A I\ v^ v\- # (^ 1 ." Ic £• '^ 1 - ^„^ 1^ ^ *-i Q. 1 xj •& » "o to ? ^ g c C O (30 *S5 E^ < . m g 1 \ g E 1 « -1 1 ^ M a *.^ . S ^ ^ rt CO .§ ^ J ^ fk w: i^ =^. ^ ! <<*^ 2 ! ^ ^ i ^» -a % 4^ ti> ^ ^ ^ d: ^ A SECOND INQUIRY, INTO THE NATURE AND DESIGN O F CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Intended as a Vindication and further Illujiration, of the Sentiments advanced in 2i former Inquiry^ on the fame fubjed. I Pastor of the first Church in Chatham. HARTFORD: I'rinted by HUDSON and GOODWIN. 1796, A SECOND INQUIRY, &c. SECTION I. Introductory and Preliminary ObfervaUons. THE inquiry, which refpedls the nature and de- fignof Baptifm, is, without doubt, an inquiry of great importance : and it is one upon which there has been a variety of opinions ; efpecially as infants are refpeded. There have been feveral publications already on the fubjed:. The defign of the following fedions is to purfue the inquiry, in its prefcnt ftage. It will, therefore, be neceflary to premife, that I have already publiftied an iaquiry on the fubjed, which was fuppofed to contain a fcheme of fentimcnts, confident with itfelf, and fupported by the facred fcriptures. The following is a fummary of the fcheme it contained. That circurncifion and con- fequently baptifm, comprehending adult and infant, are confidered, in the facred fcriptures, as a joint to- ken of the parenfs good coyenant-Ilanding— That the infants of believers are not to be confidered, eith- er as being per/onally in covenant, or as having any ■perfonal title to its blefTings — That the natural feed oi Abraham, as fuch, were not confidered as bemg per- fonally in covenant and entitled to its bleflings ;^ con- fequently were not the feed peculiarly refpeded in the covenant which God made with Abraham ; for the promife " is fure to all the feed'' — That, on the con- trarv, the feed refpeded, in the covenant, was ^/pi- ritual feed ; or believers, w hether defcendants from Abraham or not — That infant circumcifion, there- fore, as the infant w^as refpefted, could not fignify any thing more, than its dedieation to God ; which dedication was abfolutely neceflary, to complete the good covenant-ftanding of the parent. Whence it was inferred, that infants did not become perfonal and dijlin6l members of the church, by being the fubjefts of circumcifion ; and do not now become fuch, in confequence of their baptifm — ^I'hat the dif- cipline to be exercifed, which refpeds baptized chil- dren muft, of confequence, be through the medium of the parents — ^That in this view of the ordinance, parents muft be holden by the moft folemn bonds to be faithful in the education of their dedicated chil- dren : and children muft be fenfible, of the import- ance of their repenting and believing, as their falva- tion muft depend on perfonal exercifes. Arguments were offered, to fupport the various parts of the fcheme. Since the publication of the above mentioned in- quiry, another inquiry on the fame fubjeft has been laid before the public, with a defign of correcting miftakes, contain'-d in the former ; and to eftablifh a different fcheme of fentiments, refpedling the ordi- nance in queftion.* But, after a candid and ferious attention to what is advanced in the latter inquiry, if is believed, that the fcheme it contains, is founded on miftaken apprehenfions of the covenant, which God eftablifhed with Abraham and other believers j * See Doftor West's inquiry into the ground and import of infant baptifm. and, that the fcheme contained m the former is ca- pable of a fcrlptuial defence. T^E defign of the following fedions is, to purfue the inquiry, in this ftage of it. Hoping that fome progrefs may be made, in bringing it to a fatisfaclory iffue.* ''-.-^ It -will be neceflary, in this place, to give a fum- mary of the fcheme advanced in the laft mentioned inquiry. It is laid, that although dedication be im- plied, in the circumcifion and baptifm of infants, yet the ordinance has a more important import, than barely to indicate dedication ; and, that parents, who dedicate them, do keep covenant — That it alfo im- ports, that fuch children are peculiarly refpefted and comprehended in the covenant, which God makes with beheving parents, as the feed which fliall inherit the promifes. — That, as God promifed Abraham, that he would maintain a church among his pofterity, fo there is a transfer of the fame promife to gentile believers, refpefting their natural i'^ed — That the promife contains a fecurity of gracious qualifications, to be handed down from parent to child, to the re- motefl generations. Hence, it is faid, that baptifm i3 a token and confirmation, that the children of believ- ers are refpecled, as the feed regarded in the covenant, as well as parents. Yea, it is fuppofed, that baptifm has the fame import, as the infant: is refpedtcd, as it has refpecling an adult ; for it is confidered, as an objeftion to my inquir*', that according to the * Doctor West, in hir. inquiry, avoided the mcntien of any name, that every thing perfonal mijjht be kept out of view. His ex- ample would have been followed in this, had it been pradicable, and the reader have been under advantages to judge, v.hether that candor and fairnefs are ufed, which ought to attend all 'ir-quirics after truth. Neceflity will oblige xnc to make frequent iffcr.t'nccs to the Doiftor's inquiry; and where references are made, tp particular p?ges, and no name is mentioned, it may be underftood to ft^er to the Dodor's. — My defign is, to purfue the inquiry, keeping every thing perfonal, as farasispoflihle, out of view. It is ardently wilhed, that the inquiry could be purfncd, without any appearance of a public controverfy ; but it isfo circumftanccd, that it isimpofTibleto avoid every appcar- ' anceofit. Yet it is hoped, that the greateft candor will be excrcifcd ; and, that the feelings of no one will be unnccefiarily wounded. fcheme contained in it,baptifm " was of an import per- fedly different, when applied to the child, from that which it was of, when applied to the^ parent." p. 33. It is acknowledged, however, that it is elfe. where faid, that no promifes are fealed to infants in baptifm ; that " the children of believers are pofleif- cd ©f no other rights than the children of unbeliev-- crs'* p. 108 ; and herein, it is apprehended, there is a continual inconfiftency in the fcheme. This is a fummary of the fcheme advanced in the laft menti- tion inquiry. But to give a more full view of it, it may be ne- ceflary further to obferve, that the promife in which it is fuppofed the children of believers are compre- hended, and which contains a fecurity of their faith and holinefs, and intereft in the blelTmgs of the cov- enant, is a conditional promife — ^That the condition of the promife is parental faithfulnefs. It cannot be de- termined precifely, what degree of faithfulnefs is re- quifitc ; vet it lies, fomewhere between total negled and abfolute perfedion. But then, faithfulijefs in educating children is confidered as the condition of the promife, and the only fecurity of the bleffings of the covenant to children. Again ; it is no where pretended, that God, in the covenant he eftablifhes with believers, refpefting their feed, in ^ny way fecurcs the requifitc faithful- nefs