeif hath enjoyed that good, he thereby commends the Covenant, and openly declares its worthinefs of all acceptation. Ic was no little commendation to the fcrvice of God, for Joffnta to make that publick profeflion, that whatfo. ever choice the people mould make as to the God they would ferve, yet not himfeif only would, but bis boufe (hould ferve the Lord> jofh. 24, 15-. As for me and my boufe , we will ferve the Lord. He would not only continue in his fervice himfeif, but he would do what in him lay to oblige his Children to the fcrvice of the fame God. Njw this did greatly commend the fervice of God to the people*, hence we fee what an influence it had upon them, how rcfol- vedly 3mfanfc2i5aptmn tewD. 17 edly chev cxprefs themfelves : 2fo« the people avfae- red, and f aid, God forbid that we Jhould forpkg the Lord to ferve other god /. When people arc not only refolvedly ffeadfaft to the fervice of God themfelves, but are willing and defirous that their Children fliould, and anfwerably ufe their utmoft endeavours that they may ingage with them in the fame Service, 'tis a high commendation to the Service of God. So when Parents {hall enter their Children into, and bring them under the bond of that Covenant, which themfelves have already taken hold of, ic is a very grcac commendation to the Covenant ; they thereby publickly fhew their approbation and value of ir. Before I pafs this, let me only fay to thofe who do fo zealouily oppofe their Childrensintereft in the Co* venant, and reject the Token, by the Application o£ which God hath ordained they fliould be brought under the bond of ic , as the Lord (aid to his People of old, when they apoftacized from him, what ini- quity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me ? Jer. 2. j . So let me fay>what iniquity have you found in God, that you fliould be fo averfc to your Children! being brought nigh unto him? What iniquity have you found in his Covenant, that you are fo willing that the Entail of it to your Chil- dren fliould be cut off? Surely ic may well difcourage Sinners from taking hold of the Covenant, when you, that profefs your felves to underftand it, fhall put fo low a value upon it, and fhali account Intereft in it fuchan indifferent things yeafhould feerai to be fo averfe to yours having an intereft in ic. Is the Good promtfed fo fmall ? or are the Terms required fo hard and difficult, as that the Good is no: worth having upon thofe Terms ? Alas ! chat Profeffors fhould un- G dcrftand i8 %tyt $;tmf ttbe SDotttme of dcrftand the Covenant no better. I doubt not but many Parents, that now in their darknefs reject , yea di(pute againft their Childrens intcreft in the Cove- nant, and deride their Baptifm, would go through Fire and Water, as we fay, that they might enjoy the one and the other , did they but fully understand of what benefit and advantage they would be unto them .• But now through their mifguided zeal they greatly reflect upon the Covenant, and confequently upon God the Author of it: whereas Parents by bringing their Children under the bond of it, by the Applica- tion of the Token to them do give a publick commen- dation of it, and thereby honour and glorify God jjs extending it to them. 4. Hereby Parents do publickly own, and practi- cally acknowled? their bsliefof fuch things, which For men profefledly to believe, own, and acknowledg doth greatly redound to the glory of God. I fliali only inftance in fuch things as more efpeci- ally are owned and acknowledged by the Application of the Token of the Covenant to Infants, Thus. 1. They publickly own and practically profefs their belief of the Djctrinc of Original fin, that there is indeed fuch a thing as Original fin communicated from Adam to all his pofterky, and that by means thereof all men by Nature are Children of Wrath, As Grcumcifion of old, fo Baptifm now hath a fpeci- al reference to Original fin, efpecially as Infants were and are the Subjects of the one and of the other. And the very Application of the one and the other to them doth prefuppofe them under the guile of it ; and confequently Parents by having the Token of the Co- venant applyed to their Infants do publickly own, and practically prefefs their belief, tha; though they have 3infane=26aptiCm tei>uV&; 19 have nor, as the Apoftlc fpeaks £ them, he muft needs do freely. Saith the Apoftle, fpeaking of the difference that God put between Ja- cob and E/4* in refpect of - Election and Pretention, and his confequent dealings with them refpe&ively, the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that thefurfofe of God according to elefti- m might ft and> not tftvork/y but of him that calleth, it wMfaid unto her ■, viz. Rebekah, the elder Jhttt ferve C a the 20 %\)t $2ittutfoe Doctrine of the younger, R > m. 9. 11, 12. That which I only defign from tlufe words is, to (hew that what God doth for Infants, either in regard of Election before time, or actual Donation in time, he doth it not for or according to the Meritor defert of works, but freely of his own good pleafure, either merely of his Grace and good pleafure as in refpeS of Election, or of his mere Grace and good pleafure through the in- terpofal of the mediation of Chrift as in refpecl of actual Donation. If he fhould do what he doth for them of works, chat is for, or according to the Merit or defert of works, it muft be either the works of the Infants themfelves, or the works of their Parents; not the works of Infants themfelves, for they have neither done any good or evil s nor the works of their Parents, that appears from the difference he puts in his love and hatred, as the Apo- itle fpeaks between Children be- gotten, conceived, and born, not only from the fame Parents, but at one and the fame time, as in the cafe of Twins. If he deal with Children according to the deferts of Parents, he would deal alike with all Children that are fo begot- ten, conceived, and born : So that what God doth for Infants cannot be of works,neither of Parents, nor Children,but muft be wholly free, of his mere Grace and goodnefs through the Mediation of Chrift. 3. Hereby they pubhckly own, and practically protefs their faith in,and belief of the Truth, Faithful- nefsj Vigilant ijfime ait ex uno concubitu, gemint entm con- cept t erant, ne yet paternts merit t* trtbueretur. Si yuifqHdm forte dt- ceret , ideo talis natus eft fltus > cfittapater tta erat affeftus illo temp- recumfewttnut?- ro matrts, aut e- rat it* mater af~ ftfta cum concept?, fimul entm amba funt uno tempore concept*. hufiin re- ferente Beda ex £pi/lciaadStmpl. 3lnfanfc25apttfmrfci>ib'&. m nefs, and Power of God, his Truth and Faithfulnefs in his Word whether of threatning or promifc, his Power as to accomplish his Word, fo to blefs and make effectual his own Inftitutions for that end whereunto they are appointed. Chrift is the only refuge for fain man to betake himfelf to for fecuricy from the wrath to ccme,*and the way, whereby man betakes himfelf to this refuge, is by taking hold of the Covenant, and thereby getting under the promifes cf it made in Chrift. Hence as by Baptifm perfons arc vifibly admitted into the Covenant, and that their admiflion is folemnized by coming unto Baptifm, they are faid to flee from the wrath to comey Mar. 3. 7. Saith John Baptift to the Phanfees and Sadducees coming to his Baptifm, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? Baptifm is a vifible incorpo- ration of Perfons into Chrift, and folcrnnization of their Covenant-relation with God in him, by means whereof they vifibly come under the fhadow of his wings, and under the promilesmadein him, where- by they are fecured from the wrath to come ; And Parents by taking hold of the Covenant for their Children, and folemnly dedicating them unto God in Chriit, by the Application of the Token of rhe Covenant to them, bring them under the fame refuge with themfelves, they carry them along with them into this refuge from the wrach to come. Njw as this proceeds from, fo it is a vifible and practical pro- feflion of their Faith, ( I mean in refpevt of fuch who do indeed ail from true princip les, as all believers are fuppofed to do, ) that they do believe the threatnings denouncing wrath againft man as fain and guilty of* fin ; fo that the Promifes made in Chrift are true and faithful, as a!fo that God is able to blefs and make C 3 effectual n %tyc $;f mitibe Soottrtne of effe&ual his own Inftitutions to thofe ends and pur- pofes they ire appointed to in fubferviency to mans freedom from that wrath. If Parents did not be- lieve their Children were under the guile of fin, and the threacnings declaring and denouncing Wrath againft chem, as under that guik, why fhould they put them under the Wings of Chrift by a folemn de- dication of them to him for the fecuring them from Wrath > And if they did not believe Chrift co be a fure Refuge, and that the Promifes in him are true and faithful, to what purpofe fhould they put them under his Wings, or carry them under the Covert of the Prcmifes ? And if they did not believe that the Application of the Token of the Covenant was ap, pointed in fome kind of fubferviency to their freedom trom Wrath, at leaftas growing up unto years of Maturity, and that God is able to blefs and make erTe&ual chat Inftuution for the ufe and end he hath appointed it, why fhould they mind it, ot take any care about it ? Who will flee himfelf, or carry his Children to a Refuge, unlefs he apprehend fome dan. ger ? who will make chat a Refuge to himfelf or his, that he apprehends not fafety in ? who will take any eourfe for the fecuring himfelf or his under any refuge, that he doth not apprehend will be effectual for that end > Hence I fay Parents by the Application of the Token of the Covenant to their Seed do vifibly and practically profef> their Faith in, and Belief of the Truth, Faichfulnefs and Power of God. It is faid of MofeS) Heb. 11.28. through Faith he kept the Faff- over ', and the firinhlhig of Bloody left he that deftroyed the fir ji'bcmjhcidd touch them •> believing the threat- nings denounced againft Egypt concerning the deltru- dion of their firuSborn, and believing the promifes made 3fttfattfc25apttfm reiub'ti- 2$ made to thcmfelvcs concerning their own freedom from that Plague, upon their fprinkling the blood of the Pafchal Lamb upon the pofts of then doors, he keeps the Pafcover, and fprinkleth, or rakes care that the blood of the Pafchal Lamb be fprinkled upon their door pofts accordingly. And as he did this through Faith, fo his doing it was a vifible and practical pro. feilion of his Faith, Pari fide & nob'tf circa Sacrament a eft opHSj faith Tarsus. As there is a need of the like Faith, fo the like Faith is vifibly and practically pro- feted by the Application of the Token of the Cove- nant to the Seed of Believers, and this greatly re- dounds to the glory of God. This is mentioned as a peculiar difcovcry of the excellency of Mofes his Faith, implying that much, or as our Lord Chnft fpeaks, a great Faith is required unto, and difcovered by his observation of that Inftitution. And let me fay, did Parents aft in the Application of the Token of the Co- venant to their Infant- feed from fo pure a Principle of Faith as they ought to do, and did they ad their Faith as they ought with reference to theToken as ap» plyedtothem, their Faith would be found to have a very excellency in it, they might be well renowned for the excellency of their Faith. Now at the greater rate of excellency Faith acl:s, the more is God ho- noured and glorified thereby, fee Rom 4.ip,and20. From what hath been faid we may evidently fee what a direct, yea how great a reference the Application of the Token of the Covenant to the Infant- feed of Be- lievers hath to the glory of God, and from that refe- rence it hath to his glory it is in part that he requires ir. 3. The third and laftrcafon of this Inftitution re- ceding God may be its reference and fubferviency C 4 to 24 3Cf)e$?imttii)e2D0cttmeofc to the fupportation and inlargement of the Kingdom of his Son Jefus Chrift. Th* fupportation and in- largement of the Kingdom of our LordChrift here in the World is greatly fubferved hereby. Look for (what end and purpofe the Covenant was extended to the Seed both of Abraham, and of ajl SeeMr.c^j-his his Spiritual Seed, with reference, and Abrahams Co- m fufc>ferviency to the fame ends and pag?3^ an"d fo purpofes is the Token of the Cove- on. nant to be applyed to them. Now- one end of theexteniivenefs of the Co- venant is the multiplication of the Seed of Abraham in order to the fupportation and inlargement of the Kingdom of Chrift, and anfwerably the Application of the Token of the Covenant to them hach a direct reference and fubferviency to that end.What reference and fubferviency it hath to that end will appear more hereafter. But let that fuffice for the firft Head of Reafcns of God's appointing the Token of the Cove. nant to be applyed unto the Infant-feed of his Peo- ple, viz* Such as refpeft God himfelf. CHAP. 3Jnf anfc2i5apttfm nm% 2? CHAP. II. the Reafons of God's ordaining the Application of the token of the Covenant to the Infant- feed of his People refpecting the Parent from three Reafons novo affigned. i . the ad- vantages arijing therefrom to their Faith* How greatly theirFaith is advantaged there- by {hewed. 2. It is for the advantage of their Joy and Comfort in their Children. g. It is that God may thereby lay greater Obligations upon -them to endeavour the Con- verjion of their Children and their Perfonal Umbrae erne nt of the Covenant as growing up to years of Maturity. The variety of Obligations lying upon Pado-Baptijls fo to do above 03 at Anti~P Such as rc'"pe& the Parents, to whofe Seed the Token is to be applycd, and thus thefe four Reafons lie obvious. % Firft 26 %$t $iimititot Doctrine of i* Firft it is for the advanrgc of their Faith to be a&ed with reference to their Seed • by the Applica- tion of the Token of the Covenant to their Seed,they have a vifible Ratification and Confirmation of the Covenant and Promifes thereof,as extended and made to them. And that we may more fully difcover what advantage the Application of the Token of the Cove- nant to the Seed of Believers is to their Faith to be adted with reference to them, we may obferve that the Promifes of the Covenant refpe&ing the Seed of Believers are confiderable two waves. i. The Promifes refpe&ing the Seed of Believers are made to Parents with reference to, and on the behalf of their Seed. 2 . They are made to the Sctd themfelves as defen- ded from fuch Parents. i. The Promifes refpe&ing the Seed of Believers are firftly and primarily made to their Parents, and are particular branches of the Covenant eftablifhed with them. The Covenant confifts in more Promifes than one, or iscomprehenfivcoffcveraldiftin& Pro- mifes, fomcof which only concern Believers them- fclvcs, or contain fome good to be enjoyed only by thcmfelves in their own perfons ; other refpeft theirs, though the Promifes are firftly made to them, yet the good contained in them redounds to and is injoyed by theirs. Thus when God promifeth to be a God to Abraham's Seed after him, theproraifc isfirlt made to Abraham himfelf, though the good contained there- in redound to, and is injoyed by his Seed. And the fame is true of the Promifes as continued to Believers, they are firftly made to Parents. Saith God concern- ing Abraham % Itytont>him} that he mil command bis children and his honfljold after himy and they Jh all Itfep the 3tofanfc25apttfm tefctt'D, vj the way of the Lord to do Judgment and Juftice, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath fokenofhim, that is, that which he hath promifed to him, Gen* 18. io. Now what was it that God had fpoken of or promifed to Abraham} why not only that he would be a God to him as perfonaliy confidered, but a God to his Seed or Houfhold after him, and would give unto them the Land of Canaan for an evcrlafting Pojffcflion. This twofold good of God's being a God to his Seed, and giving them the Land of Canaan for an everlafting PofTeffion, though in- joyed by his Seed, yet was firftly promifed to him with reference to, and on their behalf. Children ftand at fo little a diftance from Parents, that they are faid to be the Parents themfelves multiply ed. Parents do after a fort fubfift in their Children, and anfwe- rably the good or evil of Children is accounted both in Sciipture, and according to the dictates of Nature, the good or evil of their Parents. Have mercy upon me, faith the Syrophen\cian% when Ihe came to Chriit for cure for her afflicted Daughter, Matth. iy. 22. She accounts her Daughter's affliction her own, and the Daughter's cure would be the Mother's Mercy. Hence promifes of good to, and threatnings of evil againft Children are frequently firftlymade to, or denounced againft the Parents themfelves as a good or evil unto them. So here the Promifes of the Cove- nant refpe&ing the Seed are particular and diftinci branches of the Covenant as eftablifhed with Believ- ers themfelves : But 2. Thefe Promifes may beconfidered as made to the Seed, they are not made only to their Parents, but alfo to their Seed with them, and hence Parents andChildaen are to be lookt upon as Joynt-Confede- rates 28 %$t t^itmttttie IDoctttoe of rates with God. Hence faith the Lord to Abraham i I mil eftablijb my Covenant between me and thee , and thy Seed after thee, in their Generations* Gen. 17.7. The Covenant was eftablifhed with Abraham's Seed, as well with Abraham himfelf, and Seed here includes his immediate Children as well as mediate ; and hence again the Promife is faid to be to the Chil- dren of Believers as well as to Believers themfclvcs. the Promife is to you and to your Children, A&s 2. 39. And Children, as they grow up to years of maturity, may and ought to lay claim to the Promifes as made to themfelves as well as made to their Parents on their behalf. Now according to this twofold confederati- on of the Promifes of the Covenant, there is a two- fold ufeandend of the Application of the Token of the Covenant to the Seed of Believers. 1. Thereby that part of the Covenant entred with Parents refpe6ting their Seed is ratified, fealed, and confirmed to the Parents. Hence in Gen* 17. 10. faith the Lord, this is my Covenant, which ye jhall ' keep between me and you, and thy Seed after thee^ every Man-child among you Jhall be circumcifed. Ton, in the former part of the Vcrfe intends both Abraham and his Seed as diftinguifhed from his and their re- fpe&ive Natural Children. This is faid to bz the Co- venant chat they fhould keep between God and them, viz* that every Man-child among them fhould be circumcifed. Hence it is evident that the Circumcifion of their Male children was the Covenant to be kept by them. And how was the Circumcifion of their Children faid to be the Covenant between God and them, to be kept by them ? why partly as that is in part the reftipulation of the Covenant required on their part, and partly as it is the Ratification, and Confirmation Confirmation of the Covenant made with them, viz. that part of the Covenant refpe&ing their Seed : fo that Circumcifion of their Male children was in pare their duty, or a part of the reftipulation to be per- formed by them, and alfo a confirmation of the Pro- mifes (viz* thofe refpe&ing their Seed) made unto them. And what is here faid of Circumcifion, is true of Baptifm, in as much as Circumcifion is here fpoken of as considered under that general notion yviz. the Token of the Covenant. And what is fpoken of Circumcifion as confidered in that general notion is alike applicable to Baptifm : It fucceeds Circumcifion in that notion, and there is a very great aptnefs and fitnefs in the Application of the Token of the Covenant to the Seed, tofeal and confirm unto Believers this part of the Covenant entred with them on the behalf, or with refpedfc to their Seed, when God {hall add to his Prbmifcs a Token to be applyed not only to Believers themfelves, but to their Seed, that muft needs have a very great aptnefs and fitnefs further to confirm and eftablifh the Promifcs to them refpe£ting their Seed. And a twofold reafon may be afligned of Gods ratifying and confirming to Believers this part or branch of the Covenant rclpe&ing their Seed by the Application of the Sign or Token of the Cove- nant to them. 1. That the Sign or Token of the Covenant might be proportionable to the Covenant, of which it is the Sign or Token* The Covenant entred with Believers confifts ( as I have faid) in two branches. The firft refpecls themfelves; The fecond their Seed. Now the Sign or Token as applyed only to themfelves, though it is Irue, it doth racifie and confirm the whole Covenant, yet 3o xt)e #?imitii}e Doctrine of yet it hath a peculiar re(pe6t to that branch refpe&ing themfelves. There is nothing in the Token as apply, ed to themfelves (ignifying their being bleflings to their Seed, and consequently that branch of the Co- venant would not have been confirmed, at leaft fo exprefsly and clearly as was neceflary for the help and advantage of their Faith, by the folc Application of the Token to themfelves, becaufe then the Token had not been fully proportionate to the Covenant. Hence that the Token might be proportionate to the Cove- nant, and anfwerably more fully advantageous to the Faith of Believers,God hath ordained the Application of it to the Seed as well as to the Parents themfelves. 2. The great addition, that by thefe Promifes of the Covenant refpecting their Seed is made to the good of the Covenant-, fcems to make fuch a fuperadditional confirmation neceflary. So great an addition is made to the good of the Covenant as entred with Parents by theextenfion of it to their Seed,that the Promifes might have even non-pluft their Faith, had not this fuperad- ditional confirmation been given. Wee fee how 2>j- x/iJ ftands even amazed as not knowing what to fay, when he not only reviews what God had already done for him, but confiders the Promife further made to his Houfe for fo long a time to come, 2 Sam. 7. 1 8,19. So for God not only to promife to be a God to Belie- vers themfelves, but to make their Children, and that as fuch, Fellow-heirs with them of the fame Promife, might have even non-fluft their Faith, had he not exprefsly ratified and confirmed that branch by the Application of the Token to their Seed. The glory of the Covenant might have overcome a weak Faith, had it not been futably confirmed. But 2. The other end and ufe of the Application of the Token 3Jnfatik25aptffm refcuVD. 31 Token of the Covenant to the Seed of Believers is the ratification and' confirmation of the Promifcs as made unto them, and confequently for the more full fecu- rin when Efate feeing bis Wives and Chn% dren puts the queftion t Who are chefe ? faith he, 'they are the Children, that God hath gracioujly given me> Gen. 32. j. He accounts his children as an effedt of great Grace and Mei?cy to him : So our Lord Chnft tells us ; a Woman when (he is in travel hath Jorron>i hecaufe her hour is come > but when Jhe is delivered of a Child , Jhe remembers no wore her anguijh for joy that a Man is born into the World, John id. 21. The joy that a Man is born fwallows up the remembrance of her forrows : Children are Parents joys and comforts. But now were it fo in- deed that Infants ( I mean fuch as are born of believ- ing Parents ) have no intereft in the Covenant, nor any fecurity thereby from the dreadful effects of their natural ftatcs and conditions, the apprehenfion and confederation of what their ftates and conditions are, muft needs greatly allay, if not utterly deftroy the joy and comfort of Parents in them : For Parents to fee the fruit of their bodies is matter of joy, but when they rcfledt upon their Natural conditions, and re- member they are Children of Wrath, this muft needs greatly weaken, or rather utterly deftroy that joy. And it is no little matter of admiration, how any, that know and believe the Scriptures declaring, how the whole race of Mankind arc involved in the guile of Adams fin as being virtually and feminally in him, as alfo how humane Nature is vitiated and corrupted with fin, and fo propagated from Parents to Children t and conftquently how all as born into the World are guilcy before God, and children of Wrath; I fay, how any,f hat know and believe chefe things can have any JJnfcmr^BaptiTm retitb'tu 35 any joy, or take any comfort in their Children, un- Jefs they have fome hope, that through the Cove* riant of Grace they are freed from the guifc. and un- der at leait a probability of fecurityfrom the dread- ful effects of that their ftate. As for that fuppofiuon of Come , that only Natural death was threatned againft Adam in cale of fin, and confequently that no other kind of death is come upon all Mankind through his fall, and hereupon that that is the only kind of death that Infants are fubjeel to : Or tbac fuppofition of others, that the guile of Original (in is wholly defa&o taken away from all Mankind by Chrift, and consequently that all are born m a ftate of Peace with God, and under the fame Love, and Favour that Adam was under in his ftate of Inoocen- cyj what relief foever the one or the other yields, can onlyarife from the darknefs and crrour of the understanding and judgment, having no true founda- tion in the Word of God ; neither, were they grant- ed, would they contribute in the leaft degree fo much to the joy and comfort of Parents in their Children^ as the Covenant it truly under ft od will do. And as for thofe which fetch their relief from the Doclrinc of Election, though that Do£lunebe certainly true, and may be improved as a conftderable relief againft that forrow and grief, that muft rationally arife to be- lieving Parents from the appreheniion of the natural (taces and conditions of their Children ; yet I doubt, if all things be well weighed, it will be found greatly wanting as to the yielding that plenary relief that it hath been ufually endeavoured to be improved un- to ; in as much as Election neither fecures any from death in their Infani-ftacc, nor can be looked upon according to any Scripture-ground as a iecurity againft D the 34 %i)t |^?tmitit»e a>octrine of ihe dreadful efYec~ts of that (late and condition, in cafe of death in that ftate : However this feems evident, that the relief to be fctcht from thence is alike to un- believers with refpeel: to their Children as to Believers with refpeel: to theirs. Set afidc intereft in the Cove- nant and the Promifes thereof, and a Believer hath no more aflurance from Scripture that his Seed belongs to the Election of Grace,than any other man hath ; or fuppofe he fhould, yet that fuch as die in tbeir Infan- cy do belong thereunto,he hath rather ground to fear than toiiope : yea the ground he bath to fear they do not is vaftly grcacer,than the grcund he hath to hope* that they do. And forBelievers to have a clearer know- ledg and apprehenfion of the loft eftace of their Chil- dren as bcrn Children of Wrath than others have, and yec to have no other ground of hope concerning rhem than others have, mult needs greatly allay their comfort and joy in rhem ; yea they muft rationally have lefs joy and take lefs comfort in their Childrenj than others have or do take in theirs. But now the Covenant as entred with Believers, extending to, and taking in their Children with them, and that as fealed and confirmed by an outward and vifible Sign or To- ken both to them and their Seed, is a precious ground of hope to them concerning their Children, and may, if not wholly, yet in a great mcafure relieve them under that forrow and grief that otherwife would arifc from the confederation of their loft [rates by Nature. Now they may rationally rejoyce and take comfort in them, as will appear more fully hereafter. To have 4iad a bare promife belonging to their Children would have conduced greatly to their comfort and joy in them ; but to have the Promifes confirmed, and that fuch various ways, muft needs greatly fur* * thcr 3Jnfcutt=2Baptifm teijitj'o; g ther their joy and comfort. And God is willing that his People fh^uld have the full joy and comfort of the Mercies and BleflingS he gives them, and in particular of their Children, they being to be rec- koned among the choifeit of thofe Mercies and Blef- lings. This made Ifaac and Jacob, the one his own child, the other his grand-child, fo great comforts to Abraham, viz, that he could look upon them as Heirs with him of the fame Fromife. Could Parents only look upon their Children as children of Wrath, alas ! whac comfort or joy could they take in them? But now feeing them Heirs of the fame Promifes with themfelves, andthefe Promifes alike fealedand con- firmed to them as to themfelves, now they may ra- tionally rejoyce and take comfort in them ; and that may be one reafon why God hath not only extended his Covenant, but appointed the Application of the Token thereof to them,that they may have folid com. fort and joy in them, 3. God may have appointed the Application of the Token of the Covenant to the Infant-feed of his People, that he might thereby lay a greater obligati- on upon them, and more effectually provoke them to a diligent ufe of ail thofe means, and a vigorous per- formance of all thofe duties himfejf hath directed them to, fubfervicnt to their Childrens cmbracement oi the Covenant, and giving themfelves up to him ac- cording to thetenour thereof, as they grow up to years of maturity. The multiplication of the Seed of Abra- ham, and thereby the fupportation and increafe of the Kingdom of Chrift, the reduction of fain Man from the power of fin and Satan unto himlelf, and thereby dejivering them from the Wrath to come, and bring- ing them to eternal bappinefsand bleflednefs to the D z ptaife 3<* %\yt ^imttifoe Doctrine of praife of his own Grace ; arc the great ends of God both in extending the Covenant to the Seed of his Peo- ple , and ordaining the Application of the Taken thereof unto them; the attainment of all which ends is greatly mbferved by the Application of the Token of the Covenant, as thereby Parents become under a greater obligation to bring them up ( as the Apoftle ipeaks ) in the nurture and admonition of the Lord* This I fhall the rather infill upon, becaufe the late Author, whofe Treatife hath been afore examined, hach feen meet (upon what grounds he declares not) to charge our Practice of Infant- Baptifm as laying a foundation to Ignorance and Profanenefs- though himfelf a little after ( as was there obferved ) fuffici- ently insinuates, or rather plainly confefleth the in- juftice and unreafonablcncfs of that charge .• and whether our Judgment and Practice, or our oppofers be more juftly chargeable with that mifchief,(hall now (God willing) be inquired into, only premifing ihefc two things. i. Firft, That that cannot with any fhew of rea- fon be charged upon any Practice or Doctrine, as a mifchief attending the one or the other, which is only confequential of fome particular miftakes of particular perfons owning that Doctrine, or walking in fuch a Practice. Let it be granted, as I fhall not denyf but fome Paedo-Baptifts have fain into, and maintain* ed fuch grofs miftakes about the ufes and ends of Bap- tifm, as have a too evident tendency to further Igno* ranee and Profanencfs among thofe that profefs the Chriftian Doctrine. Yet two things may be obfer ved: v j. That tbey are only the miftakes of fome parti., cular 3fnfane=2i5apt ifm tebft'D. 37 cular men that can be juftly charged to be of that tendency. 2. That thofe mifiakes refpect Baptifm in general, and not as applyed co Infants rather then to grown perfons. And what an unrighteous charge thac is, when that is imputed to the practice of lufanc-Bap- tifm, which may only poflibly enfue From the miftakes of fome particular men, and thofe refpecting the Bap. tifm of Infants no more then the Bapiifmof grown perfons, is obvious to all. Such Doctrines and Pra- ctices as indeed lay the (trongeit obligarions upon men to their duty either towards God orMm^may through the miftakes of fome about them feem not only to countenance the neglect of that duty, but be taken to give an abfolute difc barge from it, yea to incourage to the direct contrary fins and impieties. To give inftances is fuperfluous. But to charge fuch Doctrines or Practices with the mifchief of laying a foundation to (uch fins and impieties, againir, which they moft ftrongly oblige ^ which only through the m:fhkes of men about them, have been improved by feme to fuch an ill purpofe, is moft irrational and abfurd. 2. It muft alfo be prcmifed, that mens living in the neglect of their duty, or in fins and impieties lying oppofite thereunto, is no fafe rule according to which to judge of the tendency of their avowed Judgments and Practices. Thus to make the actions or carriages of fome owning the Doctrine and Practice of Infan;- Baptifm towards their Children the rule according to which they judge of the tendency of that D ctrine and Practice, is not only unfafe but altogether un- reafonable. 'Tts poffible that fome that own that Doctrine and Practice, may notunderftand how great an obligation Jyes upon them thereby,- to the utmoll D 1 care 38 %f)e $?imittte 2Doctttne of care and diligence in the education of their Children. And it is alike podible that others that do underftand that obligation, may greatly neglect that duty they know themfelves obliged to. And let me fay, I can- not but think that there are few of our oppoferswill be very forward to have the actions and carriages of Parents towards their Children made the Tecme- rion or teft of the ioundnefs or unfoundnefs of their or our Judgment and Practice, neither will they be willing that the controverfie fhall be determined by that rule. It is too notorious that fome have profef.. fedly declared their judgments to be againft Catechi- zing, and the likewayes of inftrudbng Children in the Myfteriesof the Gofpel, and againll an authorarive requiring them (o much as to ufe and attend upon- the means appointed by God for the working of Grace in the hearts of Men, as well as againlt the Baptifm of In- fants. And how evident a foundation is laid thereby to Ignorance and Profancnefs is not difficult to appre- hend ; neither dare any of our oppofers ( as I iup- pofe ) affirm that the generality of Anti-Paedo-Bap- rirts go beyond the generality of Pardo- Baptiffs in care and diligence in iuftru&ing their Children, or ufing the means fubferving their conversion, and taking hold of the Covenant as they grow to years of matu- rity. Let us then fee afide the miitakes of fome, and wilful neglects of others on the one, and on the other fide, and inquire whether the Doctrine and Practice maintained by us, or by them, as truly ftated, may be more defervedly charged with the mifchief afore- mentioned. And here two things offer themfelves to our enquiry. ». Whether Psedo-Baptifts or Anti-Pa?do-Baptiits, according to their refpective Judgments andPra&icosy Infant^saptifm retab'D. 39 ly under the greater obligations, and have the more effectual motives to provoke and ftir them up to the diligent ufe of all means, and faithful performance of all duties fubferving their Childrens converfion, and perfonalembracement of the Covenant as they grow- up to years of maturity. 2. Whether have they greater and furer ground of hope, or are under a greater probability that their ufe of means and performance of duty mail be effe- ctual to the ends mentioned. That ic is thedu.y of ail men to endeavour the converfion of their Children, and ufe of all means in order thereunto, and that the fuccefs and efficacy of all endeavours of that nature, and ufe of means for that end, depend upon the blef- fing of God,is at prefent taken for granted. Our only enquiries are, whether Parents of the one or the other perfwafion,have the ftronger obligations, and more ef- fectual motives to provoke and ftir them up to the ufe of means, and performance of their duties fubferving the forementioned ends,and whether have the greater ground to hope for fuccefs therein, and confequently* whether the one or the other's ufe of means and per- formance of duty may be rationally concluded to be ordinarily more effectual and fuccekful. To begin with the 1. Firft, Which how it ought to be refolved will cafily appear by a double confidcration. 1. That whatever obligations Anti-Paedo-Bapufts can plead, or pretend themfeives to ly under, or what- ever motives they can according to their judgment and practice rationally improve, co provoke and ftir up themfeives to the diligent ufe of means, and per- formance of their duty in order to the converfion of their Children, the fame obligations ly upon, and the D 4 fame 4© %$t Wtntrnt SDOtttine of fame morives may as rationally be improved by P«- do-Baptifts for the provoking and ffirring up them- felves to alike diligent ufe of means, and performance of their duties in order to the conversion of their Children. Icanac prefentcall to mind only two things, that can 'with any Chew of reafon be pretended to Jy as obligations upon, and be improved as Morives by Anti-Psedo-Baptilts for the purpofes mentioned be- yond what confcfiedly ly upon, or may be improved by Paedo..B,ip:ifts. The i. Is their profefTcd owning and acknowledging their Children asfuchto have no intereft in the Co- venant, or right to the Token thereof. Now it may be faid, thofe that profefledly difclaim their Chiidrens having an intcreft in the Covenant, and right to the Seal thereof, and anfwerably apprehend them to be in the fame condition with the reft of Mankind, who are yet Grangers to the Covenants of Promife, muft rationally be under a lironger obligation to endeavour their conversion, that fo they may come regularly to an intereft in both the Covenant, and token thereof, than thofe who take their Children to be already in the Covenant, and anfwerably have applyed the To- ken of the Covenant to them. Can a man that con- ceives hs Children »to' be already in Covenant withGcd, and hath anfwerably applyed the Token of the Covenant to them, apprehend himfelf under fuch an obligation to mftruct chem,and ufe the means for their converfion ; as a man muft needs apprehend himfelf to be, that utterly difclaims any prefent inte- reft that they have in k^ and anfwerably fufpends the Application of the Token to them ? But to that I an* fwer. It is true the judgment and practice of Antir Pedc- 3fnftnfe2S5aptffm tefcto'D. 41 Pedo-Baptifts lays no fmall obligation upon them to ufe their utmoft endeavours after the early converfion of their Children . Thofe that fuppofe their children to have no intereft in, or benefit by the Covenant as defcended from them, fure are greatly concerned to ufe all means the Scriptures dircd them to, whereby they may be brought into Covenant with God, through their own pcrional performance of the condi- tions of it themfelves. And ic is well if the men of that perfwafion would fcrioufly consider the obliga- tions they arc under, and how they acquit them- felves with reference thereunto. But let it be obferved, that to endeavour the conversion of their Children, and that they do perfonally take hold of the Covenant, equally concerns Paedo-Baptifb, as it doth Anci-Pae- do-Baptifts, though not with reference to one and the fame end. Anti-Paedo-Baptifts are to endeavour the converfion of their Children, and their perfonal imbracement of the Covenant, that they may come under the benefits and bleiTings of ir. P2 do. Ba ptifts are to endeavour the converfion of their Children, and their perfonal imbracement of the Covenant, that their Covcnanr-ftate may be continued to them, and coniequcntly that they may enjoy the blefliogs and benefits of the Covenant. So that both are equally obliged to feek and endeavour their childrens perfonal imbracement of the Covenant, only the one in order to their coming into, the other in order to the conti- nuance of their Covenant-ftate. It's true, in the ima- gination of the late Author it is a ccntradi&ion to hold the Doctrine of Perfeverance, to baptize the Children of Believers, as including them in the Cove- venant of Grace, and yet after teach them converfion, to keep to hisphrafe. But this imagination aiifeth merely 42 Xt)e |^;tniitifie SDOfttine of merely from ignorance about the Covenant, as entred with the Seed of Believers. Their Covenant-ftate (im- ply and abfolutely of it fcli infallibly fecures not their Regeneration, or a faving work of Grace upon their hearts, during their pure Infant-fta:e. The condi- tion of their Covsnanc-intercft is wholly without them, vU. in their Parents ; but as they come to years of maturity, it is devolved upon themfelves ; and there is ancceffityof a faving clofe with Chrift, and fincere resignation of themfelves to God in him as his, on their parts in order to the continuance of their Covenant-ftatc : which that they may do, their Pa- tents are to endeavour in the ufe of all means God hath directed them to. And the necelTity hereof is an equal obligation upon Parents to ufe thofe means in order thereunto, that the necefficy of fuch a clofe with Chrift is upon thofe who difcfaim their prefenc intereft in the Covenant, to ufe the means in order to that their doling in with Chrift, that they may be brought into Covenant with God, So that I fay both Pardo-Baptifts and Anti-Paedo-Baptifts are equally obliged to feek and endeavour the conversion of their Children, or to bring them to a faving per- fonal clofe with Chrift, though the one doth it that his Children may have an intereft in the Covenant, Which before he apprehended them to want : the other that their Children may be continued in Covenant, and anfwerably in joy the full benefits and blefllngs of it. That which fo ftrongly obligeth Parents to en- deavour their Childrens intereft in the Covenant, is their rnjoyments of the benefits and blellings of it ; and continuance in Covenant is of equal neceffity un- to that, as the firft admitfion into it is. Hence the obligation in the general is one and the fame in all Parents, Parents, be their judgments for or againft their Chil- drcns intercft in the Covenant, and right to the Sign and Token of it, to endeavour, and anfwerably ufc all means in order to their Children* converfion, and faving clofewith Chrift ; only the one doth it that his Children may have admitfion into, the other that they may be continued in a Covenant-flate. 2. The other thine pleadable as a greater obligati- on upon and motive to Anti-Pa?do~Baptiits, to pro- voke and ingage them to a diligent ufe and perfor- mance of all duties in order to their Childrens Faith and Repentance, is their denyal of them to have as fuch any Memberfhip in the Church, and any right to the bleifings, priviledgcs, and benefits attending Memberfhip therein ; and on the other hand affirm- ing the neceffity of Regeneration, Faith, and Repen- tance, in order to their admiflion thereinto, and in- joyment of thofe benefits and bleiTings. Now it may be faid, fure thofe who are of this perfwafion mull: needs be more ftrongly obliged,and have more eft e&u- al motives to provoke them to endeavour the conver- sion of their Children, than thofe that conceive their Children already members of the Church, and an- fwerably are already intercfted in thofe benefits and bl filings. To this I fhall only fay as before, that the obligations upon, and motives to the one and the other to endeavour the converfion of their Children are one and the fame, though the ends arc different ; for to wave that queftion, whether Infants are ad- mitted into the univerfal,or into a particular Church, this is certain, that the want of Faith and Repentance, when grown up to years of maturity, difannuls all right , Coram Veo , to their Memberfhip in the Church, be it univerfal, or particular, and forefeits their 44 %$t Wmittbe Doctrine of their right to all the bleflings, benefits, and privi- ledges that as admitted thereunto they had a right to, and intereft in. Now it is a right to, andinjoymene of thofe bleflings and privilcdges that is the obligation and motive to Parents to endeavour the converfion of their Children. Church-memberfhip abfolutely considered Signifies nothing ; 'tis intereft in, and the injoyment of the aforefaid benefits, bleflings and priviledges that makes Church-memberfhip a good unto men,whether old or young. Now I fay, Con- verfion, Faith and Repentance are as neceflary to the continuing an intereft in, and actually injoying them rothofc who are already Members of the Church, as they are for their firft admiiiion thereinto , and thereby coming to an intereft in, and the injoymenc of them}who afore were Alicns,as the Apoftle (peaks, from the Common- wealth ofjfrael, or wholly out of thcChurcn. So that the obligations upon, and mo- tives ingaging Parents to endeavour the converfion of their Children, or bring them to true Faith and Re- pentance, as they grow up to years of maturity, are the (ame to all men, whether of the one, or the other perfwafion. But then, 2. The other confederation I would offer is, That there are fevera I obligations lying upon, and feveral motives improvable by Paedo- Baptifts, beyond what thofe of the contrary perfwafion can apprehend them- fclves under, or can be rationally improved by them, to provoke them diligenly to ufe ail means, and vigo- roufly perform ail duties, they are in the Scrip- tures directed to in order to their Childrens conver- fion, Faith and Repentance. i. Firft, There is that fpecial intereft, and pro- priety chat God hath in cheir Children, God lays claim 3nfattt=25aptffm reirib'k 4? claim to a fpccial propriety in the Seed of bis People, they are his.. Hence he aggravates the fin of his an- cient People, in offering up their children to Idols, by the confederation of his own propriety in them, ( Ezek> 16.20, and 2 1.) Moreover thou haft ta^en thy Jons, and thy daughters whom thou haft bom unto me* and thefe ha{\ thou facrificed unto them to be devoured^ ( viz. to their Idols ) is this of thy whoredoms a [mail matter^ that thou baftjlain my children ? They were theirs by Generation, but his by Adoption. To offer any facrifice to Idols is exceeding bad, but to cfier hu- mane facrifices is worfe 5 but to offer their children that proceeded from their own bowels,is yet a higher aggravation of their fin. There was not only cruel- ty, but cc^yiccy and that even in the higheft degree. And yet further, that which greatly aggravated their fin was, that thofe they facrificed were not in their own power, they were God's children that they fa- crificed, and anfwerabiy here was the higheft inju- R\cc, I may call it Sacriledge, a robbing God to ho- nour their Idols. But this we fee, God claims a pe- culiar intereft and propriety in the Seed of his People, and they are not only his, as all Creatures are, but they are his by fpccial choice of them for his own ufe and fervice • therefore Believers, including their Szed, are faid to be a chofen generation ( 1 Pet. 2, 9. ) and according to a fpecial relation they ftand in towards him, they are called his fervants, (Levir. 