in parents. Although it is afferted, that in cafe parents are faithful, to a certain degree, the holinefs and falvation of their children will be fecured by it ; yet it is no where pretended, that God, by any cov- enant, hath fecured to parents, requiftte iraee to ren- der them faithful, any more than he hath fecured to children, repentance and faith, without fuch faithful- nefs in parents. Doctor Hopkins, who is quoted with approbation, exprefsly fays, that although God has, in his gracious covenant, fecured all that grace to believing parents, which is requifitc to their per- fevcrance in holinefs, and fo to fecurc their own fal- vation, yet, " there is no promlfe in this covenant, " that if they do, with a degree of fmcerity, give up " their children to God, and profefs all thofe exerci« " (es, and promife to perform all that duty towards " them, which are implied in bringing them up for " God, that they fliall certainly do all this ; but they " may be very deficient and unfaithful in this coVe- " nant, as it refpecls their children, and bring a curfg " upon them, rather than the bleffings promifed in the " covenant." * If it be, indeed, the cafe, that paren- tal faithfulnefs is the condition of the promife, and, that there is no covenant fecurity of fuch faithfulnefs, it muft follow as a confequence, that the covenant contains, no greater fecurity, of the holinefs and fal- vation, of the children of believers, and fo of their intcreil in the bleffings of the covenant, than is con- tained in the general tender of thofe bleffings, on the condition of perfonal repentance and faith ; for the faithfulnefs of parents, as well as the repentance and faith of children, depends on the unpromifcd inter- pofition of divine grace. God may give to parents, that grace which is requifite to render them faithful, and he may give to children that grace which is re- quifite to their repentance and faith ; but he has en- gaged neither, by any covenant ; — in either cafe, it would be equally an unpromifed favour. It ap- pears, therefore, that the whole fcheme, as it is foun- ded on the idea, that the covenant contains fome fe- curity of the bleffings of the covenant, to the chil- dren of believers, is founded on miftake ; for the fup- pofed condition of fuch bleffings, is parental faithful- nefs ; but of that faithfulnefs, there is no tjreater fe- curity in the covenant, than there is of faith to chil- dren, and to all men under the gofpel, in the general tender of falvation, on the condition of faith and re- pentance. In the one cafe, the tender contains no fe- curity of faith. In the other cafe, the covenant con- tains HO fecurity of parental faithfulnefs. It amounts "■ Slc DG(f^or Hopkins's Syft^im, Vol. c. p. 346. o47- 8 to no more than a gracious tender of bkflings* But it was not defigned, in this place, to proceed any further, than barely to ftate the fcheme. From the reprefentations which have been given, the difference between the fchemes held forth in the inquiries is this (viz.) The former fuppoles, that the infants of believejs are in no proper fenfe in cove- nant — have no title to its bleflings, nor any cove- nant fecurity of them. Confequently, that they are not to be baptized with any fuch idea in view. But baptifin is to be adminiftered, to denote the parents full compliance with the covenant, by dedicating his feed to God ; and dedication only is fignified refpect- ing the child. § The latter icheme fuppofes, that the children of believers are fo comprehended in the covenant, which God makes with believing parents, as that there is a fecurity of the bleffings of the covenant to them ; and fo they are to be baptized in token of their being the feed refpeded in the promife who Ihall inherit its bleffrngs. Having given a particular view of the prefent ilage and circumftances of the inquiry, I fhall now proceed to fee whether the fcheme of baptifm advan- ced in my former inquiry is not fupported by the ^ The word dedication, as ufcd in this and my former inquiry, in- volves la it, obligations on parents to exert all their abilities, to train up children for the fervice of God. Yet, it is fuppofcd, p. 88. that if fuch obligations were implied in the dedication of children, that parents would feel as if they were relieved by the fcheme, and would not have that fenfe of obligation, which accompanies a belief of the doftrine, that the falvalion of their children is abfolutely connedled, with their faithful exertions. *' Where nothing i? depending, we feci no obligation" &c. But, is it the cafe that chriftians are chiefly in- fluenced by felfilh and intercftcd confideratiisns ? And, do chrifiians conclude, that if their own falvation or the falvation of their children be not abfoluttly fecured by any ftippofcd exertions, that they are under no obligations to exert themfi-lvcs ? Befides, although dedica« tion only be fiRnified in baptifm, may not faithful parental exertions be greatly fubfervient to th' falvation of children ; and an inftitutcd means ot fo important an event ? Parents may have no reafon to ex- ped the falvation of their children if they are negligent ; and at the fame time have no abfylute promift of their falvation if they arc faith- ful. facred fcriplures ; and, v/hether the latter fcheme is jiot founded in mifapprehenfion and miflake. Before this feftion is clofed, it may be proper to make a few preliminary obfervations. ' I. The covenant which God made with Abraham was, fubftantially, the covenant of grace. This, it is apprehended, was fufficiently proved in my formep in- quiry. It has not, in the progrefs of the inquiry, been called in queftion. 2. The decifion of the inquiry,'refpei5ling the na- ture and defign of infant baptifm, depends, on the meaning of the tevm/eeci, in the covenant which God made with Abraham. It is faid " If the promife implied ncthiug more, than that the Lord would be a. God to all ivbo Jhould believe, in every age and nation, and that all fuch Ihould be reckoned to Abraham as his feed, it will, then be manifeft , that infant circuracifion was a feal of no promife of bleflings on the child,*' p. 119. The meaning of the term feed then, will fettle the inquiry refpeding the import of infant baptifm. If it can be made evident, that the feed comprehended believers only, it is granted that the idea advanced in my in- quiry is fupported. And if it be true, as is conced- ed, that " Abraham was taught, that his children mufl be the childern of promife — oi faith ; in order to be that feed who were to heir the bleffings promifed to Abraham^' p. 24 ; — and if it be " Unquellionably true, that the proraifes in their true fpirit, implied that none fhould be heirs of eternal good, but through Chrift, and by virtue of union to him,** as is aflerted p. 25. I fay, thefe conceffions being made, one would conclude, that none but believers were comprehend- ed in the term feed. But fuch a conclufion, it is faid does not follow ; " for fuch a general conftru(5lion of the promife might leave it uncertain, whether there ever would be any believers," p. 25. In anfwer, it may be obferved, that if, the fecurity of a fucceflion of believers depended on God's covenant traiifa with Abraham, the conclufion is juft, but it fhould be remembered, that the covenant of redemption fecures the exiilence of believers, or of a church — that Chrift fhall " fee of his feed,'' the travel of his foul and be fatisfied. But, all which is infifted on in this place is, that by determining the meaning of the termy?^^ the import and meaning of infant baptifm may be de- termxined. 3. By the feed, mentioned in the promife which God made to i\.braham is meant thofe, who have a/ure title to the blefiings contained in the promife. The term feed points out thofe, who have a title to the promifes. The apoflle Paul tcaehes us to con- clude, that the promife is ^''fure to all the feed.''' Rom. ii. 16. Therefore, if it were the cafe, that the natural feed of Abraham, fimply as fuch, had a fure title to the blefiings of the covenant, they were refpec- ted as the feed, but not otherwife. To fay they were the feed aiid yet that they had not a fure title to the promifes, is to fay, contrary to what the apoftle teaches, that the promife is not made fure to all the- feed. Hence, 4. If it can be determined what thai is, which conneds with the promifes, it can be determined, who are comprehended in the termfeed. If being natural defcendants from Abraham did give a fure title to the promifes, then it may be de- termined, that all the natural offspring of Abraham, and no other individual, does belong to the feed. But if being Ye2.\beliey(^rs is that which characlerizes the feed, then believers only are comprehended in the term. But, if over and above being believers,, it were neceffary, to having a fure title to the promi- fes, that perfons were alfo natural defcendants from Abraham, then the feed muft confill of the believing pofterity of Abraham, and all others of every de- nomination, whether believers or unbelievers, mufl be excluded. But, if it be the cafe, that a.ll true be- lievers, whether they be Jews or Geniiksyhave a fure title to the promifes, then the feed comprehends be- lievers of all nations, and no other perfons. 5. If it were the cafe, that any nation or body of men were diftinguifhed, as the body, out of which, Cod had even engaged to collect thofe, who fhould, through faith, inherit the promifes, yet that would not denominate the individuals of fuch a nation -or people, the ked. If it were the cafe, that God had promifed Abra- ham, that he would fupply his Church with members, from his natural offspring, by raifmg up from among them, a fufficient number of believers, yet it could not be faid, that Abrr-ham's natural offspring were jefpedled as the feed, in any feafe which concerns the prefent inquiry. It might with equal propriety be laid, that all Gentiles where the gofpel comes are ref- pefted as the feed, becaufe God has now engaged to maintain his Church, from Gentile nations, in dif- tinftion from the pofterity of Abraham. Yea it might, with the fame propriety be faid, that all man- kind are refpefted as the feed given to Chriil, for Chrifl*s feed is to be collected from among men. The prefent inquiry, concerns t/jat only which dif- tinguiflies the real feed from other men — To fay that men are refpefted as the feed, or any body of men, becaufe the feed is to be collected from men or a par- ticular nation, gives no diftinguilhing charaderiftic of the feed, which the covenant or promife ref- peds. 6. Being in <:ovenanl:, or having a title to the promifes, and fo belonging to the feed refpefted in them, implies that the conditions of the covenant are fulfilled. God can be under no promifTary obligations to beftow the bleffings of the covenant, except on the condition exprefied in the covenant. It is faid, " All covenants contain certain conditions ; and no one hath any right or claim to the blciTmgs promifed in thQ covenant, otherwife than upon a compliance with li the conditions of it." p. 90. Again, " We no where find any covenant fubfilling betwixt God and any par- ticular perfon, which proniifeth the blefling of the fa- Your and friendfhip of God, otherwife than on the perfennance oi certain conditions, on the part of the perfon with whom it is eflablifhed." p. 90. 91. A title to" the promifes, therefore, implies, that the con- ditions of the covenant are performed or fulfilled. Confequently the feed confifts of fuch and only of fuch, who have performed, or complied with the conditions of the covenant. Infants, therefore, can- not be confidered, as the feed refpefted in the cove- nant, on account of their connexion with believing parents ; for " the condition on which parents may expert bleffings to defcend to their children, is a prop- er dedication of them to God, and bringing them up . in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." p. 97. This condition of theblefTmgs of the covenant cannot be fulfilled, refpeding infants, while in infancy ; and more than that, there is no fecurity of a performance of thofe conditions ; for there is no fecurity of grace to parents, to render them fo faithful in the educa- tion of fuch children, as is requifite to fecure the blef- fings of the covenant for them. 7. If it can be determined, with certainty, that circumcifion was adminiftered, according to divine ap- pointment, to fuch children as had no title to the bleflings of the covenant, more than what belongs to the children of heathen parents or infidels, it is cer- tain, that in fuch inftances, it could not fignify any covenant title, and that it mufl have a very different import, as fuch children were refpe6ted, from what it had when adminiftered to an adult believer. As an adult beheveris refpeded, it is faid, to be "^ God's feal of the fiibjects title to eternal life.'' But the fame thing cannot be fignified, concerning fuch as have no perfmal title to the bleffmgs of the cove- nant : for in fuch a cafe, it would be God's feal to an acknowledged falfliood. Yet, it is acknowledged, that circumcifed and l?aptized infants have, no per- 13 fonal right, to the blefTings of the covenant. — ^That the promifes arc wholly betwixt God and parents. — That children are wholly paffive ; and, that till fuch times as they are regenerated by the grace of God, they have no other rights than the children of unbelievers, p. 107, 108. If what is here conced- ed be true, it miift be certain, that infant circumcifion and infant baptifm were never defigned to be adnjin- iftered, in token of any title,which fuch children have, to the bleHings of the covenant ; becaufe it is ac- knowledged they have no title. And it will alfo fol- low, that circumcifion and baptifm, as infants are ref- ped:ed, cannot import the fame thing, as when an a- dult believer is rcfpeded ; for the adult believer has a real title to the promifes ; but it is acknowledged, that infants of believers have no rights, until they become perfonal believers. 