2c. 41. ) Now this intereft and propriety that God hath in the Seed of his People is a ftrong obligation upon them to bring them up for God, for his ufe and fervice, that they may anfwer the relation wherein they ftand to* wards him. God gives his People children, and in- trufteth them with them, but it is to bring them up for 4 youngs ( i Sam. i. 24. ) a. child a cbild,*s the Hebrew * is, that is, a very young child; and the reafon of * Htbrti, cum their bringing him up fo early, is fa******.: ca' ■ j l 1 1 • 1 ' 1 rtant9 pro nsge- conceived to be, that he rmghc be minatfmg ut$n* inftru&ed in the Law, and thereby tw. fitted and prepared for future fervice; having given him up to God, they were careful to Jbring him up for God, to bring him up fo, as he might 48 Xl)e#jtmitti>£ Doctrine of might be ficted for his fcrvicc. And this fincerity and uprightnefs in the dedication that Parents make of their Children unto God doth indifpenfibly re- quire. Ityorv Abraham, faith God, that he wilt command his Children and his hdufhold after himy ( Gen. 18. 19. ) as it the Lord fhould fay, I know him co be a faithful and upright man • hence having given up his Children and Houfhold to me, he will life the means that they may ferve me. So when Jepthah had vowed that whofoever came firft out of his door to meet him fhould be the Lords, though it proved to be his daughter, and flie his only Child, yet he will give her up to God, according to the in- tendment of his vow ( what that was 1 determine not) and he gives this reafon, I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot go back^ Judg. 1-1. 37. His own ad in dedicating his daughter, though it was but an implicite dedication of her in particular, is to him an indifpenfible obligation to give her up to God. So Parents a&ual dedication of their Children unto God, especially having ratified and folemnized that dedi- cation by the Application of the Token of the Co- venant to them, adds greatly to the obligation that they are under to bring them up fo, as that they may be the Lord's, may give up themfelves to fervc and honour him when they grow up to a capacity foto do. 3. There are the great advantages that their ChiU dren are under, in order to the injoyment of all the grace, benefits, and blcflings of the Covenant, as a further obligation upon, and motive to believing Pa- rents, diligently co ufe the means, and perform their duty fubfervient thereunto. What thefe advantages arc, flull (if the Lord will) jbefhewed hereafter. Ac 3fnfanfc2i5aptiun ttm% 44 At prcfent I fay for Parents to fee their Children un- der fpecial advantages in order to their injoyment of rhe Grace, benefits, and blelfmgs of the Covenant, muft needs ftrongly oblige, and powerfully move a£ well as incourage them to endeavour that they may come to the actual injoyment of them. When a man either feeth himfelf, or his Children, in a fair way, and under fpecial advantages to injoy any good, he is thereby provokt to greater diligence in the ufe of means, that either himfelf, or his child may injoy that good. This was that which at Jeaft in pare quickned Mofes to fo great importunity that he might go over Jordan, to fee the good Land, viz* Candm% becaufe God had begun to fhew him his grearnefs, and his mighty hand, CDeut. 5. 24. ) Oh Lord* faith he, thou haft begun to fhew thy fervant thy great- riefs, and thy mighty hand, I fray thee let me go over% and fee the good land that is beyond Jordan : as if he fhould fay, thou haft broughr me through all the difficulties and dangers of the Wildernefs, thou haft begun to make way to thy Peoples entrance into, and pofleflion of this good Land, and muft I now, when fo nigh unto it, and in fuch a fair way with t/ie reft of thy people to come to the pofTedton and injoyment of it, yet be cut off, and never come to it? The lofs of falling fhort of a mercy, when a man comes nigh to it, and is under peculiar advantages for the injoy* ment of it, troubles more than the non-injoyment of the fame, ot like Mercy, when a man is under no probability, or hath no peculiar advantages ever to injoy it. Hence to be nigh to;, or Under peculiar advantages for the injoyment of any mercy, quickens to diligence in the ufe of means, that we may not then fall fhort of it, but may actually iojoy it; And this E fcokfc $° 5Cf)e ttuimitnje Doctrine of holds true whether the mercy rcfpe&s a mans felf, or his Children, or near Relations. Now I fay the Children of Believers are near to, and under more pe- culiar advantages for the injoyment of the Grace, be- nefits and bleilings of the Covenant, than the Seed of others are : Parents have ( as I may fo fpeak ) fome kind cf hold of that grace, and thoie bleffings and be- nefits for their Children ; and Children have fome hold for themfelves'.- and when a man hath any hold of a good for himfelf or his, he is loth to let it go. Saith (he Apoftle to Timothy, and in him to all Chri- ftians, Fight the good fight tf Faith, lay hold on eter- nal life, i Tim. 6. 12, The Utter branch of this exhortation, viz,. To lay hold on eternal life, may be taken as directive to Chriftianswhat to do more ef- fectually to ingage and quicken themfelves to a vigo- rous profecution of their Spiritual Warfare, they are to lay hold on eternal life : iiriKocftx TMS a/avia £coms* faith the Apoftle, which may be done by Chnfiians while in this life. There are feveral wayes whereby _ Believers may lay hold on eternal Ife, while in the World, as by an applicatory Faith, whereby they apply and appropriate the promifes of eternal life to themfelves, as the Ffalmift, Tfalm. itf. (oPfilm. 37. 24.. So the Apoftle, 2 Tim, 4. 8. So again eternal life is laid hold on by ardency of affe&ion and defire, by potfeffiag our leives of the fir ft fruits of it, &c» Now to lay hold on eternal life thefc or the like ways puts life into Believers endeavours, fo to fight this good fight of Faith, as thereby to come to the full injoyment of that life in Heaven. When a man hath got any hold of any good for himfelf or his, he will ilrive and tug hard rather than part with ir. Now I fay Believers have fume hold of the Grace and blef- fings 3fttfattk2i5aptffnuet)it>'&* 51 fings of the Covenant for their Children, they fee their Children have fome hold through the extent of the Covenant to them, hence they muft needs be more effectually ingaged and provoked to greater di- ligence in the ufe of means, that their Children may come to the actual in joy ment of that Grace, thofc bledings and priviledges, than they would be, had not either themfelves or Children any fuch hold of that Grace, and thofe bletfings and benefits, 4. There is the goodnefs love and kindnefs of God in extending his Covenant to their Seed, and vouch- fafing the ratification and confirmation of it, by the Application or the Token thereof unto them, as a ftrong obligation upon, and motive to Parents to ufe their utmoft diligence in order to their Childrens imbracement of the Covenant, and giving up them- felves to God as his People, as thereby the Kingdom of Chrift may be inlarged and his Incereft promoted in the World. The love and kindnefs of God, bow or which way foevcr cxpreft, either towards them, felves or theirs, is greatly obliging to fincexe Believers* ^ to endeavour to their utmoft power the promotion of the Intereft,and inlargeraent of the Kingdom of Chrift in the World. Love is of a containing nature, it hath a compulfive force and power in it, We love him% btcattfebelovedttsfirjly faith John. Love begets and excites love, and love is induftrious and laborious ; hence we read of the labour of love ^ (1 Thefl.i.3.)The Apoftle gives it as the great reafon of their fo zealous preaching the Golpel, that :o fome they feemed to be befide themfelves, viz. becaufe the love of Chrifl did conjlraln them , 2 Cor. $. 14, if. It is true, the love that God hath exprelt cowards a Believer, in the things he hath doue for, and the good he hath vouch- E z (afed 52 %\yt iMmftifce SDoctritte of fafed to himfelf as perfonally confidered in and by Chrift, may and ought to have a conftraining force upon him ro live to him3andanfwerably to endeavour to his utmoft power according to the capacity where- in he (lands to promote the Intereft and Kingdom of Chrift in the World. But yet God's extending his Covenant to their Seed, and confirming it by the Application of the Token thereof unto them, muft rationally greatly add to the compulfive force and ef- ficacy that his love hath upon them, and that for a twofold reafon. i. Becaufe his love to themfelves is greatly height- ned thereby. To all he hath done for, and vouch- fafed to themfelves, there is the addition of that Grace vouchfafed unto theirs : and the greater the Jove of God is, and appears to be to a Believer, the greater efficacy and power it hath to excite his love unco God, and conftrain him to lay out himfelf for the advantage of the Intereft and Kingdom of Chrift in the World. 2. Becaufe God's making the Seed of Believers partakers of the fame Grace and Goodnefs voichfafed to them, makes it alike reafonable that they, as they growup to years of maturity, fhould live to him, as they themfelves defire to do. There is a meetnefs and fitnefs that tbofe that par- take of the Grace and Goodnefs of God fhould live to him. And Parents feeing their Children made par- takers of the fame Grace and Goodnefs of God that themfelves do partake of, have the fame Covenant extended to them, that is entred with themfelves, , and that ratified and confirmed to them the fame way, as it is ratified and confirmed to themfeives,they muft needs judge it alike reafonable, and meet that theirs fhould 3ttf *ne-2&apttfin tewa n fhould live unto God, as well as themfelves. Hence they muft needs be more effectually ftirrcd up, and provoke to ufe their u:moft endeavours that they may io do. So that I lay the Love, Grace and Goodnefs of God in extending his Covenant to the Seed of his People, and ratifying and confirming it by the Ap» plication of the Token thereof to them, is a very great obligation upon, and may and ought to be improved as a powerful motive by them, to provoke and ingage themfelves to the ocmoft diligence, in uflng all means that their Children may perfonally imbrace the Cove- nant, and give up themfelves to God as his People, as they grow up to years of maturity, as thereby the Jntereft of Chnit is promoted, and his Kingdom in- larged. And yet further there are three things, the confederation of *hich may and will (till heighten and increafe the conftraining efficacy and force, that the Love, Grace, and Goodnefs or God hath upon the hearts of believing Parents to move and provoke them to the afore- mentioned diligence. i. That it is the Intereft of their Redeemer that is promoted, and his Kingdom that is inlarged thereby. 2. ThatGod hath extended his Covenant and ap- pointed the Application of che Token thereof to the Seed of Believers, with reference to this very end, viz, the increafe and inlargemcnt of the Kingdom of Chrift in the World, and that in purfuance of that promife made to him, that he fhould have the Hea- then for his Inheritance, and the utmofl ends of the earth for his Pojfejjioft. 3. Thar they are their own Children, thofe that came out of their own bowels, towards whom they are to ufe the means, in order to the ends mentioned. The Love and Goodnefs of God hath a conftraining E 3 power 54 %t)e$nnUtfoeS>orttmeof power upon the hearts of Believers, to do his will however revealed, or whatever reference their doing of ic hach. But when the things, whereabout his will is revealed, relate to the promotion of the Intereft and enlargement of the Kingdom of their Lord and Re- deemer Jefus Ghrift,.and the incrcafeand inlarge- ment of his Kingdom was defigned by his exprefling his love and goodnefs to them in the ways he hath done ; and they arc their Children the fruit of their own bodies, that are the objects of their duty, which in obedience to the will of God they are to perform; furely now the Love, Grace, and Goodnefs of God mull: needs have the greateft efficacy and power in it, p engage, yea conftrain them to a vigorous and dili- gent performance of that their duty. f, There is the aggravation that the fin of the Seed of Believers in not accepting of the Covenant, and performing the conditi6ns of it, receives from their precedent Covenant-Hate, further to oblige and pro- voke Parents, who own that their Covenant-ftate, and have applyed the Token of the Covenant on the account thereof, to endeavour to the utmoft oC their power, that they may accept of and perform the con- ditions of k. Not to accept of the Covenant, but on the other hand to reject it, is a greater fin in thofe, that have a precedent intereft ink, than in thofe that have no fuch intereft. It was a greater fin in Efau to defpife his Birth-right and Blefling, then the bare not taking hold of the Covenant was to thofe that had no fuch birth- priviledg. To defpife or reject a good grante*d, is more than the bare not receiving any good offered. Now Parents confidering how greatly the fin of thcix Children will be aggravated, in cafe they perform not the conditions of, but on the other hand r reie& 3fafant=25aptifm xawn. ^ reject the Covenant, and confequencly that their con- demnation will be greater than the condemnation of others, muit needs itrongly oblige, and more efYe- dually provoke them to greater diligence in the d»f- charge or their duty towards them, in order to the preventing their rejection ; and on the other hand in order to their accepting and performing the conditi- ons of the Covenant. 6\ There is the reference that Parents faithful dif- charge of their duty towards their Children hath to their Childrens prelervarion in their Covenant. flare, and confequently injoying the full good and benefit thereof, as they grow up to years of maturity, as a farther obligation upon, and motive to provoke them thereunto. God hath taken the Seed of Believers in- to Covenant with himfelf, as they are their Seed, and continues their Covenant-ftate during their Infancy, on the account of their Parents Faith. But when they grow up to years of maturity, the condition of their continuance in that Covenant. ftate, and confe- quently injoying the bledings of the Covenant, is de- volved upon themfelves *, they muft in their own pcr- fons imbrace and take hold or the Covenant, and perform the conditions of it, which that they may do5 God requires their Parents to teach them his way, and command them to walk in it ; which duty of Parents in teaching and commanding their Chil- dren is the firft and moft proper means appointed of God in order to their perfonal imbracemenr, and taking hold of his Covenant } and hence in cafe Pa- rents fail in the difchargeof their duty, their Chil- dren are deprived of the firft and moft proper means fubfervient to their prelervation in their Covenant, date. A nd chough i: may feem hard to fay3that God E 4 will $6 Xf)c $?fmf ttfee Doctrine of will notvouchfafe other means, and blefe them to the attaining of that end ; yet this I muft fay, there ' is more depending upon Parents discharge of their du* ty, than moftare aware of; and that God will vouch- safe other means and blefs chem to fupply the defect of Parents duty, is (as I judge) more than they have warrant to expect. However the depriving them of the fitft and molt proper means muft needs be ex- tremely hazardous, and is ufually given as a main reafonof fo many of the Seed of the Righteous pro* ying wicked. And did Parents but underftand, and ferioufly confider this, how great an obligation muft it needs be to them faithfully to difcharge their duty towards their Children ? 7. And laftly, There is the difhonour redound- ing unto Qod, by Childrens rejecting the Covenant, and falling off to ways of fin and profancnefs, yet farther to oblige Parents to a faithful difcharge of their duty towards them. When men hear the Co- venant-intereftof the Seed of Believers aflerted, and fee the Token thereof applved to them, and yet after fee them to run into the fame wayes of fin and un- godlinefs with the Children of others, they arc apt to reflect upon God, and to charge him with unfaith- fulnefs in his promifes, or deluding the World with si fhew of extending more Grace to Believers than in- deed he doth. And this very thing, viz, the fre- quent apoftacies of the Seed of Believers, and their walking in the fame ways of impiety with the Chil- dren of others, though wholly groundlefsly, yet I conceive is no little Humbling- block in the way of £hofe whofe judgment and practice Jycsoppolitc to What hath been pleaded for. Now the preventing ^his difhonour redounding unto God, and removing ' this 3Jnfant-i5apttfm tebifc'D* ij this (tumbling- block out of the way of the weak, i$ a it rong obligation upon Parents to a faithful perfor- mance of their duty towards their Children, And the laying thefe and the like obligations upon Parents to a diligent performance of that their duty towards their Children, may be one fpecial reafon of God's appointing the Application of the Token of the Co- venant to them. And by what hath been faid we may lee how much greater obligations are upon Belie- vers, who own their Childrens intereftin the Cove- nant, and have the Token thereof appiyed to them upon that account, and how many motives are im- provcable by them to provoke and ftir up themfelves to a faithful difcharge of their duty towards them ; than what are upon, or improvcable by the contrary minded, according to their refpective judgments and practices. 2. The other enquiry is, whether Psedo-Baptifts, or Anti-Pxdo-Baptilts, according to what they refpe- ctivcly hold with reference to their Children, have greater and furer ground to hope, and expect that the means ufed, or duties performed by them, fhallbe effectual and fuccefsful ; or whether the means ufed, and duties performed by the one,or the other, be more likely to prove effectual and fuccefsful for the accom- plishing the ends aimed at ? Anfiv. Now for this that the advantages Iy on the fide oi the Pasdo-Baptifts will be undeniably evident by a double consideration, which I fhall but as it Were mention, becaufe they mud both be more fully infifted upon in a more proper place. •i. Confider that Psedo-Baptifts, according to what they hold with reference to their Children, have vaftiy -ppore means to ufe m order to their converfion and imbraccmenc 53 Xtje $?f mi tfte Doctrine of Imbracemenc of the Covenant, and giving themfelves up to Ged according ro the tenour of it, then Anti- Paedc-Baptifts have ; chey have many more motives, arguments, and incouraj»ements to propofe, apply to, and prefs upon their Children, than the contrary- minded have. And where the means are greater and mjre effectual in themfelves, their efficacy and fuc- cefs miy,ac:ording to the ordinary way of God's wor- king upon men, be expected to be anfwerabje. 2. They have many promifes both made to them- felves with reference to their Children and houlriolds, and to their Children, as under the Covenant, and of the vifible Church and Kingdom of Chrift, beyond What the contrary- minded can according to their judgments and principles apply to themfelves or theirs : which promifes, though they fhouldnot infallibly fecure Grace to all the Seed of Believers, how careful foevcr they may be in the ufe of means, and how faithful foever in the difcharge of their ducy towards them, yet they are vaftly greater ground to hope for fuccefs, than there would be, fuppofing no fuch pro- mifes were made either to Parents or Children. But thefe things fhall ( if the Lord will ) be more cleared up hereafter. Now then let all men judge how un- righteous and unreafonabie that charge laid upon Psedo-Baptifm is, viz, that it lays a foundation to Ignorance and Profanenefs ; and how much more juftly that charge may be laid upon the contrary judgment and practice. We fee Psedo-Baptifts are under vaftly greater obligations to a diligent ufe of means, and performance of duty in order to the con- veriion of their Children, and their perfonal imbrace- ment of the Covenant, than the contrary-minded can according to their judgment look upon chemfelves-as under, 3Jttfcmk2Sapttfm tetifo'D- & under, and have vaftiy more ground to expecl that their ufe of means, and performance of duty fhall be fuccefsful, than they have. Buc let that (ufrice for the rcafons of Gods appointing the Application of the Token of the Covenant to the Infant-feed of his Peo- ple, as tiiey refpec* the Parents, to whole Seed that Application is to be made. 3. The reafons refpedling the Children themfelves, to whom the Token of the Covenant is to be applycd ; and thus the great reafon is their good, benefit, and advantage. But that brings me to the fecond grand enquiry. From what hath been faid, we may evi- dently fee, that the rationality of this Inftitution is not only fecured to us by ihe infinit wifdom of God inftituting, but fufticient reafon for it lyes obvious to all ferious confederate minds. CHAP. 6o %fyt $?imittoe Doctrine of CHAP. III. the fecond ^ueftion proposed. A brief Intro Auction to the Anfoer of it. 1 be fir ft bene-s fit that the Seed of Believers receive by the Application of the Token of the Covenant to them declared^ viz. they have thereby a folemn admiffion into^ and Memberfhip im theviJibleGhwcb, Kingdom ■> or Family oA drift * An Objection anfwered. the good\ redounding to them by that their admijfiom and Member fhip fhevped in two InftancesA I • they are comprehended in^ and have an\ equal benefit with the refi of the Member s\ of the Church, by all the fe prayers put up fori the Church in general. 2 . they are nnderl that fpecial providential care thatChrift ex-\ ercifeth over his Church. 3 . ^ueftions re* lating thereunto refolved. Queft. 2. "V ]\ T Hat arc the Benefits, and advan- V V ca§cs arifing t0 tne Infant-feed oij Believers, from the Application of the Tokens of the Covenant to them, or what good do they receive thereby ? Anfa. That all Ordinances of Divine Original, are a fignification and fignal ,'expreflion of the good wi!l of God unco men 5 and conlequently aim at, and tend 3Jnfcmfc2i5apttfm tefcnVtu 6t tend to the good and benefit of thofe that are the due and proper fubje&s of them, hath been intimated al- ready, and may be alike infallibly concluded from the goodnefs, as their rationality from the wifdom of the Inftitutor. As for that fpecial Ordinance un- der our prefent consideration, the Apoftles anfwer to much the fame queftion, put with refpc& to Circum- cifion, is applicable to, and may be given, as a more general folution of the queftion now put, refpe6tive to both Circumcifion and Baptifm, as apply ed to In- fants; the advantage they have thereby is much, and that every way* What that good and advantage is, and wherein it doth confilt. is now to be inquired in- to : and in general, or as to the fum andfubftance of ir, it's threefold. i. Fii'lt, They thereby are folemnly admitted in- to, and incorporated in the vifible Church, King- dom, or Family of Chrift, and thereupon become, to ufe the Apoftles phrafe, Fellow-citizens of the Saints^ and of the Houfhold of God. That Baptiim now is as Circumcifion of old was, a folemn right for the initia- tion, and admillion of all thofe that are rightful Sub- jects of it, into the vifible Church, or body of Chrift, is agreed on on all hands j which that the Infants we now fpeak of are, hath been already proved, and is now taken for granted, which being granted, that they have this good and benefit by it will receive a ready acknowledgment from all, and indeed that to I have a Membership in the Church, or to be Fellow- citizens with the Saints^ and of the Houjhold of God? I is a good, or advantage unto men, cannot be ratio- nally queftioned by any, though wherein the good and advantage of it in the cafe or Infants do? s conflft, is not obvious unto all. And therefore muft now be more 6% ^Cfte ^tmif ttie Soocttitte of more throughly fearched into, and declared. Bui before I proceed to that,one objection muft be removed out of our way, which feems in the judgment ol fome, ftrongly to oppofe Infants injoyment of that! priviledge, and conlequently their right to that Or- dinance, appointed for the folemn ad million of merit into it : And it is this. Objeft. It may be faid, that it may fcem that In-i fantsas fuch cannot rightfully be admitted into, orj incorporated in the vilible Church or body of ChriftJ or be of his Houfhold, and Family as vifiblc, and chad for thisreafon: Becaufe memberfhip in the vifiblefl Church, Body or Kingdom of Chrift does prefuppoicd memberfhip in his invifible Body, feeing to be a mem-a berofbis vifible Body, is nothing elfe but viiiblytol appear to be a real member of his invisible Body : that] diftin6tionof vifible andinvifiblc not being dijUnA ttio rei, Jed tantum nominisy only a diftsn&ion of one I and the fame Church, a duplici modo unionis & com* I mumonis cum Cbriflo cafite ( ftiil ) intemo & exter- 1 no ; fo that the Church by thefe terms of vifible, and I invifibfe, is only diftinguifhedof, in regard of a cer- tain adjundl, w'z. The manner or kind of union aqd communion that the feveral members iz is conftituted of, have with Chrift the head, viz. internal, and real, or only external, or appearing : Hence all that are, or ought to be received as members of the vifible Church, they are and ought to be fuch, as vifibly appear to have real internal Union and Communi- on with Chrift. Now it will be faid, that Infants as fuch feem incapable of any fuch Union, and Com- munion with him j or fuppofe them (imply, or abfo- Jutly capable y yet whether any actually have, efpe- ciaily which of them in particular have fuch a Union, and 3Jntant=26aptirm tefcttvn; 63 and Communion with Chift, is wholly unknown to us, and then how can they befaid vifibly to appear members of the invisible Body of Chrift ? which they muft do in cafe they have a right to memberfhip in his vifible Body. An fa. In anfwer to this Objection I would fay thefe three or four things. i# Firft, That the difficulty of refolving fome doubt*, that may arife with reference to perfons right to, orinjoymentof Gofpel-priv.iledges, ought not to be pleaded for the overthrowing , or difanulling their right to them, when God hath evidently de- clared them in his Word, to have fuch a right to, or to have had, by his own approbation the actual pof- felTion and injoyment of them : God may have plainly revealed their right, and yet more darkly re- vealed many things relating to that their right. In- stances would not be wanting, would I infift upon them, of Gofpel-priviledges, that the Scriptures evi- dently declare perfons fo and fo qualified to have a real right to, and to have the a&ual pofleffion and injoyment of, and yet doubts of no eafie refolution may be raifed with reference to their right to them, and the way and manner of their coming to the pof- feffion of them. 2. But fecondly, And rather that the cafe of In- fants of BeLievers now, is no otherwife concerned in this Obje&ion, than the cafe of the Infant-feed of the Church and people of God under the firft TeuV ment were, and it may be pleaded with equal ftrength againft their having been Members of the vifible Church, or Body of Chrift then, as againft the. right of Infant-feed of Believers to memberfhip in the viiiblc Chm-ch, or body of Chrift now } the Church then 64 %yt '$?mittfte Doctcme of then conilituted, and made up of the natural pofteri ty of Abraham , with the addition of fome few Profe lites from among the Gentiles, was the vifible Bod; of Chrift then, as well as the Church made up o Jews and Gentiles under the new Teftament is. Th Ihavefo fully evidenced elfewhere,tbat nothing mon need be added here , and indeed the Apoftle it Eph.3.6. is fo plain and exprefs, that the Gentiles as converted to the Faith, are of the fame body with the Jews under the fir ft Teftament; that to deny them to have been the body cf Chrift, is to deny thff Church now to be fo ; and that the Apoftle fpeaks there of the vifible body of Chrift, is undenyable, in that what he fpeaks of the Gentiles more generally, he applyes to that Church of the Ephefiam in partial- 1 lar, Chap. 2. 19. Each individual member of which Church that they did belong to the invisible Body of Chrift he would not affirm, but plainly intimates] his fufpicion of the contrary , Atts 20. ult. Yet he l; fpeaks indefinitly, or univcrfally of this Church as '■ injoying this priviledg,to be of the fame body, viz. of i Chrift, that the Jews afore were of : an undoubted evidence that he fpeaks of the body of Chrift as vifible: fo that the Jews, or the Jewifti Church under the fir ft Teftament, was the vifible body of Chrift; for the Gentiles as converted to the Faith, and gathered into particular Churches, are of the fame body. Now itispaftall rational contradiction, that the Infant- feed both of Jews, and profelited Gentiles were Mem- bers of the fame body with their Parents : hence let it be refolved how far, or in what fenfe memberfhip in the^nfible Body of Chrift, and Union, and Com- munion with him as the Head was neceffary, or pre- fuppofed to their memberfhip in his vifibk-Body, the' fame^ 3 nfanfcaBaptf fat uUW. 6j fame, and no other is neceflary, and muft be prefup- pofed to Infants memberfhip in the vifible Body of Chrift (till : the fame anfwerthen that will fatisfie this Objection, as they were concerned in it, will *likefatisfy it, as the Infant- feed of Believers now arc concerned in it, in as much as they arc equally and alike concerned in it. 3. Thirdly and laftly, I anfwer, that it may be granted, yea, I conceive, it mull be affirmed • that the Infant-feed of Believers, and that univerfally, have by vertue of the Covenant entred with them, a real and proper Union with Chiift, and anfwerably may be looked upon, and reputed in fome fenfe, as Members of his invifible body, and on that ground are to be admitted into his vifible Body, Church or Kingdom ; only here, that all miftakes may be obviated, we muft diftinguiih of Union with Chrift, it is either Political, or Phyfical : *Tt* chrjftoE-ccUJU * By that Union I call Political, *^£&£ I intend that Union,which confifts plum umufcunio- in thofe mutual Relations,wherein nhifctlicu pohtcx Chrift and his Church (land rela- ^ ^A^'Ca- ted each to other,as King and Sub- 225> r je&s, Matter and Servants, Shep- herd and Sheep : the ratio fundendi, or fundamentum froximum of this Union, is the mutual confenc of Chrift, and thofe that are thus united to him, either in their own per fons, as in the cafe of the adult, ot on their behalf, by thofe cuj us juris funt, as in the cafe of Infanrs, to accept and take each other in thefe refpectivc Relations ; and this is that Union properly conftitutcd by the Covenant. By that Union I call Phyfical, I intend a higher kind of Union, viz, cuius vinculum eft Spritus fan* 66 %ty 0?itnitfte SDoctrineof fluty that which is made by the indwelling of the fame Spirit that was rirft poured out upon Chrift in the foul, which is* proper tothofe that are truly rege- nerated ; in regard of which, they are compared to branches, and Chrift to a Viney and Chrift and they* are faid to be onefpirit, i Coi . 6.17. or one fpiritual body ; and though it is true, that in refpecl of the adult, thofe that have a Political Union with Chrift, arc fuppofed alfo to have a Phyfical Union ; yec it is not neceflary that all that have the former fhould have the latter ; Jdus Chrift may take men into what degree or kind of Union with himfelf he fees meet. Now when I fay the Infant-feed of Believers have a real Union with Chrift, I meaai it only of a Political, which we may call a mere relative Uni- on; he is their King? they are his Subjects ; he their Mailer, they his Servants ; he their Shepherd, they his Sheep : and this Union they have with Chrift is the proper ground of their admiifion into the Church vifible,orinto the Kingdom, Family, Houfhold, or, as I may To fpeak, Sbeepfold of Chrift ; and that the Infant-feed of Believers, and chat univerfally, have fuch a Union with Chrift, may be evidenced by a twofold argument. 1. Firftall thofe, by whom, or onwhofe behalf the conditions of the Covenant are really and truly performed, have a real and true Union with Chrift • but though not by (for that's not required of them ) yet on the behalf of the Infant-feed of Believers, and that univerfally, the conditions of the Covenant arc really and truly performed. Therefore, &c. Both Proportions carry th|ir own evidence with fo much clcarnefc, that as I cannot at prefent appre- hend what can be rcplycd to j fo I conceive the ad- ding 3fafank25aptifm tefcto'D. 6-f ding of anything for the proof of either wculd be fuperfluous ; furely the conditions of the Covenant between Chrift, and God in him, and the Seed cf Believers^ being performed, though not by their^ yet on their behalf, which is all one as though by them there muft needs immediatly refultfuch a Union with Chrift. Take it in all inftances of this kind of Union, and the mutual acceptation and performance of the Covenant, or contracts by which that Union is conftituted, and the Union it felf, necelTarily re- fults and flows therefrom. Now that the conditions of the Covenant are reak ly and truly performed on the behalf of the Seed of Believers, needs no other proof, than that they are BeIievers,whofe Seed we now fpeak of • it is the Faith and Repentance of Parents, that are the conditions of the Seed's acceptation into Covenant. 2. The fame Union, that the Covenant conftitutes between Chrift and fome, it conftitutes between him and all, wirh whom it is equally, and alike cftabl/fh- ed y but the Covenant conftitutes a true and real Union between Chrift and fome, viz. adult Belie- vers, therefore it conftitutes the fame Union between Chrift and others, viz. their Infant-feed, it being equally and alike eftablifhed with them, as it is with Believers thcmfelv'es. This argument carries its evi- dence with the fame clear nefs as the former. For though it is true, the conditions of the Covenant, as eftablifhed with adult Believers, differ from the con- ditions of it, as eftablifhed with Infants*, yet that hinders not, but that the Union conft ituced between Chrift and them, is one and the fame wich that con- ftituted between him and adult Believers. In as much as the Covenant accepts of the Parents Faith, F 2 as €3 %\)t $iimiti\)t SDOftrine of as the condition of die Child's admifllon thereinto, as w .11 as the Faith of gro\yn Perfonsfor their own ad- nv.flion thereinto; now ic is the Covenant as abso- lutely confidered, and not as requiring fuch and fuch conditions,that conftitutes this kind of Union between Chrift and men, be they adulc or Infants $ neither can that higher kind of Union, (viz. Phyfical,) that Believers have with Chrift, be pleaded as a prejudice to Infants injoymenc of this lawer kind or Union with him, feing neither the antecedent operations, or con- fcqnent indwelling of the Spirit in the foul, whereby that higher kind of Union is effected, arc any other wife necefTary to this lower kind cf Union, which call Political or merejy relative , than the perfor- mance of the conditions of theCovenanc by the adult, and the Promifcs of the Covenant appertaining to them having perfonally performed them, make fo to be, when the conditions of the Covenant may be truly and really performed without fuch operations of the Spirit, as in the cafe of Infants they may, and there/ is no promife of the indwelling prefence of the Spirit^ as is alfo their cafe ; there a political Union may bci really conftituted, and yet no higher Union granted j fo that Infants have a real Political Union with Chrifl is evident, and indeed to grant them an intereft in) the Covenant, and yet deny them fuch a Unionj would be abfolutely contradictory. What Obje&iJ ens carry any appearance of oppeficion againft wbal hath been now grarted;yea aliened, fhallbe confided red hereafter. This I fay at prefent, that the Infant-feed of Belie vers may be granted, yea mud be affirmed to have true a> d real Political, or relative Union with Chrii the Head of the Church^which as ic gives them a rigri I 3tofanW5apt(fm um% *? to memberfhip, fo is a fufficient warranc for their ad- million into the a&ual pofleflionof that their right in the Church, Kingdom, or Family of Cnrift as vi- sible here upon earth : neither are we concerned, as I conceive, ro inquire^ or determine how far, or in wr a: fenfe they may be faid by vertue of this Union, to be Members of the Church, or Body of Chriftas invisi- ble, feing our judgment and practice relating unto them have divine revelation for their ground and rule. This objection being removed out of our way, Ifhall now proceed to inquire, what good, benefit1, or advantage the Infant- feed of Believers have by their member 111 ip in the vifibie Church, Body, or King- dom of Chnft ; and it miy be reduced to thefe three heads. i.Fir(t,whicb I mail but touch upon,they,as Mem- bers of the vifible Church, are comprehended in, and have the benefit of thofe prayers, that are continually made for the whole Ifrael of God, or the Church of God in general, as ic is the duty of Believers in their more* general AfTembIies,fo of each particular Believer, to make Known their requeff s untoGod for chemfelves, or on his own behalf, by prayer , fupplication with thanksgivings the Apoftlc Ipeaks, Phil. 4. So to pray for Jerufalem^or theChurch of God in general, pray fir the peace of J erufalcm, in Pfal. 122. 6. By JerHJalem « e are to underitand the Church ofGod in general, and as this is the duty of Believers,fo that love both to Chfift || the head,and to the whole Body,of which each in par- ticular is a Member, that is the ir.fcparable effedt of re- generation, obliges and con (Ira ins them to the perfor- mance of ir, hence it is but feldom but fincere Saints, 1 efpecially in their more folemn addreffes unto God, do 1 leave forae petitions for the Church in general, fee it F 3 in 70 %fyt ^nttiitiht SDoctttne of in the Pfalmifl, Pfal. 51. 18. So in the Apoftle, Qal. 1. io\ Though the one was only making appli- cation to God for relief in a particular cafe, the other leaving his valedictory benediction with thofe he had written to ; yet Zion> or the Jfiael of God, fhall not be forgotten by the one or the other. Hence there is5s.s I may fo (peak, a ftock of Prayers, ( not treafury of Merits ) continually treafuring up for the Church of God, in which the Infant- feed of Believers have their intereft and fhare, and this is no fmall bencfic to have fo many thoufands, whom the Lord hath ap- pointed as his remembrancers, daily putting him in mind of his Covenant and Promifes, as made with and to his Church,whereof they are Members, as well as of the Covenant and Promifes made with, and to them in fpecial, as the Seed of fuch Parents : and this, if duly considered, might yield great comfort to belie- _ ying Parents, that theirs, as well as themfelves,are day- I ly prefented before the Throne of Grace by fo many, | who are under the projaaife of haying the ear of God ppentothem. j?* 2. And rather being Members of the viable" Church, Kingdom or Family of our Lord Chriir, they have a joync intereft with all .other members in that fpecial providential care^ that he exercifes over his cwn houfe. That the work, of providence is put into the hand of Chrift by the Father, is evident ; as from va- riety of oher Scriptures, fo in fpecial from that, John $. 22. where Chrift himfelf tells us, that the Father judgeth no man^ hut hath committed all judgment unto fhe Son $ yet not fo, as to ceafe to work himfelf, for . the Father works in and by the Son : but that the ^ork of Providence is put into the hand of the Son, is evident; and this work of Providence,or providential care of Chrift is cwofold. 1. Firft more general, and fo it extends to the ut- mo(! bounds and limits of the creation of God ; no creature that received its being from God, but it is under providence, as adminiftred by Chrift, as all things arc made by him, fo by him do all things con lift. 2. Secondly more fpecial, 'and thus the Church is the proper object of the fpecial providential care of Chrift j therefore he is faid by way of Emphafis to be the keeper of Iftael, Pl'ai. 121. 4. He tint keepetb If- rael ( or as the words may be read, he that fs keeping Ifrael ) neither Jlumbreth nor fleepetb : as we have here the fpecial object of divine Providence, ( viz,,) Ifrael, that is the Church, fo the exa&nefs and fpccialhy of that providential care exercifed towards, or over that objecl: intimated, partly in the word keepetb, or keep* ing> that is careiuliy, and diligently keeping , * more fully declared in * Cur am fo'ici- the following words, neither flam- *»4*t*t>®4*- hretb nor fleepeth : a man chough he £%£! ' fall not atlrep, yet, if he fluTiber, is greatly indilpofed to difcharge any work he is ingaged in: a fhepherd though he be not faff afleep, as we fay, yet, if in a (lumber, his fheep arc cxpoled to danger : but to fhew theexaclnefsof that providential care that our Lord Chrift exercifeth over his Church, it is here faid of him, nee dormit, nee dormitat} he neither fleepsy nor {lumbers ', And hence again the Lord pro- 'milech to keep his Church, fpeaking of it under the notion of a Vineyard, night and day > Ifa. 27. 3. as hiseys is alwayes open, he is al waves awake, not in. the kaft fluoibring j fohis eye is aiwayes upon his F 4 Churchy 7i %w $?imttrce 2Dortnne of Church, be keeps it night and day ; now night and day divide tim : : from all which we may fee, that the Church is the fpecial object of the providential care of Chnft, the Church is his fpecial charge, fo his care is anfwerable towards, or over it, he exercifes a mod exa& providential care towards or over his own Fami- ly* And here we may further obfcrve, that as the Work of Providence is put into the hand of Chrift ; fo heimployes the Angels as his Minifters in the admi- niftration thereof, he mahetb bis Angels jpirits^and bis Minifiers a flame of fire> Heb. i. /.according to their ef- * fences and natures, fo he employs them as his Servants *ndMiniiter$,in managing the work of Providence put into his hands ; hence as the Church is theobjedl of his fpecial providential caie, fo the Angels perform their Jvliniftcry with a fpecial refpedt. to, and for the good and benefit of it ; hence faid to be fent forth tominifter for tbfm, who (hall be heirs of Salvation^ hkb. i. 14. though they fcrve Chrift in the whole work of Provi- dence, yet they have their fervice, and Minidry efpe- cially affigned them, with refpecl: to the good and be- nefit of the Church, and the pjrticular members th?reof,as thofe that are to be heirs of Salvation ; now the Infant- feed of Believers being rightfjl members of the vifible Church, or body of Chnft, have the wings of his fpecial providence ftretched over them, and have a joynt irrerclt in this fervice, and Mmillry of An- gels with the adult members 5 yea at lcaft, as fome, if not mcftof our bcrft Expoficors undeiftand that pa f- fage of our Lord Chnft in Mat. 18. 10. Infants have a more fpecial intereft in their Mimftry, their ftates incapacifying them to take any care of them- felvesare more efpecially committed to the charge of ^ngels ^ Tate heed fayes our Lord Chrilt, that ye de- fpife fiife not one ofthefe lit tie ones : for I fay unto youy that in Heaven their Angels do alwayes behold the face ef my Father which is in Heaven : by thefe little ones,are undcrilood little Children, if not alone intended, yet as included and comprehended, they have their Angels, that in Heaven behold the face of God in Heaven, that is, ffand alwayes ready to recieve com- mands from God, for their guidance in their fervice and miniflration unto thefe little ones, to whofe care and charge they are commuted, Videre faciem Patris, id eft, aflare Deo tanquam Kegi obfervantes ejus nutum^ ut capejfant ipfius mandata de ipfis emittendis ad cn[hdiam puerorum^ faith ?i feat or : * But w hether we are to undei (land * v*& Bulling./* our Lord Chrift as fpcaking of little *£. Juni"* *?»i . ,. , ,r r r Iremcum Medt- ones m a literal and proper lenic or utt0 -m pf.121.2. no j yet that his providential care Gerhard deBap- exercifed towards , or over his tffmo> Mr- P«-- Church or Family.does ex.ee I to fe^g them in common with the reft of mons Upon this the members thereof, is fufficicnt- place, £V. ly evident from the univerfality of that phrafe, he keepeth Ifrael } none that appertain to his Ifrael arc from under rfls care, or excluded from the fervice or miniftrauonofthe Angels, and furely this is no little benefit, that the Seed of Believers have by their memberfhip in the vifibie Church, they are under that fpecial providential care he exercifes over his own houfe ; but for the further clearing up of this, the refolution of two or three queftions may be neceflary. Firft, Whether this Providential care of Chrift over his Church be extended equally and alike to all .hat are Yifible members of it, or whether he hath not a 74 Xfje fMnutm wotttint of a peculiar refped to election, .and a real work of Grace upon the heart, and confequently, feing we deny iritant$fas fuch to have a real work of Grace up- on rlieir hearcs, and affirm tbac there is an election of Grace araon? them, unco which fome do, others do noc appertain^' hether this providential care of Chri'l be not appropriated only to the Eiedl: among thcm> An\w. In the resolution of this qucftion .feverai things might be confidered, which yet I lhal wave and iliall only obferve, that the Angels* whom our Lord Chrilt impioys as his Servants and Miniiters in the work of Providence, do act in their rniniftraeion, either according to a more general comaufli m and charge they have received, or elfe according ro parti- cular commands relating to the good and benefit of each particular perfon, hie & nunc ; and that An- gels do ad according to a more general co.nmiilion, as well as according to particu!ar commands they receive from Chrift, for the good and benefit of his Church, is not only confonanc to reafon, but may be eviden- ced from Scnprure : and hence our * Minifterium An- Divines difhnguifh of their Mini- gelorumejtduflex, ft * it is either. fay they, ordi- ordtniiaum* ef ex- J j • i ■ trmrdm^mmy Ja- narY or •extraordinary ; their 01- nii Ecdcf. cap. $. dinary Miniilry is, that they per- M?»if48. form by vertue, and in puifuance of their more general commidion ; their extraordinary Miniftry is that they perform in obedience ro, and in purfuance of particular corn- mandsand directions they recieve from Chritt, whe- ther relating to the Church in general, or any part cf it in this cr that nation, or any particular member. Now fuppofe we grant, that Angels have many par- ticular commands relating to the good of the Eledr, bey or. d 3f.nfan&Bftpmm tefcuYb. 7? beyond what they have relating to the good of the Non.elecl:, yet, fo far as they perform their Mimftry according to their more general cornmifilc>n,they have an equal refpe£t to all, without consideration had to ele&ion, or non-ele&ion, which are lecrets to them as well as to us ; yea it may be further obferved, that our Lord Gbrill: himfelf,m the exercife of this his pro- vidential care over his Church, hath a greater icipect to the Non- elecl Infant rrembers, ( I may add to the Non-ehxf. adulc, fuppoflng their ways and adtions do not openly proclaim the Hypocrine of their hearts ) than he hath to thoie that are wholly Aliens (whether Infants,or adult) to the Common- wealth of Jfrael) and anfwerably does give many particular di- rections to his Angels relating to their good, beyond what he gives relating to the good of thofe thac are, as the Apollle fpeaks, without : the truth of what is rifcw affirmed is e (tab isfhed upon a twofold ground. 1. Fit ft the ordinary way of Chnft's dealing with men, efpecially in his outward difpenfations towards them ; he deals with them according to what they are, or appear to be, not according to what he fore- fees they will be, or will do } hence fa yes the Lord by the Prophet dzariab, to Afa> Judab and Ben- jamin, the Lord is withyou^ while you be with himy 2 Chron. ij. 2. Though there mighc be, as doubr- lefs there were, many whofe hearts were not found nor upright with God, yet this promife is made to them in general, that while they fhould keep with God in the obfervation of his commands, he would be with them. 2. Secondly , The other ground, upon which what hath been affitmed is eifablifhedjis the inderiim- nefs of the ApohHc's exprdfion, Htb> 1. 14. Where fpeafc- j6 %tyt $timitfot IDocttttteof ' fpeakingof the Angels, are they not, faith he, mini- firing jpirits, jent forth for the good of them that fhall be heirs of Salvation ? The Angels mmifter unco men, as confidered and eyed under that notion, viz, as heirs of Salvation ; the Apoftle fpeaketh not or them as eled, nor yet abfolutely as Believers; * vidt Doftor * their Election is fecrer, hid with Owen $n loco. qq^ thc trUth of , beir Fjmh may noc be known to Angels, it is God alone tbat fo fearches as perfectly to know the hearts of men, and what their (fates are ; hence the Angels minifter to the heirs of Salvation as appearing fo to them. Now Infants, during their Infant- ftate, are vifibly heirs or Salvation, or vifibly appear to ise (uch who fhall be heirs of Salvation, as may further appear hereafter. And anfwerably the Angels in purluance cf%heir general commiftion do miniiter to them, as eying them under that notion, viz* as heirs of Sal- vation ; fothat though I deny nor, but ele<£t Infants may have a more full benefit by this fpecial providen- tial care that our Lord Chrift exercifes over his own Family, than the Non-elcit have : yet this Tfay, that the Infant-feed of Believers in general, or univer- fally, being admitted vifible members of his Family, and appearing as heirs of Salvation, before they have made a forfeiture of their Covenant-intereft, have an equal intercft in the fervice, and minifiracion of An- gels, fo far as that is performed according to their more general commillion, with the reft of the mem. bers thereof be/ides many particular fervicesdone by the Angels, according to particular directions from Chnft, beyond what the reft of mankind^ yet ft ran- gers to the Covenants of Promife^ have. 2. Whether this fpecial providential care of Chrift be be not extended to Elect- Infants, born unto unbelie- vers, as well as to thofe that are vifible members of his Church, and if fo, then fuch would have the fame benefit, that they have being admimed. Anfw. Ic is not to be doubted, but that cur Lord Chrift knows who are his by election, as well as by vocation, and that he hath a refpedi: co them as fucbt antecedent to their Union with bim, and adroiflion into the Church viiible ; but yet let thefe three things be considered. 1. Firft, That how far,or in what fenfe foever Ihe providential care of Chrift is extended to, and excrci- fed over fuch, yet fuppoflng the Infant-feed of Belie- vers excluded from his Church and Family, that his care would be but particular, and not univerfal, it would reach only to the elect, 2nd not to all their Seed, and confequcntly the priviledge of the Seed of Believers would be greatly narrowed and lefTcned beyond what now it is, yea, the Seed of Believers, as fuch, would have no benefit by the fpecial providential care of Chrift, beyond what the Seed of others have, neither could their Parents take any comfort in, or make any improvement of the confederation or their Seed's injoyment of this priviledge, in as much as they fhculd not then injoy it as their, Seed, but only as elected, and who or whether any of their Seed were elected, each particular Believer would be uncertain, 2. Secondly, The cafe cf Infants and of the adult in this regard is one and the fame, no doubr, but our Lord Chrift hath a refpedt to the Elect, whether in their infancy, or as grown up, beyond what he hath to others , and yet we find the Church, and that as vifible, greatly magnified, yea even admired on the account of this priviledge, Ob lfiael n>bo is like unto tbte- 7% %yt$flm\tm&oatint(if tbee, a people faved hy the Lord y the Jbield of thy help ? Doit. 35. 29. Icis primarily meant of this provi- dential care chac our Lord Chnft exercifeth over his Church as viiible, and what is faid of the Church in 3 general, is true of, and applicable to each particular member, as fharirig in the common priviledges of the I wOole, and therefore 3. Thirdly, I anfwer, that neither Infants nor grown perfons, though as pertaining to the election of Grace, have an equal inrereft in, and benefit by thiS care of Chrift, while grangers to the Common- wealth oflfrael, with thofc that are actual members of that Common, wealth ; it is IJrael, that the excellency of God is over j Pfal.d8. 34. This will clearly appear in the cafe of Ruth the Moabitcfs, that fhe appertain- ed to the election of Grace, will not, as I fuppofe, be queftioned by any, and yet (hall we think fne had the fame benefit by this fpecial providential care of God over his Church, antecedent to her coming to truft under the wing of the God oflfiael, as Boaz, fpcJiks in Ruth 2. 12. that fhe had, after me was actually come ? what benefit then had fhe in that refpedr, by her forfaking her own people, and joyning her felf with the people of God ? And as I faid the cafe of Infants and of grown perfonsis one and the fame, fo that this is no (mail good or benefit that the Infanr- feed of Believers have by their admitfion into the vifi- ble Church, above and beyond what the Seed of others that are without do in joy, tfi3t thereby they are brought under that fpecial providential care that our Lord Chrift does exercife over his Church, King- dom or Family. what difference b puc thereby, between the Infant-feed of Believers, and the Infant-feed of 01 hers ? Arfw. To that I (hall only fay in general, that it is a good and benefit to be under this care of Chritt, cannot rationally be doubted of, by any who with their hearts believe, that God bath raifedhim up from the -dead, and given him to be the head over all things to the Churchy though the effects thereof be not al- ways obvious unco lenfe. Some indeed have no: been afhamed to puc the queftion)n?i.*}' Jer.$i.$i. Thatthe very firft fpecial or faving Grace, I mean inherent or renewing Grace, whereby the Image of God is re- newed in9 and reinftamped upon the foul, is origi- nally from God, and not from Manhimfelf, needs no other proof, than the bare recital of thofe Scrip- G turts %i %\yz $iimitiU SDocttine of turcs that affirm it, John ^. 3, 7. compared with John i.ry. Ephef 2.8 ,ro. James 1. 17**8. e^c. That the Promifes aforementioned, and unto which I have reference, do contain and hold forth faving Grace* and at haft chat Jfai. $4. 15. the very firftfpecial or faving Grace, is fufticiently evident from the words themfelves ; fo from the application our Lord Chrift makes of that Promife in John 6. 44, 45% where we fee our Lord Chriftapplycs theie teachings of God to thofe effectual teachings and drawings or the Fa- ther, whereby tinners arc brought to him, and which whofoever do injoy^o actually come to him,and fhal be raifed up by him at the I aft day\ that is, unto Life and Glory. And yet farther,that thefe Promifes I now refer unto, have their accoinplifhment in New-Tc- ftament-times, and that during the prefent admini- ftratiori, is undeniably fee u red both by our Lord Chrutt, and the Apoftles interpretation and applica- tion of them : compare thofe forfeited Texts with John 6. ^4, 4c. Heb. 8. 1 1. So that as all fpeciaf, vr faving Grace, cfpecially that firft, whereby the foul is drawn and united unto Chrift, is originally from God 5 fo thefe Prcmifes do hold forth and af- furethat Grace unto fome in Ncw-Teftament-timcs, during the prefent adminiftration of the Covenant o£ Grace: Now, I fay, the Infant-feed of Believers, as incorporated into the vifible Church by the Appli- cation of the Token of the Covenant to them, do (land nigher to thefe Promifes than the reft of Mankind do, and arc the more efpecial Objects of them, and confequcntly they have, and ( were Parents faithful in the difcharge of their duty ) would more abun- dantly have their aecomplifiimenc cfpecially among them. But that we may more clearly fee, how great a a good and advantage the Seed of Believers in this refpe£t have by their memberlhip in the vifible Church, I fhall do two things : 1. Firft, fhew more particularly what is the good that is contained in thefe Promifes, and 2. Secondly, prove chat the Sted of Believers do (land nigher to them, than the reft or Mankind. To begin with the firft, viz. What the good contained in thefe Promifes is : and that is twofold, the former implyed and prefuppofed 5 the latter more plainly expreiTed. Firft> the good contained in thefe Promifes is the vouehfafement of fuch outward means, as are apt and fufticienr, according to the ordinary dealings of God with, and hisotdinary wayesof working Grace in Men, inftrumentally to convey Grace to, and work it in the heart: thefe means in the general are the out- ward communication or publication of the Podrine of Redemption, and Salvation by Chrift. The Do- ctrine of the Gofpel, declaring the way of Redempti* on and Salvation by Chrift, as fome ways commu- nicated to the underftanding, and applyed to the foul, is the means by, and through which God docs ordinarily work Grace inthofe, whofe Salvation he intends ; I mean it of fuch whofc capacities admit of their reception of Grace that way. £&>w when God promifes Grace, he implicitcly promifes the means, •i>y which it may, according cothe ordinary way of his dealings with men, be wrought in tjiofe intended in the Promifes, But before I proceed, it may not be altogether unufeful to remove one objection that may poflibly arife in the minds at leaft of fome men. Oh). Poflibly it may be faid, Thefe Promifes feeno rather to exclude than include any external means \ G 2 for 84 Cf)e $;ftniti!)e 2>octrtne of for it is exprefsly faid, when thefe Promifes come to have their- accomplishment, men Shall not teach every one his neighbour , or his brother , faying, tytm tb4 Lord, they Jball be all taught of God, and that fhall be the only teaching they (hall have, or Stand in need of. Anfw* To this I Shall only fay two thing*. Firft, That the Promifes or the Covenant of Grace have a gradual accomplishment : they had a lower accomplishment under the firft Teftament, they have a higher and more full accomplishment under the New, during the prefent administration : what fur- ther intendment they may have, and how accompli- shed hi the ages yet to come, is not without its diffi- culty to determine : Be Sure, in Hciven there Shall be no need of outward means : PromiJJiones novi foede- ris inchoantur in hac vita, implentur autem in vitafu- tttra. Cam. in Heb. 8. lit And therefore 2. Secondly, Thefe words only note a more abun- dant pouring forth of the Spirit under the New Te- ftament, beyond what was gran- * Non eMn7r7iKO)S ted under the fir ft : * and the fro non folum fre- meaning is only this, as if the W*ter acc^tur^ Lord fllould fe they fl^l nQt in /tltero. quod per . . \ c l adt;erft^LonL. onty be taught °f ™en 5 b»c my tur, yutdam pr&zmt- Spirit fhall accompany the teach- nent/a pr a priori m- ing of men, by means whereof telhgnur. Glafs. fyy ^ ^ my ^ fuf ^ their minds, and written in their hearts, and fhall hnow me from the leaft to thegreatejl. And that the Spirit of God defigned not the exclusi- on of outward means is Sufficiently evident from our Lord Child's inltituting the Gofpel-Miniftry , ac that very time to which thefe Pr6mifes had a dire& - reference 3tofcmt-26apttfm tefcifc'D 8? reference, and were to haveatleaft a lower accom- plifhment ; the end of which Inftitution, and the time of its duration, the Apoftle exprefsly declares in Epb* 4. ii, 12, 15. So that though thefe Promifes feem co exclude, yet they do indeed include, fuch outward means, as whereby according to the ordinary way of God's working in, and upon men, the main good intended in them may be communicated to them. As when God commands any duty from men, thac Command requires the dueufc and improvement of all means necellanly fubferving their performance of the duty commanded : (o when he promifes any good, efpecially when the Promife is abfolute, as I conceive thefe are, in the promife of that good is included the neceflary means of mans injoymeht of it: fo that when God promifes that ail the Children .of his Church (hall he taught of him> and that fo, as to kitow him from the great eft to theleafa and that he will put his Laws in thnr minds \and write them in, tfoir he 'art /, he does implicirely promife a fufficiency of means, whereby the main Good intended may be communi- cated to them : and thefe means in the general, as I have faid, are the communication, or publication of the Doctrine of the Gofpel, at leaft fo tar as is abfo- lutely and limply neceflary to the working of a faving work of Grace in the heart. The various ways whereby the Doctrine o( the Gofpel may be commu- nicated unto men, whether young or old, are not neceflary to be infilled upon. The moft proper and ordained way in refpedl of the Seed of Believers hath been already intimated to be Parental Inftru&ion, though I fhail not fay, God hath confined himfelf to that way alone. But let it fuffice to know in the general, that in thefe Promi- G 3 fes S6 3Ct)c $iimitiU SDottrtne o.f fes is included the vouchfafement of a fufficiency of means, whereby thefe fpiricual bleffings may in an ordinary way be communicated to thofe defigncd for, their injeyment. 2. Secondly, The main and principal good Ian tended in thefe Prornifes is the efTc&ual operations of the Spirit of God in a concurrence with, and by thofe means,rogeiher with their infeparableEfTe&s and Fruits, thefe Prornifes, both as at firil given forth by. thofe two Prophets, and alfo as interpreted by Chrilt and the Apoftle Vaul, evidently intend fome good beyond the bnre vouchfafement of outward means j for otherwife they would allure of nothing, with refe- rence to the ends whereunto they were given forth, beyond what was in joyed by the people of God un- der the Old Teftament ; they had then the Oracle* of God committed to them, as well as the Church of God now hath ; fo that it muft needs be, fome good that is principally intended in thefe Prornifes, beyond what was vouchfafed to che Church under the Old-, Teftament-adminiftration, and which does advance theNew-Teftament-adrniniftration to an excellency and glory above that of the Old, which can be no- thing elfe, but the more plentiful cfTufion of the Spi- rit of God, and his eftedual Operations with their infeparable Fruits and Effects, here declared to be the faving knovvledg of God, the abiding of the Law in the mind, and its Infcription in the heart. But let that fuffice for the good intended in thefe Prornifes. 2. Secondly, That the Seed of Believers, as Mem- bers of the Church, ftand nigher than the reft of Man- kind, ( Imean,that arc, as the Apoftle fpeaks, without to ) and are the more efpecial Objects of thefe Prorai- ics : Now this will appear two ways. x. Firft, 3fnfattt=25aptifm rcInb'D, 87 1. Firft more generally, from the confederation of the more general Obje&s of them, and that is the Church, or Hdufe of Ifrael, of which the Seed of Be- lievers are Members ; thus in that Ifa. f 4. 13. All thy Children jhall be taught of God : whofe Children the Prophet fpeaksof, is evidenr, as from the Context, fo from that difcourfe of the Apoftle in Gal. 4. ult. they are the Children of Jemfalem which is from *bove,th*t is the Gofpel-Church;and that it is meant of the Gofpef- h If edwav tK- Church as vifible, is evident from kKkt'iol. Jfa. 74. 11. It is the Church toffed Chryfofi. toandfrowithTempeft, thatis,Atrlu ^nd that be Prions, Perfections, &c. which are ^^tuchm-ch only compatible to the Church as Ter^frlLVhar ▼ifible. Now they are the Children follows. of the Church, asiajconlidered, thac are the Objects of this Promife, they (hall he taught of Cody and that iot as to know him from the leajl to the greateft. Some indeed have undetftood by thefe Children, the natural Children of the Church, or of the Members of the Church : and though I doubc not, but that the Holy Ghoft has a coafid/erable re- { peel unto them, yet I conceive not merely as fuch, but as Members of the viflble Church, it being ufual in Scripture to fpeak of the Church collectively taken, under the notion of a Moiher, and the feveral Mem- bers undc» the notion of her Children : and that wc arefo to underfbnd it in this place, is evident both from the Context, and thac difcourfe of the Apoftle before mentioned \ fo that let it be granted that this Promife does not appertain *o the Seed of Believers merely as fuch $ yet as the Covenant of Grace is ex- tended to them, and they, by the Application of G 4 the 88 %ty $?imitfte ^Doctrine of the Token thereof are admitted into the vifible Church, Co it does appertain, yea in a fpecial man. ner ,ap,pertaHis to them: fo again in that Heb»S.xi, the Covenant: wherein thefe Promifes of putting the Law in the mind, and writing it in the hewi% are contain- ed, as made with the Houfe ofIfraelyand by Houfc of Ifrjfl, we are again to under itand the vifible Church, that term Houfc being frequently applyed to the vifible, but never, as I remember, to the invifible Church, at leaftmerely as inch : Now the Seed of Believers being of. this Houfe of Ifeael>ihcy have a joync intcrcflin this Covenant, and the Promifes.contained ink, with the whole Houfe, and anfwerably Hand nighcr to, and are the more efpecial Objects of thefe Promifes, than the reft of Mankind are, who arc not of this Houfe of Ijrael. Only let it be obferved, that though the Church or, Houfe of Jfiatl be the pioper Object of thefe Promife% yet I would.not be under- itood, as excluding all others from partaking of the good contained in them : for though.tbe actual injo^- mencof that good be peculiar and. proper to thofe that are of the Church or Houfe of Jfrael ; yet by the very vouchfafement of k, others that were without are converted and brought into it : thofe that God hath defigned a place in his Houfe, are effectually taught by him, and by means thereof, are brought into it ; But though God does vouchfafe the good contained in thefe Promifes to Forraigners as the means whereby they are brought into his Houfe • yet they in a peculiar and fpecial manner belong to his Houfe3 or to fuch as are already in his Houfe, and.confe- quently to the Seed of Believers as Members thereof. Ob). But poflibly fome may fay, If fo be God hath made the Covenant with the Church as vihble, and therein7 §tofanfc25apttfm tebnvo. s9 therein>bath promifed not only the outward means of Grace, but the effe&ual operations of the Spirit in a concurrence with thofe means • and confequently fa* ving Grace as the infeparable Fruit of thofe operati- ons, and the Seed of Believers have this Covenant, with the Promifes thereof extended unco them in com- mon with the adult Members of the Church; then ft may feem, either that God fails in making good his Covenant, or elfc we muft fay, they are all favingly taught of God, and have true Grace wrought in their hearts ; and if fo, we muft neceffarily hold falling from Grace. Arfa* This Objection I have in part obviated al* ready in a former Treatife • yet let me fpeak a little more diftin&Iy to it at prefenc : and for a more full atifw^erto it, we muft diftinguifli of the Covenant thus ; It is either made with the Church in generator wkh particular Perfons, and anfwerably there are {erne Promifes appertaining to the Church in general as* collective Body, and arc 10 be interpreted, and underftood in an indefinite notion; but then there are other Promifes appertaining to particular Perfons, and are to be underftood in a definite notion : and here we may obferve a threefold difference between the Covenant as made with the Church in genera!* and the Promifes of it as fo made, and as made with particular Perfons, and the Promifes of it as fo made. i.Firft, There is a difference in refpecT: of the good covenanted, or promifed as thus : the Covenant, as made with the Church in gcneral,contains Promifes ofthefirftfavingorfpecial Grace, as the Promifes I have at prefent reference unto 5 thefe appertain to the Covenant as made with the Church in general : but now the Covenant as made with particular perfons contains lorttainsno Proraifesof the tuft-Grace, bur only of confequentiafcGracey to*P* : the pardon of %;*i indwelling prefenceof the Spirit, and the like, and daepprefappfcfe1 the'frtfl: Grace already wrought as the condirionof it onManV party asm the cafe of- the Adult,or el'fe docs preiuppofc the condition of i^fome trther way performed, as in the : cafe of the Infant- feed of Beljetfersi -#te;. by the'Fakfr of their Parents. 7 lTZ. Secondly, There i^ a difference in refpetft bF the mrereft thac Perfons have in; and title they httfie tpit,asid anfwcrably in the way and manner of God?i performing of it, or giving the good pronrifedin it i is.it is made witi the Church in gertetalyfo nan£ rave afpartkular^auatihtereft Hipjj? title to it] ss taken -fe* veraliyiby thejSr&lves, they have only a> more general intereftln> andtiofe tpjitJasfcNfennibeTJof that Colle- e^i?e^Body wifchwihich it is made ;;butnow>as made with particjiter* Perfons, cachfOTiay%ith whom it is fo made;v.hath^nnaJlaii? iiitjerefliirja-^qdtitlirrtoic, at takcrUpart kg them&lvrs,wbhour£ feffie6fc. foadito theitr relation tothe Cjiurch in general i and anfwerably as jt is made with the Church in-general, God hath re- ferred ralUjcrty ito himfelf tOyiaodraafwerabiy- icm make it good, of &ive the good promifed.to pardctrlar Perfons, according to the good . plcaforeaf his Will, in acomplyance with his eternal Purples, I tod De- crees. What may be objected againft this, fk>m the univerfality of the cxpreflTions, tfoyjkalt b&rft taught • ofGod,h&tk been anfwered elfewhere, * Infant Baptifin t6 which I raufl refer rfcfiv Reader. ^io^io^°ixc^' Pwfons, fo it does infallibly fecurc in, *■ the good covenanted and promifed to each in particular, upon fuppoh> tion 3fttfant=2i5aptifm tetjttj'D- 91 ticm of a non-failure on their part in the performance of the duties required. 3. Thirdly, There is a difference in refpeft of the tenour of the Covenant and Promifes thereof. As made with, or to the Church in general they are a^b- ioJute ; but as made wich or to particular Perfons,con- ditionai. Vet let me fay, that though the Promifes of the Covenants made with the Church in general, are abfolute as to the Church, as fo con(ider?ed, that is, no Condition is impofed upon the Church in general, or as collectively confidered, in order to God's mala ing good thefe Promifes ; yet chac hinders nor,, but that fomewhat of duty may be required of particular Members in order to their own on theirs in joy ing the good promifed, in which failing, either themfelve^ or theirs may be denyed that good,, though yet the Promifes (hall have their accomplishment, *an$ others fhall in joy the good of them, though they do not. But to return, having then diftinguifhed-ofche Co- venant, and the Promifes of it,, the aofwer tp.the foregoing objection is this .• That the Promifes un- der our prefent confederation do appertain to the Co- venant as made with the Church in general, end an- fwerably are to be interpreted, and undcrftood in an indefinite notion, and have their accompliihmen: among thole to whom in general they do appertain according to the good pleafure of God, in a comply- ance with his eternal Purpofcs and Decrees. Promifes of a like nature with thefe frequently oc- cur in Scripture, the confederation or* which, may far- ther clear up what hath been faid. See Mar\^\6. 17, 18. John 14. 12. which Promifes, though they may feem to be definite as made to each particular Believer, yet are to be undeiftood indefinitely, and have their accom- 9i %$t $HmiWt Doctrine of accomplifhment, in that fome have had a power of forking Miracles, or in that fuch a power bach been exerted in the Church, though poflibjy not in the fulnefs of it, by any one particular Believer : So in our prefent cafe, the Covenant as made with, and Promifes as made to the Church or Houfeof Ifiael, as a Collective Body being indefinite, they 3o not in- fallibly fecure the good contained in them to every individual Member, only fuch a good to the Church in general, and anfwerably every individual Member {lands nigher to, and is a moreefpecial object of them, than thofe that are without. And yet for the farther clearing up and confirm- ing of what hath been faid, we may obferve, that that twofold Good before mentioned? intended in thefe Promifes, is diftin&ly promifed to the Church as a Collective body. i. Firft, For the outward means of Grace thus,in that P/i/. 147. 17. He bath jhemdhis Judgments unto Jacob, and his Statutes unto Krael : be bath not donefo to every Naihn. I conceive we are to take thefe words, not barely as Hiftorical of what God did for the Church of the Jews, but Promiflbry, where- in God does' gracioufly ingage himfclf, to vouchfafe fuch outward means to his Church throughout all ages, as (hall be (uflicient through the concurring operations of the Spirit to convey the faving know- ledgofhimfelfinChriftto, and work Grace in the hearts of the feveral Members thereof ^ however, this feems evident, that the Pfalmifl (peaks not of God's (hewing his Judgments to Jacob, and Statutes to If. rael\ as a Priviledge peculiar and proper to the Jcwifh Church, but as the Church of God, and anfwerably declares what is one of the great Privitedgcs of the Church Church throughout all ages, viz* to injoy the Ora- cle* of God, or the outward means of Grace ; And • hence it is, that the Apoftle tells the Jem, as then not unchurched, that it was neceffary, or ofneceflity, avfltfkaiflV, that the (jojpeljhould be firfl {reached un- to them, Adts 13. 4<*» and why was this neceflary or of neccflity, but becaufe they, yet appertaining to the vifible Church, fhould, while they fo continued, have a fufficiency of outward means, whereby thefaving Knowledg of God in Chrift, and a work of Grace might be communicated to, and wrought in them, God having granted that to his Church as one of her great Priviledges here upon earth. 2. Secondly, For the effc&ual operations of the Spirit, with their infcparablc Fruits and EfTe&s : and thus our Lord Chrift hath prornifed the conftant and perpetual prcfence of the Spirit ifl , and with his Church, 1 will fray the Father, and he fh all give you another Comforter, that he may abide with ym for ever, John 14* 16. We arc not to underftand this as a Promife to particular Believers ; though in whomso- ever the Spirit of God doth dwell, he dwells and abides for ever ; yet of that indwelling prefence of the Spirit in the hearts of particular Believers I conceive our Lord Chrift does not here fpeak, but of his pre- fence in, and with his Church in general, in which fenfe Chrift is faid to xoa\ in themidfi of the golden Candlefticks : Now the great end of the Spirit's pre- fence in, and with the Church is to make effectual by his internal operations the external means of Grace for the ends whereunto they are vouchfafed • fo that we fee the Promifes of faving Grace, both of the ex* ternal means whereby that Grace is wrought, and of the Spirit by whofe operations thofc means are made crTcauai, 94 %tyt$iimitibt Doctrine of effe&ual, do in a particular and fpecial manner apper* tain to the vihble Church, and confequently the Seed of Believersbeing Members thereof, they muft needs ftand nigherto, and be more efpecially the Objects of ihofe Paomtfes, than the reft of Mankind, who #t Aliens from the Commonwealth oflfrael : and fure- ly it can be no fmall benefit, or advantage to ftand in ib nigh a capacity to thefe Promifes, to be of that Body, or Family to whom they do belong, though the good contained in them be;not infallibly fecurcd to every individual. To be of any Body Politick, Corporation or Society , unco which any peculiar Grants do belong, is looked uppn as a great Privi- ledg and Advantage, though the Good granted be not infallibly fecured to every individual Member ; yec every one in particular is in a nigher and greater capacity tpinjoy and my words which I have put in thy mouthy /hall not depart out of thy mouthy nor out of the mouth of thy Seedy nor out ef the mouth of thy Seed's Seedy from henceforth y and for evety faith the Lord. It is a promife made to the univcrfal Church, and declares the way, and means how, and whereby God does uphold, maintain and perpetuate his Church in the. World , it is by vouchfafing his Word, or the outward means of Grace, and his Spi- rit in a concurrence with them, to his People, and their Seed fucccffively from one generation to another. Tothofe thatconfider the nature of thefe Promifes, or that they ate tobe, interpreted and understood not in a definite, but in an indefinite notion, and do im- partially 96 %yt ftiimitiU ^Doctrine of partially obfcrvc the way of God's procedure in the difpenfation of his Grace towards men, any endea- vours co vindicate the Faithfulncfs of God in their per- formance would be ncediefs and fuperfluous j for though fome have contemned that obfervatiori %\itt others have made, viz* that that Seed that (Sod hath refcrved out of the pofterky of fallen man to ferye him, is in a confiderable meafure raifed out of the Families of the Faithful, yet it is indeed of great .Weight, and fo evident to unbyafied Obfervers, that it may be no little confirmation of the fenfe and mean- ing now given of thefc Promifes, and is an abundant vindication of the Truth and Faithfulnefs of God in them. And as it hath in all ages pad given, fo drill gives him the juft Name and Repute of a God kgefingCove- ttant and Mercy for ever. But to put a clofe to this third Benefit that the Seed of Believers have by their Memberfhip in the vifible Church, I fay they are thereby brought nigher to the Promifes of faving Grace, than the reft of Mankind are : they arc of that Collective Body or Society of men unto whom thefe Promifes do in the general appertain * and not only fo, but are that fpecial part of, or f pedes of Members in that Body or Society, to whom thefe Promifes in a more efpecial manner do belong : they are nigh to the Promifes as they are of the vifible Church, but they are yet nigher, as they are fpecified and poin- ted out to be thePerfons peculiarly intended in them; and according to their nighnefs to thefe Promifes, fo efpccially, when Parents are faithful in their duty towards them, is their injoyment of the good pronn- fed. How rarely is it found when Parents with Abra~ bam arc faithful in inftru$ing, and commanding their Children 3tofanfc2i5apttfm tebib's; 97 Children to walh^in way of the Lord* bat if not all, yet fome, ( chough fometimes more fometimes fewer, according to the number they are blefTed wirh ) are found through the blefllng of God accompanying of thofe inftru&ions walking in thefe ways ; yea, how many inftanccs might be given of Parents fo perform- ing their duty, who can walk in the World, as in a itrangc land with comfortable hopes that all theirs arc heirs with them of the fame Fromifes ? Now then, how (trange is it that believing Parents ftiould have their underftandings to far darkened, and their Judgments fo far blinded, to make that which fometimes was the Gentiles, and is now the Jcwes mifery, (viz. to be far from God , and gran- gers to the Covenants ofPromife ) their choice, though not for themfelves,yetfor theirs ; and fhould,what in them lies, fee them ac the utmoft diftance from thofe Promifes that are the great grounds of hope to fallen- Man, that he may obtain an exchange or* his Sin and Mifery for Grace and Glory, and leave them to take their Lot among thofe that are afar off? We may well call to the Heavens to he aftonijhed at th\s^ and to the Earth to be moved eut of its place. But to pafs from this firft Head of Benefits accruing to the Seed of Be- lievers : From the application of the token of the Co- venant to them they have admiflion into,and become Members of the Church vifible; and God by com- manding the Application of the Token of theCovenanc to theSeed of hisPeople,f peaks to them with refpeit to their Seed,as Jacob to Jojeph with reference to his two Sons, Bring your Children near to me that I may blejs them: bring them into my Houfe and Family, and as they then (hall have an intereft in all the Prayers put up for it j fo they (hall have the fpecialprovidcn- H till 98 %$t fyimitm 2>octrtoe of till care of my Son over them, he fhall give his An* gels a charge concerning them, they fliall come into a Higher capacity to in joy Grace promifed^ than the reft of Mankind ; and be you faithful in your duties, and I will be faithful in my Promifes. Now fhall any reject fuch a Gracious Invitation, how juftlymay Children enrfe the day they were ever brought forth by fuch Parents ? CHAP. 3Infan^2i5aptiftnret)tl)'D. 99 _ 1 CHAP. V. The fecond Good or Benefit accruing to the Seed of Believers by the Application of the Toke& of the Covenant propofed, viz. Ihey, have thereby the Covenant^ with the Promifes thereof appertaining to them^ ratified feal- ed and confirmed. An Enquiry made, whe- ther the Covenant and Promfes are entred withy and made to the Seed of Believers^ de- finitly or only indefinitly. The various judg- ments of P'&* 101 way, fome conceive that the Covenant and Promifes appertain only to the Ele£r, and fecure to them on- ly the future injoyment of all the faving Fruits and Benefits purchafed by Chrift ; but do not neceffarily convey to, or confer upon them any of thofe Fruits or Benefits for the prefent, and consequently, that by the Application of the Token of the Covenant, only Jus ad rem, not Jus in re is fealed and confirmed ; But others conceive that as the Covenant and Promi- fes thereof have only an indefinite refpe6t to the Seed of Believers, fothat at lead fome of them have thofe faving Benefits and Bleftlngs actually granted to and conferred upon them, and confequently that they are actually regenerated, and have a full and compleat Union with Chrift, the RemiiTion of fins, the Love and Favour of God, &c. And fome having thefc Be- nefits and Bleffings actually conferred upon them in their Infancy, we are to prefume it may be fo with each one in particular $ and on that ground are to ap- ply the Token of the Covenant to them univerfaliy. And thisOpinion,could it be clearly proved fromSenp- ture, would free the Controverfie about Infant Bap- tifm from many difficulties it muft be confeft it is otherwife attended with: And on that account I (hould "readily comply with it : but for the reafons after to be given, I cannot, but at prefent lay icafide cum pace tantorum virorum. 2. Secondly, others conceive that the Covenant is entred with the Seed of Believers defiruely, and an- fwerably that the Promifesappert-iin'ng to chem are to be interpreted and underftood i:; a definite notion 5 and confequently, that as the Covenant, as at firft eftabljfhed with Abraham, did extend to Ifrmael, as jVell as fo Jfiac, Id is fhil continued to all Believers, H 3 and io2 Xfje tyiimimt 2Docttrtne of and each one of their Seed in particular. And fome of thcfe that go this way conceive, that all the Infants of Believers have true Grace, in particular true Faith, wrought in them either antecedent to the Application of the Token of the Covenant, or at the time of its Application, if not by, yet in a concurrence with it. But this opinion neceffarily inferring a poilibility to lbfe, and fall from the truth of Grace, is rejected by the generality of Proteftants, efpecially that bear the denomination of Calvinifts. Yet fome grant, yea aflert fome kind of fupernatu- ral Operations of the Spirit to antecede, at lead ac- company the Application of the Token of the Cove- nant to them, whereby at leait a pojfe agere, or fome difpofitions facilitating their faving acting of Grace are wrought. But others diftinguifh of the Cove- nant: it is fay they, internum^ aut exurnurn> it is either Internal, or External : by the Internal Cove- nant, they feern to mean the Covenant as really and truly entred with the Ele<5t, en(uring to them Grace and Glory : by the External Covenant they feem to mean the Covenant as vifibly appearing to be made with Men, whether Infants, or Adult, when as it is not indeed really entred mucually between God and them. This latter way of God's entring Covenant with Men, whether young or old, is exprefled by fome, by entring Covenantwith them in or accor- ding to an Ecciefiaftical D'fpenfation, that is, as theyi cxprefsthcmfelvesin a vifible Church- way. Again others, and fomctimes the fame Men diftin- guifh of the Good contained in and conveyed b] the Prcmifes of the Covenant appertaining to the Seec of Believers j it is,fsy they,either Spiritual and Saving' orelfeonly External and Ecelefiaftical j as Member fhij! fhipin thcvifible Church, a right to the outward Ordinances and Privilcdges of the Church, and the like. And they conceive that the Covenant, as con- taining faving Spiritual Mercies, only appertains to che Elect • but, as containing External Ecclefiaftical Pri- viledges, it appertains to ail the Seed of Believers : hence they call it, as entred with them, a Covenant of Priviledges. This latter Opinion concerning the defi- nitenefs of the Covenant I take to be according to truth, though to diftinguiih cither of the Covenant, or the good contained in it, as entred with, or ex- tended to Infants, I fee no ground, neither do I think it is at all necelTary ; but I fay,as to the nature of the Covenant, I doubt not, but that it is entred with, and extended to the Infant- feed ofBelievcrs definitely, and anfwerably that the Prornifes appertaining to them are to be interpreted and underitood in adefi- nitenotion, as appertaining equally and alike to. each one in particular : I (peak ©f the Covenant and Pro- rnifes, as entred with and made to the Seed of Belie- vers merely as fuch. There are, it's true, feme Pro- rnifes of the Covenant appertaining unto them, which are to be interpreted and undcrftood in an indefinite notion, as has been afore declared; butthofe apper- tain not to them mejely as the Seed of fuch Parents, but as Members of the ViGbk Churchy as was there {hewed : But now for the Covenant as extended to them as the Seed of believing Parents, fo it is extended to them definitely, and anivvcrably the Prornifes of the Covenant appertaining to them are to be interpre- ted, and undcrft^od in. a definite notion. This I have in part proved %{*** ]?^f™ already, yet I (hill add fomewhat %^ jlr^wj; more for thefurtttcr confirmation of H 4 it, 104 %W fMmitfbe 2>octttae of it. And it may be, as I conceive, proved two way*. 1. In the Inftance of Abraham's narural Children, proceeding iramediatiy frod hs own L ■: yns. 2. By (ome further Realons eqiuliy refpecling Abraham's, and all other Believers Infant»fced. i. Lee us fee it in that particular initance of Abra- hams Infant-feed > and thus Ifhall only offer thefe two reafons, beyond what I have given in the Trea- tife forecited. i. Uolefs the Covenant had been entred definitely with Abrahams natural Seed, immediatly proceeding from his own Loyns, there had been no rational ground for IfhmaeVs Orcumcinon. That Circumcisi- on was the Token of the Covenant is exprefsly afTer- ted by the Lord himfelf ; and anfwerably that the Application of it did prcfuppofe the Subjects to whom jtwas to beapplyed to be in Covenant, at leaft ac- cording to vifible appearance, or according to a ratio- nal Judgment of Charity, is above any rational doubt evident. This I have alfo proved clfewhere. But now unlefs the Covenant did extend unto IJhmael in particular, there was no appearance at all of his being in Covenant, but an undenyable difcovery of the contrary, and that from the mouth of God himfelf : By promifing Abraham a Son of Sarah, and thar, as the Mother of that Son,ihe mould be a Mother of Na- tions, he did fet afidc Ijhmael, and exclude him from the number of diofe that fhould inherit the Good pro- mi fed, aad was fo underftood by Abraham, which was the ground of his prayer for him, and is accor- dingly interpreted by the Apoftle, in that Rom. o. i. Hence had not the Covenant extended to IJhmael in particular, there had been no ground for the Appli- cation of Circumcilioa to him, efpecially under that notion. 3f nf ane-25aptmn teWD. 105 notion, vkz* As the Token of the Covenant, under which notion ic was yet applyed to him } he could not be look t upon as an Heirdefigned to inherit the Good of the Promife now made } much lefs to have true Grace already wrought in him, fcing he was ex- cluded by God himfelf from inheriting the Good pro- mifed. The rationality of Gcd's extending the Co- venant to him, and granting the Token of it, when yet he intended not that he fhould inherit the Good promifed, is no way difficult to declare, but is not ne- ceflary here to be infilled upon. It is enough to our prefent purpofethat he was in particular taken into Covenant as well as Ifaac, and as the Covenant Was entred wich Abraham and his natural Seed ; fo it is entred with all Believers, and their natural Seed. 2. This is further evident, becaufe under this term Seed in the Promife, Abraham's myftical Seed was in- tended and included with his natural $ this the Apoftle exprefsly declares, GaL%*\6* Hcnoe look under what notion the Covenant was made with the one fpecies or . fort of his Seed, in the fame notion ic was made with the other : but now it is undenyable, that, as made wich his myftical Seed, it is to be inter- preted and undcrftood definicly, and anfwerably was fo made with his natural Seed. We may fuppofe ail Abraham's myitical Seed, as well as his natural, then actually cxifting ( as in the fight of God chey were, to whom things future are prefent, ) and now (land- ing wirh Abraham in the prefence of God, and appre- hend him as fpeaking to him wich reference to chem all, I mil be thy Gody and the God of all thefe that are thy Seed : Now how can we without warrant from Scripture, as here we have noiie, interpret or underftand bim as promifing to one fpecies or fort of this io« %\)t $ittnitiU 2D0ftrtne of this Seed of Abraham definitely, that he would be a God to them ; but to the other only indefinitely : So that as without great prejudice to the Faith and Com- fort of Saints we cannot interpret the Promife a$ ex. tending unto thera only in a definite notion : So not without great violence to the Text can we interpret it as intending Abraham's natural Seed any otherwife then we do as intending his myftical Seed. Hence whatever difficulties may be fuppofed to attend our expounding the Promife in a definite notion as exten- ding to the natural Seed of Believers, the fame diffi- culties did attend it as fo made to Abraham's natural Seed 5 and yet that it was fo maclc to them, feems evi- dent from the reafons now given, taken in conjuncti- on with what has been formerly argued. 