8. It will only be remarked fmther, that in de- termining the import and defign of pofitive inflitu- tions, we mull be determined by the inftitutions themfelves. There is, in this cafe, very little room for ingeni- ous conjectures, and arguments derived from the na- ture of things. It is impoffible to determine, from the reafon and nature of things, why circumcifion, as a token of the covenant, was preferred to every other polTible fign. But, infinite wifdom was pleaf- ed, to fingle that out from ail other tokens. — ^Perhaps, reafoning from analogy has been too far fubftituted for a dired appeal to divine inftilution, in determin- ing the import and defign of circumcifion ; particu- larly, in fedion iv, p. ^t, — 64. Reasoning is, doubtlefs, necelTary, in determin- ing what inftitutions are ; particularly, when we rea- fon from faQ:s which are clearly revealed ; but we are not warranted in concluding, that certain things do belong to inch inftitutions, becaufe they may ap- pear to us, asreafonable and important, as many oth- er things, v/hich do evidently form a part of divine inftitutions. 14 SECTION ir.t Jfihc main things advanced, in oppofttion to the fcheme contained in my inquiry, were true., they would not militate againjl it^ fg far as the deftgn of infant cir- mmcifwn or of infant baptifm is refpeded* IT was my defign, in a former inquiry on this fub- jed, to fhew, that under preceding difpenfation?, infants were not to be circumcifed, nor under the pre- fent difpenfation to be baptized, under the notion of their having any perfonal titles to the bleffings of the covenant ; either preceding, or in confequence of their circunicifion or baptifm.— That, whatever coV- enant fubfifts between God and parents, it is between them only ; and their children have no titles to the bleffings llipulated in it. Should it be conceded, that there is a covenant exifling between God and believing parents, refpefting their children, as exten- ^uX^Jve as that which is ^le^ for, it would not follow, that infants are in covenant, or have any claims to a fmgle bleffing. This is amply conceded. It is faid, p. io8. That the proniifes are made wholly to pa- rents. And, p. lo;, it is granted, that '' All the promifes of the covenant as it re/peels the i7f ant feed ef believers, are made to the parent, he alone can have £iny right or authority to plead them." As to the in- fant, it is admitted, that it hath no claims or cove- nant rights, any more than the child of an unbeliev- er. And in infant baptifm, it is faid, that " Ns pro- mifes were fealed to us'* p. io8. And, when fpeakfng of what takes place in baptifm, refpeding the infant baptized, it is faid, " Nor doth this give us any more " right when we come to adult age, to be confidcred, " received and treated as chriHiayis ; and as being " ourfelves in covenant with G^^,than if we never had " been baptized," (p. 108.) It is, therefore, fully ^needed, that children of believers are not in cove- nant, and are not to be baptized, in token of any per- ibnal title, which they can have to the blefiings of the covenant, as is held forth in my inquiry ; jiotwith- iianding the fuppofed covenant, which exifls, be- tween God and believers,- refpecling their children. Ifitwere admitted, therefore, that there is as exten- five a covenant exifting, asis pretended, yet the bap- tifm of infants could not be defigned, as a token of their perfonal title to covenant bleffings ; becaufe they have no fuch title as is exprcfsly granted. Which is the very principle advanced in my former inquiry. Again ; a brief attention to the nature of the fup- pofed promifes, which refpect the natural feed of be- lievers, will make it evident, that they contain noth-^ ing, which will conclude any thing, againil the fcheme advanced in my inquiry ; any more than if the condition of all the promifes were, the repentance and faith of children. It is faid, there is a condition- al promife, that the children of believers fhall^fhare in the bleffings of the covenant. The con4ition, it is faid, is their being cordially dedicated to ''God, and faithfully educated by their parents. It may alfo be faid, that there is a promife, that all children, with- out diftinclion, on the condition of perfonal faith, ihall be faved. The 'former covenant gives no abfo- lute fecurity of i\i& faithfiilnefs of parents, and the latter gives no fecurity of the perfonal faiib of chil- dren. They neither of them amount to any thing- more, than a tender of falvation. In both cafes, it depends on the uncovenanted grace and mercy of God, whether children will everfkare in the blefiings of the covenant. God can as eafily perfuade chil- dren to believe, as perfuade partnts to be faithful ; and the one is equally fecured with the other. In fhort there is no fecurity in either cafe. The fup- pofed promife makes no advances, in introducing children into covenant, beyond what are made in the general tender ofthegofpel. As Doctor Hopkins ohferves, the promife provides no grace to render pa- i6 rents faithful, in the fenfe of the promife ; — they may bring a curfe upon their children, rather than a blef- fing. So notwithflanding the promife of falvation, on the condition oi per fonal faith, children may, thro* unbelief, bring a curfe upon themfelves, rather than the bleffings which are tendered- Were it true, that God had fecured to believers, that grace which is requifite to their being faithful, in the covenant he eftabhflies with them, there would then be a connexion between being the children of believers and falvation, according to the fuppofed promife ; although it would not conflitute any per- ibnal title, refpedting the infant. But no fuch grace is fecured, by any covenant whatever. The implead- ed promife, therefore, lays no other foundation for adminillering baptifra to infants, on account of their being refpefted as heirs of the covenant, than for ad- miniftering it to all infants, under the gofpel, bccaufe they are refpecled in the covenant which God reveals in it. There is no fecurity, either in the fuppofed promife, or rather tender which God makes to be- lievers, refpefling their offspring, or in the tender of falvation, on the condition of perfonal faith, that fuch children will ever fhare in the bleiTmgs of the covenant. In both cafes, children are dependent on uncovenanted grace and mercy. It hence appears,that the extraordinary relation of the children of believers to the covenant, on account of the impleaded promife, which is fo much infilled on, is altogether ideal. Were it true, that there was fuch a promife, it would not introduce the children of believers into any perfonal covenant (landing, as is fully conceded ; and fo v*ould not militate, in the leafl, againfl the principal idea infifled on, in my In- quiry. And, if it be the cafe, that God has promifed to parents^ the falvation of their children, on the con- dition of parental faithfulnefs, but has not given any fecurity of their faithfulnefs, it amounts to no more '7 than a bare tender of falvation ; fuch as is made to all men and all children, under gofpd light.- It is condantlyfuppofed, that on account of the promife, nov/ under confideration, God has peculiar- ly diftinguifhed the children of believers, and admit- ted them into fome peculiar relation to himfelf ; in confequence of which, they are to be baptized, in to- ken of their fpecial relation to the covenant. It -is true, if there be fuch a promife, that God is tender- ing the falvation of children to believing parents,' on the condition of the faithfuinefs of fuch parents, in- flead of the perfonal faith of childi en,— 'the covenant condition of the gofpel tender. 