2. Butfecondly let me yet further offer fome Rea- fons equally refpetting Abraham $> and all other Be- lievers Seed : and I mall not produce all thole Reafons which offer themfeives to ferve in the defign in hand ; I fhall only fingle out thefe three, which I conceive fufficicnt to confirm what is now a.flerted- i. If the Promifes of the Covenant were only made indefinitely to the Seed of Believers, then there would be in variety of inftances an abfolute failure on God's part in the performance of them : This appears thus, as indefinite Promifes do not infallibly fecure the Good contained in them to every individual Per- fon to whom in common with others they do apper- tain : So they do infallibly fecure that Good, at leaft to fome one, if not more, of thofe to whom in general they are made. Suppofe a man come to another and^ fay, I will do good, or I will be bountiful to you and to your Children ; fuppofe he fhoulddo good or be bountiful according to the utrnoft intent of the pro- mife jjntan&roapmm tewo. 107 mi(e only to the man himfelf, but wholly neglect, or do no good at all to any one of his Children ; he would hardly be accounted a man faithtul to his Pro- mife : the Promife being only an indefinite Promife, would not us irnfe oblige him to do good or extend his bounty to every individual Child, yet to feme one or more it would. But now that all Believers have forae one or more of their Seed immediatly proceeding from their own Loyns partaking with them in the Spiritual and faving Benefits and BJeflings of the Co- venant of Grace, I fuppofc cannot be affirmed ; the contrary is too evident in feveral inftances j and how God with refpecft to fuch can be faid to be a God keep- ing Covenant, I cannot apprehend, fuppofrng the Promifes be only indefinite. 2. If the Promifes appertaining to the Seed of Be- lievers were only indefinite, then they would pertain to them when Adult, yea, let their ways and pra- ctices be what they will, as well as while in their In- fancy • and anfwerably it may fcem they would have the fame right to the Token of the Covenant then, that they have in their Infant- ftate. Tbat the Promi- fes would equally and alike appertain to them when Adult, as when Infants, yea kt their ways and pra- ctices be what they will, muft as I conceive be necef- farily granted : for they appertain to them eicher as the Seed of fuch Parents, or as performing the condi- tion of the Covenant themfclves : not the latter, for then none of the Seed of Believers would have an in- tereft in them till themselves had Grace ; and confe- quently Grace would not be given in a purfuance of the Promifes,but muft precede their intereft in them : and therefore they molt needs appertain to them as the Seed of fuch Parents 5 and confequently muft nccef- farily 108 %$t $HmitiU 2E>ottttoe of farily appertain to them while they are fuch, which they are when grown up, as well as when Infants, be their lives and conventions what they will: and while the Promifes appertain to them , efpecially .While they vifibly and apparently appertain to them, they feem evidently to have a right to the Token of the Covenant. Ob). And if any fhall fay, that will not follow; for the Promifes of the Covenant may indefinitely apper- tain to thofe, who yet by their wickednefs may forfeit their right to the Token of the Covenant, ifi as much as their right to it does fuppofe them to have the truth of Grace. Anfo. To that I would fay two things. i. That I conceive, that it is intereil in the Cove- nant and Promifes thereof that gives right to the To- ken .• Be Baptized) for the Promife is to you and to your Children, faith the Apoftle, Atts 2. 3 8, 39. He feems evidenly to ground his Exhortation to them to be Bap- zed, upon their interefl in the Promifes. But for this fee more in my firft Treatife concerning Infant- Baptifm, Pag. 263 < &c. 2. That in refped or the Seed of Believers,fuppofing the Promife indefinitly appertaining to them, it may be charitably hoped they may have the truth of Grace, and confequently a real Union with Chrift, though greatly apoftatizing from the ways of Grace and Hohncfs, and at prefent walking in the ways of fin and ungodlinefs ; This hope may be rationally grounded upon the Promife appertaining to them ( I /peak upon that fuppofition, that they do appertain to them indefinitely, and that God in a purfuance of them does fo frequently work Grace in the hearty of the Seed of his People, as is a rational ground for the Application 3Jnfank25aptifm tefcifo'fc 109 Application of the Token of the Covenant to thera univerfally in their Infancy with refpeft to Grace al- ready wrought ) taken in conjunction with the indu- bitable experiences of all ages, that thofe who have a real work of Grace may greatly apoftatize from the ways of Grace and Holinefs, and fometims be found walking, and that for a great while ( how long 'tis hard to fay ) in the ways of fin and ungodlinefs, is paft all rational doubt in variety of inftances ; as that of Solomon and others. And if fo be this fuppofition, that God has wrought Grace in this or that Infanr, be a fufficient ground to apply the Token of the Cove- nant to them in their Infancy ; why may not the fame Judgment of Charity be exercifed towards the fame Perfons, as grown up, though at prefent great- ly apoftatized from the ways of Grace and Holinefs, andfuppofingthe Promifcs alike appertaining to them, as theydid in their Infancy, and the fame Judgment of Charity to be exeicifed towards them as may be ex- ercifed during their Infant- (tare ? Though it be gran- ted their cafe be more doubtful, yet I fay it will be hardly proved byScripture that they ought not to have the Token of the Covenant applyed to them } and yet to grant them this Priviledge, their cafe being as now put, will be attended with no fmall inconveniency. 3. If the Promifes are made only indefinitely to the Seed of Believers, then they feem evidently to apper- tain alike to their mediate as to their immediate Seed. In Abraham's cafe 'tis undeniable, that, as taken in an indefinite notion, they did equally and alike appertain to his Seed and Pofterity mediately defcended from him, as to his immediate Seed : neither had his im- mediate Seed any other intereft in them then his me- diate. Now the Apoftle tells us exprefsly that the bit fling no %t)e $jimttit>e SDothrtne of blefjing of Abraham is come upon believing (j entiles » or fuppofe wc can from any Scripture-warrant limic the Promifcsas made only to the immediate Ssed of Believers under tbe New Teftament, yet feeing we cannot limit them to Abraham's immediate, but muft grant them equally and alike to refpeel, and be exten- ded to his mediate as to his immediate Seed, it will certainly follow, that all the Seed of the Jews to this very day, have an equal and alike intereft in the Pro* mifes that Ifaac and Jacob and the reft of both Abra- ham* and Ifaac s Children had. And if fo,I conceive, no reafon can poflibly be a(Iigned,why the fame Judg- ment of Chanty may not be exercifed towards thefe, as was exercifed towards them ; and confequently they would be as due and proper Subjects of 'the' To- ken of the Covenant as they were, and ought to have it applycd unto them : And if fo be we cannot limit the Promife to the immediate Seed of Believers, as I much think we cannot, in cafe we grant them to be only indefinitely made to Abraham's natural Seed ; then there will be laid a fair ground for the Applica- tion of the Token of the Covenant, which now is Bap. tifm, to all Infants univcrfally, as may be eafily fhewedif nccefTary. But I fhall not inlarge upon this. Thefe reafons convince me part all rational con- tradiction, that the Covenant and Promifes thereof neither were entred with, nor made to either the na- tural Seed of Abraham^ or any other Believers in a mere indefinite notion : but however God migh: have and ftill has a more general refped both to Abra* ham's and all Believers Seed mediately defcending from them refpedtively ; yet as entred with and made both to his and their immediate Seed; (o they are to be interpreted and undcrftoodin a definite notion, reaching 3fttfanfc2i5apttfm tefctfc'D* m reaching and taking in each one of their Seed in par- ticular. This Queftion being refolved, I ihall now proceed to th* Application and unfolding of this fe- cond Benefit affigned to the Infant-feed of Believers by the Application of the Token of the Covenant to them : and here two things are to be enquired into. i. What the Token of the Covenant has reference to ; or what it is that is ratified fealed and con* firmed to Infaots thereby, 2. Wherein the Good Benefit and Advantage of having that ( whatever it be) that the Token of the Covenant hath reference unto, ratified fealed and confirmed by an outward Sign and Token does confift. i. Forthefirft, And thus the Token of the Co- venant has a double reference. Firff, To the Cove- nant it felf, as more generally and abfolutely conside- red. Secondly, To the particular Promifes contain- ed in it. i. I fay, the Token has reference to the Covenant it felf, as abfolutely and more generally confidered : And hence, that which is firftly and primarily ra- tified fealed and confirmed to Infants ( and the fame is true of the Adult ) by the Application of the Token of the Covenant to them, is the Covenant it felf,as more generally and abfolutely confidered j and confequently, and as the immediate and neceflary re- sult thereof, that which is Ratified and Confirmed is their Covcnant-ftate. They are ( as I may fo fpeak ) folemnly inverted and fetled in a Coyenant-ftate with God i they are abfolutely deprefenti removed from under the firft Covenant enrred with all Mankind in Adam^ and folemnly inverted with , and ini- tiated into a new Covenant. ftate, Hence Circunaci- ficn nz %$t faiimitibz 2T>otttme of fion ( and the fame is true of Baptifm ) is faid to be the token of the Covenant, as abfolutely confidcred, Gen. 17. ii. as the one had, fo the otjier has a firft and primary refpedt and reference to the Covenant as abfolutely taken • and confcquentially to the ftate of thofe that are taken into Covenant ; they are thereby folemnly put, and fetled in a new Covenant-ftate and relation Godward : though I deny not, but that the hew Covenant or Covenant of Grace is conditionally made with all, or rather allured to Mankind ; there is an offer and tender of Chrift with all his Benefits to all men upon condition of Faith and Repentance : Co% fays Chrift, peach the Gofpel to every Creature : he that believes and is baptized^ jhall be javedi but he that believes not y jhall be damned, in that Mar^ 16. iy , itf.i But condiomle nihil ponit in ufu. A conditio, nal Covenanctthough it makes a great alteration in the cafes of Men, they are not now under a neccflity of (landing or falling according to the tenouror terms of the firft Covenant; yet that does not change their ftate, they are yet Heirs of the curfe denounced in cafe of the tranfgreflion of that Covenant ; they are yet Children of wrath, the wrath of God * Non dixit iraDe't abideth upon them, John 3. 36*. yenmadeum fed * Buc the ^ 0£ Believers are tum. omnis charge and immunity from the condemning power of Original fin, whether origtmns or originatum, does neceflarily arife 3nfmt^nptitm tetub'D, 113 arife and refult unio t'hem. How far or in what fenfe Mankind in general is freed from the fandtion of the firft Covenant by the new Covenant, as made conditionally with all Men, is not abfolutely necef- fary for mc to determine, and I fhall endeavour to wave all controverts eccentrical to my prefent defign : this feems evident, that however others are, yet all thofe that are actually under the Covenant of Grace, as definitely entred with them, are de prefenti freed from it, feing there is an abfolute inconhftency be- tw een being under the Law, and under Grace, at one and the fame time. The Apoftle, Rom. 6. 14. fets thefe two States in a direct antithehs or opposition the one to the other , whether we underftand by Law here,- the Mofaical Law, or the Law as given at Mount Sinai, wherein there was a revival of the Law of Works made with Adam in innocency, or that firft Law or Covenant as h made with Adam-, yet by Grace I conceive we mult underftand the Covenant of Grace, and then 'tis all one as ro my prefent pur- pafe : no man can be under two Covenants that arc in nacure or kind directly oppofitethe one to the other, at one and the fame time. Hence I fay, the Infants of Believers, ! being under the Covenant of Grace, they muft needs be fee free from the firft Co- venant in the fame fenfe that all Believers are : and as for the Covenant of Grace that threatneth condemna- tion againft none but either final rejedters of it, as in the cafe of thofe that are yet ftrangers to it, or total and final violators of it, as in cafe of thofe that are actually under it, and being free from the fanftion of the firft Covenant, and not under any obligation to fuffer future condemnation, either as rejedters, or violators of the fecond, I conceive their immunity I from 1 14 Xije i^imttifce SDOtttnte of from the condemning powerof Original fin, yea of whacever fin, whether Original or Actual they fall under the guilt of, during their pure Infant-ftates, muft.nccelTarilycnfae, though no exprefs Promife of pardon (which I conceive it is not neceflary to en- quire after ) fhould appertain unto them, ceffante ob- ligatione legis & non obligante novo fader e% there can be no condemnation to them on the account of any fin chargeable upon them. The fum of what has been faid may be reduced into this Argument. Arg. 1. All thofe that arc neither under the curfe of the Law, nor under the curfe threatned in the firft Covenant , nor condemnable by the Covenant of Grace, muft needs be free from the condemning power of Original fin, yea of any fin they are at prefent chargeable with : butfuch is the cafe of the Infant- feed of Believers , during their pure Infant-Mate : therefore during that ftate, they are free from the condemning power of Original fin, yea of whatfo- cver fin they, during that ftate, are chargeable with. The major Proportion will be readily granted on all hands, feeing fin, be it Original or Actual, receives its power to condemn, or has ksftrengtb> as the Apo- ftle fpeaks, from fomc Law or Covenant under which the Pcrfon guilty is ; as where there is no Law, there is no tranfgreflion \ So where the Law threatens not condemnation, there is no condemnation ; and con-! demnation muft be either threatned in the Coyenanfi of Works, or the Covenant of Grace : Hence if nen ther of thefe Laws or Covenants threaten condemnati-l on unco men for any fin they are guilty of, their Cm has not power to condemn them , or they muft needs be free from the condemning power of any fin they are guilty of. So that I conceive the major Proportion* ftands 3Jtttattt=2i5apttfm nm% u$ ftands firm. For the minor, that is evident from wha* has been already faid : the Law thrcacens not con* demnation to the Infant-feed of Believers, becauie they are not under it ; they are freed from the fancli- on of it, wherein future death is threatned. The Co- venant of Grace threatens not condemnation to them, becaufe they are neither Rejecters nor Violators of it : but on the other hand, the conditions of ic are per- formed, though not by them, yet on their behalf, which the Covenant accepts as though performed by themfelves in their own pcrfons. Whence the Con- clusion is undeniable. Again, that the Infant-feed of Believers are freed from the condemning power of Original fin, may be proved thus. Arg. 2. All thofe that are under the condemning power of any fin, are in a ftate of enmicy with God, or have God as an enemy to them : but the Infant- feed of Believers arenotinfuch a ftate, neither have they God as au enemy to them; therefore they arc not under the condemning power of any finr an4 confequently not of Original fin. The major Propofition is eviderjt thus : God is on- ly {aid to be an enemy unto Men* as he is obliged either in refped of his EiTential Juitice, or feme Law oiven to, or Covenant made with him to punifh ac- cording to the due defert of fin* God is not an ene- my to Man merely as Man ; nor yet merely as vitiat- ed and corrupted with fin ; for then he fhould be art enemy to all Men; yea to the regenerate as well as the unregenerate : but he is an enemy as under an obligation to punifh according to the due defert of fin* Hence, he is an enemy to all thofe, and to thofe only, whom he is according to their prefent iftates and con- ditions obliged fo to punifh. Now while any are I a under ii6 <%l)t $?im(tff>e Doftttne of under the condemning power of fin • thatis,have the guile of fin remaining upon them, God is under an obligation co punifh them according to the due defett of their fin 5 Ifay,he is fo while the guile of their fin remains upon them, guile being removed that obliga- tion ceafeth. How God may be under fiich an obli- gation, and yet give Faith and Repentance whereby that guile may be removed, is obvious to all, and need not here be declared : Inlclfay, while guilt remains, while fin has a power to condemn, God'ftands rela- ted as an enemy unto Men, or they are in a ftate of enmity with him. But now, which is our minor Propofition, the Infant-feed of Believers are not in fuchaftate. This is not only evident from what has been already faid, but from the abfclute incon- iiitency between a ftate of 'enmity, and that mutual relation between God an&them, as he is their God, and tbsy his People, of which more by and by. Now then the Prcmifes being true, the Gondufion is certain. I might further argue from the fpecial reference, that the Token of the Covenant, whether Circumci. flon or Baptifm, had and has to the remiflion and par- don of fin. Circumcifion is faid to be a Seal of the righreoufnefs of Faith, which at leaft includes the re- miflion of fin, Saith the Apoftle Peter to thefeawak- ned Jews, Be baptized for the remiflion of' fin, Acts 2. Arife and be baptized , andvpafb away thy fins > (ays Ananias to Paul, A#S22. 16. Now the Token of the Covenant having fuch a particular and fpecial re- ference to the pardon and remiflion of fin, ic may (fuppofeit will not demonftrate it it felf, yet ) much confirm us in this truth, that the Infant- feed of Be- lievers are freed from the guile and condemning power of 3fnfattk25apttfm tebib'k 117 of that fin they are guilty of, and have that ( if not dire&ly, yet) confcquentlyfealed and confirmed to them by the Application of the Token of the Cove- nant to them. And that the Infonr-feed of Believers have this Good or Benefit, viz. Immunity from the condemning power of Original fin, fealed and con- firmed to them by the Token of the Covenant, is not only according to the judgments of the generality, if not univerfaiicy of all the Ancients, but of many of our Modern Divines, as the Lutherans^ the. Divines of the Synod of Vort, with many others, isfo com- monly known, that to produce particular teftimonies is wholly needlefs. CHAP. us %%t tyiimitfot SDotttitte of CHAP. VL %he feeond reference of the token of the Cove- nant declared, where two Que/lions are re- vived, firfi, What Promifes appertain to the Seed of Believers as fuch . Thefe de- termined to be only two. Firjl, that God will be a God to them. Secondly, that they {hall be fav'ed. The feeond j&uejlton, ( viz. ) What is the Good contained in tbefe Promifes. The Good contained in the lat- ter more briefly [hewed. The Good contain - ed in the former, more largely infifted upon. A twofold Good determined to be contained in it. Firft, A Covenant-relation is confli- cted by it between God and the Seed of Be- lievers. Secondly, God by it has put him- felf under an obligation to communicate him- fclfto, and act for their Good and Benefit. Thofe communications of himfelf to, and the fe actings for their Good and Benefit that God has obliged himfelfto, (hewed to be limited fhree ways .Where it is (hewed jhat this Pro- wife of Gods being a God to his People, whe- ther Infants or Adult, does not, as taken abfo- {utely and by it [elf either for the pre fern ■ confer 3fnfanfc26aptifin tefcuVU- 119 confer \ or for the future ahfolutely enfure, any particular Good contained in any of the Pro- mifes of the G off el upon, or to any inter ejled in it ; but is only an obligation upon God to make them all good according to their true tenour7 and upon fuppojit ion of their conditi- on being performed by man. this frcved more generally by one Argument Jib at confirm- ed in the feveral branches of it. 2. AS the Covenant as abttradtly considered, and JLjL confequentially their Covenanr-ffa'e, with a full difcharge and freedom frcm the guilt and con- demning power of Original fin, as the infcparabie and neceflary cfTedt and confequence thereof, is ran- fied, fealed and confirmed to the Infanr-feed of Be- lievers by the Application of the Token of the Cove- nant to them : So the particular Promises of the Co- venant appertaining to them, are alike fealed and confirmed to them thereby.- Njw here two things inuft be enquired into. Firft, What Promifes of the Covenant do apper- tain to them. Secondly', What is the proper good contained in, and anfwerably conferred upon, or allured to them by thofe Promifes. For the firft, I find only thefe two Promifes m3de \into them,merely as the Seed of (uch Parents : There are it's true,other Promifes that have an indefinite re- fpeel: unto them, nigher unto which they ftard than the re It of Mankind, as has- been before obferved: but for Promifes made definitely to them, and which 1 4 eta i2o %$z fnimitiu Doctrine of do appertain unto them, merely as the Seed of belie- ving Parents ; fo I conceive there aye only thefe two, i. That God will be a God to them. Thus when the Lord firft eftablifhed his Covenant with Abraham the Father of the Faithful, he not only promiles to be a God to him, but to his Seed after him ; I will efta- blifo my Covenant between me and thee, and thy Seed after thee in their Generations , for an everlafting Co- venant, to be a God to thee and to thy Seed after theet Gen. 17. /• So that this Promife of God's being a God to them is as cxprefsly made to Abraham's Seed ( and that he intends his natural Seed, immediately proceeding from his own loins, as well as his my- ftical, has been fufHciently proved elfewhcre ) as to Abraham himfelf ; and is fo continued to all Believers and their natural Seed, as has been alfo proved. So that that is the firft Promife of the Covenant apper- taining to the Infant-feed of Believers asfuch. 2. The other is, that God will give them the Land of Canaan; that is, as that Promife is explained in the New Teftamenr, they Jhdl be faved. The Land of Canam was a Type of Heaven, and the main and principal good intended in that Promife of Canaan {was Heaven: And hence it was that Abraham from this Promife raifes his hope and expectation of a City that has foundations \ whofe Maker and Builder is Qod^ Hebr. 11. 10. And did not the Promife principally intend Heaven, or future Salvation, it had fignified nothing either to Abraham himfelf, or any of his Seed, for upward or four hundred years ; befides 3cis faid to be given for an everlafting pojfeflion, which in refpeft of that Land literally taken was not true. And hence again, the Apoftic Paul plainly intimates, £1 rather expi-efsly declares, 'that all Believers are Heirs 3htf ant-26aptifm teWD. m Heirs to, and have an equal interefl; in that Promife with Abraham himfelf, Heb. 6. 13. to the end of the Chapter, compared with Gen, 22. 16% 17. He tells us the reafon of Gods confirming this Promife to Abraham ( having relpedt. to this very Promife ) with an oath was, that we (that betake our felves to this hope that is fet before us ; that is, do rer ounce the World, and the things thereof, and betake our felves to Chrift and his ways in hope of Heaven ) might have more ftrongconfolat ion: Now unlefs we were Joynt- hehs with Abraham of this Promife, the confirmati- on of it to him by an oath had made nothing to our confolacion : And this will yet be more evident if we confider, that as God promiied to blefs Abraham, fo to multiply his Seed, and give them to pojfefs the gates of their enemies ; that is,he would give them the Land of Canaan j and Believers are Abraham's Seed, and as fuch Heirs with him of that Promife : and hence in confirming that Promife unto him with an oath, he alike confirmed it unto us. From all which it is evi- dent that the Promife of the Land of Canaan was, ac- cording to the true mind and meaning of God in it, a promife of Heaven .• So that I fay5 that is the other Promife appertaining to the Seed of Believers as fuch, viz. the promife of the Land of Canaan, or of Hea- ven, of future Salvation. Hence the AnofHe tells the Jaylor, that upon his believing both himfelf and his heufe Jhould be favedy Acts 16, 3 1. But that is thefirff thing to be enquired into, viz, What Pro- mifes of the Covenant appertain to the Seed ©f Be- lievers as fuch ? They are thefe two. 1. That God will be a God to them.and they (hall pofiefs the Land of Canaan j or, as Abraham under- stands it, a City that: has foundations, whole Maker and m %$t $iin\itiU 2>octtme of and Builder is God ; that is, Heaven } which in other words, is, they fhall be faved. The former of thefe Promifes refpe£b the rime prefent ; the latter the time to come : for the prefent God will be a God to them j for the future they fhall be faved : that is, upon fup- polition of their performance of the conditions of the Covenant, 2. What is the Good intended in, and confe- quendy conveyed and made over to the Seed of Be- lievers by tbefe Promifes ? i. For the latter of thefe Promifes, viz*- that of future Salvation. To begin with that fuft, becaufe there is no difficulty <«i it (as to what concerns our prefent purpofe) requiring a large difcuflion of it : and therefore in brief, by Salvation we are to uncferftand, all that 'GIcyv, Happinefs and BlefTednefs, whether confiding hi liberation and freedom from evil, or any pofitive Good, that God haspurpofed, and Chnfl: has purchafed for his People, to be pofTefled and in- joyed by them in Heaven, or in the life to come;' which though we may rationally fuppofe will gradual- ly differ as injoyed by Infants from that to be pofTefTed and injoyed by Adult Believers ; efpecially who have attained to higher degrees in Grace and Holiness 5 or have done, and furTered much for Chrilt here in the World : yet as it will be the fame for kind, fo it will be exceeding great. Though the Glory, Happinefs and BlefTednefs of the Saved, as well as the Mifery of the Damned will differ gradually, yet the loweft de- gree of Glory, Happinefs and Bleflsdnefs to be injoyed in Heaven, as alio of Mifery to be furTered in Hell wi'l be unconceiveably great .The Holy Ghoft tells us, eye hath not feet!, nor ear heard, neither have entred into the heart of man, the things that God has -prepared l\ M 5nfanfc25apttfm tefcft'D* n5 for them that love htm ; that is, for all them that love him. In what latitude wc are to underftand •thele things, faid to be prepared for them that love God, we need not enquire : be fure 'tis true of the things prepared and referved for Saints in Hea- ven, they are things that eye hath not feen, nor car heard,neuher have they entred into the heart of man, not into the heart of a merely natural man, foas to conceive what, much lefs how great they are : but not into the heart of fpiritual or regenerate men foas fully to apprehend what or how great and ex- cellent they are. And as this is true of things that God has prepared for them that love him : So it is alike true of the things prepared for them that are be- loved of him, though through the immaturity of their age they are incapable of an a&ual love to him. The Glory, Happinefsand BlefTednefs of the loweft Saint in Heaven, whether dying in Infancy, or living to years of Maturity, will quite furpafs the prefent thoughts and apprehen (ions of the mod: enlightncd undemanding. And I fay, all that Glory, Happi- nefs and Bleflednefs, is included and intended in this term Salvation, tbeyjhall befaved, that is, perfe&ly freed and delivered from all mifery that man through fin is become fubjeft to ; and inflated in the contrary itate of Glory, Happinefs and Bleflednefs. But 2. For the other Promife, viz. That of God's be- ing a God to them $ there is more difficulty in decer- i mining what is that Good contained in, and granted jtothe Infant-feed of Believers by it : In the general this feems plain, that ic muff be interpreted and un- derftood as appertaining to Infants,as it is to be inter- preted and underftood as appertaining to the Adulc, fang we have no warrant from the Scripture, neither does iz4 Xf)e $?imittfje Doctrine of docs the different capacity of Infants and the Adult neceflitate us to interpret and underftand it otherwife as appertaining to the one, than we do as appertain- ing to theoth&r : and therefore wemuft a little en- quire into, and endeavour to (late the truefenfe and meaning of this grand Promife of the Covenant,where- In God promifes to be a God to his People, whether as appertaining to Infants or Adult Believers ; and thus taking the Covenant in a ftric^ and proper fenfe, for a mutual engagement between God and Man, fo I conceive only thefe two things arc intended, and included in it. i. A mutual Relation between God and his People is conlticuted and eftablifhed thereby ; and as. by the conftitution of this Relation between God and his People, they arc brought nigh to him, and be is nigh to them. Hence they are (aid to be near to God, He alfo exaltetb the Horn of bis People, the fraife of all his Saint /, even of the Children of Ifrael, a People near unto bimy Pfal. 148. 14. And if they arc near to him, he mu(l needs be nigh to them : fo they have a mu- tual propriety and intereft each in other. Hence are thofe appropriating terms in Scripture, and that on both parts. Hence on God's part, fays he, yea 1 [ware unto tbee% and entred into a Covenant with tbee% and thou becameft mine, Ezek. 16. 8. Though God has a propriety in all Creatures, they are all his } yet We fee he lays a peculiar claim to his People, as hav- ing a more efpecial intereft and propriety in then; above what he has in others, and that by vertue of the Covenant entred with them : So on the People o Gods parr, My Beleved is mine^ faith the Spoufe, Cant. 2. J 6' Oh my foul, thou baft J aid unto the Lordy thm art my Lord, Pfal. 16. 2. And the like appr priatin 3ttfattt'2!Saptifttirei)tfc'D* nj priating terras we have frequently in Scripture. Man by his fin has loft his propriety and intereft in God ; hence whofoevernow has an intereft and propriety in him, it muft be by venue of his own free Gift and Promiic : they only can groundedly lay claim to in- tereft and propriety in him to whom he promifes to be a God. Hence his People hold their intereft in him, not by venue of their relation to him as his Creatures^ but by the Covenant cncred with them,whercin he has promifed to be a God to them, and take them to be his People. And that is the firft good contained in, and conveyed to the Infant- feed of Believers by this Promife, there is a mutual relation constituted there- by between God and them : by means whereof they have a mutual intereft and- propriety each in other, as they are God's, and therefore faid to be born to him, and to be his Children-, Ezek. 16.20,21. fo he is theirs : and how great a Good is that for God to give himfelf to the Seed of his People, as welt as to them themfelves "> That the great God quantus, quantus f/?, is and may be faid to be in a proper fenfc, their God, their Portion and Inheritance ? 2. The Good of, or contained in this Promife, is this ; that God thereby has put himfelf under an obli- gation to his People to communicate himfelf to them, and a£t for their good, benefit and advantage, accor- ding to his own infinite Perfections, the true tenour of the Covenant made with them, and their capacity to receive ; or thus, he has by this Promife put him- felf under an obligation to his People, to improve and imploy all his Attributes for their good, benefit and advantage, in a way agreeable to the whole Cove- nant, and their capability o^ receiving any good, be- nefit and advantage by chat improvement, and imploy- menj: ii6 %yt '$*imttroe 3>octrme or merit of his fevcral Attributes for them. So thtt the communications that God by this Promife- has obliged himfclf to make of himfelf to his People, and thefc actings for their good, benefit and advantage, that he by the fame Prouiifc has obliged himfelf to, are limi- ted three ways. i. By his own infinite Perfe&ions : and thus it is i impofllble for him to communicate his Deity to them, as the Deity of the Father is communicated to the Son ; and the Deity of the Father and the Son to the j Spirit ; the infinity of the Deity renders it incommu- nicable to anv being extra fe, without it felf : but for his actings for the Good, Benefit and Advantage of his People they receive no limitations from his Per- fections as abfolutely considered in themfelves ; becaufe they are all infinite in themfelves, and ftiould he ad ad ultimum virium, no other bounds or limits are alfignable to them by the Creature than their non Dei- fication. And therefore, 2. The communications of God to, and his actings for the Good, Benefit and Advantage of his People, are limited by the Covenanant he has made with them ; and that both in regard of the Good he will communicate to, or do for them, and alfo in regard of the terms and conditions upon which he will com- municate that Good to, and do it for them. Hence no more good can be expected from God, than what is contained in fome Promife of the Covenant as made] cither indefinitely with the houfe of Ifrael in general, or definitely with particular and individual perfons 5 though 'tis true, the full Good contained in fome Promifes, efpeciaily thofc relating to the life to come,; cannot be comprehended by any, while in this life ; and therefore it is faid, Chrift Jhall come to be admired if \n\tymth&tbdkvey 2 ThciT. i. 10. the Good they hen receive from him, exceeding their prefent cx« pccl:arions ; buc yet whatever Good they do, or then iiail receive, is contained in fome Promife. The Co- venant is norma judkii, both in refpeft of rewarding ihe Righteous and punifhing the Wicked. And 2. As the communications God makes of himfclf :o, and his acting for the Good, Benefit and Advan- tage of his People, are limited by the Covenant, in regard of the Good communicated to, and done for them : So in regard of the terms and conditions upon which he does , and will communicate himfelf to them, and aft for their Good, Benefit and Advan- tage, that the Covenant of Grace as definitely made with particular Perfons is conditional, or does require fomewhat of duty on mans part in order to the injoy- ment of the Good promifed, is to me paft all rational doubt, and generally granted on all hands, I fhall not therefore add any thing to prove it, but though God in feme cafes may, and fometimes does give the Good of fome Promife, where man either wholly or in a great meafure fails in performing the conditions prefixed to them j yet he is not obliged either by this grand Promife nor any other fo to do : and in refpedfc of the great fundamental Bleflings of the Covenant, as pardon of Sin, future Glory, &c. He never gives them but upon fuppofition of the real and true performance of the conditions required in the Covenant on mans part. Hence I conceive it will necefTarily follow^ that as no particular perfons whether Infants or Adult, have an a&ual intercft in this Promife j butfuch as either for or by whom the fundamental conditions required to a Covenant-itate are performed ; fo this Promife not fpecifying any particular Good, it does net n8 %tyt $ttn\itiU Doctrine of not (imply and abfoluccly of it felf confer or give an immediate right to any Good contained in any of the Promises of the Covenant to thofe that have an inte- reft in it j it only conftitutes a Covenant-relation be- tween God and Man, and thereby gives tbem a mu- tual intereiland propriety in each other, and then obliges God to communicate himfelf to, and a6l for the Good, Benefit and Advantage of thofe that are under it, or intereftcd in it, according to the tenour of the whole Covenant, or the various Promifes con- tained therein : fo that though this Promife does virtually include and comprehend the whole Good o£ the Covenant whether confifting in Spiritual or Tem- poral Bleflings, yet does not merely orabfolutely of it felf confer, or enfure the Good of any one Promife appertaining to the Covenant upon or to any indivi- dual or particular Perfons whatfoever ; it fecures the injoyment of all the Good contained in the feveral and various Promifes of the Covenant co thofe, for or by whom the conditions or duties required therein are performed; but does not abfolutely confer or enfure theinjoyment of the Good contained in any one Pro- mife. And hence, with fubmiflion to better judgments, I conceive, that the Covenant- (late of the Infant- feed of Believers does not indifpenfibly require any opera- tions of the Spirit upon their hearts either for the dif- pofing them to aft, or facilitating their acting of Grace, as they become capable to do it ; or for the renovation of their natures, and effecting Grace in them. No fuch operations are neceflary in order to their having or performing the conditions of a Cove- nant-ftace j feing the condition of their Covenant-ftate is without them, and is their Parents Faith ; no fuch operations are included in, or affured by this Promife ■ * . of Snfan^26apf ifm velriU'D*' 129 of God's being a God to them ; nor as I conceive, in that other concerning their future Salvation : for though *cis true, Regeneration is abfolutely neceflary to admiffion into, and the adrual pofietfion of Heaven i yet thaunay be wrought in trjnjitu> ( as the relicks of indwelling fin are purged a*ray in Believers ) dr at any time anteceding when God fees meet : But of this more by and by. And that this Promifc of God's being a God to his People, whe^ier Infants or Adult Believers, does not of it felf either immediately confer, or for the future abfolutely enfurethe Good contained m any of the va- rious Promifes of the Covenant made to them, and confequently only lays fuchan obligation upon God as is afore expreft, I fhall firft prove by one more ge- neral Argument, and then clear it up in fome particu- lar inftances. Ar£. Whatever Good is either conferred or gran- ted for the prefent, or enfured for the future, by any Promife as taken ablolutcly and by it felf, muft be ex- prefsly held forth, or necelTarily implyed in the Terms in which it is made, or elfe muft in fome other place of Scripture be declared to be intended in it : But in this Promife no particular Good, &c. For the mapr Propofition, the enumeration being full and fufficient, that cannot be gainfaid. For the minor, the truth of that will appear in the particular Branches of ir. Firft, That no particular Good contained in any of the Promifes of the Covenant is exprefsly held forth in the Terms of this Promife it. feif, is obvious unto all: God's promifing to be a God to any nei- ther fpecifies, nor particularly exprefles any particular Good he will vouchfafeto, of~beilow upon them.* K XL 130 %$t fMmftfte fl>cctrtoe of it is only a more general affuranceol fome Good, but what that Good is, or upon what tenns it (hall be in joyed is not expreft. 2. That no particular Good is neceflarily implycd or included in theTcrms of the Promife is evident thus. It mufi be implyed and included either merely fub notione boniy or fub notione boni pomifli> cither as a Good in the general, or as a promifed Good : but no particular Good can be implyed or included under either of thefe notions ; for then all Good in general, at leaft all promifed Good, muft be implyed and in- cluded a quatenHS ad omne valet confequentia^ and then all Good, at lead all promifed Good, would be cither actually conferred ,«or a right thereunto would be given, or the future injoyment thereof would be infallibly fecured upon or to all thofe that have an Intereft in this Promife } the contrary w hereunto is not only evident to every ones obfervation, but unde- niably evident from Scripture, as fhall be (hewed more fully by and by. 3. That any particular Good contained in any of the Promifcsof the Covenant is declared in any Scripture to be implyed or included in this Promife cannot be affirmed ; becaufe no fuch Declaration is to be found. Whatever Scriptures may be produced for that purpofe, I doubt not, but it will be eafily made to appear they prove not the thing they are pro- duced for the proof of. Hence I conclude, that this Promife, as taken abfoiutely and by it felf, does neither actually confer, nor give a right to, nor abfoiutely fecure any particular Good contained in any of the Promifes of the Covenant upon or to thofe that have an Intereft in it : but is only ^nfanfcaBapttfmtew&'fc i3i only an obligation upon God to communicate himfeJf to them 5 and act or improve and im- ploy his feveral Attributes for their Good, Bene- fit and Advantage/ according to the true tenour of the Covenant and the various Promifes con- tained in ic. CHAP. VII. that the forementioned Good, and that only , is contained in that grand Promfe of the Co- venant', further confirmed in fome particular Inflames i Thefirfl Inflancepropofed. No fpecial or fating influences or operations of the Spirit are included in this Promtfe, fo as by it^ts taken abfolutely and by it f elf to be con- f erred upon, or abfolutely enfured to any in- tercfledinit* Ihe feveral ufes and ends of thefle influences and operations, declared* What is affirmed, proved. Fir ft, more ge- nerally. Secondly ^ more particularly. One Objection anfoered. A fecond Inflame pro- pofed: vphere it isprovedrfhat no hove that is peculiar and proper to the Elect) is exprejl or enfured in or by this grand JPromife of the Covenant, as taken absolutely and by it felf, to all interested in it. this largly infixed upon* What may be pleaded againftit^ an* K i fwred. i3i %i)t iMtntttte Doctrine of fiver ed. A brief Recapitulation of that Good redounding to the Seed of Believers^ as recei- ved into Covenant with their Parents, and having thefe two Promifes appertaining to them, that Good fummed up under four Heads. J hat the Seed of Believers have all Good) proved by four Arguments . Thefecond ^uejlion for the unfolding this fee ond Good or Benefit arifing to the Seed, of Believers from the Application of the token of the Co- veMavt^propofed : where it is {hewed wherein . the Benefit and Advantage ofhdving.the Go- ' veKiWtvwith the Promife of it ratified^ fealed and confirmed by an outward Sign or token*, does confift. What hazard, is run by the neglect of the Application of the token of the. Covenant, fa.ewed. FOx the further clearing up and confirming of wha: is affirmed, I fhall inltance in fome particular Good things promifed in the Covenant; of Grace, which of all things promifed may feem rho'ft probably included iti^ and confequently granted and enfured by this .Pro; fcife to thole that have an iritereftin it, and (hew chaXthcy are noi lo included in x:, as by ir, as abLIuiejy takei), to be conferred upon, granted ori enfured to any tb^ are liiterefted in it. i. Firft J^usinftence-iri tne fpecial and favingope-l rations and influences oUhe- Spirit of God.Thefe are r Good which of* ail Good things promifed in the Cove- pant majf fecm tp be aujft cflimial to this Promife^inc ' . ' ' ' Y yet we fliall find it to be other wife. And Tor clearing up of this we may obferve,- that thefe facing influ- enccs and operations of the Spirit are vouchsafed for a threefold end and purpofe in the general. i. Firft, For the efte&ing and producing the firft Grace, as the firft favins^ Illumination of 'the Mind, the Renovation of the Nature by Regeneration. ,. 2fSecondly,For the maintaining the Seed and truth of Grace in the Soul, whereby its Union with Chrift is continued. 