'But then, it is eqtial- ly true, that fpecial grace is as requifite to render pa- rents faithful, as it is to produce faith in childreii % and fuch requifite grace, is, in neither cafe, fccured by any covenant. The truth then is, that in both cafes, children are at the difpofal of the uncovenant- ed mercy of God — That, in neither cafe, is there any fecurity of the falvation of fuch children. But, the promife, at beft, does not introduce the children of believers into any perfonal covenant ftanding — They have no promifes made to them, ei- ther before, or in confequence of baptifm, as is fully acknowledged. Whether there be any fuch prom- ifes as the impleaded one, will be confidered in its proper place. — All that is now infilled on is, that if there were fuch a promife, it would not militate a- gainlf the main principle advanced in my former In- quiry. This, I trull, appears, with fufficient clear- nefs, from the obfervations which have been made. i8 SECTION lit. The promifes contained in or annexed to the gracious covenant, which God ejlablijhed with Abraham, eonjidered and explained, THAT the covenant, which God difpenfed to A- braham was, radically and eflentially, the cov- enant of grace, is believed, by all pedo-baptifls. It will, however, be admitted, that there were fome things, which are to be confidered as stppendages, an- nexed to that difpenfation of the covenant. It may well be fuppofcd, that every difpenfation of that im- portant covenant, will be attended with different reg- ulations, fuited to the age of the world and flate of the Church, at the time of its introduction. Such peculiarities are not to be confidered, as ejfmtial p^LTt^ of the covenant, but as appendages, which become neceflary, on account of the flate and circumflances of the Church. Of this nature, it is fuppofed thofe promifes were, which God made to Abraham, of be- ing " a father of many nations," and of kings com- ing from his loins ; — Of the " land of Canaan for aneverlafting poffeflion ;^* and, of being the progen- itor of the MefTiah. Of this nature, were the inflitu- tions of facrifices, &c. under the Mofaic difpenfation^ It is univcrfally believed, that thofe promifes and in- fUtutions were peculiarities of thofe difpenfations of the covenant oi grace ; and were fuited to the age and circumflances of the church, during their con- tinuance. As particular inflitutions and promifes are varied, according to the different circumflances of the church, confequently, in every different dif- penfation of the covenant of grace, it is to be exped- ed, there will be annexed different appendages ; al- though the ejfential bleffmgs of the covenant will be the fame, through every difpenfation. Hkncb it becomes evident, that it cannot be con- *9 eluded, that every particular promife, which Was an- nexed to the difpenfation of the covenant, in the time ^ of Abraham or Mofes, is alfo annexed to the difpen- fation of the covenant, under the gofpel ; or that there are certainly the fame particular inftitutions. It is not fuppofed/ by any, that the promifes made to Abraham, that he ihould be fruitful,— that his feed ihould inherit Canaan ; — or, that the inftitution of facrifices, in the time of Mofes, do exift under the prefent difpenfation. And there are obvious reafons for their not being continued, arifmg from the differ- ent ftate, age and circumftances of the Church.* Thofe extra or noneffential promifes may be varied, under different difpenfations of the fame covenant, and the covenant itfelf be the fame, under every dif- penfation. Thus, under the gofpel difpenfation, no promifes are made to believers, of an earthly Canaan, — of being the progenitors of a faviour ; yet, the cov- enant difpenfed is the fame, with that difpenfed to A- braham. Varying circumftantial promifes and infti- tutions, although it may vary the difpenfation of the covenant, yet it does not alter the covenant itfelf As thofe promifes which God made to Abraham, of his being fruitful, — of his being the progenitor of a * It may be thought, by iome, that the foregoing obfervations do dejlroyot ^jjeaken tht ufual argument in favour of infant baptifrn, ■which isdcrived from the inftitution of circumcifion, under prececd- ing difpenfations. — But, it is apprehended, that they do not, i« the leaft affed it. T4ier« are the moft indubitable proofs of an inftitu- tion, under th-e gofpel, which is of the fame nature with circum- cifion under preceedingdifpetiiatioiis ; namely, t)aptifn:i. The oniy •queftionto be determined is, whetiver infants are the p roper fubjejdis of it ? As much may be prefumed in favour of their beiuj fuch, on the principles which have been advanced, as on any other. Infants were the fubjeifts of the fame ordicancc, orof-oiie of like import, un- der former difpenfations. And although circmnciiion is aboliihed, andbaptifm isinftituted in its place, yet there is not the kaft intima- tion of any alteration refpeAing thefubjecfts. There is, therefore, fuf- ficientreafon to believe, that infants are the fubje(5ts of baptiim, a? they w-ereof-circumcilion. It is incumbent on Antipedobaptifts, to advance pofitive evidence of the abolition of the antient precepts, whic h con ftitutcd infants the fubjeds of a fimilar ordinance, before they object a want of precept. But, as much may be prefumed on -the above obfervationa, in favour of infant baptifm, as on any other. ao Saviour, — of inheriling the earthly Canaan, and of having a church maintakiedin his family in particu- lar^, dp not efientially belong to the covenant of grace, fo it cannot be certainly concluded, that any of them fxiil, under the prefent difpenfation, becaufe they 4id exiil under the preceeding. .From this view of thofe extra promifes, which ^veremade to Abraham, it was thought unnecelfary, to enter into a particular conhderation of them, in my former inquiry. As it was evident, that Abra- ham's natural offspring were not perfonally entitled, to the efTential bleffings of the covenant, it was con- cluded, that they were not circumcifed in token of any fuch title, or as being the feed. And, that fince the covenant was wholly between God and the pa- rent, fo circumcifion, as a token of the covenant, did wholly refped the parent. However, it is fmce faid, that the natural feed of Abraham were fo refpeded in the covenant, "vvhich God made with him, particu- larly, of fupporting a church in his family, as that infants w^ere properly confidered as the feed. Al- though being Abraham's natural feed " did not make them as- the feed to whom the Lord would be a God." — A promife of the fame import, it is furthei faid, is transferred or continued to Geiilile believers j and confequently their children are to be baptized, in token of the refpecl paid them in the covenant, as the children of believers were circumeifed, under the former difpenfations. It is necelfary, therefore, to enter into a p : ;icu- lar confideration of the promifes which God made to Abraham, in the difpenfation of his gracious cov- enant to him 5 recorded in Gen. xvii. 1—8. Those promifes, in which Abraham's natural ofi- fpring were refpeded, may be comprehended in the following things. I. That Abraham fhould be exceedingly fruitful, and be a father of many nation?. 