3. Thirdly, For the managing and carrying on the further fpiritual concerns of the Soul, confiding' in higher degrees of San&ification, Afliirance, Peace, Joy, the due performance of holy Duties and the like. Now that thefe faving influences and operations of the Spirit for any of, or fof all thcfe fever al ends and purpofesare not fo included in this 'Prbrnjfe of God's being a God to his People, as to "fee ".actually granted or enfured by it, ,as taken absolutely and by it felf, to any of thole ttaatihave an intereft in it, will appear two ways; t T Firft,mbre generally,an'tt"w"e may arguVrfiuX :: If any of thefe favirfg influences and operations ; of tHe Pplrft are included in,and abfoltstely enfured by "thisPrbmift, .asSakett abfblutly and by it (elfjthen they are all alike included -inland abfolutely entered by it: But all thefe influences andopcrations of the Spirit are not 'included inj or abfolutely enfured by n£ and therefore not «; )f. The Minor is undeniable : for if all thefe faving in- fluences arid- Operations of the Spirit are included in, and abfolutely enfured by this Promife, as taken abso- lutely ahd'by it felf,then all that have an iatereft in the Promife would imoy all thofe influences and operati- ons of rhe Spirit, and that in the higheft degree, or K 3 cife 134 3E#e #tfmitiije Doctrine af elfe Godmuft befuppofcd to fail in the performance of the Promise : but now it is paft all rational contra- diction, that all that have an Intereft in this Promife, do not in joy all thefe influences and operations of the Spirit, poffibly fome, if not all, yet m a very low degrce,and then much lefs in the higheftdegreejneither can it wichout blafpheuiy be fuppofed that God does at any time fail in the performance of his Promifes : therefore undoubtedly they are not all, efpecially in the higheft degree, in which they may be injoyed by men in this life, included in, nor abfolutely enfured by this Promife. The Confequence in the Major Propofition is evident •, becaufe the Promife, as taken abfolutely and by it felf, neither fpecifietb nor particularizeth any of tbefe in- fluences or operations of the Spirit, neither is there any thing in the Promife it felf, nor in any explica- tion or interpretation that Godhimfelfin any other place of Scripture makes of it, is aground for us to diftinguifh and fay, fuch influences and operations of the Spirit arc included in, and abfolutely enfured by it, and not others j and where neither the Promife it felf diftinguifheth, nor are we in any other place of Scripture warranted to diftinguifh of the good con- t aincd in, and enfured by the Promife, there we are not at all to diftinguifh ; and hence, as in cafe any of thefc influences and operations of the Spirit are inclu- ded in, and abfolutely enfured by this Promife, we have no reafon from the Promife it felf, why we fhould not conclude that they are all included in, and enfured by it : fo feeing it is certain they are not all included in, and enfured by it, we have no reafon to: conclude nor fuppofc that any are. But t Secondly! more particularly : And thus jwcftallj find find this true inj refpecT: of thefe influences and opera- tions of the Spirit, as vouchfafed for thefe fcveral ends and purpofes before mentioned, diftinitly confi- dered. Firft, For thofe influences and operations of the Spirit vouchfafed for the effecting and producing the firft Grace ; that thefe influences and operations or the Spirit cannot be included in, or enfuredby this Pro- mife, is evident ; Becaufe in refpedfr of the Adult they are indifpenfibly prefuppofed to an Intereft in it, and the Promife cannot fecure to any a Good that is in- difpenhbly required antecedent to an Intereft in it ; for then it would fecure the Good contained in it to thefe to whom at prefent it, does not appertain, which is impoflible; for then a Man muft be fuppofed to have an Intereft in the Promife before he has that which is indifpenfibly neceflary to his having an Intereft in it, which is an abfolute contradiction. Now if this Promife docs not fecure thefe influences and operations of the Spirit to fuchr it cannot be rationally fuppofed to fecure them to any others, and confequently they cannot be included in, or enfuredto any by it, as ' taken abfolutely and by it felf. Secondly, For thofe influences of the Spirit vouch- safed, for the maintaining the feed and truth of GraGe in the Soul wherein it is already wrought, whereby its Union with Chrift is maintained : that thofe influ- ences and operations of the Spirit are not included in, nor enfured by this Promife, as taken abfolutely and by it felf, is alike evident with the former, and that upon the fame ground, viz, the neceflary precedency of the Soul's union with Chrift, and confequently of thefe influences and operations of the Spirit neceffa- ry to the maintaining of that union, at leaft in order K 4 of 136 %l)z $iim\titot SDocttine of of nature to its holding its intereft in the Promife • Tf that which ye have heard from the beginning jhall re* main in y 0U1 ye alfo Jhall continue in tlx Son, and in the Father, 1 John 2. 24, The remaining or abiding of the Word, viz. inthae effect or fruit of it, habi- tual Grace in the SouL. is the condi:ion of, and con* fcquerrcly mult necelfarily be confidered as antece- dent to ( at lesft in order of nature ) its union with and intereft in both the Son and the father. Hence fhouid thefe influences and operations of the Spirit be included in, andenfurcd by this Promife, as taken abfolutely and by ic fclf, it would ceafe to be condi- tional and become an abfolute Promife, and confe- quently difcharge the People of God from all duty fubordinate to their maintaining their Union with Chrift and intereft in this Promife : to talk of an ab- folute Promife which requires duty on Man's part in order to his injoying the Good contained in it, is an abfolute contradiction. 3. Thirdly, For the third Head of the Spirit's in* fluenccs and operations, viz, (ach as are vouchfafed for the carrying on and managing she further and higher concerns of the Soul, in the various degrees of San&ification, Aflutance, Peace, Joy, fpintual performance of holy duties and the like, that thefc are not included in this grand Promife of the Cove- nant fo as to be conferred, or abfolutely enfured there- by,' as taken abfqultely and by it felf, to all that have an intereft in it, is evident from the undcnyable experiences of many,ifno: moll Believers. 'Tispoffibk that true Believers may f ;r a time be fo far deferted,as to injoy only fuch influences and operations of the Spi-i rit as are limply and abfolutely nccefTary to the main- taining 5nf mtMtytiim nm% 137 taining the life of Grace in them, and that in the very habit and feed thereof, which could not be, in cafe thefe influences and operations of the Spirit vouchfar fed for thefe higher ends and purpofes were included in, and abfolutely fecured by this Promife, as taken absolutely and byitfelf: fothat the truth affirnjed is fufticiently evident in this firft inftance. N&ne of the faving influences or operations of the Spirit are included in this Promife of God's being a God to his People, fo as by it as taken abfolutely and by it felf, to be conferred upon, or abfolutely enfured to any interefted in it. Ob). But po(Tibly fome may object, that this Pro- mife feems to be called the Promife of the Spirit, Gil. 3. 14. And therefore, fure it muft neceffanly include at leaft fome of the faving influences and operations of the Spirit, and consequently fecure them to all that have an intereft in it, Anfe. That any of the faving operations of the Spirit are included in this Promife cannot be concluded from that Scripture, will appear by a brief view of the feveral interpretations that it will admit of, and are put upon it by our beft Interpreters. Thus fome con- ceive that a diflincVGood is intended in this Promife of the Spirit, from that bleffing of Abraham, faid to 'come upon the Gentiles through Chrift. By the blef- fing of Abraham we ate to underftand the Good con- tained in this grand Promife of the Covenant, viz. fhat Cjod would be a God to him and his Seed \ bup then by the Promife of the Spirit, they' conceive a further confequential Good is intended, viz, the in- dwelling prefence of theSpirit,wirh thofe faving influ- "dices and operations that are confequential there- unto. 138 %fje fMtnftfoe 2>octttne of unto*. And for the right underftan- * *f <5^ *7nV and taking them to be a peculiar People to himfelf, are glorious expreflions or fruits of his Love to them ; befides various other expreflions and fruits of his Love vouchfafed to them as in a Covenant- ftatc, and Members of the Church and Family of Chrift as vifible here upon earth, and while the Co- venant-relation , with the priviledges attending ic arc continued to them, the Love expreft in it and them is continued to them : But yet, as thefe expreflions and fruits of his Love and Favour are not peculiar and proper to the EIec~t,but may be common to others with them, and may be, and anfwerably are with- drawn from them, upon a failure in the performance of the conditions of the Covenant by them ; fo no ,J more 14© Xtie $iin\imt 2E>bctrine bf more or ncTfurthcr Love is enfured by this Prdmife^ tljan what .is a&ttalJy exprefBd in giving'k to them, and conftituting thereby a Covenat-rclation. between him and them, and vouchfafing them the Token of his Covenant, and thereby admitlion into his Church, Kingdom and Family as vifible here upon earth. So that I have here two things to prove. i. Fir ft, That God may extend his Covenant to the Non-ele6t, fo as to conftituce thereby a true Cove- nant-relation between himfelf and them, and' may thereupon vouchfafe them the Token of his Covenant, and thereby admiflion into the vifible Cmircfy and confequently that what Love and r Favour is expWftin thefe things is not peculiar to the Eledh i 2. Secondly, That this grand Prorntfe of< be vouchfafed to, thofe who arertaken in as fjubjecfcs of ify fcben he may extend if in the fenfe:beforc| e-xpreft to foaie Non«ele£r, and anfwcrabiy vQuchfafeJ1 them the Token of ic; But the former is true$ therefore 9nf att&ffiaptfftn teinbu 14? the latter. The Miner Propofition alone needs proof a and here we have in the general two things to prove. Firft, That for God jo extend his Covenant to the Nop-eledfr and vouchsafe them the Token of it,is (im- ply and abfolutely polfible in it felf: Now for this,that this is (imply and abfolutely poffible is unqueftionable; The Soveraignty of God and his" abfolutc freedom to deal with bis Creatures as himfelf pleafes, fecures this paftallrationaldoubtyf he may (as who queftionsbut that be may) enter Covenant conditionally with all Men, why may he not go fomewhat further with fome, and actually take them into a Covenant-rela- tion with himfelf, and vouchfafe them the Token of his Covenant •whom yet he has not ordained to Salvation ? Secondly, That for God thus to do is no way in- confiftent with what he has revealed and declared in his Word, either concerning the fubjc&s or the na- ture and cenour of the Covenant, or concerning the Good vouchsafed, or to be vouchfafed tothofe that are taken in as the fubje&s of ic. The truth of this will appear in the particular branches : And thus, Firft, For God to exceed bis Covenant to fome Non*ele6t, and anfwerabl.y vouchfafe them the Tokeri of it, is no way inconfiftent with what he hasdecla- red in his. Word concerning the fubje&s of it : This is fufficiently evident, becaufe whatever God has decla- red in his ; Word concerning the fubjedts. of his Cove- nant, yet he has no where declared that he would not take in any as thefubje£ls of it that were not ; elected ; he has no where limited his Covenant to the Eledr. If there be any fueh declaration in the Scrip- tures let it be (hewed. Secondly, That for God fo to extend his Covenant CO 14* %l)e#jtttitt!fceI>octtme* hs to the third Branch of this fecond thing propofcd for proof of the minor Proportion of oiir foregoing Argument ; fo that wbac is declared in the Scriptures concerning tlje everlaftingncfs of the Covenant, may very well conlift with what is affirmed concerning God's extending ic to the Non-eIt&. It may be (aid to be an everlafting Covenant on ieveral accounts* but grant ic to be fo called on the account of its con~ ftancy and immutability, as made with particular perfons, yet it rauft then be taken as made only with the Adulr. God has made his Covenant conditionally with ail mankind, whereby though all men as ablow lutely conlidered arc put in a capacity o/pelTiblity of being faved, yet Salvation is absolutely iccured to none j he has to extended his Covenant to the Seed of Believers as thereby to conftitute a true and proper Covenant-relation between himfelf and them, when , yet, the Covenant being not fully compIeat,their ftatc is mutable : when the condition devolves upon thcrri- felvcs, they may fail in the performance of it, and thereupon be caft ouc^but when once the Covenant be- comes complcatjis mutually plighted between God and an Adult perfon, through the faving operations of the Spirit upon the heart, now it is- an unchangeable and everlafting Covenant, the foul's performance of the conditions being fecured by the abiding pretence of the Spirit in it. But Thirdly, That for God fo to extead his Covenant to feme that are not eleeled, as to conftitute' a true ahd proper Covenant-relation between himfelf and them, is no way inconliftent with what the Scrip- tures declare concerning any Good vouchfafed or 10 i>e vouchfafed to thofe that are taken in as Subje&s of it. And here again a twofold Good can oniyy as I ' L judge i46 %\)t $;fmttn)e SDOftrtne of jiutee be pleaded, as oppofing what is affirmed. Fir ft, Their difcharge and immunity from the guile and condemning power of Original fin, rcful- ting from their Covenant-flate. # Secondly, Saving Grace. The former is a Good scluaily vouchfafed j the latter may be fuppofed to be necclTurily vouchfafed, by vercue of the Promife made to the Covenant-people of God. But for the former, I (hall only fay, 'tis fufficient that God has no where declared in his Word, that all that are or may be discharged of, and have an immu- nity from the guilt and condemning power of any, however of Original fin, (hall infallibly be preferved in a Covenant. (rate,and thereby brought to Salvation aclan\ I know in part what is faid as to this, but let me fay, to bottom the Doctrine of Perfeverance upon fuch a fuppotition is altogether unfafe. Whether the guile of Original fin do revive and be recharged upon fach of the Seed of Believers as do,when they grow up to years of Maturity,negle<5t to take hold of the Cove- nant-, and thereby forfeit their intereft in it, is a queitio'nof more difficulty to refolve, than ufefulnefs when refolvcd ; and therefore I (liall pafsitby. For the latter Good, which may be fuppofed to be neceflarily vouchfafed to all that are taken in as Sub- jr&s of the Covenant, piz. favtng Grace/ I havefaid (o much to it once and again, I need add no more at prefer** ; that may fuffice that the Prcmifcs containing that Good, at leaft as it is meant of the firft Grace< are not made to any in particular, they are made to the Church in general, and anfwerably fecure the Good contained in them only to the Elect ; and that hinders not but that God may extend his Cove- nant in the fenfc intended tofome that are not ele- cted : $nfmtzi&tytitmxmb% 147 &cd : But let that fufficc for the firft chir.g to be proved. Secondly, That this Promife, as taken abfolutely and by it feif, does not neceflarily include or fecure to all thofc to whom it is made, or to whom it does ap» pertain,any further Love and Favour from God that is peculiar and proper to the Elect : as it dees not neccf- farily imply or infer Ele£tion,or that all thefe to whom it. is made are elected, and confequemly beloved with the Love of Election, fo it does not neceflarily include or fecure any confequent Love or Favour that is pecu- liar and proper to the Eledfc. This will appear, if we canfider, what Love and Favour is peculiar and proper to the ElecSl $ and that falls under a twofold confide- fation. Firtt, As a love of Beneficence. Secondly, As a love of Complacence. For the firft, And thus the Love and Favour of God, as expreft in a way of Beneficence to the EiccJ, differs from that common Love and Favour vouchfa- [fed to men in general, only in degree, and thofe fruits *nd effects wherein it is expreit ; 'tis acted more in- tenfely (to fpeak of God after the manner of men, and iccording to cur (hallow apprehenfions of him ) and n different effects and fruits, than it is a died and ex- weffed towards men in general • thefe Effects and Fruits, which we are at prefenc only concerned in, nay in the general be reduced to thefe three Heads, Regeneration to a £hte of life, Prefervation in that late, and future Glorification. Now none of thefe Inflects and Fruits of the Love and Favour of God are : leccfiarily included in, orfecured by this Promife as Kakenabfolutely and by itfelf, this has been fuffici- Ultly proved already :'for if the fun% viz. Regehe- •ation be not included in, or fecured by u, neither of L % the i4? Xfje fyiMtfot doctrine of the two latf er can, in as much as they neceflarily prc^j fuppofe the antecedency of this. Now that this firftj Fruit and Effed of that fpeciai Love and Favour of Godj peculiar and proper to the Elect is not neceflarily irw eluded in, or fecured by this Promife, is (ufficicntlyj evident from, what has been already faid, therefore I "(hall add-no more. * Secondly, For the latter, viz. The Love and Fd vourof God as expreftjn away of complacency ancj delight: and under this Head we may comprehend all thofe things wherein this Love and Favour of Got is exprelti or whereby it is fignified to thofe to whom it is vouchfafed, as the fignal manifeftations of him (elfin Chrift in his fmiles upon the Soul, the fhed dings abroad of his Love in the heart/ and the likr Now that the Love and Favour of God, as expreft tB way. is not neceflarily included in, or fecured by th Promife', as taken abfolutcly and by it felf, will nece; farily follow from what has been already faid. Th Love and Favour of God to Men always fuppof them truly regenerrte and fan6tifled,and confequen ly cannot he included in, or fecured by that Promi in which Regeneration and Sa notification arc not i eluded, or by which they are not (ecured; or haft which docs not prefuppofe them alreac wrought, and is a'cled and exprefled according to t I degree of Sanctificanon attained, to the lively exe ciie of Grace, due performance of Obedience and t like.' Heute 'thofe that are truly regenerated, m; " fo fink. and degenerate in their Sahitification, exere of Grace, and performance ot Obedience, as th . Love iliali be ^1 exprefled ( if at all, yei l very low and remifs degree ; whereas were it i. in, and feccrcd'by this Pronufe, as taken a folute 3fnftn&25aptifm teWD. 149 folutely and by it felf, it would be a&ed and cxprcfled always alike towards all, to whom this Promife does appertain.: So that to come toa clofeofthis, we may evidently fee, that as Intcreft in this Promife does noc uuiverfally rlow from the clewing Love of God, he may make this Promife to fome that are not elected, and thereby conftirute a true and proper Covenantrre- lation between himfelf &them,and aefwerably vouch- fafe them the Token of his Covenant, and by the Ap- plication of that to them folemnly admit them into his Church viiible j fo no further or confequent Love or Favour that is peculiar and proper to the EIe&,is necef- farily Included in, norfecured by that Promife, and confequent ly (which is the thing aflerted) this Promife as raken.abfolutely and by it felf, does not neceiTari- ly imply, that all to whom it does appertain, -are un- der> or do injby any of tha: Love and Favour that is peculiar and proper to the Elecl, neither is that Love and Favour necefTarily included in, or fecured by it, to thofe to whom ic does appertain. But that is a fe- cond inflance to prove what is afTcrtcd, viz. Tha.t no particular Good contained in any of the Promifes of the Covenant is either implyed in, or fecured by this grand Promife, as taken absolutely and by it felf to any towiiom it does appertain. I had intended to have proceeded fomewhat further, but I am loth to be over tedious, and I conceive w hat has been [aid may fuffice. I fuppofe it will be granted, that in cafe neither any of the faving influences and operations of the Spirir,nor any of rhac (pecial Love and Favour that is peculiar and proper to the-Elec%which are two of the molt eflentiai Good things of the Covenantee imply-* cd in, or fecured to any, to whom this Promife do:s appertain by it, as taken absolutely and by it felf; L 3 then 1*0 %ty fyiimitiU Doctrine of then no other Good contained in any other Promjie of che Covenant is implyed or included in, or fecured by it, as to taken : And therefore let that fuflfice for the fecond way, how the communications or himfelf to, and his actings for the Good, Benefit and Advan- tage of his Covenant-people, ^hereunto God has ob- liged himfelf by this Promife, are limited ; they are limited by the tenour of the Covenant, and of the! various Promifes contained therein, and confequently,; no particular Good contained in any of the Promifesl of the Covenant, being neceffarily implyed or included! in, or fecured by this Promife, as taken abfolutelyj and by it (elf; it will undeniably follow that this Promife is only a more general obligation upon God to perform and make good the whole Covenanc, yet not absolutely, but according to the true tenour of it, and of the various Promifes contained in it : fo thac as none by vcrtueof this Promife can lay claim to any fjood, but what is fonaewjiere promifed, fonone can expedt any Good promifed, but according to the te- nour of, and terms upon which the Promife contain- ing fuch a Good is made. But, Thirdly, There is another way how the commu- nications of himfelf to, and his actings for the Good Benefit and Advantage of thofethis Promife apper- tains to, whercunto by this Promiic God has obliged himfelf, are limited, and that is the capacity of the Subject to receive, Vnumquodque recipitut feemdum ntodum recipients . But this being excentncal to my p'refent defign, I (hall wholly pafs it by. From the jvhole of what has been hitherto (aid, as to this feconc Good or Benefit that the Infant-feed of Believers have fcy the Application of the Token of the Covenant to iherft, we fee what the Token of the Covenant, as ap- ' .- p'y?c 3lnfane-2i5aptifm tefeft'd. i?i plyed to then) by reference and relation to, and there- in what Promifes of the Covenant appertain to them* and alio what is the Good contained in, and confe- quently granted to, or fetled uponihen by thofe Pro- mifcs,and that was the firft thing enquired into. Now as a clofe of this,and before I proceed to the fecond en- quiry, I conceive it is necellary that I fhould reflect a lictle back, and (urn up and give a diftinft and par- ticular account of wfu: Good the Infant- feed of Be- lievers have,as received with their Parents into the Co- venant of Grace, and as having in particular thofc Promifes aforementioned made unco them ; and alfo add fomeching further to prove chat they indeed have all that Good, as fo received into Covenant, and as having thofe Promifes made to chem : As for the Good they have, that is fourfold. Firft, They are put into a New-Covenant- (late, they are abfolutely for the prefent removed from under the Covenant of Works, or the Covenant entred with Man in the ftatc of Innocency, and taken inco, as the actual Subjects of, thefecond Covenant, or Covenant of Grace ; that is cheir prefent ftace, they are actually under the Covenant of Grace, and as the necetTary effect and confequence thereof are freed and difchar- ged from the guile and condemning power of Original fin. Secondly, They have at prefent true real and pro-, per intereft and propriety in God : as they are his, fo f he is theirs, there is a mutual propriety and intereft in each other. Thirdly, They have God under an aclual obliga- tion, viz. of his Promife to improve and imploy all his Attributes for their Good Benefic and Advan- tage according, or in a way agreeable to the true te- L 4 s sow; Hi Xt)e tyiimitiu iDottrine of nour of the Covenant and of the various Promifes pfic. Fouth!y,They have a prefent Interft in, and Right to Salvatibn,and anfw/rably,in cafe of their death before a forfeiture be made of that fheir Interefl and Right, they fhall be infallibly faved. This Promife of Salva- tion being made to them as the Seed of believing Pa-, rents, requires nothing on their part to the injoyment of the Good contained in it ; and God having ingaged by Promife to be a God unto them, he has thereby obliged himfelf to make good this Promife to them ; Now though upon (uppofition that the Covenant and Promifes thereof appertaining to the Seed of Belie- vers be entred with, and made to them definitely, that is, with and to each one in particular^ (which that they are, has been before proved, and is now ta- ken for granted ) I cannot apprehend b^w it can with any fliew of reafon be denied, but muft neceffa- rily be granted,that they have all that Good now de- clared and afligned to them • and confequently any, further proof may feem to be fuperfluous ; yet ex abundantly 1 ma^ a^ fhefe three or four Arguments. Arg. i. Firft what Good is, either according to the literal and moft proper fenfe and hgnification of the words, contained in thefe Promifes of the Cove- nant, or does neeeflarily and infcparably arife and flow from the very eltabhftiment of the Covenant with the Infant-feed of Believers, that Good they have, as received thereunto with* their Parents, and as having thofe Promifes made unto them : but all that Good afarementioned^either according to the literal or molt proper fenfe ancWignification of the words, is contain- . ed in the Promifes of the Covenant, or clfe does necef* jariJy and 'infcparably arife and flow from the very eftablifhment of the Covenant w ith the Seed of be- lieving Parents } therefore they have all that Good as received into the Covenant with their Parents, and as having thefe Promifes made unto them. Both thefe Proportions carry their own evidence with fo >much clearnefs, thac I need add nothing for the con- firmation of cither of them. Certainly when God promifes to be a God to the Seed of his People, accor- ding to the literal and raort proper fenfe and lignifica- tion of thefe words, he means himfelf, and to inter- pret that Promife or any lower Good would be co offer apparent violence to it ; and the like may be faid of the Promife of Salvation, and that a New-Cove- nant-ftate, Propriety and Intcieft in God, with an obligation upon him to improve all his Attributes for the Good, Benefit and Advantage of thofe to whom the Promife is made* and a Right to Salvation, do ne- 'cerTarily arifeand flow from the very eftablifliment of the Covenant, and making thefe Promiies witbj or to |$ny, whether Infants or Adult, will as I fuppofebe rqueftioned by none: And therefore Arg. 2. Secondly, If believing Parents have all that Good as received into Covenant, and as having thofe Promifes- made unto them \ then fohave their Infant-feed, they being alike received into Covenant, and having the fame Promifes made alike to them: but the former is true 4 therefore the latter. The antecedent is fecured from any oppofitionnot ; only by evidence of Scripture light, but. by the uni. verfal acknowledgment of all Chriitians ; neither do •I fee any ground from Scripture, or n„ht Reafon to ^ doubt of the confequence : This is undoubted to me, that Pa-do- Bapcifts aligning one kind of Good to Pa- rents and another to Infants, while yet they plead for 154- We $iimitfot Doctrine of for Infants having the fame Intereft in the Covenant andthefc grand Promifesof ic that Parents have, has ► not a little promoted the errour of Anti-Paedo-Bap- tifm. But ^rg. 3. Thirdly, Unlefs the Infant-feed of belie- ving Parents have that Good afore declared, the/ have no intereft at all in the Covenant : but the In- fant-feed of believing Parents have a true and real in- tereft in the Covenant ; Ergo. The confequence in the Major Proposition will no: be questioned by Paedo-Baptiits, for whofe fake I now write as well as for the fake of Anti-Pasdo-Baptifts : But that is evident thus. Thofe that have no Good, that is of the effence and fubftance of the Covenant, have no prefent intereft in, the Covenant : but unlefs Infants have that Good afore declared, they have no Good that is of the effence and fubftance of the Covenant; Ergo. This Argument in the whole of it is fo obvious to every ordinary underftanding, at leaft will fo evidently appear upon a diligent fearch, that I fhall' furceafe the proof it, and only add one more Argumenr, and pro- ceed to the fecond enquiry. Arg. 4. It the Infant-feed of Believers, as received into Covenant, and as having thofe Promifes made to them, have nor the Good afore expreft, then the Co- venant would be no fecurity to any of them, nor any ground of hope to their Parents as to their future hat- pin efs in cafe of their death in their pure Infant-ftate^ before they have perfonally taken hold of the Cove- nant themfelves r but the Covenant is fome fecurity to the Infant-feed of believing Parents, and may be fome ground of hope to their Parents as to their future happinefs in cafe of their death in their pure Infant- flare, ftate ; Ergo. If the Seed of Believers have neither a difcharge from the guilt of Original fin, nor any Pro- priety or Intereft in God, nor Right to Salvation by the Covenant and Promifes thereof entred with, or made to them ; how is it poffible that either the 'Co- venant or any Promife of it fhould be any fecurity to them, or any ground of hope to their Parents thac they fhallbe faved in cafe of death in their pure In- fant.ftate > and if they have no fecurity, nor their Pa- rents any ground of hope as to their future happinefs from the Covenant, then the Covenant and Promi- fes would be wholly insignificant, and of no ufe or advantage at all either to Parents or Children, in refpect of all thofe that die in that ftate ; and hQw con- fiderable a part of the Seed of Believers as-well as of others die in that ftate, is known to all men. But now itfeemsto be altogether unreafonabie to imagine thac God fhould extend his Covenant to the Seed of his People, and fcal it by an outward Sign or Token, and yec neither the Covenant nor any one Prcmife of j ic be of any ufe or advantage at all, either to Parents or Children in refpeft of fo great a part of their Seed. From all I conceive it will undeniably fellow, that the Infant, feed of Believers and that univ-erfally have, as rereived into Covenant, and having thefe two grand Promifes of it in fpecial made unto them as the Seed of fuch Parents, the whole Good afore declared : as for their ftate, they are actually under the Cove- nant of Grace,and have an abfolute difcharge from the guilt of Original fin; as the infcparable effedfc and con- fluence thereof, they have a prefent adtual propriety in God * he is their God, and as fuch under an obli- gation to make good unto them the whole Covenant I according to the true tcnour of k > they have a prefenc Rkhc i?6 %\yt $;unftfte Soorttttte of Right to future Salvation, and anfwerably under an infallible certainty of in joying it, fuppofing their lion- forfeiture of that their Right, which during their pure Infant-ftate they are incapable to do. But to proceed. Secondly, Wherein docs the Good of having the Covenant with the Promifes thereof appertaining to themratifie d,fealed and confirmed to the Infant- feed of Believers by an outward Sign or Token confift? As previous to the refolution of this queftion, two things may be obfrrved in general. Firft, That Aduk- Believers are equally and alike concerned in ie with Infants j inafmuch as whatever Good the Aclul: have by the ratification, fealingand confirmation of the Covenant and Promifes thereof unco them, the fame Good have Infants by the feal- ing, ratification and confirmation of the Covenant and Promiics thereof by^an oucward Sign and Token unto- them > and fo vice verfa. Secondly, That to have the Covenant and Promifes of ic ratified, fealed and confirmed by an outward Sigrrand Token, is a Good,, is fufficiently fecured by the very Inihtution of a Sign and Token for that end and purpofe, taken in conjunction with the Wifdom and Goodnefsof God infticuting : art Infinite wife and good Go*d would notinftiuite an outward Sign and" Token for fuch an end and purpofe, did it not, as ferving to that end and purpofe, conduce to the Good and Bentflcof his People whether Infants or Adult $ To thatu is a Good, is certain, though we ftould not fa;ly apprehend wherein that Good does confift : Eur more^particularly and dire£tjy to the queftion. The great Good of having the Covenant and Pro- miles ratified; feakd and confirmed by an outward Sign Sign or Token, I conceive, confifts in the additional affurance given unto Men thereby of their injoyment of that Good granted to, and fetled upon them by the Covenant and Promifcs $ for though it is .certain the verity and faithfulnefs of God is a full and infal- lible affurance unto Men of their injoyment of what- ever Good is covenanted and promifed co them, fup- pofing the performance of what duty is required on their parts, he is a God that cannot lye ; but yet the ratification and confirmation cf the Covenant and Promifes by an outward Sign is, quoad homines, an additional affurance to them that they fhall enjoy that Good. The cafe is one and the fame, both in refpe&of the confirmation by a Seal and Token, and by an Oatb,the Promifes as abfolucely confidered,wcre as fure and certain before the Oath of God was given asafcer, yet the Apoftle tells us that God confirmed his Promife with an Oath, and fhews the Good dc- iigned co us thereby, viz* "that we might have more ftrong Confolation+Hzv.6% 16, 17, 18, Grod deals with Men after the manner of Men, and with refpeCt. to their prefenc ifateof Imperfection. Now the addi- tion of a Seal does add to the confirmation of any Promifes or Contracts among Men, and gives greater affurance of the performance of them, and confe- quentlyof their injoyment of the Good promifed to whom or with whom fuch Promifes And Contracts' are made,, than they would do were there no Seal annex- ed : hence we rmy fay, that the Covenant and Pro- mifes of God as taken abfolutcly in chemfeive;, with- out consideration to their Author, are ftrcngthened s and confirmed by the Seal or Token annexed, and, confequcntly the.Seal or Token is a further ailu ranee to thofewnh or 40 whom they are made -that they ftall i^s %tyt $;fmf tfte SDortthte of iTiall injoy the Good covenanted and promifed : and befides, while the People of God are in this Irate of Imperfection, their Knowledge and Faith are imper- fect they are apt to frame their notions of God by what they fee and experience among Men ; hence the adding of a Seal or Token to the Covenant is of great advantage to their Faith. Object. If any fhall (ay, It's true, to have the Cove- riant and Promifes thereof fealed and confirmed by an outward Sign or Token is in this refpeci: a great Good to Adult- Believers?who have a capacity to reflect upon the Sign or Token,and improve it for the advantage of their Faith j but what does this concern Infants, who can make no fuch ufe or improvement of it as applyed to- them? and then what Good is it to them, or wherein does the Good of its being applyed to them confift ? Suppofing the Promifes to appertain to them, they of rhemfelves are an infallible fecurity to them as to their in joy men t of the Good promifed, and as for the Sign and ToJten,as they have no Faith to ftrength- ea> fo had they any, yet they are utterly incapable of making any improvement of it to that purpofe. To that I (hall only fay : Firft, that the Covenant and Promifes, as entrcd with and made to them,taken abfolutely in themfelves, being ratified, fealed and confirmed by an outward Sign or Token, the Good contained in them is more fully afcertaincd and af- fured-to them. Bur, Secondly, Let it be obferved what reference and fubferviency according to the revealed will of God the Application of the Token of the Covenant to In- fonts has to his continuing unto them their Covenant- Hate, and anfwerably vouchfafing them the Good covenanted md promifed to them : The Lord himfelf tells 3mtattfc2i5apttim te&i&'b, i& tells Abraham , that the Man-child that was not cir- cumcife dh ad broken the Covenant, Gen. 17. 14. Whe- ther that will prove that the Infant-feed of" the People of God their having the Token of the Covenant ap» plyed to them, and bearing it, fee an indifpenfible condition of their holding their Govcnant-intereftand Irate, and injoying the Good promifed, I fhall not de- termine ; only this may fee faid, that the bare priva- tion or want of Circumcifion was not to be accounted a breach of the Covenant ; for then all dying before the eighth day had been deprived of the Benefit of the Covenant, and consequently David could not have comforted himfelf by that Confederation, that he fhould go to his Child, and not it return to him, fays Gerhard^ Earn ( fcil. ) comminationtm qua de Circptmcifione extat9 Gen. 17. 14. Non ad cafum pri- vationii) fed ad contemptum Sacramenti pertinere • but whether the neglect of it from errour as well as contempt, might not be of fuch a fatal confequence to the Child, will appear at that day, when things now hidden are brought to light. This muft be added, that 'tis a pafTage might juftly make the hearts net only of Contemners* but of all NegleCters of Infant- Baptifra to tremble ; we know not but that Gcd may have made the Application of the Token of the Cove- nant to rhe Infant-feed of his People absolutely necef- fary to his continuing his Covenant to them, and to his vouchsafing them the Benefits of it.; he may cfla- blifh his Covenant upon what terms himfelf pleafes ; and if this fhould be found true, it is eafie to appre^ hend how much the intereft of the Seed of Believers in the Covenant and Prcmifcs is ftrengthened by the Application of the Token of the Covenanrto them, and confequently how great a Good it is to them : The i6o %$t $jimitii)C Dotftmeof The fprinkling of the bloud of the Pafchal Lamb up- on the door-pofts of ihe hpufes of. the Ifraelites could not be improved by any of their firft-born who were yet in theirpure Infant-Hate, yet was neceflary- to their fecurity from, the deftroying Angel : there may be an indifpeniible connexion between fome duties and the iujoymeneof Good promifed the reafon of which iyes in the alone Will and Pieafure of God, at leatt is referved as a fecret in his own breft : Two things are plain to me, aud a third is doubtful. Firft, *Tis plain to me, that-in cafe the Seed of Be- lievers have no intereft in the Covenant, nor are to have the Token of it applyed, Parents have no other ground in Scripture for their hope that they fhall reap any of the faving Benefits purchafed by Chrift, at leaft that dye in their Infancy* then may be a$cd with reference to the Seed of the worit of Heathens. Secondly, This is alike plain to me, that all the Seed of Believers through their intereft in the Cove- nant and Promifes thereof and having the Token of the Covenant applyed to them, do, fuppofing their death in theirpure Infant-ftate, infallibly injoy all thofe Bleffings and Benefits. Thirdly, This is doubtful to me, how God will deal with, and what is the cafe of their Infanc-feed, who through the darknefs of their under (landings dis- claim their Intereft in the Covenant, and neglect thereupon to apply the Token of the Covenant to them; I would hope the belt, but I muft ky- the Scriptures to me give more ground of fear than oi hope. In theJaft place ic muft be confidered, that the To- Acriofthe Covenant is applyed to the Infant-feed o Believers not only with reference to their Good anc Bcnefi 3fotfant=26aptifm nm% t6t Benefit during their pure Infont-ftate, but alfo with reference to their Good as they grow up to years of Maturity, whenchey are capable of making an im- provement of it; and how great it may be, and, if they were intruded in the nfc they are to make ofic, it will be then unto them, fhall if the Lord will be ftcwed under the next general Head. But before I proceed to that, fome doubts chat may arifefrom, and fome Objections that may feem to oppofe what has been hitherto (aid, muft betatisfied and removed out of the way. We have feen a twofold Good and Bene- fit that the Infant- feed of Believers have by the Ap- plication of the Token of the Covenant to them. Firft, They have thereby a folemn adaiiiTioQ and in- corporation into the vifiblc Body, Kingdom or Fami- ly of Chriftj whereunto, and as the ground of which, they are fuppofed and granted, yea affirmed to have a Political or Relative Union with Chrift the Head. Secondly, They have thereby the Covenant With the Promifes thereof fealed and confirmed to them in the ratification of the Covenant • they have confequcntly a difcharge and immunity from the guilt and con- demning power of Original fin fealed and confirmed io them in' the ratification and confirmation of the Promifes $ they have a prefent intereft and propriety in God, and right to future Salvation fealed and con- firmed co them. U CHAB« i6t %\yt fyiimitm Doctrine of CHAP, VIII. Several Objections anfwered. Thefirfi raifed from the impojjibilitythat God jhouid do fi much for the Seed- of 'Believer 's-> and yet not regenerate them. That anfwered, and the contrary thereunto Jherved to be highly ratio- nal* the fee on d is, that what they have is 1 only according to .a viflble appear ante * but not in reality and truth, that anfwered^ where it is /hewed what they appear or, feem to hdve, they mufl needs have in reality and truth. The third raifed from the incwji- jlenicy % *67 3. That Godfhould do (o much for, and vouch- fafc fo great Priviledges to rhe Seed of Believers in ge^- neral, and that with a direct reference to their future Salvation, though many among them appertain not to the election of Grace, will appear Iefs improbable, if we confider the rationality that God fhould do more, and vouchfafe greater Priviledges and Advantages un- to them, and that with reference to their Salvation, than he doth for, and vouchfafe to the reft of Man- kind. The peculiar Love and Favour he bears co his People makes this very rational, yea, I may fay, fomewhat neccflary. It cannot be rationally jfuppo- fed, but that, when God bears fo great a love to Pa- rents, he fhould do (omewhat more, and vouchfafe greater Advantages to their Seed, in a fubferviency to their future Salvation, than he doth for, and vouch- fafes co others. And yet 4. This will feem lefs improbable, if we confider that in what God doth for, and vouchfafes to the Seed of his People, he hath a peculiar refpe&tothe Eleft among them. Tis in fpecial for their fakes that the Priviledges of the Seed of Believers are fo great. It hath pleafed God to make his choice of Perfons co Salva- tion very much in the lines of particular Perfons ; hence he ufually cafts Eled Children upon Ele& Pa- rents ; though he hath left a liberty to himfelf to pafs by whom he plea feth, and fomecimes to take in fuch who are of the lines and pott eriry of the wicked ; yet his Election lies very much in and among the Seed of Elecl: Parents, and for their fakes, and in a fubfer- •viency to their Salvations, hedo;hfo much for, and vouchfafes fo greatPriviledges to the Seed Qf his People in general. That all the Seed of Believers ftiould have been elected to Salvation, would have been attended M 4 with %6% %j)e#?tmitii)e2Docttine&f with great inconveniencies, and that upon divers ac- counts, as might eafily be fhewed ••> yet it hath pleafed God to lay h viz. That the Promifes of the Covenant constituting a Covenant- relation between God, both abfolutely and perfonally confidered, and the Seed of Believers, as taken abfo- lutely and by themfelves only, oblige the feveral per- fons in the divine eflence to acl: for their Good, Be- nefit and Advantage, according to the tcnour of the Covenant, that is according to the diftinS Promifes of the Covenant, and the terms or conditions upon which they are made. Now there being no Promife made to the individual Infants of Believers, affuring them of any fuch Operations of the Spirit, hence the Spirit is under no obligation to vouchsafe them to this or 170 %fyt fatimitibt a>octt im of or that individual Infant, antecedent to their, perfo- tial taking hold of the Covenant ; which that the EIe& fhail do, is f ecu red as by the Covenant be- tween the Father and the Son ; fo by thofe indefinite Proniifes of divine teachings and the like, made to the Church in general, of which before 5 fo that here is yet nothing improbable. 4. And laftiy, That which is pleaded to counte- nance the Conclusion in the Obje6fcion,is the reference that the Token of the Covenant, whether Circumci- fton> or Raptifrn, had or hath to Regeneration and Sin&ification. And thus it is fuppofed by many to have fuch a reference as lays a fure ground for the Conclusion, viz. that in cafe Infants have fu feing it is certain, there are many common works of the Spirit Spirit granted to thofe that never attain to true Grace, yet I conceive it is not necefTary, that we do hold them to be granted to all the Infant-feed of Be- lievers, no not to all, yea or any of the Ele& among them. God may cake the Infant-feed of bis People into Covenant with himfclf together with their Pa- rents, and thereby fet them free from the condemning power of Original fin, put himfclf under an obliga- tion to a£t as a God towards them, according ro the tcnourof the Covenant into which they are taken, appoint the Token of the Covenant to be applyed to them, and thereby admit them into the Church or Kingdom of Chrift as vifible, and vouchfafe them all thofe Priviledges of his Church aforementioned, and yet not vouchfafe them any Operations of the Spirit whether fpecial or common. 2. That it is very rational to fuppofe, that though God hath exprefled his Grace and Loye to the Infant- feed of his People in all thefc glorious vouchfafements before cxpreffed, yet that he fhould not proceed to their univerfal Regeneration and Sandtification, but (hould leave to himfelf a liberty, favingly to work upon whom hepleafeth> in a complyance with his eternal Purpofe and Decree, and that when, and by what means he pleafeth, as himfelf fees meet. This will appear from a threefold Confideracion, i.FirftjThat it is altogether unreafonablc to fuppofe, yea morally impoflible, that God fhould conftitute a conditional Covenant between himfcif and Men,whe- ther Infants or Adult,and yet fhould include the con- dition required of Men inf and thereby fecure their performance of it by any Promife chat is of che efTencc fubftance of the Covenant as fo confidefed. is is evident from what hath been already faid, for " this *74 Xi)t tyiimitiU Bmtim of this would quite alter and change the nature of the Covenant, it would not then be a conditional, and confcqucntly any Covenant at ail in a proper fenfe, but an abfolute Covenant, or rather a compendium, or jyjiopfis of abfolute Promifes. And beftdes, per- fon> mutt be fuppofed to have an Intereft in the Cove- nant, before the condition of their Intereft is perfor- med by them, which ( as I have faid ) is an abfolute contradiction. Hence it will undeniably follow, that the Promifes of the flrft Grace are not of the ef- fence of the Covenant as conditionally made with par- ticular perfons, but appertain to the Covenant, as made with the Church or Houfe of Ifrael collectively confidered, and fecure to the Eled the Grace required on Man's part to his adrri iflion into, or continuance in the Covenant, as conditionally midewith particular Perfons. 