2. That Abraham's poflerity fliould poflefs the land of Canaan, for an everlafting poiTeffion. This promife of Canaan, however did not refped all the poderity of Abraham. The promife only imparted, that fome of Abraham's pofterity (more or fewer of them,as Godin his fovere^gnty fliould determine)fl"iouId poilefs that land ; and at the time he fliould appoint. Accordingly, feveral generations were entirely walled before any of Abraham's pofterity entered upon Ca- naan, as a fulfilment of this piomife. 3. Another promife, which God made to Abra- hara,was,that a Saviourihould proceed from his loins. It is to be remarked, again, that this promife, al- though it was to have its accomplifliment, in the pof- terity of Abraham ; yet it never was defigned to ref- pecl ^Abraham's pofterity, in every line and direclion. There was a particular line from Abraham, in which the promife was to be accompli flied ; in purfuing which line, much the greateft part of Abrr;hum's pofterity would be excluded. It, in the beginning, refpe<3:ed, Ifaac, in diftindion from Jjkmacl ; then 'Jacobs in diftindfion from Efau. 4. THER.E was a promife made to Abraham, of a church, to be kept up in his fam.ily, until Chrift, the promifed {tzc^, fliould come. This promife, however, did not exclude believers, of other nations, from the church, as appears from Exodus, XX. 48, 49. But then, there wis no nation particularly refpeded in this promife, except that which proceeded from the loins of Abraham'. This is the proniife refpecled, where it is faid, that the promife which Gsd made to Abraham " fecured the exiftence and continuance of real religion — a true church in his family and pofterity." p. 76. — It is alfo urged, that this promife is continued or transferred to Gentile believers and their ofi^spring. So that there is the fame fecurity of the maintainance of a church, among the defcendants of Gentile believers. 22 as there was, formerly, of the maintalnance of a church in Abraham's family. It is neceffary, therefore, particularly to confider this promife, and to endeavour to afcertain its defign and import. The following obfervatipns may fub- ferve fuch a purpofe. 1. The promife was made to Abraham, and wa« not transferred to any one after Abraham. The good, which is the fubjeft matter of the prom- ife, was promifed, as a reward of Abraham's faithful- nefs. And although Abraham's poflerity were ref- pefted, as the body in which it fhould be accom- plifhed, yet Abraham's fucceflbrs could not plead the promife, as made to them, in the fenfe in which it was made to Abraham. The promife might ever after be pled, as made to Abraham. Hence it is obferva- ble, that the Jews, in every age, treated it and pled it as a promife made to their father Abraham, 'in dif- tindion from themfelves. When God beftowed pe- culiar bleffings upon the Jews, it was common to ac- knowledge them, as a fulfilment of the promife, which God made to Abraham ; — becaufe he remem- bered the covenant, which he had made, and the oath which he had fworn to him. All the diftinguifhing favours, which God beftowed on that people, were ever confidered,bythe pious Jews, as the teftimonials of the love and refpeft, which God bore to Abraham, in diftindion from themfelves. 2. The promife under confideration, of continuing a church in the family of Abraham, was not an ejfcn- iial part of the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace, in its nature, no more confirms its blefhngs to Abraham's natural pofterity, than to any other nation. Originally, it would have been no more inconfiftent with the covenant of grace, to have limited the tender, and a£lual beftowment of its bleflings, to any other nation or family, than to Abraham's. Thelc obfcrvations, it is prefumed, will not be controverted. And, it is equally true, that 2 'I Abraham might htve enjoyed the effential bleflings of the covenant, if God had made him no promife, of fupportiiig a church among his defcendants.— Such a promife therefore, was but an extra-proinife — an ap- pendage to the covenant of grace. In fuch a fenfe this promife was confidered by Prefident Edwards.* Chrift, the Son, had a promife from the father, that he (hould " fee his feed" &c. but that promife, al- though it feemed a church, did not confine it to A- braham*s family. 3. The promife, under confideration, although it was to meet with a fulfihnent in Abraham's natural cifspring, yet had no refpecb, and was never defigned to be extended, to W/ the branches of his family. IsHMAEL, Esau and their pofterity, were never rc- fpeftedin thofe promifes, which God made to Abra- ham ; either of inheriting Canaan — of being the pro- genitors of Chrift, or of conftituting the church. This is clear from fad, as well as fcripture declara- tions. This promife, therefore, did not refpe edge of himfelf and of his defigns. It 'is true, it wa's^ in the compafs of God's power, to have trained up al? nations, in the fame way ; but this mull have fo filled' #ie world with miracles, as to deftroy their ufe 5 f6r they mult then have been fo frequent, that they would have been ranked among the common laws of na- ture. And befides, the way was not prepared for fuch extenfive operations. It was necefl'arv, there- fore, that a particular people or nation Hiould be fep- arated, and by figns and wonders trained up, to the knowledge and acknowledgement of the one true God, until Chrift fhould appear. Ar.d Abraham and his pofterity were fclecfed for that purpofe, as a re- ward of Abraham's peculiar faithfulnefs. And, as it was neceffary, that one nation Ihould be felecfed from all other nations, fo it was neceffary, that this people Should be kept diflind from the heathen na- tions, that they might not be corrupted by their vices. Hence it became neceffary, that a country iliould be peculiarly devoted to them. On this was grounded, ihe promife of the land of Canaan, for an inheritance j- and the ancient inhabitants of that good land were driven out. As the MeiTiah was to proceed from A- braham's loins, fo that nation was, from the nature of th^ cafe, pointed o^jt, as the people to be prepared for ihe renfation was firft introduced. Ever fince that timq, God has withhoiden fuch gracious influences, as wer^? aecefiary, to fupport a Church among Abraham's natural poflerity. — The covenants and promifes art removed from them : and they are given over to coa- ilrmed unbelief. They are become a race of vaga^^ bonds in the earth ; and there remains no traces, oJt their ever having been a favourite people. They are a curie, an aftonifiiment and a bye-word among all the nations of the earth. But it is faid, the promife under confideration i§ not terminated j for, although it does not operate re- fpeding Abraham's natural poflerity, yet it is trans- ferred to Gentile beHevers and their natural pofleri- ty — The Gentile Church is grafted into the fame o- live tree, &c. On which it may be obferved, thati ought to be remembered, that the promife under con- .fideration is one, which refpe6ts the natural poJUrity of Abraham, in diftindion from other pofterities. If '■^ promife of like import be made to Gentile believ- CY5 and their poflerity, it cannot appear from a proiiv 32 ife made to Abraham, refpecling his pofterlty, in dil- tin^lion from others. A promife of like import, re- fpefting believing Gentiles and their feed, muft be a- nother promife and appear, if it appear at all,- from fome other declaration than that, which was made to Abraham. Furthermore, although It be the cafe, that the Gentile Church is grafted into the fame flock and partakes, with the Jewifh Church, of the root and fatnefs of the olive-tree, yet it cannot be inferred from thence, that there is the fame promife, refpefting their natural offspring, as there was refpeding that of A- braham ; for the Gentile Church may partake of the root and fatnefs of the olive-tree, or of the great and cifential bleflings of that covenant, on which both the Jewifh and Gentile Churches w«r€ founded, without the promife under confideration ; which promife is but an appendage of that covenant. But this will be more particularly confidered, before this fection is clofed. * Should it be further faid, as an objection to the extinftion or termination of the promife made to A- braham, of the maintainance of a Church in his fam- ily, that, although the promife is, at prefent, fufpen- ded in its operation, and the Jews, Abraham's natu- ral defcendants are in a ftate of rejection, yet they will one day be reflored, and the promife again operate refpeding them. The anfwer is, that although the calling in of the Jews is a certain event, yet they will never be fo cal- led in, as to take the place, in which they were put, by this promife. This promife gave them a pre-em- .intnce over, and diitinguifhed them from all the Gen- tile nations. But when they fhall be again called in- to a Church-flate, they will only enjoy a place in Chriil's Church, in common with the Gentiles j— they will be only fellow-heirs with them. Besides, there now is and has been a total fufpen- fion of the promife, as Abraham's natural feed arc 33 rcfpected, for almofl two thoufand years. And it makes no material difference, whether thofe two thou- fand years were immediately preceding the end of time, or in an intermediate fpace. And, if the prom- ife may be fufpended two thoufand years, it may be forever fufpended. The promife is, at prefent. ex- tind ; and it will never be revived, fo as to make that diftin£tion between Abraham's family and other na- tions, which it was originally defigned to make, and which did in fad: exiil, antecedent to the introdudion of the gofpel difpenfation. It is evident, therefore, from fa6t, that the promife in queftion was local and temporary, becaufe it has, in reality, long fmce ceaf- €d in its operation. 5. That the promife made to Abraham, of the maintainance of a Church in his family, was tempo- rary and a peculiarity of preceding difpenfations, fur- ther appears, from the ancient prophecies, and the declarations made in the gofpel, importing that the Gentiles, at large are introduced, under the gofpel difpenfation, into the fame place, refpeding the Church, in which the natural feed of Abraham were placed, by the promife in queftion. Should this appear to be really the cafe, it would unqueftionably follow, that the promife, now under confideration, was temporary, and a peculiarity of former difpenfations. It is faid, that this promife is transferred over to Gentile believers and their feed ; but there is no intimation of it in the promife, as made to Abraham, more than of a transfer of the promife of the earthly Canaan. Gentile believers have an undoubted title to all the effential bleffings of the covenant ; but they certainly have not to every ex- tra-promife, which was made to Abraham. That the promife now under confideration was peculiar to the former difpenfation, and that nothing fimilar to it now exifts is evident, as all the promifes relative to a Church, do now refpe^ the Gentiles, at E 34 large : and not Gentile believers and their offspring, in particular. There is, at this time, full and ample fecurity of a Church, in a promife made to Chrifl:, by the Father, and in a promife made to the Church by Chrift. And there are promifes and declarations, that the Church fhall be fupplied from the Gentile world, as it formerly had been, from the poflerity of Abraham. Thefe obfervations are evident, from ma- ny things contained in the prophecies. In the fol- lowing pafTages, the Gentiles at large are contrafted to the natural feed of Abraham, where the Church in 2;ofpel times is refpefted. " Behold my fervant ivhom I uphold, mine ele6i in -whom my foul delighteth ; I have put my fpirit upon him, he Jhall bring forth judg- 7nent unto the Gentiles." Ifaiah, xlii. i. And verfe 6, '* / the Lord have called thee in righteoufnefs and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee ; and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light to the Gentiles.*' And chap. xlix. 6. ••' // is a light thing, that thoujhould- eft be my fervant, to raife up the tribes of Jacob, and io refiore the prefervcd o/'Hrael ; / will alfo give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayefi be my fal- vation to the end of the earth." In the fucceeding part of the fame chapter, the. Church is reprefented, as being in a very low and dif- confolateflate, on account of the rejection of the Jews. More efpecially, becaufe the Jews had been the nation, from which fhe has always expected a fuccelTion of members. The Church is reprefented, as complain- ing in all the bitternefs of a tender mother, when de- prived of her children. " The Lord hathforfaken me and my Lord hath forgditen ?;.'?." The prophet then^ aduiiniRers comfort to her, by alluring her, that fhe- fliould be abund'.mtly fupplied from the Gentile world, as ilie had been, antecedently, from the natural feed; of Abraham. Verfe 22» " 'Thus faith the Lord God^ Behold I, -will lift up 7ny hand to the Gentiles, and ft my ^ftandard to the people, a^id they Jhall bring thyfons in their arms and thy daughters Jhall be carried upon 35 their JJjoulders.'* Verfe 23. Kings JJj all be thy nurf- iug father s^^c. In chapter, liv. 3, the prophet, after callmg upon the Church to rejoice, fays, " Fcr thouJhaJt break forth m the right hand and on the left, and thy feed jhall in- herit the Gentiles, and make the defolate cities to be in- habited.** Here it is obfervable, that the Gentiles at large are fpoken of, as that body of people, to which the Church fliould look. Not to Gentile believers and their natural feed, in particular.-^— Hence the prophet, chap. Ixv. i, and onward, when fpeaking of the calUng in of the Gentiles and reje£l:ion of the Jews, calls the latter, the Jews, " A rebellious people which walketh in a ivay which is not good,*' — ^The Gen- tiles are defcribed as -^pcople^ not as the natural feed of believers. " 1 am fought of them that afked not for me ; / am found of them thai fought me not. Ifaid^ behold me, behold me unto a nation that was not called by my name.'* Thefe paffages moft evidently teach, that after the rejeclion of the natural feed 'of Abra-^ ham, the Gentiles at large are to be confidered, as the body from which the Church lliould coiled itg members ; as fhe had antecedently colie(B:ed them from the Jews. Many other pafl'ages, in the proph- ets, teach the fame truth, which it is unneGefTary par- ticularly to mention.. ^ ..'.