2. Gonfider how rational rt is to fuppofe that God mould ( as it is certain he doth ) requirtf fomethirtg of dury from Parents towards their Children, or fomething of duty from Children themfelves4 if nor from both; upon the performance of, or failing in which he mould continue, ordifcontinue their Co- venant-ftate when they grow up t6 years of Maturi- ty. The rationality of this fuppofal appears from' the conformity and agreeablenefs of his fo doing, to his dealings with ail thpfe he either offers his Cove- nan: to, or enters Covenant with. Take it of Un- believers to whom the Covenant is offered, there is fomething of duty required on their parts in Order to their reception into Covenant, they are to take hold of it. Take it of Believers with whom the Covenant is actually entred j thus. There is no good proo- fed, but.fomething of duty is required on their paV5 in *Jnfanfc2i5aptif:n reinb'tj. 17? n order' to the injoyrnent of it, and upon their non- performance of that duty, they may be and ufually ire deprived of it : And why fhould it not be alike rational, that God fhould require fomewhat of duty From them towards their Children, upon the non- performance of which he fhould withhold the Good prorrtifed, or fhould not bring upon them (as God fpeaks concerning Abraham ) the Good promifed ? Yea in order to the continuance of that Covenantritate between God and themfelves, there is fomewhat of du- ry required oh their parts, the performance of which, it's true/ is fecur&d to them another way • but how- ever duty is required on their parts, upon their non- performance of which ( might we fuppofethat pofli- ble ) their Covenant-ftate would be difcontinued, or they would be caft out of Covenant. Arid why fliould it not be alike rational for God to require fomewhat of duty from Children themfelves,' in order rothe continuance of their tovenant- (fate, when they grow rip to ' a capacity of performing it, which that they lTiatt uhiverfally do, it is no way necelTary Should be fecured to them, as we may fee more by ind btt So that God's dealings with reference to the $£edtof Believers are altogether rational, as fuiting with' his dealings with all Men to whom he offers his Covenant,' or with whom he doth actually efiablifh • "' ,' 3 . Conil4er, that in cafe either' God had not pro-. 2«ded fo-faVin extending his Covenant and ^romires, Iffcf thereby vouchfafing to the Infant-feed of his Peoples }iat Good and rhofe Priviledges afore decla- red 1 or had proceeded further, viz. to their univer- sal Regeneration, or to the fecuring it unto them; ~ ■ - • - cn« v 6 33)e$*inHtfte3>o(ttineof one of thcfe inconve-niencies would have neceffarily followed thereupon, either i. No Infants muft have dyed in their Infancy, which yet that innumerable do, our dayly observa- tion allures us : Or elfe* 2.. All Infants dying in their Infancy mull have eternally perilhed, and been cverlaftin^ly fepar#ted from the prt fence of God and the glory of bis Tower : Or, 3. In cafe any were faved, it muft be, not by vcr- tue of the Covenant of Grace entred with, or any Prom-ifemade unco them, but merely from an abio- lute power and prerogative in God to faveor condemn whom he will of fain Mankind, without refped had to the Covenant of Grace eftablifhed in the Blood of Chrift: Or, 4. All the Seed of Bdievers,whether dying in their Infancy, or living to years of Maturity, muft infal- libly be faved : Or, Laftly , Some might be truly regenerated, and have a faving work of Grace upon their hearts, and yet after finally fall away and eternally perifh. In cafe he mould not bay e extended his Covenant to the Seed of his People, % as our Oppofers imagine, or if he had extended it to them definitely, and yet they fhould not have h*ad chat Good, and thofc Priviledges plead- ed for j then one of the three former incoriveniencies would have followed : or if having fo extended his Covenant to them, he fhould thereby have obliged himfelfto work Grace in them univerfally j then the one or the other of the two.. latter incouvenicncei would have followed. Obj. But it may be faid,the Covenant and Promi- fes may be made indefinitely with, and to the Seed o| Believers* 3fttfattfc25apttfm rebib'fc vy believers, and then none of thefe inconeniences will bllow. Anfa. To that Ianfwer. I have before proved :hac they do appertain to them definitely ; or fuppofc Nt fhould grant them to appertain to them only indef- initely, yet this inconveniency would follow, viz. rhat as the Covenant gives no afTurance that any of iheir Infants ( whoTuve one or more furviving their pure Infant-ftate, and growing up to years of Matu- rity ) dying in their Infancy fhall be faved : So Pa- rents have no certain ground to hope that any one of theirs fo dying are (aved . That none have any certain ground to hope for what the Covenant gives no afTu- rance of, will be readily granted on all hands. Now fuppofe the Covenant or Promifes are entred with, and made ro the Seed of Believers only indefinitely, that they give no afTurance that all, yea or any of the Seed of fuch Believers dying in their Infancy fhall be faved, wi|l evidently appear thus ; becaufe the Cove- nant may ftandfirm, and the Promifes of it fully accomplished in the Conversion and Salvation of fojne one -or more of thofethat furvive their Infanr-ftate, and grow up to years of Maturity. And hence by the wayyhow can a fuppofal of thac be aiufficient ground for the Application of the Token of the Covenant, of which the Covenant gives no afTurance ? And further I conceive, it will and muft be granted by thofc that conceive the Covenant is entred only indefinitely with the Seed of Believers, that it gives afTurance of Salva- tion to Infants dying in their Infancy, only fo far as it gives afTurance to them of Regeneration in their In- fancy. Now it is evident that the Covenant gives no ^durance of Regeneration to any of the Seed of Be- lievers in their pure Infant- ftate ; If it give aiTurance N iq i73 Xfje $?imttibe 2Dotftineof to any of Regeneration in that ftate, it is cither as they are Elc&, or as they arc the Seed of fuch Parents, or by vertue of feme Revelation that God hath made in his Word, that he will regenerate, at Icaft fome of the Seed of his People, as having the Covenant foer> trcd with them in their Infancy : But now it is evi- dent, f. That the Covenant doth n6t allure any of Re- generation in their Infancy, as they are Elect, for then all the Eleft Seed of Believers (houldbe regenerated in their Infancy ^ the contrary whereumo is evident, in that many of the Seed of Believers, in whom there is not the leaft fhew or appearance of Grace from their very Infancy till they come to full age, yea pofllbly till they came to old age, are yet at laft converted and brought to afaving clofewith Chrift. . To fay that thefc might have a work of Grace in their Infancy will be attended with too bad confcqucnces than to be granted, without better proof than I fuppofe can be brought. 2." That the Covenant doth not give afTurance of Regeneration to the Seed of Believers in their Infan- cy, as fuch,will, I doubt noc,be readily granted with, out further proof. 3. That God hath no where revealed that he would regenerate any of the Seed of his People in their Inhncy, is fufricicntly proved from the utter lilence of the Scriptures as to any fuch Revelation. And for any to plead experience or obfervation in this cafe, that can -figni fie but little, inafmuch as that Grace feme of the Seed of Believers have, of the time 01 means, when or whereby it was wrought they can give no account ; it might yet be wrought either by Parental IaftrucHion, or fome other mcarp vouch?. fafed 3Infanfc2i5aptifm tetrib'D; 179 fa fed confequent to their pore Infant-ftatc. Now- then the Covenant giving no aflurance of the Regene- ration of any of the Seed of Believers in their pure In- fant-ftate, it gives no aflurance of any of their Salva- tion, and consequently Parents have no certain ground to bottom a hope upon, that any of theirs dying in. their Infant-ftate are faved. All the hope they car* have hath only a poflibiliey, or at utmoft a probabi- lity for its foundation ; and that,it may be teo,wcak- ned by a greater probability of the contrary, it Teem- ing vaftly more rational to me to fuppofe, that, in cafe the Covenant were entred with them only indefinite- ly, feeing God hath given no aflurance that he would regenerate any in their Infancy, and in doing it when they come to years of Maturity, he makes good his Promife as fully, as though he did it in their Infancy • he fhould furrer thofe that he hath ordained to Salva- tion to live to years of Maturity, and anfwerably bring them to Glory according to his ordinary way, viz. through Salification of the Spirit , and belief of the Truth, called thereunto by the Go$ely than, that he lhould go out of his ordinary way, and regenerate them immediately by his Spirit, without the fubfer- viency of any outward means, efpecially confldering what inconveniencies would attend^through the cor- ruption of Men, a fuppofition of his fo doing, and confequently that believing Parents, if they muflnot rnourn as thofe that have no hope, yet they could not but mourn, as having but little hope. But now ac- cording to the way that I have proceeded in, allow- ing the Covenant and Promifcs to be entred and made ro the Seed of Believers definitely, and allowing them to have all that Goodatfigned to them by vertae of their Intercft in the Covenant and Promifes thereof, N 2. and 180 %$t faiimitiU 2>oct4itte of and yec bounding that Good,as I have done, unfpeak* able. Goodaccrews tofhem by that their Covcnanc- jntereft, and the Application of the Token of the Co- venant, and yec none of thefe inconveniencies enfuc thereupon. From the whole of what hath been faid, as we fee ic cannot be rationally concluded,- that, in cafe God goesfo far in the expreflions of his Love and Grace to the Seed of his People, as to grant them that Good, thofe Priviledges and Benefits, as hath been declared he doth, that then he mufi necefTarily go fur- ther, and actually regenerate and fan&ifie them* either in their Infancy, or as they grow up to years of Matuncy:So that it is very rational to fuppofe that he (hould go fofar, as hath been expreft, and yet jfhould go no further, but fhould refcrve a liberty to himfelf, as to regenerate and fanclifie whom he pleafeth, (o to do it when, and by what means himfelf pleafeth. And from all, I conceive, an Argument might be drawn, an anfwer unto which would ( if I mif- take not) be clogged with no fmall difficulties, both to prove the Covenant-intereft of the Seed of Believers, and theduenefsofthe Application of the Token thereof to them upon the account thereof, and alfoto confirm their injoyment of all that Good, and all thofe Priviledges and Benefits affirmed to accrew to them. But I mall notftay upon it : I conceive both are fufficicntly done already. Let me rather excite all Men to admire the Goodnefsand Wifdom of God Li doing fo much for the Seed pf his People, and yet providing for the free exercife of his own So- vaaignty over and among them, as well as others. antl his Jufticein condemning none, but fuch as wil- fully fm away their own Mercies. 6bj, 3Jnfattk25aptifm ttUb% i3i Ob), i. It will be (aid, *Tis true the Infant-feed of Belie vers, and that univerfally,vifibly appear to us,and may be hoped according to a judgment of Charity, to have all that Good, and all thofc Benefits and Pri- viledges afore afligned to them, as they are the Seed of fuch Parents, conferred upon and enfured to them by the Covenant, as confirmed by the Application of the Token thereof to them : but that they have all that Good, and all thofc Benefits and Priviledges really and truly actually granted to, and conferred upon them in their pure Infant-flate, is more than we can affirm ; inafmuch as fecret things belong to God, buc things revealed co us and our Children. Anfa* I confefs, moil: that have pleaded for In- fant-Baptifm upon this ground, viz. their Intereft in the Covenant, do too commonly exprefs themfelves to this purpofe ; but ic feems paft all rational doubt, and is fo to me, that what they vifibly appear to bave by vertue of their Intereft in the Covenant, that they have in reality and truth. Hence as they do not fo much as vifibly appear to have a real work of Grace upon their hearts, there being no Promife fecuring that to them ; fo for all the Good and all the Benefits and Blefllngs afore afligned to them, they have them in reality and truth. This is evident from a double Confederation ; r. Firft, That they are the Seed of true Believers, fuch as have truly and really performed the conditions of the Covenant of Grace, and confequcmly are really and internally in Covenant themfelves. 2. That the Seed of Believers Intereft in the Cove- nant, and having all that Good, and all thofe Bene- fit granted and conferred upon them thereby, de- pends not at ail upon any qual fixations in, or any N 3 a#i iSz %i)t tyiimitfot SDocttine of a& or duty performed by themtbernfelves, but flows merely from the Promifes of the Covenant appertain* ing to them as the Seed of fuch Parents. Hence in cafe they only vifibly appear to us to have all chat Good, and all thofe Priviledges before mentioned granted to, and conferred upon them, it muft be either, becaufe the Promifes only vifibly appear to us to appertain to them; or that aH that Good, and all thofe Bleflings only feem, or vifibly appear to us to be containd in,j»granted and conferred by thofe Promifes ; or Jaftly, becaufe the Promifes of God do but feem or vifibly appear to us to be true and faithful, but feem, or vifibly appear to us to grant to, or confer upon thofe chat are truly and really intenfted in them, that Good that is really contained in and intended by thern. None of* which things can be granted. Not the firft, for I have before proved that the Pro- mifes do appertain to all the Seed of Beiicvers,(I mean it ftill of true Believers, as Abraham was ) and that definitely to each one, or to every one of them in par- ticular. Notthefecond, for undoubtedly God in- tends that very Good the Promifes mention. Not t the third, for the Promiles ere true anci faithful, they do really and truly convey or confer an a&ual right to the Good contained in them to thofe, to whom they do rea!ly and truly appertain. And from hence it will unavoidably follow, that jhere is no place for a judgment of Charity to be excrcii'ed immediately and directly towards Infants. It's true, where we can only exercife a judgment of Charity towards Parents, there we can only exercife the fame judgment of Cha- rity towards their Children j but where Parents are known to be true Believers, (as in the inftance of Abraham) there a judgment of Charity hath nor- thing thing to do irith reference to their Seed. And we fpeak of the cafe of the Seedtof Believejrs according to what their Parents arc in deed and in truth, or are known to God to be. A judgment of Charity can only beached towards Men with reference to, or in regard of their having performed the condition of the Promifcs, and confequently to their right to thofe Promifes: But in the cafe of the Infants I fpeak of both thefe are certain. Hence undeniably what they vifibly appear to have, they have in reality and truth. Ob). 2. It ma; be obje£ted,That to grant the Infant- teed of Believers, and that univcrfally, all thofe Bene- fits and Priviledges afore afligned to them in truth and reality, will greatly weaken, if not utterly over- throw the Doctrine of Sain-? P^rfaverance : For we mud then grant that fome, who had a true and real Union with Cbrift, arc difcharged from the guilt and condemning power of fin • have a true and proper In- tereft in God as their God ; and a prefent right to Salvation, may yet fall away and finally perilh : For foit is certain fome of the Seedof Believers do. Now if Union with Chrift, a Covenant- (lace with God, adifcharge from the guile of (in, Propriety in God, and right to future Salvation, will fecure none from Apoftacy and finally periling, what aflurance can, any have that they fhall not fall away and finally perifh ? And thus while we endeavour to promote the joy and comfort of Saints one way, we fhall de~ ftroy it another : while we endeavour to promote their joy and comfort, by eftabliOnng their Childrens- Interefb in the Covenant of Grace, and affigning them fo much Good, and fo many Priviledges as irr- tereftsd therein, we fhall deftroy their joy and com- fort by weakumg :he grounds of aflurancejthatthem- N 4 felves 184 %$t #tfmttti>e Dotttine of f elves have had of their owri continuance in their Co- venant-ftate Godwards y while we endeavour to efta- blifh their Children* Covenanr-ftate, we fhall leave them deftitute of any fure ground that themfelvcs (hall be continued in theirs. Anfa* What Union the Infant-feed of Believer!, as fuch have with Chrift ^ what fins. they are dischar- ged from the guilt and condemning power of $ from whence their difcharge from the guilt and condem- ning power of fin doth arHe and accrew to them ; how far, and upon what terms the Promifes giving them an Intcreft and Propriety in God lays an obligation upon him to communicate himfelf to, or ad for their Good ; as alfo what right they have tp future Salva- tion, with the terms ftpon which they alone can actually injoy it ( fuppofing their growth up to years of Maturity ) are, hath been already declared, and muft be carefully remembred : which being rcmem- bred and well weighed, I fee no juft reafon, why the aflignment of any or all thofe Benefits and Priviledges, as afore explained and limited to them,fhouldbe lookt upon as of the tendency mentioned. This I doubt not to affirm, though we grant all that hath beenaf- fignedtothe Infant-feed of Believers, and that uni- verfally, and merely as fuch ; yet the Doctrine of Saiflts Pcrfeverance may be founded upon fuch fure bafes, and maintained by fuch Scripture demonstra- tions, as that it fhall Hand firm, maugrc the utmoft opposition that can be made againft it ; fo that no- thing,but their own deficiency in point of Fai^h, and aflurance that themfelves are fuch, and the due im- provement of that afiurance, can juftly deprive any true Believer of the higheft Plerophorie, that the Scriptures give an incouragement to endeavour after. To 3ttfottk20apttfttttebit)U 185 To attempt the fixing of that Dodrinc upon its true balls, or improving and managing the various Argu. mencs by which it may be eftabliihed, would be ex- centrical to my prefenc undertaking : yet let trie fay only thus much, that the aflurancc the Scripture gives us, 1. That there is an Election of Grace, not only of Perfons fo and fo qualified, but of individual Pcrfons to be fo and fo qualified. 2. That all appertaining thereunto are given of the Father unto Chrifl, with an expiicite expreffion of his will to him, that he fliould lofe none of them, but fhould raife them up at thelaftday, viz* to the life of Glory. 3 . That the Covenant of Grace is iramutable,whcn once that, wz, the Spirit, which renders it fo, is actually gives. 4. That the fpiricual life of all Believers is laid up, and hidden with Chrift in God, and that both in re- fpedfc of the principle, and conierving caufc of it } and hence, 5 . That there is an unfeparable connexion bet ween effectual Vocation and Glorification • I fay, thealTu- rance that the Scriptures give us of chefe things, with feveral others of the like importance, fecurcs that Do- ctrjne,to the joy and comfort; yea and that unfpeakable and full of Glory, of all Saints, though all the Bene- fits and Privilcdges afore declared are granted to ail the Infant-feed of Believers, among whom yet many finally fall away and perifh : So that I conceive, thac as what hath been granted to the Infant-feed of Be- lievers, may greatly promote their Parents joy and comfort in them j fo the granting of it hath no juft tendency to allay their joy and comfort. The alTu- rancc iU %$t fyiimimt Dottttne of ranee of their own (landing in their Covenant ftate God ward hath an aptitude to yeeld their Children may have all that Good, and yet their own aflfurance of Pcrfevcrance in Grace, and infallibly coming to GIory,be no way weakned or prejudiced thereby. Ob). 3. Poffibly (omc may further fay,To affirm that all the Seed of believing Parents have fo much (£ood, and fo mmy Benefits and Pr iviledges by their Irrtereft in the Covenant, and the Application of the Token of it unto them, feems inconfiftent with the Doctrine of Election : for among other things it has been affirmed, that they have all univerfally, without any refpeft to Election or Pretention, a prefenc right to Salvation, and that ratified, fealed and comfirmed by the Token of the Covenant; andconfequently that in cafe of their death in their pure Infant-ftatej they are infalli- bly faved. Which if fo, we muft either grant that fome,tbac appertain not to the Election of Grace, are faved, which overthrows that Doctrine ; or elfe af- firm that all that die in their Infancy are elected : which as it is improbable in it felf ; fo cannot be proved from Scriprure. Anfa* That all the Infant.feed of true Believers dying in their pure Infant-date are infallibly faved, is paft all rational doubt to me : and as for the Do- ctrine of Ele&ion, I apprehend not any folid reafon, why it fhouid feem at all inconfiitcnt with it, feeing it is very rational to fuppofe, that all fach Infants dy- ing in that ftite do indeed appertain to the Election of Grace. As for what is objedted concerning the impro- bability of chat, and the wane of Scripture to prove it, I conceive the quite contrary may be eafily made to appear, viz, that it is not only highly probable in.it felf, bac hath countenance from Scripture. 1. That 3Jnfattt-25aptifm tefcnVD. 187 1 . That it is not at, all improbable^ut rather high- ly probable, appears two ways. 1. From the confefled dealings of God with the Adult ; that no Adult perfon can be faved without Regeneration, Faith and Repentance, is pofitively af- firmed by our Lord Cbrift, John 3.3. Lttkg 13. 3. with Mark^6. 16 . Hence it muft neceflarily follow, and is granted by all that own the Doctrine of Electi- on, that God does fo order his Providence towards Men, that none among the Adult that appertain to the Ele&ion of Grace do die before a work of Regene- ration be wrought in them,which is and muft be done according to the ordinary way of God's working upon Man by the Word, as fome way communicated . to them : and how often ir-ir found that Men and Women, whofe lot is caft in places wholly remote from all ordinary means of Conversion, are yet pofTi- bly after many yeajs, either brought to the means or Grace, or they carried to them, whereby they are fa- vingly wrought upon, and thereby declared to have appertained to the Election of Grace ? Now if fo be the Providence of God for fo long a time watcheth over fuch Men, whereby they are preferved from death: why fhould it feem at all improbable ? But on the other hand it is highly probable, that God fhould order his Providence after the like manner to- , "wards Infants, and anfwerably continue life to the Non-deft, thatfo their falling fhort of the Good pro- mifed fhould be chargeable upon themfelvesj and take away by death only the Elect, whofe Salvation is fecured by the Promife made to them , as the Seed of fuch Parents : hereby the Salvation of the Elect is fecured, and ihe Grace of God therein greatly mag- nified j when the Non-elect ap ofhtuing from God, his 188 Xtyt $?tmfttfce Sooctttne of his Jufticcin their condemnation will fhine forth in] greater brighrnefsand Glory .So that for God fo to or- ] der his Providence towards the Seed of Believers is fo I far from any improbability,that it is greatly probable. ■ 2. This will further appear, if we confidcr on the one hand, the infinite Goodnefs as well as Faithful- nefsofGod, in conjunction with the Covenant and Promifes emred with, and made to the Seed of Be- lievers : and on the other hand, how many of thofe of their Seed that live to years of Maturity do apo- ftatize, grow wicked, and confequently never injoy the Good covenanted and promifed to them. It is not unufally, though very much without ground pleaded by ourOppofers, as arcalonwhy they cannot em- brace the Doctrine and Practice of Infant* Baptifm, that they can fee little difference between the Chil- dren of Believers, and the Children of Unbelievers ; the Children of the one prove wicked, as well as the Children of the other. Now though this be ground- less, and proceeds in a great mcafure from mere prejudice, an evident difference being ordinarily to be feen : yet it mud be confell it may be very ratio- nally expected, that in cafe God has, as we aflirm he has, extended his Covenant and Promifes nniverfally to the Seed of h s Peopie,morc fhould injoy the Good of them, than can be rationally hoped do, in refpedt of, or among thofe that live to years of Maturity 5 though according to the true tenour of the Covenant, the Good of it is not infallibly fecured to all, no nor to any that grow up to years of Maturity ; and confe- quently the Apoftacy of fome, no way reflects upon the Faithfulnefs of God ; yet when he has extended his Covenant and Promifes to them, confidering how Good, and ready to do Good he is, it may not with- out 3mtank2i5aptiim teinb'D. 189 out the appearance of reafon feem ftrange, that no more injoy that Good, than may be fuppofed to do, of thofe that live to years of Maturity. Hence it is highly probable, that all that die in their Infancy, or fuch as do indeed appertain to the Election of Grace, and anfwcrably do injoy the full Good of the Cove- nant : and if we take in all that die in their Infancy, with thofe that growing up to ycarsof Maturity do give affurance of chcir pcrfohal taking hold or the Covenant, not only the Faithfulnefs but the Good- nefs of God in extending and making gocd his Cove- nant to the Seed of his People, will fhine forth in their glory and luftre. And how great a Good is it for the Seed of Believers to be taken into the fame Co- venant with their Parents will abundantly appear. The day of Judgment will, 1 doubt not, fully vindi- cate the Doctrine and Practice of Infant-Baptifm from thofe unjuft reproaches 'tis now by Men, yea by fome good Men, in their darknefs loaded with. But, 2. As this, viz. that only fuch among the Seed of Believers, as appertain to the Election of Grace, are taken away by death in their pure Infant-ftare, and confequently that all that are not elected do live to years of Maturity, wants not countenance from Scripture : for lee it be obferved, thafT we read in Scripture only of two of the Seed of true Bclimrs, whofe pretention was intimated or made known by fpecial Revelatiorf from God ; and both thefe expref- ly recorded to have lived to years of Maturity, and to have forfeited their Interett in the Promifes, by their own fin and Apoftacy, thefe were Ifhmael and Efau ; the one forfeits his Interelt by perfecunng his Brother, the other by a prophane felling his Births right. That the Pretention, or Non-elc&ion c£ both is>o %ty $Un\itfot Doctrine of both thefe are Signified by immediate Revelation 'from God, the Apoftlefhews Rom. 9. £, 16, 11, 12, 13. That both lived to years of Maturity, and forfeited their Intereft the ways forementioncd, is exprefsly de- clared, Gen. 21. sf. compared with Gal. 4. 29. Gen. 25;. 29, lot&c. wich£fr£. 12. itf. And it is ve- ry rational to fuppofe, that as it was with tfcefe two, the leading Inftances and Paterns of God*s dealings with theNon-eled-Seedofhis People: So it is an- fwerably with all that are not elected. And as we read only of thefe two, whofc Pretention or Non- election were fignified by fpecial Revelation ; and wc fee both of them live to years of Maturity, and for- feit their Intereft in the Promifes, by their own fin and Apoftacy : So the Scripture particularly menti- ons the death only of one of the Seed of true Believers in their pure Infant-ftate, and gives fufficient ground to believe that that did appertain to the Election of Grace : This was David's child by Eathjbeba : that that child did belong to the ElecTion of Grace, David questions not, but takes it for granted, as appears by his comforting himfelfupon its death, and profefling his Faith, that he fhould go toic, and not it return to him. Obi. 4. Podibly fome will fay, What hath been pleaded for on the behalf of the Infant-feed of Belie- vers, is nothing but what is common to all Infants univerfally ; in as much as all Mankind univerfally, as born into the World, are by Chrift freed from the condemning power of Original fin, reftored to the Love and Favour of God, and put into a ftate of Life and Salvation. And confequently if any Infants ought to have the Token of the Covenant applyed to themj then all ought alike to have it applyed unto them : 3lnfanfc25aptiftntetni)'& 191 them : and on the other hand, if all ought not, then none ought to have it applyed unto them : Or fuppofe it fhould be granted, that fomc ought to have it ap- pryed, yet their ftates and conditions would be no way bettered thereby, feeing what Good they arc fup- pofed to receive by it, is common to all. Anfa. I fuppofe this Objection will not be owned by many, but to thofe few that may, I would reply, by only asking this one Queftion ; viz. How all Mankind come by all that Good ? have they it by the Covenant of Grace ? or by any other Covenantor Promife diltinguifhed from and independent upon the Covenant of Grace ? or have they it by a mere rcfuJ- tancy from Chrilt, undertaking and performing his Mediatory Office? 1. I lay, have they it by the Covenant of Grace > faic that cannot be ; for the Covenant of Grace is only actually eftablifhed between God and Abraham and his Seed in their generations. Behold^ faith God, / efiablijh my Covenant between me and thee, and thy Seed after thee in their generations- Now if fo be the Covenant of Grace had been afore eftablifhed with all Mankind, here had been no new Priviledge, or no Priviledge beyond what was common to Man in general, granted unto Abraham, or to any of his Seed. The eftabhfhment of the Covenant with Abra- ham and his Seed in their generations, as conrradi- jftingutfhed from the reft of Mankind, evidently proves 'tis not eftablifhed with all Mankind -y for then the eftablifhing of it with him and his Seed had been a mere fuperfluous and insignificant thing, feeing it had been afore eftablifhed with him and his Seed-as of the number of Mankind, and that in the fame fenfef and with the like advantage both to him and them as now 192 %tyt ^tmittije SDottttne of now ic is. How far the Covenant is conditionally made, or rather offered to all Men concerns not ^)ur prefent purpofe jfeeing as fo made or ofFered,it actually conveys not the Good promifed to any, untill them- fclves have performed the conditions of it : But that it is actually made, or entred with all Mankind as fuch, is not only deititute of any ptoof from Scripture, but is directly contrary to the whole tenour of Scriptures. The Gentiles are faid to be grangers to the Covenants of Fromife antecedent to their Faith in Chrift, and thereby becoming Abrahams Seed. The Promifes are (aid to be made to Chrift, and confequemly apper- tain to Men only as in him. Hence taking hold of the Covenant is made ncceffary to a right-co the Promifes* But to infift upon this may well be accounted fuper- fluous,: as being a denial of what no body hath affir- med. Now then, if fo be the Covenant of Grace, ( wherein^U the Good aforementioned is contained ) be not actually entred and eftablifhed with all Man- kind as fuchj then neither all, nor any part of that Good can be come upon all Men, merely as fuch by the Covenant of Grace. 2. Have they it by vertue of any other Covenant or Promifecjontrfldiftincl from, or independent upon the Covenant of Grace ? That cannot be, becaufe no fuch Covenant or Promife is to be found throughout the whole Scriptures. Let any fuch Covenant or Promife be fhewed, and ic fhall be attended to. The only Scripture ( fo far as I can call to mind ) that gives the leaft countenance to this fuppofal , is Rom. 5. iy,% itf, %£, * &• But to that I (hall only fay two things. Firft, That the Apoftle's bareUiing of the universal Particle ally is too weak a ground to lay fuch an Affertion upon, efpecialiy when no Covenant or 3tofattfc2Saptifm tmwa; 19$ or Promife can be found, by, or according to which the gifc there fpoken of is conferred upon all Men*, And feeing it is evident chac that icrm is fometimes ufed,when yet ic is to be interpreted and underftood in a jimked fenfe, I need not cite places to thole that are at all acquainted with the Scriptures. Secondly, I anfwer, that the Apoltle's defign is not to fhew that the free Gift by Chnft is of equal extent in the Dona- • tion of it with the condemnation arifing from Adam's . fin : but his defign is to compare Adams fin, and the purchafe made by Chriff, in regard of their refpedtive efficacies, or in point of their refpective. caufalities, or power to produce their different effects. In brief his defignis only to fhew, that feeing the offence of one Man, viz* AdattfSy was effective or the condemnation of all his Pofterity ; then the Grace of God and the Righteoufnefs of Chrift, (who is not merely Man, but God-Man) mutt needs be more effectual for their Juftiflcation and Life, who have an Incereft in, and Union with him. That this is the Apoftle's defign, appears twoznd the per- fons upon whom the free Gift is com; unco Juftiflcati- on of Life, no fuch alignment of a prehemiacnce and f fuperabundancy to the Grace of God and the free Gift by Chrift could be made, inafmach as that condem- nation is come upon, zl\ by Adams Offence, zvA the O fceet 194 3U> fMmitft«2>otttlne of free Gift can come but upon all. And where the Objects and Perfons concerned are of equal extent, no preheminency can be atfigned with refpe&unto them. Secondly, This appears from the Apoftle's variati- on of his phrafe from many to ally and again fram all to manyy which plainly fhews he had not fo much refpecl: to thePerfons upon whom eitherCondcmnation or the free Gift is come, as eirher to the things come upon them, or to the caufes and> means, from whence, or whereby thofe things are come upon them refpe- dively. Thirdly, I anfwer, Though the Apoftle tells us the free Gift is come upon all to juftification of Life '•> yet he tells us not how^ or in wbatfenfe, or upon what terms it is come : He may only mean it is come upon all in refpccl: of the conditional offer and tender cf it : So we may underftand that of the Apoftle, 7zf. 2. 1 1 . 'the (jrace of God bath appeared, bringing Salvation to all Men> for fo the Greek exa&ly runs* The Grace of God hath brought Salvation to all Men in regard of the offer and tender of it, Preach ihe^Go- jprel to every Creature. See the like paffage, Rcm.$.22 Tibe Rigbteoufnefs of God is revealed to all : So here xht free Gift is c&me upon all, that is in refpeft of the offer and tender of it. For the Apoftle may fuppofe the condition already performed, and only intend its being come upon all them that believe, according to thacofthe Apoftle before mentioned, jfhe Righteouf- nefs of God is manifieft unto ally andupn all that be- lieve, and there is no difference : So~ here the free Gift is come upon all to juftification of Life, viz* ■upon aH that believe, and there h no difference. Fz-ofri the whole we may evidently fee, this Scripture nc-v prove what is amrmed? viz. That all Man- kind, 3Jttfant=25aptffm vmw. 19? kind, and that univerfally as born into the World, arc freed from the condemnation of rhc Law, and reftored to a (rate of Favour and Life by Chnft : So that as the Covenant of Grace is not entred wich all Mankind in general ; fo there is no other Covenantor Promifc recorded, or mentioned in the Scriptures, by vertue of which any one, much le(s all Mankind, can have the Good afTigned to the Infant-feed of Believers granted to, or fetled upon them. Thirdly, Have they it by a mere refultancy from Chrift's undertaking and performing the work of Mediation ? Sure the groflhefs of fuch a fuppofition renders any reply to it fuperfluous. It would be a mere lofs of time to fuppofe that which is of it felf too abfurd to be affirmed by any. To put then a period to this, If the Covenant of Grace be not actually en- tred with all Mankind, and that as fuch ; If there be no other Covenant or Promife to be found in" Scripture, by vertue of which any unintereikd in the Covenant of Grace can lay claim to tha_ti€*o6d and thofe Benefits and Priviledges granted to, and fetled tipon the Seed of Believers, as Confederates with their Parents; If that Good, and thofe Benefits come no: upon any by a mere refultancy from the Death and Sufferings of Chrift, without the intervening of fome Covenant or Promife; then there is no ground to affirm ,that the Seed of Believers have as under the Co- venant Ggncd and fealed by the Sign and Token of it, nothing buc what is common co Mankind in ge- neral/ Only let me add, what will be the cafe of all Infants born of Unbelieving Parents, ard dying in their Infancy, and how God will deal with them in refpe&of their eternal fhtes, I iliall not determine,. Xhij is all that I affirm, that as to what God hath re- O z vealed i9<5 Xlje ^timitiU Doctrine df veiled in his Word, the (3ood, Benefits and Pr'ivi- j edges afligned to the Infant-feed of Believers are pe- culiar and proper unto them, and not common to all Iiifants in general, they only having an actual Inte- reft in the Covenant of Grace; and confequendy as they alone have a right to the Sign and Token of the Covenant, (ban umpeakabie advantage by that their Covenant-intereft, and the Application or the Token thereof unto them, above what all other Infants, as to what the Scripture reveals, have. But let that fuf- fice for the fecond Benefit or Advantage accrewing to the Infant-feed of Believers by the Application of the Token of the Covenant to them upon apreccdcnc Intereft they have iu the Covenant ic felf. CHAP. IX. The third Benefit accrewing to the Seed of Be^ lievers by the Applicatim of the Token of the Covenant to them> proposed. A threefold fubfemiency thereof to their imbracement of the Covenant r& they grow up to years of Ma- turity^ (hewed. Ftrfl, Such Pr engage- ments-as would obftruct that their imbrace* ment of the Covenant are obviated and pre* vented, tyhat Pre Engagements Children are fnl'jecl to. Thejpring ofthemdifcove-^ red. How obviatedby the Application of the Token^ declared. Secondly^ Their imbrace* ment of the Covenant by the Application of the 3Jnfimfc2i5apttCm tfotm. 197 the token fubferved by way of Obligation* the fever al Obligations that the Seed of Be- lievers are under, as bearing the Token of the Covenant^ to imbrace the Covenant 7 opened, thirdly, the fame end fubferved by the Ap- plication of the token of the Covenant by way of "Encouragement . What Encourage- ments the Seed of Believers have to imbrace the Covenant, Jhewed. 3. f"TH*He third andlaft Benefit or Advantage, thac. JL I fhail take notice of, that the Seed of Be- lievers have by the Application of the Token of the Covenant to them, as antecedently interefted in the Covenant it felf, is the fubferviency thereof to their perfonal imbracement of the Covenant, and injoyment of all the Good of it, as they grow up to years of Ma- turity. And here I fhall only take notice of a three- fold fubferviency,that the Application of the Token of the Covenant to Infants ( fuppofing them duely in* ftru&ed in the end and ufes of it ) hath to. their ta- king hold of the Covenant, and giving. up the^nfelves to God according to the tenour of it as they grow up to years of Maturity. I. It hath a poEent tendency to obviate and pre- vent all fuch Pre-ingagemencs as would be obftrudrive and prejudicial to their imbracement of the Covenant. And here we may obferve, that they are liable to be pre-ingaged three ways. Firft, In ways of Idolatry. Secondly, In a pur- fuanceof the good things of the World. Thirdly, In ways of moral Impieties znd1 Debauchries. New O 2 to i$>8 %$t ^t^tmttitie Pontine of to bepre-ingaged, cfpecially fixed in any of thefe ways, muft needs be greatly obftructive and preju- dicial to their imbracement of the Covenant that God hath eftablifhed between himfelf and his People. What ways and courfes Men ingage, at leaft are fixed in from their Child-hood, they are not eafily brought to relinquish ; Hath a Nation changed their God > Jer. a. ii. That God in whofe worfhip and ferviceMen have been ingaged from their youth, they will not . eafily change : So to be ingaged and accuftomed to atheiftical, irreligious and profane ways and courfes from their youth, is not a little obftru&ive and pre- judicial to i heir imbracement of the Covenant: Can the Ethiopian change his shiner the Leopard hisjpots ? then may you alfo do good who are accuftemed to do evil* Jer. 13. 23. And the like is true of Childrens being early ingaged in the purfuance of- the World, and the things thereof. To (hew the various ways, how to bepre-ingaged in any of thefe ways from a Man's Child-hood, obftrucls and oppofeth his imbracement of the Covenant and giving up himfelf to God in thrift in a Covenant-way > is a matter of no greac difficulty, but would be foaiewhat excentrical to my prefent purpofe : But this I fay, how obftru6tive and prejudicial foever fuch an ingagement, efpecially fixing in any of thefe ways from Mens Child-hood, would be to their imbracement of the Covenant ; ( and ingage they will in cne or the other of them, and that early too, unkfs the free Grace of God bleding the means fubferving their taking hold of the Covenant prevent ) yet the Application of the Token cf che Covenant to Infants hath a potent tendency to prevent any fuch pre-ingagementsthey are liable to : For let us but take a brief yaw of the original fprings or caufes whence Mens 3lnfant'2i5aptifm tefcnVD.. 199 Mens fo early ingaging in one or another of the ways and courfes mentioned doth proceed. 1. It procecds'fromcertair#ntuurat and itnbred no- tions of a Deity ingraven upon the minds of all Men ; at leaft from a natural difpofednefs of the faculties of the rational Soul to comply with that notion when fuggefted from without. 2. From a fenfe and feeling of felf-emptinefs and insufficiency as to that Happincfs and Blefiedncfs they foon perceive themfclves capable of. 3. From the inapprehenlivenefs and infenfiblenefs of any cogent obligation to the contrary. Man from his very Childhood is prone to look upon and exak himfelf as God, to fay of his whole felf, as thofe 111 the Pfalm of tBeir tongues, I am mine own> who is Lord over me} And according to various circumfhnces thatChildren fall undergo from this threefold fpring they ingage in one or another of the ways mentioned. But now the bringing them under the bond of the Co- venant, and ingaging them to the true God in Chrift by the Application of the Token to them,hath a potent tendency to obviate and prevent their ingaging or fix- ing in any of thefe ways.Let us fee it in fonulnitanccs. 1. The true God is firft prefented to their minds. Now it's ufual for Man, as*hrough the fall become not only dark, but darknefs it (elf, and confequently as having loft the knowledge of the t*ue God, to comply and fall in with, and chufe that God to himfelf,whe- ther it be true, or any falfe God that is firft prefented to his mind, or that is firft propofed to him under the notion of a Deicy. Hence it is, that the fame God isimbraced and worihipped as their God by feveral Nations fucceiTv/ely from one Generation to another : Httk.a Nation changed their God? Ic is not often O 4. found 2oo %$t ^tmttt&e SDottttneof found that they'have. Children ufually fall in with and worfhip that God their Parents have done, and from hence kis. rhat 4ie true G~d is owned and WOillm.ped (ucceflivc!y froni one Generation to ano« ther in lotions and Places where the Scriptures arc received, and the Chriftian Doctrine unbraced. ' They own and worfhip him, not as being convinced that he is indeed the true God by rational demonftrationsi much lefs as being favingly taught and inlighrned by himfelf • but he is that God that is firft prefcneed to their minds, and that they fir ft apprehend under the notion of a Deity : and this, though it is true, through the fubtilty of Satan, and corruption in, the hearts of Men, too often is utterly ufelefs to them in order to their eternal Happinefs ^ yet in it felf hath a lingular ftibfervieney thereunto, and would be of no fmall advantage to Men7, were ic well improved. Yet further, the true God is not only firft prefented to the minds of the Seed of Believers, but he is pre- fented to their minds as ftanding in a Covenant-rela- tion towards them , and corifequently they find themfeives in a Covenant- relation with him ( for Covenant-relations are always mutual. ) Hence as they find him obliged by Covenant to be theirs : fo themOlves obliged to be his ; which muft needs have a potent tendency, as to check any Inquiries that they would other w lie be prone to make af- ter, fo to keep them from attending to any propofals that might be made by others of any falfe god, and alfo from the choice of any falfe god by themfeives. To have the true God fir ft" prefented to the mind is of no fmall advantage to prevent Mens inquiring after, i and attending to the propofal of any falfe god tothem; efpeciaHyconfidering theiaiteablenefs of chofe difcove- \ lies 3lttfattt'2i5apttfm ttfci&'D* 201 yies God hath made of himfelf in his Word(and as re- vealed therein he is fuppofed to be prefen ted to their minds ) to thofe notions of a God in the general, that are either found ingraven upon the minds of Men as born into the World, or are taken up by the free ufe of the rational powers and faculties of the Soul. Now for Children fo foonas capable of reflecting upon themfelves, and acting rationally with reference to their own future welfare and welb'eing, to find an antecedent mutual relation between this God and themfelves, wherein he ftands related to them as their God, and they (land related to him as his People, Subjects and Servants, will add greatly to the more efte&ual prevention of their ingaging in any ways of Idolatry they (as Youth is) are prone to comply and fall in with that God that is firft prefented to the mind, or that the mind hath the firft notice of : fo the notion under which the true God is prefented to their minds fuiting fo well with thofe antecedent no- tions they have of a God in the general, will greatly conduce to their compliance and falling in with him and his worfhipandfervice : But when they find a mutual relation already eftabliihed between him and them, that will yet further their compliance $ and confequently their inquiries after, or attendance to what may be propofed or offered to them concerning any other God, will be obviated and prevented. And though this may feem of fmall importance to Children born in Places and Nations where the true God is only owned woriliipped and ferved, there being no danger of their firft ingaging in any ways of Idolatry in fuch Places and Nations : yet we mult remember, that God in the edablilliment of his Covenant had refpeel; to his People and their Seed 1 not only as inha- biting 2oz %ty $iimitfot Doctrine of biting fuch Places and Nations, -but as inhabiting Places and Nations where fa!(e gods are owned, wor- fhipped and ferved. 2.God*s being under an obligati- on to communicate himfelf to, and a& for their good according to the tenour of the Covenant, wiLl give fhem aflurance of a fulnefsof BlciTednefs and Happi- nefein their alone cleaving tx^worflhipping and ferving him ; whence they may be eafily convinced of thcun- neceflarinefs of either applying themfelves to the wor- ship of any falfe god, or to the World, or any ways of fenfuality for the gaining that Happinefs they find themfelves capable of, but infufficienc unco as of them- felves.- Man, (o foon as capable of reflecting npon himfelf, or taking any account of his own cafe and condition, finds himfelf utterly deftitute of a felf-fuf- ficiency, fees himfelf capable of more good than he is furnifhed with, and fubjed to variety of evils, which of himfelf without fome extrinfecal aid be cannot fecure himfelf from, nor deliver himfelf out of : hence he is forced to look without, and caft about him to find out which way, or from whence he may be fup- plyed with that good he finds himfelf defective in, and delivered out of, or fecured from that evil he finds himfelf under or fubjedfc to : and according to various circumftances that Men arc under, fo they betake themfelves to, and ingage ia various ways and courfes, yet with reference to the fame general end, viz* the gaining of Happinefs and Bkffednefs. Now Children*, if left to the mere conduct of nature as now corrup- ted, will certainly and unavoidably betake themfelves to one or other of the aforementioned ways, which mult n^ds be greatly obftru&ive and prejudicial to their imbracemenc of :he Covenant of Grace. But now for the Seed of Believers to findGod under fuch a pre- cedent 3Jttfant*26aptifm tetnfc'fc 205 cedent obligation to communicate kimfelf to, and a& for their good, as he hath put himfelf under towards them,rauft needs have a powerful tendency to obviate and prevent their ingaging in any fuch way ; becaufc they will find theirfiappinefs & BleiTednefs fully fecu- red bythat obligation,fu.ppofing them not to rcje6t,buc adually to own the Covenant eftablifhed with them. 3. The Covenant under the bond of which they already are, ftrongly obligeth them againft applying thcmfelves to, or ingaging in any of the ways men- tioned ; But of this more hereafter. So that we may fee how great a tendency the Application of the To* ken of the Covenant to the Infanr-feed of Believers, upon a precedent Intereft they have in the Covenant it felf, hath to the obviating and preventing their ingaging or fixing in any ways obftru&ive and pre- judicial to their imbracing of [he Covenant as they grow up to years of Maturity ; thofe ways they are naturally prone to ingagein (their ingagement in which would oppofe their imbracing of the Cove- nant ) are hedged up. When God hedgeth up the way of his People after their Lovers, then they re- folve upon returning to and fecking him, H^2.6,7. So for Children to have their ingaging in any de- ftru&ive ways obviated and prevented, highly con- duced* to their taking hold of the Covenant, and ap- plying themfelves to the worfhip and fervice or God, II. The Covenant-relation,^ wherein the Seed of Believers {lands Godwards, as folemnized, ratified and confirmed by the Application of the Token, tub- ferves their perfonal imbricement, and taking hold o£ the Covenant, .and anfwerably giving up themfelves to God in Chrift according to the tenour of it by way of obligation ; they hereby become under the (trongeft obligation 204 Xtyt $£fmf tito &>ocf mm obligation to do it • and wc may obferve a fourfold obligation that they are under, beyond what the Children of others are. I . Firft,. There is all that Love, Grace and Good- nefs of God expreft in the extending the Covenant with the Sign and Token thereof unto them, and gran- ting them all the Good aforementioned, as an obliga- tion upon them. As this Grace, Love, and Good- aefsof God is a powerful ingagement to Parents to endeavour the convei (ion of their Children, and bring them to a perfonal l'mbracement of the Covenant ; fo it is alike powerful ingagement to Children them- felves to imbrace it, and give up tbemfelves to the worfhip and fervice of God according to the tenour of it. How great Grace,Love and Goodnefs God hath expreft to the Seed of Believers in his extending his Covenant unto them with the Token thereof, bath been already declared. Now when they become ca- pable of understanding, and reflecting upon that Love, Grace and Goodnefs, the apprehension and confTdcration of ic hath a potent tendency to excite their love co, and ingage them to take this God for their God, and to worfhip and ferve him. Love hath a conftraining power, and Children are capable of receiving early imprelTi ms from their apprehensions of what Grace and Love is expreft towards them as well as grown perfons. 2. There is their Parents acceptation of the Co- venant for them, and their entring them into it, and giving them up to God according to the tenour of it, as another obligation upon them. Parents a£b on the behalf of, or with reference to their Children, are an obligation upon, them to comply with, and ftand to what is don? by their Parents on their behaif,and with reference 3mtant-26apttim tcWD. 105 reference to them. Hence Samuel complycs with Han- nah's vow, and gives himfelf freely to ferve the Lord in his Tabernacle, according' to the dedication fhe had made of him. Yea Jephatis daughter complies wich her Father's vow,though (as moft think*) in was to be offe- red up in Sacrifice: My Father ( faitbjhe ) if thou haft opened thy mouth to the Lord % do to me according to thai which hath proceeded out of thy month. Judg. ii. $6. As Parents have a power to difpofe or their Children in a fubordination unto God : fo Children arc obliged to comply with chat difpofal they make of them* And as the confidence Nature it felf teach- eth them to have in their Parents as to' their prudence, love, ejre. fo their duty towards rhem obligeth them fo co do. Hence their Parents having accepted of the Covenant for them, arid anfwerably entred them into it, they are under a powerful obligation to comply with what their Parents have done, and anfwerably perfonally im brace the Covenant, and give up them- felvesto God in Chrift to worihip and ferve him. 3. There is the Token of the Covenant as applyed to, and born by them, as a further obligation upon them. One ufe and end of the Token of the Cove- nant, whether Circumcifion or Baprifm, according to divine Institution, '.was, and is to oblige and ingage the Pevfons to whom it was and is applied to cleave and adhere to God in Chrift, his worihip and fervice. Trie Token of the Covenant is equivalent co Prefs- mony given to Souldiers : God by it obligeth his People to himfelf, and co ferve under Chrift the Cap- tain of their Salvation : From this ufe or end of the Tokeaor Seals of the Covenant, they fecm co have received their denomination of Sacraments 5 which word -is conceived to be borrowed from the anoent Romans^ 266 Xije^tmttttje&octtttteof HtmaHf, among whom it was ufed to fignifie the oath by which, together with certain rights and a pre- fcripc form of yvords,Souldiers did ingage themfelves, or were ingaged to do. whatfoever the Emperour or General fhould 'command , and not forfake their Colours nil the Wars were ended. Tertullian is fuppofedto bethefirft that brought the word into the Church, and applied- it to a fpiricual ufe. But however the Word is not improper nor unfit, it fully expretfing this end and ufe of the Tokens of the Cove- nant, they were, and are for the ingaging men to God in Chrift. God by them ingagech and ties his People to himfelf. Now the Seed of Believers when they come to years of Maturity finding themfelves un- der this bond, and that as put upon them by Divine Inftitution, muft needs be more Mrongly obliged to take God in Chrift as their God, and give up them- felves to him, to be his, to worfhip andfervc him according to the tenour of the Covenant. God's ha- ving preiTed them ( as I may fo fpeak ) into his own fervice, and obliged them to himfelf by fuch a folemn right, is a ftrong obligation upon them to ferve him, and give themfelves to him. Hence we read of the Martyr, who to all his temptations to deny Chrift makes no reply but this, Baptizatus fum. 4. There is the great aggravation that their fin in reje&ing the Covenant they had, as the Seed or* fuch Parents, admiffion into, and forlaking God and his ways, above what the fin of others in neglecting to take hold of the Covenant doth admit of > andcon- fequently the greatnefs of their condemnation above the condemnation or others in cafe they fhould fo do, as a further obligation upon them to imbrace the Co- venant, and walk in the ways of God they are afore* obliged f jnftnfewapttftn te*nm 207 obliged to. Their fin in reje&ing the Covenant into .which they Were taken admits of variety of aggravati- ons,* beyond what the finof others in not taking hold of the Covenant admits of, which they being made7 fenfible and apprehenfive of, hath a potent tendency ftrongly to oblige them to imbracc it. But of this I may touch more again hereafter. But 3. And laftly, The intereft that the Seed of Be- lievers have in the Covenant as ratified, fealed and confirmed to them by the Application of the Token, highly fubferves their perfonal imbracement of it by way of incouragement > they have peculiar incou- ragements thereunto beyond what others have. To inftance infome few of them. 1. Firft, They find thcmfelves already in a (rate of peace with God. Their work is not fomuch to gain, or make peace with God, as to maintain it. Their peace is already made by being received into the Covenant of Grace, the Law hath nothing to charge upon them to their condemnation, they are not under the Law but under Grace $ they are dis- charged from the condemning power of whatever guilt might hitherto be charged upon them. And how great an incouragement muft that needs be to them to clofe in with Chrift ? what ground of hope have they that God will accept of them and grant them his Spirit for their Renovation and San&ification ? 'Tisnoneof theleaft dilcouragements to Adult tin- ners to come unto Chrift, that they ly under fo much guilt as they are confeious fothemfelvcs of: were they allured their gtfik were removed, that God were not obliged todeal with them as enemies, what in- couragements and what hopes would they have, that God might give thena his Spirit for their Regenera- tion 208 %\yt pixmxtm 2Do.tttt ne of tionand San£tification. Now that difcouragemcnt is removed out of the way of the. Seed of Believers, finding themfelves already in a ftate of peace with God ; how can chey then rationally entertain any jealoufies about his readinefs to do them good, and continue them in that ftate ? 2. There is the mutual Lqve and Friendfhip that hath been between God and their Parents as a further incouragement to them. The fpecial Love and Fa- vour that God bears to their Parents, is a choife in- couragement to Children, that, accepting of the Co- venant and giving up themfelves to God in Chrift ac* cording to the tenour of it,chey fhall not be rejected but readily accepted by him. As God hath granted and actually vouchfafed many choice Mercies and Fa- vours to Children for their Parents fake : fo Children have improved the confideratien of their relation to fuch Parents as a help to their Faich and Hope in their fecking unto God for Mercy. Thus, tjiough JJhmael by his perfecuting of Jfaac had forfeited his in- tereft in the Covenant, and was call: out both of Abraham's Family and the Covenant ; yet, God pro- mifed to make him a* Nation, becaufe he was Abra~ barn's Seed, Gen* 21.13. So we find God for the fake been of Abraham and T>avi d (hewing Mercy to their refpeclive Poftenty, though guilty of great provoca- tions againft him , Pfalm. ioj. 42. Ifa. 3?. 37. .Hence are fuch Petitions in Scripture, Oh turn unto me, and have Mercy upon me, give thy ftrength to thy Servant , and fave the Son of thy Hand-maid% Pfal* 86. io\ As trie conhderacion of his own relation to God as his Servanc, (o che confederation ofhisdefcenc from her thac was his Hand- maid, was a great incou* ragement to him, and a great advantage to his Faith and 3lnfatit'26aptifm rebib'd, 209 and Hope in petitioning for Mercy. For Children to confvdcr their relation to fuch Parents, between God and whom there hath been or is a mutual fpecial Love and Fricndfhip, is a lingular incourageincnt to them in caking hold of the Covenant, and applying them- felves to God for the Mercies and BlelTings of it; The Love that'God bears to believing Parents is a very great ingagement to him to a ready doing Good to their Children. 3. There is all that God hath already done for them as the Seed of fuch Parents fignally expreilive and {ignificative of his fpecial good •will towards them, as afurthei incouragement to them God's ex- tending his Covenant to them, and thereby freeing them from the condemning power of Original (in, giving them an incereft in himfelf, and a right to fu- ture Salvation, and thereby fecuring their Salvation in cafe of their death in Infancy, are glorious figni- fications of his fpecial good will unto them, and Wil- lingnefsthat they in particular fliould be faved, and confequencly may be improved as choice incouragc-* ments to them to take hold of the Covenant : They have not the lead ground toiufpeft God's readings to receive them, and proceed on in his goodnefs zn& kindnefs to them, feeing be hath fecuied their Salva- tion by his Covenant and Promife, while they were uncapablc of performing the conditions of i: in their own Per fans, befure he will not reject them, or re- fufe to continue his Grace to them, in order to their future Salvation, when they are Willing to accept of and perform the conditions of the Covenant them* felves. Paul llrengtheneth his Faith and Hope as to God's delivering trim from every evil rvorkj and pre- fervittghim to his Heavenly Kingdom by en; conhde-* P ration no %\)z fyiimitm Doctrine of ration of what he had done for him in delivering him from that great Tyrant Nero, 2 Tim. 4. itf, 17,18. Andfurely much more may the Seed of Believers in- courage themfelves and llrengthen their Faith and Hope as to God's acceptation of them, and giving them Grace and Glory, themfelves being row wil- ling to accept of and perform the conditions of the Covenant by the confederation of what he hath al- ready done for them. 4. They may, if not positively afTure themfelves, yet comfortably hope that they are yet a6tually under the Promifes df God's being a G od to them, and giving them future Salvation ; And how great an incouragement muft that needs be to them?Tbey have the faithful rifcfs of God ingaged to make good his Promifes, unlefc they by their wilful rejection of Chrilt and the Terms of the Covenant forfeit their own Intend in them. Ob). But it may be faid, Though hitherto they have bztn a&ually under the Promifes, and confe- quenrly might have incouraged themfelves by the con- (iderationof the faithfulnefs of God : but now they can no longer lay claim to the Promifes, •but upon fuppoficion of their own performance of the conditi- ons of the Covenant. ~Anfi». It is true, but yet let this be confidered, That God in the Promife fpeaks more dcterminately, exprefsly and particularly to them, than he doth to others. The language of God to each one of them is this, I am thy God, only do not now reject my Covenant, and the relation between me and thee ihal! be continued. To others he fpeaks more gene- rally and indefinitely, He that believes /hall befaved. Him that cometb unto me I mil in no wife caji out. Who- 3Jttfanfc2i5aptifm tetub'ti. m Whofoever willy Ut him come and take of the Water of Life- Now, though ic is true, thefe general and in- definite Promifesand Invitations are iuftiaenc incou- ragements to all to come unto and clofe in with Chrifl^ andcaft try rnfelvcs upon him lor Pardon*, Life and Salvation; yet we find by experience, poor awake- ned finners are hardly perfwaded that themtelves are in particular intended in t-hofe more general and inde- finite Promifcs and Calls. Were they affured them- felves were intended, it would be a mighty incourage£ ment to them j but that they arp hardly brought to believe. The more w; can appropriate any Pjomifes to our (elves in particular, the greater efficacy they will have upon our hearts tor our mcouragement. It is a mighty incouragementtotbe Jaylor, when the Apoftle fhall (peak particularly to him, and allure him if be (hould believe y hejhouldbefitved and all bis boufe. Now God (peaks particularly and detcrmi- nately to the Seed of Believers, and not only criers to be a God to them, but allures them he is (o already, only requires their perfonal performance of the con- ditions or the Covenant, in order to the continuance of that Relation between himfelf and them, and that they may have the adtual injoyment of that Salvation, they are, as the Seed of fiich Parents, the Heirs of. And if it fhould be (aid, that they may have forfeited their G'ovenant-ftate and Relation already by their not fooner actually and explicitly recognizing the Covenant, and giving up themfelvs to God in Chrift according tothetenourof it • and fears, of that will render this confederation of little u(e to them, That Objection (hall be anfwercd by and by. Obj. If i: be yet (aid, That what incouragemeuts i ever they have co believe and take hold of the Co- P a Vcnanc 2u %\yt $?imitit)e SDocttine of venanr, yet they will Toon find by experience their own inability to do it, they will find they cannot do it without the fpedal Teachings and Operations of the Spirir;and whatincouragement have they to hope for thefe Teachings and Operations beyond what others have? To that I add in a fifth iucouragemenc that they have above others, and that is this : They ftand nearer than the reft of Mankind to, and are the more cfpecial Objects of the Promifes of faving Grace; This I have fpoken fo largely to already, that I need add no more. But befides, all thole other incou- ragements they have to believe may be improved as a help to their hope for Grace to inablethem there- unto. Surely then finding themfelves in a ftate of Peace wirh God, remembring what a mutual Friend- fhip and Love there hath been between God and their Parents, confidering what he hath already done for them as a llgnal fignificaticn of his good will towards them, and having a particular Promife to allure them in particular, that as God at preftntis, fo he will continue to be a God to them, unlefs by their volun- tary rejecting the Covenant they difanul that their Intereff; may not only be choice incouragements to them to believe and take hold of the Covenant, but to hope that God will readily vouchfafe them the Teachings and effectual Operations of his Spirit to inablethem (o to-do, they waiting upon him in his own way. But to put a clofe to this fecond Queftion. We now fee how great Good, what glorious Benefits and Advantages the Seed of Believers have by the Ap- plication of rfie Token of the Covenant to them j and from all we mayconclude,thaiInfant-Baptifm is a pra- ctice v\ell worthy enquiring into, and contending for by all Parents that have any refpedtto the fpiritual aid ettniai welfare of their Children. CHAP, 3Jnfan^25aptifntret)it)5D. 215 CHAP. X. the third grand Queflion propofed. the duty of Parents towards their Children reduced to two Heads. Their duty to be performed immediately and directly towards them again reduced to two Heads. What they are to teach and inftrutf them in and about : As alfo what means they are to ufefor the rendring. lnflruot ions given them^ opened. Some rules for their right management of them in the performance of their duty^ laid down, their duty to be performed immediately towards God on the behalf of their Children , /hewed. Some Motives to prefs them to a faithful performance of their duty^ urged. Queft* 3. \/\/^at 1S tne ^utY °f Parenrs t0~ V V wards their Children, as under the bond of the Covenant and bearing the Token of it? Anfo. This and the next Queftion being frequent* Iy and largely treated of by others, I fhall fpeak the more fpanngly to them. For this Queifion then, the duty of Parents is considerable two ways. 1. Firft, As to be performed immediately and dire^Iy towards their Children. 2. Secondly, As to be performed more immediate- ly owards TjocL but with reference to, and on the ~ P 3 behalf ti4 %$t ^limxt&z Dottttne of behalf of their Children, they are to deal with their Children in the Name, and on- the behalf of God, and to deal with God, with reference to, and on the be- half of their Children. Firit, For their duty immediately and directly refpe6ting their Children , the Apoftle fummarily comprehends it under the(c two terms, Nurture and Admonition^ and both mirft'be of the Lord, Eph. 6t 3. And ye Fathers prov oh? mtyour Children to wrath , hut bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Though the ApofHc here fpeaks exprefsly only unto Fathers yet Mothers are noc exempted, but included : As they are alike incerefted in their Chil- dren with their Husbands ; Co they are to joyn with them in the holy education of them ; and fays the Apoftle^ bring up your Children in or with the nurture and admonition of the Lord ; as if the ApofUefhould fay, to your feeding, cloathing and providing necef- faries for their bodies, and a comfortable (ubfiftance in this life, add the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Here I (hall do two things. 1. Briefly open their duty. 2. Add fome Rules for a more fuccefsful performance of it. 1. For the firfi, under thefe two terms, we are to comprehend two things in the general. 1. Firlt,1 Inftru&ion. 1. Secondly, The Ufe and Application of all due and apt means fubferving or conducing to their im- bracing , acting and praclifing ac- * Hortatur *t cording to infhu&ions given them : eoseducent cum * fo that the duty of Parents to- snftitvtione & commomfacltione Domint^hoc eft,ut cos tnflitudnt$$ erudiant /'» Dottrtna Chrtfttana, & fubinde pits commomfa^tombm ad offictapietapis forwent. Pifca. inlwo* ward 3fnfan&25aptifm vetti&'D* n$ wards their Children -confifls in two things in the general. Firft, In teaching and inftrucling chcni. And though chey are co teach and inltruct them in their whole duty both towards God and Man ; yet I fhall only inftance in five things, wherein they are in a pe- culiar manner to inttrudt them. i. Firft, They are to teach and inftruft them in the knowledge of God, acquaint them with the Being of God, endeavour to convince them that there is a fupreme Being whom we call God, who is the Crea- tor and Governourof all things, from whom them- felves have originally received their Beings , whofe they are, and upon whom they depend, whom they mutt woriliip, and who will judgethem at the laft day, and then reward them according as they have obeyed or difobeyed his Commands. And as they are to inftru&them in the Being of a God} fo to ac- quaint them with the manner of his Sublicence and Nature, as revealed by his Names, Tides and Pro- perties, as they are able to bear it. And we find Children foon comply with the notions of a Deity, and not altogether unreadily entertain efpecially fuch notions of and about his Nature, as are difcoverable by, and agreeable to the light and dictates of Nature. Some have obferved, that all Religion is ingrafYed upon the ftock of Nature ; God hath lefr fornewbat ofthofe Original Principles of Religion implanted in the Nature of Man at his firft Creation, w Inch fa- cilitates the reception of the fidt fundamental Princi- ples upon which all Religion is built j as a brand fooner inkindlcs than the green wood that hath never been in the fire. Hence Parents are to begin with the revival of fuch Principles and Notions as are not P 4 utterly 2i5 %\yz $>!tnittoe ^Doctrine of utterly obliterated and blotted out of the Nature of Man, and fuch are thefe concerning the Beeing of God, his Nature and Relations towards Man as his Creator and Govefnour, &c. Let but thefe Prin- ciples and Notions be throughly revived, and more fully fixed and riveted in the minds and Confciences of Children; it will greatly facilitate their reception of all higher Truths and Doctrines revealed in the Scriptures. 2, They are to teach and inftru6l them in the way of God's dealing with Man as his Creature, that it always hath been and it ill is according to fome Co- venant, wherein he promifes fomewhat of Good unto Men upon condition of their performing that duty himfclfhath prefaibed and injoyned j having always annexed rewards and punifhments to the performance or nonperformance of that duty. For Parents to inftrudt their Children and make them apprehenfive 2nd fenfiblc that this always hath been, and ihll is the way of God's dealing with Men, will greatly con- duce to their more ready entertainment of what (hall be (hewed them concerning the fcveral Covenants God hath made with Men, and their ftates, con- ditions and duties as interefted in the one or the other Covenant that God hath made with Man. 3. They are to teach and inftruft them in and about the Covenant of Nature, or the Law of Works ertabhfhed with Man at his firft Creation ; and here they are to initrudt them, in that happy eftate Man was in as under that Covenant, how happy he fhould have been had he performed the conditions of it ; what penalty was annexed to the tranfgreflion of that l*aw h how that Covenant was broken by ddatnihz . jirft Parent of Mankind ; how far all his pofterity arc concerned concerned in that breach } what the penalty is that all Mankind as born into the World are under, and far- ther fubje&to, as involved in that breach j how the guile of Adatns fin redounds to them \ how their Natures are corruped and depraved ; how that cor- ruption and depravation of their Natures flows from that firft breach of that Covenant ; bow they are Children of Wrath, as under that guilt, and as having their Natures fo vitiated and depraved. 4. They are to inffru6t them, in and about the Covenant of Grace, as ^ftablifhed in the Sacrifice, Death and Sufferings of a Mediator ; and herejthey are to inftrudt them, in the Perfon, Offices and Works of this Mediator ; what are the terms and conditions of this Covenant ; how far themfelves are interefted in it, as the Seed of believing Parents ; what Good they have already granted to them by it j upon what terms that Good was granted, and hath been hitherto continued to them ; what is now re- quired of them to the prefervation of their Covenant- ee. f. They are to teach and inftrucl: them in the ufes and ends of their Bapcifm; * what is fknified by it • how the * Doftrindm Covenant they are received into, is f$j{*ffi"?. fealed and confirmed by it ; what af- Hild.^ furance they have thereby of injoy- ing all the Good, Benefics and Bleflings promifed, unlefs they forfeit chem by the non-performance of that duty God requires on their parts ^ what incou- ragements they have to perform that duty j what obligations ly upon them to take hold of the Cove- nant, and give up themfelves to God • what their hn and mifery will be in cafe they do it not ; how happy 218 %tyt ^jtmtttfce SDoctrine of happy they mall be in cafe they do it. Thus the Lord commands the People of Jfrael to inflruft their Chik dren in the ufe and ends ot chc Pafsover, and the fame they were doubclefs to do in refpedfr of Circumcifion, and o:her Sacramental fjgns in ufe among them, Exod. 12.26,27. And it (hall come to pafs^ when your Children Jay unto you, What mean you by this fervice > then ye Shall fay, It is the Sacrifice of the Lord's Pafsover, who faffed over thehoufes of the Chil- dren of Jfrael, when he fmote the Egyptians, and deli- vered our houfes. And here we may obferve the ufe- fulnefsof bringing Children to the adminiftration of Baptifm : to others it may occasion their enquiry after the meaning of that Ordinance; but however, whether they enquire or no, it is the duty of Parents to let them behold the adminiftration of it, and thereupon take occafion to inftrud them in the ufes and ends of it. But 2. For the Ufe and .Application of all due and apt means conducing to their imbracing, acting and pradifing according to thefe inftru&ions given them. And thus 1. They are to keep them,> as much as may be,from any notice or knowledge of any Objects, Principles, or Doctrines, as alfo from any fuch notions, or ap- prehensions of, and about earthly things, as by means whereof, they may be obftru&ed and preju- diced in their doling in with God in Chrifr, imbra- cing the Covenant, and giving themfelves up to (Bod according to the terms of it. Preferve their minds and afTeclions, as much as may be, from anticipations or pre-ingagements, by means of which their imbracing, a6ting and pra&ifing ac- cording to what they are caught,wouId be prejudiced. Thus 3lnfant-25agttfm tebtt'D. 219 Thus, fuppofc Believers to 'have their lot call in places where fomc falfe God is worfhipped, their duty would be, to keep their Children frcrn any notice of fuch a God : fo where corrupt Principles and Doctrines, whether relating to worfhip or man- ners, are preached or maintained, ic is the duty of Parents, what in them lyes, to keep their Children from any knowledge of them, left their minds and judgment fhould be infe&ed with them ; So to keep them from the fight of fucb things as have a tendency to vitiate their minds, and excite the corruptions of their hearts. For this reafon Arifiotle tells us a Law-giver oA&s fcK. t^j's 7TdA£6)S on^poKoyiot^ efop(£eiv <5^7, viz, left the minds of youth ihouldbe vitiated, and they fhould firft learn to fpeak filthily, and then to act fikhily. So again, to keep them from any fuch notions or apprehenflons of, and about earthly things, as tend to ingage their attentions to them. Parents are not a little prejudicial to their Children, to applaud their bravery, on the account of fine clothes and the like : fo by insinuating the worth and excellency of Mony, Eflates, Honours and the like j they fhould rather endeavour to con- vince them of the nothingnefs, insignificancy and va- nity of thefe things. When Childrens minds are pre. poileiTed with notions and apprehenflons of a worth and excellency in fuch things, their defires run out after them, and chcy begin to promife to themfelves a kind of felicity in them; whence they Coon ingage in a purfuanceofthem, to the neglecl: of Chrift> and that inheritance above they are born Heirs unto. 2. Frequent repetitions and inculcations of the fame things greatly conduce to the ends mentioned : Children, as they icceive but lktle at a time, fo they need 220 Xfje $wnitti)t Doctrine of need frequent repetitions and inculcations of the fame things ; their undcrltandings are weak, their memo- lies flippery^ and what impreflions may be made upoft their hearts and affe&ions, foon wear offagain : hence the fame things muft be often repeated and in- culcated upon themt Indeed repetitions and incul- cations of the fame things are ufeful to the Adult : T0 write the fame things to youy faith the Apoftlc to the Philippians, to me indeed is not grievous , but for you it it fafe, Phil. 3. 1. Men it is true are delighted in variety, and in the newnefs of things propofed, but faith the Apoftle , to write the fame things is fafe for you : yet the fame things may be written, or fpo- ken in variety of phrafes and different expreflions, and fo to do, is ufeful to prevent tcdioufnefs, and loathing ; but to have the fame things frequently repeated and inculcated, if not in the fame, yet in different phrafes and exprcflions, is exceeding fafe for grown Chriftians, and much more for Children j yea to repeat the fame things, in the fame words and exprcflions, fuppofing prudence be ufed, is ufeful for them. The Lord, fpeakmg of the Commandments, Statutes and Judg- ments he had given his ancient People, gives them this charge about them, that they fhould teach them diligently to thrir Children, Deut. 6. 7. and what he means by teaching them diligently, he explains in the following words j thou /halt tal\pfthem ( viz. to thy Children ) when thou fittejl in thy houfe, and when thou tvalhejl by the way, when thou lieft down, and when thou rife [i up ^ as much as to fay, thou fhalt be frequently talking of, and inculcating them upon thy Children. The capacities of Children require a fre- quent repetition and inculcation of the fame things, as in reipecl ot their natural food : As chey can re- ceive 3Jttfant=2i5apmm teWD* m ceive and digeft but a little at a time, fo they muft be frequently fed r^Soin refpeft of inftru£Uons,whach are the food of their fouls, they muft be frequently inftrucTed in the fame things. 3. The intermingling Exhortations, Perfwafions, Intreaties , Commands , erg. with Inflru&ions, tends greatly to render thole Inftruclions more effe- ctual ;. it is not "enough to inlighten the undeman- ding, and inform the judgment, but the afledions and paflions muft be wrought upon, and excited. We find the working upon, and excitirg of the affe- ctions and pailions in grown perfons is highly fervice- able to their conversion, imbiacement of, and fled- faftnefs in the ways of God ; and much more muft it be fo in Children. Now the affections and pafTions are wf ought upon by the means now mentioned. Thefe Exhortations, Pcrfwafions, Ccrxmands , frc* are conceived to be included in this word vxdwiccy we tranflate admonition j Parents are to bring up up their Children in the admonition as well as nurrure of the Lord : fo faith God of Ahraham^ I knew Abra- ham that he will command his Children, and his House- hold ; and s\hat the iflue of th2t fhall be he tells us, thy Jh all keep the way of the Lord, Gcnt 18. 1 p., of which more by and by. Such PcrUvafions and Ex- hortations, Intreaties and Commands are exprclTive of the affections of Parents towards, as well as their au- thority over their Children j and the more Children arefenfible of their Parents affection towards, and authority over them, the greater efficacy will their Inftructions have upon their hearts. Their Parents are prefent with them, 3rd vifible to them ; God is out of their fight, their apprchenfiens of him can be fuppofed to be but low, ar.d confuted ; they live by fence, ixz Xlje $iimitiU Doctrine of fence, and not by Faith. Hence an affectionate Ex- hortation, or Intreaty from their Parents, may, and poflibly will do more with them, than the bare Com- mands of God $ however fuch Exhortations ard Com- mands, %>c. from their Parents added to the Exhorta- tions and Commands from God in his Word, muft needs rationally be more effectual. There is their Parents affection anfvvered by a natural (forge and fi- lial affection towards them, asd Paternal authority aniwered by a natural kind of inftindt, or inclination to obey, fuperadded to the efficacy or thofe dawnings ofLighr, let into their understandings by Inftru6fi- ons given them, and of thofe mormng-apprehenfions they have of God, more efTedtually to induce and ingage them coa6fc and praitife accordingly. Hence this intermixture of Exhorracions, Perfwafions, In- treacies and Commands mull: needs greatly further their conversion and imbracement of the Covenant. 4. Good Examples are great furtherances to Chil- drens falling in with, and imbracement of the ways of God • and indeed neither inftruc^ionSjnor the ufe of any other means car, be rationally expedited to be fuccefsful, without this example conduce to the ren- dring Inftruclions cffedtual two ways. 1. They reallize to Childrens apprehenfions the things they are inftrucled in, and about : for Pa- rents to fpeak of a God infinitely holy, and a perfect hater of fin; to fpeak of God infinitely juft, and a fevere avenger of fin, &c. and yet not exprefs any fear towards him tbemlelves, nor take heed of what is finfulj will fignify little ; Children will quickly ap- prehend the inconfiftency between what is fpoken of, or concerning God, and their Parents ways and actions. Now how can Parents expert cheir Children fhouM 7MV 3Jttfant=25apttfm trnvb. 223 mould believe, what their own ways and aclions de- clare themfelves believe not ? 2. Examples induce and provoke to Imitation, Exempla mails movent quam document a, is "peculiarly true, as appiyed to Children ; we fee how prone they are to Imitation, their manners are much formed by example; * hence * Ariftotfe would good examples noc only from Pa- h**e y°#*k kjpt rents.buc others highly further their ™* fr™ 'he falhng in with, and unbracing or auresofanjLim^ the Ways of God. ner, exceftmg of fuch an one who ayiklj&TctTntuv locf tint of the feeking for it from him $ lee them know rheir continuance in a Coveuant-ftate depends upon their performance of the conditions themfelves, but let them know withall that it is Godmuft give whac himfelf requires. 6. The adding of due Correction as the cafe may require,- will yet promote the fame ends j the Rod is the Child's ordinance, hence (0 frequently recommen- ded by Solomon, Though correction conveys not Grace to,nor can it work Grace in the foul5yet it high- ly fubferves their gaining of Grace. 2. Butfecondly, Lee me juft touch upon fome few , Rules, chat may be of ufe unto Parents in their right and fuccefsful performance of their duty towards their Children. 1. By grave and ferious dealing with them about the concerns of God and their fouls, with a gravity 'and ferioufnefs becoming matters of (uch an importance. Ic is (aid of a Bifhop, he muft be one who rtiletb well his ownhoufe, having bis Children in fitbjedion with all gravity y 1 Tim. 3. 4. the fame is the duty of all Chriftian parents, though eminent- ly required in the Minifters of the Gofpel. Some deal with their Children in foul-affairs, as though they were rarher in jeft than earned ; and no wonder though Children are neither ferious, nor in good earned in attending to, or pradtifing fuch inftru:hat Wifdom and , Prudence neceffary to the righc managing of them* felvesin the difcharge cf their duty towards thtirCml- drenjthey muft have it from God,or after all,they will be greatly defective therein. I £ha]l only intimate fome Cafes wherein f fecial Wifdom is required. 1. In beginning with fuch, Inftruclions- as thpfe principles connatural to them will fubferve their im- bracement of, to kindle the brand, if I may fo ipeaky where it hath the greateft difpofiuon to take fire. 2. Again, Wifdom is required in fo repeating and inculcating Inftru6lions,as that they may be moft ufeful for the inlighming their mmds, and working upon their affections ; and yet may not beget tedioui- nefs or flightnefs of fpirit. 3. Again, much Wifdom is required in inarming-' ling fuch inftrudiorisj audi© adminiftririgtheni* as may kefp up their love to, and ddrgbt in, Rdigipn^ Q Vttbf 226 %fyt $;fmittfce 2>octtute ot with fuch inftrudions as may keep up a holy awe and fear in their hearts Godward. 4. Again, Wifdom is required in keeping up their incouragements, and yet preventing their prefump- tion and formality. 5. Once again, much Wifdom is required in deal- ing wich Children according to their different tempers and conftitutions ; fome are more eafily wrought up- on by love, others by fear 5 fome by gentle, others by more fevere means j fome need more of the rod,others Iefs : and variety of the like inftances might be given. This is certain, the fuccefs of Parents difebarge of their duty towards their Children, very much de- pends upon the Wifdom they are indued with, and do exercife therein. 4. Begin with yout Children betimes, Chttftenthy Child betimes ■> faith Solomon ; fo inftrucl him betimes. Parents fhould endeavour ( were it poflible ) to anti- cipate Satan,and put a check to the very firft buddings forth of corruption, ghtofemel eft imbnta recent*, Sec, 3Tis the folly of moft Parents to leave themfelves only an after-game to play j they fow not till the thorns have got fuch rooting, as that they check the feed fowen ; their Childrens minds are fo vitiated,thac their inftru&ions meet with ftronger bppofition than otherwife they would do : therefore begin with them betimes, In the morning forp thy J eed, Tis ap- plicable to our prefent purpofe, Children have ears to hear before they have tongues to fpcak. That may be received by the ear and eye which the tongue cannot exprefs 5 hence Parents fhould not forbear inftruclions till their Children are capable of return- ing anfwers, But 2, The? 3Jnfcmfc26aptifm tetub'D* 227 2. The duty of Parents more immediately refpecls God, yet to be performed on t he behalf of their Chil- dren, and thus their great duty is Prayer \ and two things in the general they are to pray for : 1. The biftowmenr of fuch endowments upon thcmfelves, as may capacifie them for the due perfor- mance of their duty towards their Children. And of all gifts and endowments they ought to be peculiarly importunate for Wifdom and Prudence. He thac gives wifdom to the Husband-man for the casing in the Fetches and fcattering the Cummin^ &c. when he hath plowed his ground and made plain the face thereof, muft teach Parents wifdom to manage their duty aright towards their Children, ttower abilities ma- naged with wifdom prove more effectual than greater without it. What encouragement Parents have to be importunate for this gift the Apoftle James fhews us, Jam. 1.5. 2. They are to pray for a blefTing upon the per- formance of their duty towards their Children, with the concurrence of the Spirit to make all means ufed effectual. Prayer and Inftruclion ; yea Prayer and Correction ought to go together. The raoft faith- ful, diligent and wife difcharge of duty will leave Children gracelefs, unlefs God add his bledtng. Now though a Covenant.ftate be hereditary, yet Grace is not fo,that's from God,given to whom he plea- feth in a compliance with his eternal Purpofe and Decrees. But thefe being (ecret, hid in the bread of God, are not to be Parents rule in the performance of their duty, they are to perform it equally and alike unto all. Let me add, the more Faith there is in Prayer, the more prevalent it will be ; and how far. Faith may beaded with reference to Children, may Qja be 2i8 X9e$?imitfte2E>o(ttfneftf be gathered from what hath been already (aid. Among other things they may believe, that the pro- mi fesoi the firft Grace do appertain to them indefi- nitely, as members of that Collective Body to which thofe Promises are made. And hence, though they cannot positively believe that thefe Promifes fhall be made good to every one of their Children, yet they may and ought to believe the truth and faithfufnefs of God, and anfwerably a6l a dependance upon him, with a comfortable hope that the Good promifed fhall be given to each one of their Children. I fhall only add two or three Motives to prefs Parents to a faith- ful difcharge of their duty, and fo pafs from this third Queftion. i. Confider the manifold obligations lying upon you to be faithful, confeiencious, and diligent there- in ; and to pafs by all others, an account of which I have already given, let me only remind you of, and a little prefs upon you that reference and fubferviency that your difcharge of your duty hath to yourChildrens imbracement of the Covenant , and confequently to God's bringing upon you in vouchsafing unto them the Good promifed. That parage of God's concern- ing Abraham -cannot well be too often inculcated upon believing Parents, Gen* i8. 19. There are two things peculiarly remarkable in this Scripture. 1. To mention that in thefirft place which is fet down in the latter part of the Verfe, the fubferviency of Parents faithful performance of their duty to God's bringing upon them the Good promifed, viz. with reference to their Children, That the Lord may bring upon him what he hathfpoken of him 5 as if God could not ( keeping v exactly to the terms of the Covenant ) vouchiafc the Good promifed to Children, unlefs thas Parents 31nfant=25apttfm reWD. 229. Parents be faithful in the performance of their duty towards them. Ic feems at Jeaft very probable to infer an abfolute necelTity of Parents performance of their duty in order to God's giving chem the Good promfed in purfuanceof the Promife made to them on the behalf of their Children ; however this muft be faid, that Childrens forfeiture of their Covenant- ftate, and all the Good annexed thereunto, is greatly hazarded by Parents failing therein. It's true, God may extend Mercy to them, and anfwerably fupply the neglect of Parents, by the vouchfafement of other means, as he doth to others born of unbelieving Pa- rents, unto whom he is under no obligation by venue of any peculiar Promife made to them: But it may feem that Parents neglect of their duty difchargeth God from that obligation he is under by his Promife made to them on the behalf of their Children, and that muft needs extremely hazard their ever injoying the Good of the Covenant. Now furely if any thing will caufe (orrow, or allay the joy of believing Pa- rents at that day, againft which joy is fowen for the Righteous, and gladnefs for the upright in hearty this will doit, to mils their Children in that day of Triumph, and that through their own default in point of duty towards them. Lzz me fay, Is all the Good of the Covenant of fo fmall a value, as that a fond affe&ion fhall fuperfede the difcharge of your duty towards your Children ? Or is cverlafting ie- paration from the prefence of God, and the glory of his Power fo final! a matter, as that rather than you will put your fcives to a li: tie pains,orimpofe any dif- ficulty upon your Children, you will hazard that ? Will their roaring in Hell be a lefs evil than their cry- ing under the fmarc of che Rod ? Alas ! what do Parents Q^ 1 think 23o %tyt$iimit\U®0(ttintof think of Heaven or Hell, that they will hazard their Childrens lofs of the one, and undergoing the other upon fuch trivial accounts ? 2. Confidcr, what excellent incouragements you have to a vigorous, faithful, and confciencious per- formance of your duty towards them, which is the other thing remarkable in the forementioned Scrip- ture, viz.. the illue and fruit of the difcharge of your duty, 'tbeyfhall hgep the way of the Lord, implying atleaftthe ufual concurrence of a blefllng from God with the difcharge of your duty, and concurrence of the Spirit to make the means ufed effectual. God would not alTert the efficacy of the means, but upon a fuppofition of his concurrence with them by his own Spirit and BlcfTing. It may poflibly fecm ttrangc to fome, fhould I fay, whether ever any of the Seed of the Righteous apoftatize from the ways of God, and thereby forfeit their Covenant-ftate , but upon a failure in Parents in the due difcharge of their duty, is a queftion of more difficult determination, than is ufually apprehended, or appears at the firll: propofal of it. But befides the incouragement you have from this Scripture, how much more means have you fub- ferving the converfion of your Children, than others, who either are unbelievers themfelves, or deny their Childrens Covenam-intercft, have ? how many Mo- tives have you to prefs upon them? what incourage- ments to propofe to them? and confequently what ground have you to hope for fuccefs, that you iliall not labour in vain ? Thefe things 1 had fometimes in- tended to have inlarged upon, but for fome reafons I ihall contract. You may be fufficiently furnifhed with incouragements from what hath been already laid. And therefore, 3, Confider* 3Mtanfc2i5aptifm te&uvtn ij* 3. Confider, how great a good your Childrens converfion will be to your felves as well as unco them. Doth not the comfort of your lives depend much up- on the welfare of your Children? will it not highly advance your comfort , to be able to live in the World as in a ftrange Land, as Heirs your felves, and as feeing your Children Joynt-heirs with you of an everlafting inheritance in Heaven? would it not be your joy to fee the Kingdom of Chrift upheld, his Church continued and propagated by thofe that pro- ceed out of your own loyns ? Befides converting Grace will make them ufeful and ferviceable unto you both in temporals and fpirituals, See Fbilcmon 1 1. Will it not doubly ftrengthen your weak hands and feeble knees, when old age comes , to have them ftrengthned and fupported by the gracious words of your own Children ? And furely, feeing Mothers have ufualiymoft need of comfort from their Chil- dren, they fhould be peculiarly careful to perform their duty towards them. CHAP. XI. the fourth grand Queftion propofed. the im- provement that the Seed of Relievers may and ought to make of their Covenant-fiate^as ratified by the Application of the Token of the Covenant, opened in four particulars, that great Quejlion , how long the Covenant- (late of the Seed of Believers is continued to them upon their Parents account, anfwered 0-4 fo %%i %\yz $ii\\\\tm ^Doctrine of jo far as is neceffary to prevent fuch fears as either parents or Children are [abject to, as to the forfeiture of their Covenant -ft ate in their Child-hood. §hte{l. 4. T IX THat ufe and improvemen: may V V 2nd ought the Seed of Believers make of the Token oF the Covenant applyed to them in their Infancy, as they grow up to years of Ma- turity } Anfw* The ufe and improvement they may and ought to make of it is great and of unfpeakable advan- tage to them. To inlrance in iome few particulars. 1. They may and ought to improve it as a help to their underftandings, that they may better, and more clearly apprehend, and conceive of the means and way through and by which they have the pardon of fin, peace with God, and mull: come to the actual injoyment of Salvation, ( which as the Seed of iuch Parents they were born Heirs unto) whuh are the Blood of. Chrift, as applved to them for the purging -away the guilt of fin, and the Spirit of Chrift, as gran- ted for the renovation of their natures. The Sacra- ments or Seals of the Covenant prefent to the eye what ffie Word prefents to the ear, and they are for the mutual illuftncion the one of the other. Now as this way, and thefe means arc considerable under different notions, fo they are fhadowed and reprefented by- different fymbois or figns. The Blood of Chrift, as purging away the guile of fin, was reprefented in Cir- cumfionas to be fhed h but it is reprefented in Bap- tifm as already (hzd, and applyed to the party bap-, tized. The body of fin was reptefented in Circum- cifion 3Jntak25apttfm vefauYft. 233 cifion under the notion of a fuperfluity to be amputed and cue off: Tis rcprefented in Baptifm under the notion of a defilement or pollution, which is removed by warning. But the ufe of the one and the other in general was and is the fame, namely to leprcfentto the mind that way, and thofe means, by and through which the foul hath remilfion of fin, peace with God, and is brought to future Salvation. Now Children, when they ate inffrucled about this way and thefe means, they may and ought to reflect upon their Baptifm, and fee how both are repiefcntcd and iliu- ftrated thereby, and by means thereof, they may come to more clear notions and conceptions of and about them, Inftruclions by figns are adapted to the capacities of Children, Indeed the Sacraments are ordained in a compliance with the weaknefsof Chri- ftians in general. But 2. Which follows upon this, by the confederation of their Baptifm they will be kept under a due fenfe of the indifpenfibie neceffity of the Application of the Blood of Chrift to them for their difebarge from the guilt of fin; and of the Spirit for their Regenerati- on and Renovation, in order to the continuing of their peace with God, and actual injoyment of future Salvation. And a threefold advantage will arife herefrom. 1. They will be put upon ferious enquiries, how it is withthemfeiver, whether they have the Blood of Chrilt fo applyed or no ? and whether they are fo wafht by Regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghoft, or no ? 2. How they may attain to the cne 2nd the other, and be quickned up co a diligent ufe of thofe means, and 2$4 Kttt 0Mmtttfce SDottrtne of and performance of thofe duties they are directed to, fubfenrient rhcreunco. 3. They will be kept from any attempts to efta- blifti a righteoufnefs of their own, on the one hand, and on the other from -prefumptuous confiding in Chrift without a real work of Regeneration and San- 6fcification. Baprifm prcacheth to all the way of pardon, peace with God, and future Salvation, eo be by wafhing ; by wafhing away the guilt of fin by the Blood of Chrift, and the filth of fin by Sancli- fication. And this indeed is the ufe and improvement that all Ghriftians fhould make of their Baptifm. But 3. They may and ought to improve their Baptifm to ingage, provoke, and ftir up themfelves to a clo- fure in with the Covenant, and ufe of all means con- ducing to their injoyment of the Grace and Bleflings of it. As this is a fpecial end of only be- fore I put a clofe to the whole, I (hall briefly touch upon one Queftion, which that I fhould fpeak fome- what unto feems neceflary. And that is, how long the Covenant-ftate of the Seed of Believers, and confe- quently their right to theSign andToken of theCove- nant, is continued to them as the Seed of fuch Parents ? When do the conditions of the Covenant become in - cumbent upon themfelves, (o as that upon their fai- lure in the performance of that their Covenant-ftate is forfeited? Pfal. 31. Here precious is thy Grace ? Pfal. 3d. So, God fo loved the World. TJie Love of Chnfl is faid to bepafi knowledge. And from the confederation of the unfearchabie riches of this Goodnefs, Grace and Love of God in Chrift, it may be concluded, at leaft comfortably hoped, that he hath not been very ftrait or rigid ( if I may (o fpeak ) with the Seed of his People , and conlequently hach not limited their (landing under the Covenant upon their Parents ac- count to the very firft inftant of their capability of any actual knowledge of lupernatural things, or ufe ofreafon. We may rationally fuppofe, he hath al- lowed them fome time to attain to fome diffinctt knowIedge,and to ufe their reafon in clofing in wicb,or rejecting the terms of the Covenant. And hence ic muft needs be exceeding ufeful for Parents to acquaint their Children betimes with the Nature of God, or if you will, which is all one, (though that expreffion hath been moil: unreafonably quarrelled ac by fome ) it muft needs be highly ufeful co Children to be well acquainted with,and inilrudted in and about the Pcr- fon of Chrift, into whofe hand the adminiftration of the Covenant is put. And here we have an inftance of the ufcfulnefs of acquaintance with the Perfon of Chrift, with reference to things more darkly revealed in the Scripcures. Ic is not exprefsly revealed juit when the performance of the condition of theCovenanc becomes -iadifpcnfibly neceffary to Children for the prefervation 3infMtk26apttfmtei)ti)U 237 prefervation of their Covenant-flate : but now the knowledge of Chrift, or of God in him, ashowun- fearchable rich in Goodnefs, Grace and Love he is, may much relieve both Parents and Children under thofe doubts and fears they are fubie6t to about the for- feiture of their Covenant-flate : They may conclude certainly God hath not been To rigid upon them, as to limit their (landing in it to fo fhortaome, as that the forfeiture of it fhall be little lefs than neceffary, or hardly in an ordinary way unavoidable. 2. It may be further confidered, that it may be reafonably iuppofed, that Gcd hath fo extended the Covenant to the Seed of his People, as that their ac- ceptation or rcfufal of it mould appear to Angels and Men juftly and rationally reward able or punifnable. This may be inferred from the juftice and. Wifdora of God, taken in conjunction with his ultimate end (viz* the Glorification of all his Attributes) in his dealings, efpecialiy in a Covenant. way with Man. Now this feems neceiTarily to require that fo much time fhould be allowed them, as fofar to underffand, and make a judgment of the Covenant, as containing fuch Promifes uponfuch terms, as that their acceptation or rejection fhould be free and voluntary, and net either a mereinforcement of their Parents on the one hand, or on the other not the mere product of Chii- difh wcaknefs and vanity. What may be objected againft this from God's punifhing Ofiginal fin in in- fants will receive a ready anfwer from the difference between their cafes, and rhecafes of the Infant- feed of Believers we now fpeak of. Bat 3. I would oficrac leaft as matter cf erquiry, whether the Covenant is or can be broken by the Seed of Believers any others ways, than it would be broken by i$ %ty $?fmitfte SDoctttne of by Believers themfelves, fuppofing it poflible for them to break it, which we grant, all things confidered, it is nor. Now it is not the bare fufpenfion of the due acting and exercife of Grace, no nor every commiffion of fin, no not of particular fins of a very heinous na- ture,that breaks the Covenant between God and them. One of thefe three things I conceive are neceffary thereunto. Either i. A Msn muft make a free and voluntary choice of fomc falfe God, and anfwerably freely and volun- tarily ingage in the worfriip and fervice of fuch a God. Or elfe 2. Muft make a free and voluntary choice of fome temporal good as his portion, and anfwerably fet that up in his heart and affections above God, and purfue it as his fupreme and chief good. Or elfe 3 . A Man muft with a free and full confent of will ingage in fome way of moral impieties, as defign- ing, if not explicitly, yec implicitly the utmoft of what happinefs he expects in this life in the graciflca* tion and fatisfadtion of the lulls of his * see Doftor 0Wn hcart# * i confefs thcfe things Preiton on , i- • i_ t thtcwnant. requ,re a larger explication, but I can but touch upon them in general at pre- fent : But until one or another of thefe things be done, the Covenant is not broken, nor the Covenant- rela- tion between God and them diflblved. Now I fliall not be po(icive, only propofe it as a matter of enqui- ry, whether the Covenant can be broken any other way by the Seed of Believers ? This we may obferve, that we have no inftance in Scripture of God's reject- ing any of the Seed of his People out of Covenant, but upon fome over: acl on their parts, evidently de- clariug their reje&ion of the Covenant one or the other 3mfant-2i5apnun tefonm 239 other of thofc ways mentioned, and that when grown up to a capacity of making a free and voluntary choice. Thofc two inftances of IJbmael and Efatt are remark- able, and may be ufeful for the guiding our judge- ments in this matter. The one, viz* Ifhmael evi- dently declares his rejection of the Covenant by per- fecting his brother Ifaac. The other, viz* Efau by felling his birth-right. Now we know both thefe were grown up to a capacity of making a free and volun- tary choice. 'Tistrue God may withdraw himfelf from fome, and leave them to fuch a rejection of the Covenant fooner than he doth others ; which may be a caution to all the Seed of Believers to take heed of deferring personally to take hold of the Covenant. But whether their Coven ant- ftatc be forfeited before fuch an actual rejection of the Covenant, may be qucftioned. 4. Let it be considered, that until Childrens re- jection of the Covenant one or another of the ways mentioned become apparent by fome overt ad on their parts , both their Parents and themfelvcs may com* fortably hope ( fuppofe they cannot pofitively con- clude ) the Covenant is not broken by them. While their omifllons or commiffions are only fuch as are in- cident to Saints, there is ground to hope the Cove- nant may ftand firm. And there is a double ground for fuch a hope. 1. A podibility or probability that the Covenant may yet be continued to them upon their Parents ac- count. This appears from the aforegoing confidera- tion. 2. There is a polTibility or probability that a feed of Grace may be wrouahr or implanted in the foul, though ic have no: exencd it felt many fenfible a£ts, but t4° icpe $?tmmw Doctrine df but hath been fupprefled and kept under by the vain workings of a cmldifh and youthfnl mind, and bud- dings forth of corruption. A feed of Grace may be> and often is fowenin the hearts of the Seed of Be- lievers in the very dawning of their Youth or Chil- hood, which yet difcovers not it felf for a long time after, at lead in any fenfible adb of Grace. And hence it is that (o many of the Seed of the Righteous can give no account of thctimeor means of their converfion. And it may be from this Seed of Grace* that the Soul, though it have not actually recognized the Covenant, nor explicitly clofedinwith God in Chrift, yet is preferved from rejecting the Cove- nant any of the ways mentioned. Now whilft iuch as are defended from believing Parents have any ra- i tional ground to hope that the Covenant between God and them is inviolate, they may take great incou- ragement from the consideration of it to clofe in with Chrift, and feek for renewing Grace. Yec f. Lee mc add one thing more, and that is this, While the Seed of Believers are kept from an abfblute rejection of the Covenant, though they may have a great while neglected to recognize it, and make an aclual favingclofe with Chrift, and anfwerably may not yet have a laving work of Grace wrought in them, there is ground of hope, they may yet abide for God, and God may abide for them., as the Prophet (peaks, Hof. 3. 3. And fuppofethe Covenant fhould be for- feited according to theexa£t terms of it, and God might have juitly taken the forfeiture, yet the con (i- deration of the Covenant as entred with them in their 'Infancy, as the Seed of fuch Parents, may be improved by them as a very great incouragement at iaft to take ^iold of the Covenant. God in fuch cafes is exceeding ready 3fofattk26apttfm um% 241 fready to renew hisCovenant with the Seed of his Peo- ple. This feems rn be one of the great incouragements that the Jews will have to return unto God, when he takes away the vail from off their hearts ; heboid Jay they, We come unto tbeerfor thou art the Lord our God> Jer. 3. 22. The words arenas an invitation from God to them to return, fo a Prophcfie of their anfwering that invitation in the latter age of the World. Now they will not be able to lay claim to an actual Cove- nant-relation between God and them, for chat Co- venant was long fince broken through their unbelief 5 but they have abode for God, and God hath ab de for them, and as having fo abode the one for the other, they call him their God, and incourage them- (elves by the confederation of the designation ( as I may fo (peak ) that God hath made of them for him- felf, and of himfelf to be a God and Husband unco them, giving them a kind of incomplete and remote intereft in him, to return to God. Thofe that God hath keptfbr himfelf, and for whom he abides, he will readily receive when they return to him: And this may greatly incourage Parents with reference to their Children as grown up j though they do not evi- dence any faving work of Grace, yet they are kept from one or another of the ways whereby the Cove- nant is broken 5 it may be they abide for God, and he abides for chem, he may keep them out of a defign yet at laft to marry them to himfelf. And as it may incourage Parents in their hopes concerning their Children, fo it may greatly incourage Children to* clofe in with Chrift, and thereby renew their Cove- nant with God. So that we may fee, though it can- not be properly determined how long the Covenant- intereft of Children is continued upon their Parents R account %4i%$t $iimitiU ^Doctrine of Account, yet that fhould be no prejudice to their taking the full incouragement to believe, andclofc in with Chrift, andfeek for, that Grace promifed to inable them thereunto , that their Covenant. itate hath an aptitude co yeeld to them. They may take all the incouragements afore declared that they have, though there be an uncertainty about the precife time when the condition of the Covenant devolves upon themfelves. To come then to a clofe > I fliali only fpeak a few words to the Children'of Believers, and let me fay to you, You now fee what a glorious date you are in asunder theCovenant,and interefted in the Pro- mifes thereof. Will.you now refufc fo great Salva- tion ? yea, will you not only refufe fo great Grace when offered, but rejeel: it when granted to you, by negleding to take hold of theCovenant already entred wich you. or feeking unto God for his Spirit, through whofe afSftance your duty will be made eafie and de- lightful to you ? and this not only when you are under the greatcft obligations to accept of Where do you think to (land at that day ? Were you to get into fuch an eftate, your incouragements would be kfs ; but it is only your continuance in that ftate that you are to fecurc. ' God hath ( as I may fo fpeak ) brought you again into Paradife, and will you again caft your felvesout? Surely of all Perfons in the World you will be lead able to relieve your felves 3tofattfc25aptifm tetJtti'D, 143 felves* under yourmifery, by pleading the necefiicy of your mine, that k was Adam the firit Parent of Mankind, that brought it upon you. You arc dif- charged from the guile you were under as in his loyns, you are actually received into the Covenant or Grace. The Law cannot contlemn you, 'tis only your re- jection of the new Covenant, and that when aitualiy entrcd with you that can be your condemnation. And if you fay we cannot chance our own natures i remember you are of that Houfeor Family to which the Promifes of faving Grace do appertain, yea you are in a peculiar and efpecial manner in fome refpeds above the reft of that Houfe or Family the Objeds of thefe PromifeSj and therefore know your own Mercies and Priviledges, and do not wilrully caft your felvcs out of fo glorious an ettate, nor deprive your felvcs ofiuch a glorious Inheritance, or Inheritance in glory you were born. Heirs unto. R % . POSTSCRIPT* 244 POSTSCRIPT. SO great and glorious are thofe ppiviledges, benefits and ad- vantages that have been afligned to the feed of Believers,. as received into the Covenant of Grace, and having the Covenant with the promifes appertaining to them ratified feal- ed and confirmed to them by the application of the token there- of, that it cannot be rationally expected that what hath been faid mould meet with a ready imbracement by confciencious Chriftians, while either the grounds of that their Covenant In- tereft and right to the token,or the neceffary redundancy of thefe pitiv Hedges benefits and advantages therefrom remain obfcure and inevident to them : As tor the neceffary redundancy of thefe privileges benefits and advantages from their Covenant-flare, taken in conjunction with the promifes appertaining to them, as the one and the other are ratified fealed and confirmed by the application of the token, I conceive that is fufjiciently evident from the foregoing difcourfe. I fhall add no more to that ; But it feems fomewhat neceffary that I fhould a little reflect upon both the grounds laid to their Covenant-Intereft, and the due- nefs of the application of the token to them on the account thereof (for the ellablilhment of which I have amongft others caff, m my mite in a Treatife fometime lince publifhed) which in the genei y are thefe two. Firft, the tenour of the Covenant it felf both in refpeft of the promiffory and preceptive part of it. Secondly, the practice of the Church and People of God throughout all ages in appropriating the Covenant with the promifes of it, and applying the token to their Infant-feed, no- tified to irs partly by -Scripture, and partly by Ecclefiaftical Hi- ftory ;' becaufe two late Authors have endeavoured to raife fome duft for the obicruing both of them, and hiding their evi - dence from perfons of 4efs peircing understandings and weaker Judgment: As for the one of them, •*/'*> Mr. Dangers $$ main •defign being only to hide the latter of thefe grounds, and that as the Aiiovvledg of it is conveyed to us by Eccleiiaftical Hiftory wl ich we itand not much upon, it being enough, if fo be it evi- dently appear from Scripture that the tenour of the Covenant be fuch as necefiarily infers the Infant-feed of Believers intereft #oftfctipt* 145 in it, and right to the token of it, and that anfwerably the pra- ctice of the Church and'Peopie of God, during the times Scrip- ture-records extend unto, was to appropriate the Covenant,and apply the token of it to their infant Seed. Hence I (hall add little beyond what I have elfewhere faid for the {battering of that duft raifed bythim, partly becaufe the main delign he hath feen meet to lay-out himfelf in purfuance of is but of an inferiour impor- tance,and more efpecially becaufe of the little-ground there is,to fear that what he has done in purfuance of his defign mould be muchregarded infuch an age of light as this is,theprac~t.ice of the Church being io generally among all learned Men known to be othcrwrfe than he endeavours to reprefent it $befides3his ownBook carries afufficienc Antidote againftany evil influence it might other wife have upon wife Men : and therefore Hhali immediate- ly come to the other, v/'.^, Mr. Hutch 7 fort ; I am more efpe- cially concerned in his attempts, which are to obfcure that foun- dation laid totheCovenant-intereftand Baptifm of the Infant- feed of Believers in the tenour of the Covenant it felt, in order whereunto he has made publick a fmall Treatife concerning the Covenant and Bapiifra , compofed Dialogue-wife between a Baptiit and an Anti-Pasdo-Bapdft, withfome Animadver lions upo» a late Piece put forth by my felf irranfwer to Mr. Dangers his Treatife of Baptifm. As for the Gentleman himfelf, I am an equal jtranger to him as to Mr. Danger s,wA .herefore can have no prejudice againit either of their Perfons, neither would 1 in the ieaftdifcourageor oppofe anv in any attempts to further the deciiion of this great Controverfie; why mould I grudge any the liberty that'my fejf have taken ? only I could wifh that the fe5 that conceive themfrh es under a call to appear either in the de- fence of what they conceive to be actc ing to truth, or againft - what they conceive to be oppoiite thereunto, would remember that exhortation of ' e to Timothy ', v/here he exhorts him :o mew himfelf a Vj/brkman that need not be amamed. ' Tis true, unavoidable failures will attend humane weaknefs and im- perfec~tion,whkh may juitly caufe fornewhat of.ihame • but,nor- withftanding- them, the defign and intendment of that exhorta- tion may be anfwered. Whether our Author have (hewed himfelr fuch a Workman will prefently appear • whether himfelf be fo free from Gall and Vinegar ( whkh.he fo vehemently impeaches his Oppcfites writings of) as becomes a reprover, I mail leave to the judgment, of others -y 'tis what lie hath written, not the manner of nis writing, that I (hall concern my felf about- Tt> begin with this Treatife of the Covenant j three things ly foob- R~ 3 vious 24s ^OftfCtipt vious in it, that to me ( how it may be to others I know not ) it is utterly ufelefs as to the defign carried on in it, which I ihall only remark, and leave it to every one to value and improve it as they fee caufe. The fit ft is the miftakes he proceeds upon, to give only a two-- fold inftance. Firft, He fuppofes, the only ground that can be laid to the Church-memberihip and Baptifm of Infants, is their relation to. Abraham as his Seed . Hence having, as he fuppores , proved that they can ftand in no fuch relation co him, he conceives he has utterly overthrown their Church-member ihip and Baptifm, thus Page], A. grofs miftake, we found their Church-mem- berfhip and Baptifm upon thetenour of the Covenant as made with Abrahams Seed in their Generation, that is, with them and their natural Children, but whether they are to have the denomination of, ancfare to be reckoned among Abraham's Seed, is another Queftion. And if it be faid Ob). But we do account them as Abrahams Seed, though we do not ground their Church-memberihip and Baptifm there- upon. Anfw. It's true we do fo j but then it will be faid, how can we avoid the abfurdities mentioned, Page the 5. Anfa. They are no other than what our Author himfe If fa- thers upon the Holy Ghott ( toufehis Phrafe ) in affirming fome Intents to be fayed without a peribnal Faith • for it may be thus argued > If none ate faved but fuch as believe, then no Infants can be faved 5 but the antecedent is true, Mar\^\6, He that believes /hall be faved : and if it be faid that's meant of the Adult • the fame fuppofed abfurdity will follow j for,accor- ding jto our Author, then Chrift muft be fuppofed to fay, he that believes and he that believes not ihall be faved. Let him avoid the abfurdity in the one, and we Ihall aHke avoid the abfurdity in the other. Another miftake tfyat he proceeds upon is, That at lcaft fome Pa?do-I3aptifts may a'feribe their Childrens interefl in the Cove- nant to Abraham's Faith, and confequently may plead that though their Children have no right to the Covenant by vei tue of their Parents taith^ yetthey may have a right to it by vcrtue of Abraham's ,• thus Page i 2 ^ and he fpends about ten Pages to confute this Plea that he fuppofes fome Pardo-B^ptilts may ' make : which is a mete miftake about his Oppofers Principles, or rather a mere imperinency ; for where hath he found in all .' fhe writings of Psedo-Baptifts fuch a Pica managed > and hence whereas $oftfcrtpt 247 whereas he fuppofes himfelf to have utterly overthrown the chie grounds laid by Pjedo-Baptifts to the Covenant-intereft and Baptifm of the Infant-feed of Believers, and thereupon tells as Page 11. he might end the matter there ; the truth is, he hath faid nothing at all to the purpofe, but proceeded merely upon miftakes ; neither the one nor the other of the grounds that he fuppofes Pa*do-Baptifts bottom their claim to the Covenant-in- tereft and Baptifm of their Infant-feed upon, is tlfe true ground they bottom that their claim upon 5 whence his difcourfe hi- therto hath been utterly impertinent, ofnoufe at all as to the end he defigns by it, Another thing rendring his whole difcourfe u(ck£s tome, is his affuming and taking rot granted without the leaft mew or proof what he knew, at leaft might have known, fc abfolutely denied by at leaft fome if not a considerable part of Paedo-Bap- tifts. I mall inftance in three things : Firft, That the Covenant entred with Abraham and hi? Seed in their Generation did extend to and take in all his Seed at leaft defcended by Ifaac and Jacob during their rlrft-Teftamenr,-ad- miniftrationj and that merely as his Seed •, upon this fuppofition he proceeds in a confiderable part of his Book 5 but now he knew, at leaft might have known, that this is abfolutely denied, and on the other hand it is affirmed, that Jacob, who was Abraham's grandchild, was not in Covenant merely as he was of Abra- hams Pofterity, but as he was the child of believing ifaac in- cluded with him in that Phrafe, thy Seed in their Generations . Secondly, He aflumes and takes for granted, that the Cove- nant of Grace is made with the Elect as fuch, and confequently that all the Eled and only they are in the Covenant of Grace ; hence he tells us Pagei%. that the Covenant or Promife of eternal Ilife ( which he calls ( and J blame him not for it ) the Covenant of Grace ) is only proper to the Elect. This he might have known would be denied '■> and it is on the contrary affirmed that no Covenant is actually made with any of the Elect as fuch. Thirdly, He affirms, and takes it for granted, that that Co- venant, called by the Apoftle the old Covenant, which was then vaniihing, is a Covenant made with Abraham, which he might have kno vn is denied, and that it i< affirmed, rhatthat Covenant fpoken of by the ApotUe, is that Covenant made with the People oilfrael at Mount Stna't ; and his affirming fo many things, and proceeding in a confiderable part of his Book upon a fuppofitioA of the truth of them, when they are all miftakes and unfoand R 4 fup^oU 24» $OMCtipK fuppofitions, his whole Difcourfe rauft needs be, if not wholly,1 yet in a great meafure ufelefs. Thirdly, That which yet further renders his Treatife altoge- ther ufelefs to me, is the great confufion attended with feverai abfurdities and contradictions that ft labours under : thus for his whole Difcourfe upon that of Gen, 17. 7, beginning Page 22; and reaching to Page 3 9. this confufion, with the abfurdities and contradidlions attending it, will appear, if we take notice of fome of his aflfcrtions, and compare them one with another, to- gether with whan they do, either as taken fingly or joyntIy,necef- farily infer and imply, thus : Firft, He positively affirms, that^the Covenant of Grace, and its Acminiftration, are two diitind Covenants, thus, Page'x$. and tells us tog e 93. that the Covenant of Circumcifion, which muft neceiTanly intend that Covenant which before he affirmed to be the Adminiflrationof the Covenant of Grace, may be called a Covenant of Works, and then a Covenant of Works may be the Adminiftration of the Covenant of Grace ; which, vvhtthcr rational and congruous, I {hall leave all Men to judge. Secondly, He cxprefsly affirms, that the Adminiftration of the Covenant of Grace under the New Teftameut is called the New Covenant 5 thus again, Page 23. where it is evident,he hath reference to Heb. 8. 8. and then all thofc Promifes there mentioned by tfre Apoftle* of God's putting his Law in the mind are not of the fubilance, only appertain to the Admi- niit ration oftiie Covenant of Grace. Thirdly, He affirnV, ^t leaft neceilirily implyes, that that grand Prctnife of the Covenant, wherein God promifes to be a God 1® Abraham and his Seed, as made to one, yea to ope ancj the fame Perfon,as confidered under one notion, appertains on- ' ly to the Adminiftration, but as made to another or to'the fame Perfon confidered under another notion, is of the offence and fubftance ofthe Covenant of Grace, thus Page 16- he tells us [/peaking of this very Promife ) that in it God promifedonly tQ Abrahams fleihl) Seed to be a God to them in giving them the Land of Canaan^ buttohisfpiritual Seed to be a God to them in giving unto them eternal Life ; and he takes ifaac to be the fubjeit ofthe Promife as taken both ways, and the promifes as made to Abrahams fleihly Seed 1 e calls the Covenant of Cir- cumcifion, which elfewhere he fays was but the Adminiftration ofthe Covenant, and may be called a Covenant of Works. And what confuhon an ^oftfctipt baptifed only the Adult, 'and they only fojcf they baptized the Adult : indeed they neither lay the one or the other., but the dii e& contrary j yet allow our Oppofers rhe utmort they can with the leait mew of reafon defire, it is only the latter that can be faid of them j And furely there is a greater difference between faying they hnd they baptized only rhe Aduit, and they onlv find theAdult were baptized,than is between two fix pences ana a milling-, hence no Man can excufe him of unfaithfulnefs ; but he will find at hit he hath given juft caUfe to his own Con- ference to accufehimfelf.For the other (w^)his impertinencies, and thus Mr. Hutchinfen pretends his vindication two ways. Firft, By way of Recrimination. Secondly, By acquitting his Book of that charge. For this latter I flull only refer the Reader to my Book, with the inftances there given. For the former, I have only this to fay: Whether that infUnce given by Mr. Hutchinfon will prove his charge; I mall not be Judge, but this may be faid, for ms to be guilty only of one impertinency (and but one is charged upon me, ) is no juft vindication of Mr. Darf\>*rs in the multitude I have charged upon him. And this I ihall add, that had I known all Mens hearts, as well as Mr. Hutch tnfon pretends to know mine, and liad feennofuchobjeclioB, as that fuppofed impertinency de- figns the obviating of, I had not been guilty of that one neither, but that fuch an objection may poffibiy enter into the minds of men Mr. Hutchtnfons Book abundantly confirms me,andthere- fore I (hall be fo far further impertinent, as to tell him, I' am yet mftatu * The fecond is the grofs miftakes Mr.- Hutchinfon proceeds upon j thus he miftakes my vcrydefign in this part of my Book, fuppofes me to be proving Infanc-Baptifm, when that is none of mv defign or bufinefs ; that he proceeds on this miftakc is evi, dent as from variety of Callages, fo eminently from thar Para- graph Page 21. beginning about line 1 8. fo alfo from Page 5?. upper end, hence what he animadverts with the greateft fhew of plaufability as concerning the baptizing of the Children of Un- believers, Bells i &c. Page i j. is wholly impertinent: Alas! how eafie to fhew, that that will not prove any Doctrine or Pra&ice, which was never designed for that end ? Again, as he miftakes my oefign and bufinefs, fo he miftakes about the ground I would have laid for Infant-Baptifm, had it been my work there to prove that Practice ; Hence he fuppofes that I take it forgrauted, that Infants were Chuch-members under the Law, Page zz. when I neither did, nor had any oc- casion to meddle with their Church-memberihip either under the Law, or under the Gofpel : Andheftill goes upon his mi- ftakes in his attempts to inew the repeal of that Priviledge, from Paul's preaching that the Gentiles ought not to ctrcumctfe their Children, he fuppofes that Circumcifion gave a right to* as well as the aftual pofleflion of Church-memberihip, and that we hold the command for Circumcifion did vertually include a command for Baptifm, both which are grofs miftakes. That which gave a right to Church-memberihip was the Covenant, and it is the command to keep the Covenant that obliges to fcaptifm : but Mr. Hutchmfon either cannot, or will not diltin- guifh between that command as more generally laid down, and reaching all Abraham % Seed, whether natural or myitical, and the command laid upon Abrahams Seed to obferve that fpeciai Rite of Circumcifion, as the Covenant, that is, the Token of the Covenant, then to be kept : and alaslwhat heed can be given to Men that proceed upon fuch grofs miltakes ? Thirdly, That which lies alike plain and obvious with both the foregoing parciculars is his overlooking what he ought to have taken notice or. Thus he wholly cvei Looks ail that" I had written in my former Treatifc designedly for tl e'proof of Infant- I3apdfm; and wl.e eumo I ofte.i refer in this my Anfwer ^though he z$i #oftfetipt be had feen it : So he takes no notice of what intimations I gave of offering fomething further to publike view ( which is now made publick ) concerning the Doctrine of the Cove- nant, as Infants are concerned therein ; and from his overlook- ing of both a confiderable part of his ^.nimadveriions are either wholly impertinent, as to me, or in anfwering a matter before he hath heard it 5 take for an inftance his hole Difcourfi: upon that Promife , Acts 2. 39. beginni: .(- 2nd ending Page 30. yea he overlooks what is written in tbisyery Book he animadverts upon. Hence Page ji.Jie calls tor a reconcilia- tion of our feeming contradictions, which had been needlefs, had he attended to what he might have found in Page 13, 14, IS of my Anfwer -, Hence again are thofe Queftions Page 30. about the Salvation of all in thehoufes of Believers, which afe anfwered at the 1 13th Page and fo on of my Anfwer ^ and Men. • will make but forty work in their Replyes to our Ammadverfi- ons upon any Book, when they overlook what their Antagonifts have written, or declare their intentions to write. Thirdly 3 My Anfwer confiils in a vindication of thofe grounds laid by Paedo-Baptifts for their Judgment and Practice. As to what Mr. Hutch'mpfn animadverts upon this part, I need fay little, h: feems to have beenhimfelf utterly at a lofs what to fay, yea he fcems to be in a kind of maze, witnefi that Ar- gument, ( the only Argument he lays down fyllogiitically in his Animadverflon ) Page 39. unlefs he be greatly abufedbythe Printers witnefs alio his crying out Ignoratte Eltechi, where no Argument was laid down by me ; yet once again witnefs his reaibnings Page 47. Hence he wholly pades over thefe fef eral Arguments I had occasionally laid down to prove the tenour of the Covenant to be fuch as infallibly infers the intereit of . the Seed of Believers in it, excepting only, that afterwards he Angles out here and there a pattage without due regard to the jr Contexts, and animadverts upon them at his pieafure, and himfelf becomes opponent, and pretends to determine three of * thofc four Queftions. I had faid the resolution of which were neceiTary, and fufficient for the difcovery of the grounds laid in the Covenant, as at fir ft eitabliitied with Abraham, for InfantrBaptifm, which he only does by a naked repetition of Mr. Dangers unproved dictates, with the addition of fomc b)fcdifcourfes which appertain not to the Queftions propofed, and yet hath the confidence to conclude Page 47. So then thefe things jpeing found mete miftakes on Mr. Whtftmj fide, we may conclude #oftfctipt in conclude they have no footing in the Covenant for Infant- Baptifm. Andalfo what docs he think of the Men^even of his own perfwafion ? can he think there is any of them fo weak, or fo far blinded, as not to fee the frjvoloufnefs of fueh Animad- versions ? But not to tire the Reader, only I mull beg Mr. Hutchtnlons patience a little longer, I have a few words to him andhave done. Firit, Sir, I allure you I have read, yea had read, long be- fore my Anfwer to Mr. Dangers fawthe light, that Exerci- tation of Doftor Owen, and in fpecial that part of it you refer me to, and can find nothing in that, or any other of his writings, as a cure ro that ignorance you fpeak of, ' I am at as great a lofs about thofe Promifes Mr. Dangers men-!- tions as I was before, and muft tell you, you greatly mif- take, and confcquently greatly wrong that learned and ju- dicious Author. How you and Mr. Daubers look upon your felves I know not, but certainly lfhould be juftly cenfured as a very unworthy Man, mould I wreft Authors words, who are yet alive, to countenance^ my own fentimeniS in a con- tradiction to their known practice, before I had confulted the Authors themfelves, and Known how they would reconcile -.their words and practice. Will you but read the whole Exerci- tation,and allow him the liberty that all writers, whether facred or humane, ufe,you will find he is vaitly more for me than for you \ He is only {hewing how God did preferve Abraham** natural Pofterityas grownup in avifibie ftanding under the Covenant till our Lord Chriit came, that the Promife made to him concerning the Mejfias coming of his loyns might be accpmplilhed, he meddles not with the cafe of Infants, but fup- pofeth them vifibly in Covenant as the Seed of Parents vifibly fo -} when will you leave thus to abufe Authors whofe names are precious in all the Churches of Chrifl > But Secondly, I have a few things to reccominend to your Con- fcience, and thefe are of two forts. Firfl, Such as concern my felf, thus Page 3. where you ufe the Poets words, fo Page 5. tine ie, XI. Page 26. //»«? the lait, Page 22. line 1, 1. with others of a like nature: can you prove what you have written ? if not, what will you call thefe things } Secondly, Such as concern matter of Facl : thus fee what you write Page 3. where do I fay Mr. Danyers Book is all forgery, or 2^4 ^OttlCttpt or leave that to the Readers obfervation?See alfo Page^Mnt %7 again fee what you write Page 34. three lait lines, and compare it with my Anfwer Page 39. and 40. will you or any Man elfe deny what I there take for granted ? Again fee what you write Page 7. line 24, 25. Is the filence of the Scripture, as abfolutely confidered,my beloved Argument,yea or any Argument at all ? I only enquire(and give myReafons for the affirmation J whether % fuppofing the Covenant was extended to the Seed of Believers under the firft Teftament, f which I judged I had formerly Ef- ficiently proved that it was, ) what may be truly faid of the fi- lenceofthe Scripture, (not whether the/ilence of the Scrip- tures as abfolutely taken ) concerning the Baptifm of Infants do not make it vaftly more probable that they ought, then that they ought not to be baptized • and that fuppofition being gran- ted, I judge I mall have but few gain-fayers. Yet again, fee what you write Page 50. tine 1,2. and compare it with my Anfwer, Page 117, u8, 119. and fee whether there is any fuch reafon given by me or no ; you may alfo reflect upon your l8thPage, and confidcr, whether what I fuppofe be a granting that the commifTion was given only with refpecl: to the Adult* Sir, I cannot think you can have fuch a value for vour Ani-' madvei fions as you fuppofe me to have for my Book, as for others I can hardly think there is any one learned Man of your own Perfwafion but will blum^to fee fuch Animadversions fly abroad from the pen of any of their party. Siry I have only one thing more, and that is to inireat you not to complain of immercitul dealing } will you fei ioufly review your Book ^ you will find I have dealt gently with you ; and that you may not fay I have wronged you, if you deflre it, and can procure the teftimony of any two learned Anti-Paedo-Baptifts that shey judge-your Book deferves, or can know that any two confeien- cious learned P^do-Baptifls judge it deferves a more full consi- deration, your defire ( if providence interpofe not 3 fhall be gratified. F I ■ N I St Some Boo^s Utely Printed for-, and fold hj Jonathan Rob'inf n at the Golden-Lion in St. Paul's Ch»rcft.Tard. THe Harmony of the DivineAttributes in contriving Man's Redemption by the Lord Jefus Chrift, &c. By jy. B tut M^S&ToSt!" thefecond Editi0"«^ **- XL Sermons on feveral occasions, preached at CamhrUee and elfwhere By the late Reverend and Learned jinthtn\ Tuckney D. D. in quarto. J Mr. r/W£. Gale's Anatomy of Infidejity. 0#rf>„ —Idea Theology tam Contemplate* tam A&el&c m 12&. Mr J-Fladoes, Quakerifm no Chriitiantty. 0aa\0 —.Vindication of the XXI Divines. A.G8*,eftfir CbrtfiMmtj, or an Account of two great Df fputes between the Anabaptitfs and the Quakers * . «^e-Ba|»ifmAflcrted and Vindicated by Scripture and An tiquity, C5?r. By o. w*& M. A/ ' F ^ An* More Proofs for Infant Church-Membermip,and om&aucnt ly their right to Baptifm,^. By R.Baxter Coni£cl^^- VsndtctA Vtndiciarum^ or Infant-Baptifm Re-aiTerteS;.rd0UbtingChr!flian',rarat0 Chrift- *TT.H»& The worthy Communicant.br a Treatife ihewin? th^ ^.^ ^ of receiving the Lord's Supper. By ?*,. nTi^lf °^1 a Sacramental Catcc^ifm,^. ^ fWf/^ mh The Barren Fig-tree, or the fruidefs Pro&ffoi-'sdoom. Bv John Bunyan, intwehes. ooin "/ inSdeimpr°Vedby Di™e^*18nS. By A', ju^j