• .."j'?i I-N the New Teftament, there are the fame fejsre* fentations. As in Afts xiii. 46, when the Jews, en- raged with malice and envy, fpake againft the pfeichr ing of Paul and Barnabas, it is faid, " Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold and faid, it was neceflary, thqt the word of God (liould firft have been fpoken unto you, but feeing ye put it from you, and judge your- ielves unworthy of everlafling life, Lo, lue turn to the Gentiles.'* Here the Gemiies colleftively are men- tioned, as the people which, in future, fhould be re- garded by God, in his difpenfations, as the Jews, A- braham's natural oifspring had been regarded, in time part. Our Savior, in feveral parables, foretold the re^ jeftion of the Jews; and, that the Gentiles at large, or colleftively, fhould fucceed them, as the people, from which the Church fhould be fupplied with mem- bers. This is obfervable in the parables of the few- er — of the hufbandrean, &c. The apoftles, with great conflancy, inculcated the feme idea. Peter, when fent for by Cornelius the Gentile, after hearing the things which God had done for him, faid, ^^ Of a truth I perceive^ that God is no refpe£l:er of perfons, but in every nation, />^r^«^ or which is done by him, brings the infant into fuch a relation to the covenant and to the church, as inverts the child with any right or title to the privileges of tlic church, or the bleffings of the covenant of grace.'* In the next page it is faid, that fuch children as are baptized, have no other rights than the children of unbelievers, *till God is mercifully pleafed to bellow converting grace upon them. It is inconceivable, therefore, that being cut efffrom his people, fliould refpecl the child, when, if it had been circumcifed, it would have had no right or claims to the privileges of the church. In my former inquiry, the cafe of Mofes' negleft- ing to circumcife his fon and what followed in eonfe- quence of it, was fuppofed to afford decifive evidence, that the breach of covenant, in fuch a cafe, does ref- pecl the parent. In that cafe, the whole cenfure fell" on Mofes ; for God fought to kill him ; but no threatnings were denounced againfl the child. If the breach of covenant, in fuch a cafe, were the child's, it is inyflcrious, that Mofes fliould be fo high- ly cenfured, and yet there be not the leafl intimation of blame, refpccling the child.~-It ie faid, p. 30^ That Mofes' fon was alfo involved in evil confequenc€S ; — he muff have been feparated from the people of God, excluded from eating of the paffovcr, &c. But as has 49 been already obferved, it is difficult to conceive, how he could have been cut off from thofe privileges, when if he had been circumcifed, he would have had no other rights than the child of an unbeHever. — Thus much is certain, that if any evil confequences did follow the neglect of Mofes, refpeding his child, there is no intimation of it, in the whole hiilory given of the tranfadion, in facred writ. It is certain the whole neglect was the negletSl of the parent, and that he alone was blamed. This is the cafe, in every in- ftanceof fuch anomilfion. No negligence or crimi- nal exercifcs are ever chargeable on the infant. The blame is wholly the parents. On the whole, from the view which has now been taken, of the cnly expreffions in the whole relation of the iranfaftions between God and Abraham, which are pretended to determine decifively, that Abraham's natural feed, were fo refpeded in the covenant God made with him, as to denominate them the feed, and to introduce them into a covenant relation to God. Is it not evident, that no fuch thing is held forth ? Each of the alledged paffages, is perfectly confident with the fentiments advanced in my inquiry ; yea, when attended to, in connexion with the preceding decla- rations, afford a direft proof and fupport of them. SECTION V. Other things which have been advanced to Jhow^ that Abraham* s natural feed were the feed refpeded, in the covenant which God made with Abrahamy con- fidered. IF it were true, that Abraham's natural feed were refpeded in the covenant, which God made with Abraham, in the fenfe in which it is pretended they G 50 are, yet, nothing would follow as a confequence, which would determine the inquiry relative to the true feed. Abrahani*s natural feed may h^refpeSledy as far as it is pretended they are and yetjnot belong to tne feed ; for, " being children of the flcfh, did not mark them as the feed. Mankind may be faid to be the feed refpeBed^ in the promife made to Chrift, that he Aould " fee his feed," &c. but being men did not conftitute, or mark any, as belonging to that feed. This will be readily admitted in this cafe ; and it is true, that the natural {^.^di of Abraham were the {t&dt in the fame fenfe and in no other, in the promifes made to Abraham. But, faying that Abraham^s feed were refpeded in this fenfe, makes no advances in charafterizing the true feed, who fhall inherit the promifes. And the flrefs which is laid on it, as fo very capital a confideration, rather tends to confound, than to help the inquiry, refpeding the real and true, feed. It may, however, help to a right apprehenfion of the antient difpenfations of God, to attend to the va- rious things which have been advanced to fliow, that there was a fpecial refpeft paid to Abraham's natu- ral feed. It is a general obfervation, that " If it be true that the promifes of that covenant, (meaning the A- brahamic covenant) of which circumcifion was the feal, refpefted the natural feed of Abraham ; it niufl be evident, that the promifes of the fame covenant with believers, refped their natural feed. p. 6^. — If by the promifes of the covenant be meant, the prom- ifes of the eflentialblellings of the covenant, the af- fertion may be admitted \ for the covenant is unalter- able, in that fenfe of it. Yet, it is not true, that the covenant in that fenfe of it, does refpect Abraham's natural feed, in any fuch way as to entitle any one, fimply as one of Abraham's natural feed, to one of its eifential blelHngs. If what is meant is, that the lame promifes are made, refpe^ting the natural feed of 51 Gentile believers, as were made, refpe£ling the natu- ral feed of Abraham, it is by no means true. Al- though God promifed Abraham that his natural feed fhouid be very numerous — fhouid bring forth a Sav- iour — fliould poflefs Canaan, &c. yet no fuch prom- ifes are made to Gentile believers, refpecting their pofterity. And, although God promifed Abraham, that he would fupport a Church among his natural offspring, yet it appears, from what has been already obferved, that no fuch promife is made to Gentile believers, concerning their offspring. The promife now refpeds Gentile nations, in diflindion frdm the Jews, the pofterity of Abraham. — But, although the promifes, which God makes to Gentile believers may not be ih^ fame, in every refped, with the promife s which he inade to Abraham, concerning his natural offspring; yet it may anfwer fome important purpo- fes, to attend to fome of the things, which have been advanced to fhow, that Abraham's natural feed were refpefted, as the feed mentioned in the promife, which God made to him, of being his God and the God of his feed. It has been faid, "It is manifefl: that the promife to Abraham of the land of Canaan refpeded his nat- ural feed. And it is equally clear, that God promif- ed to Abraham to be the God of his natural feed, as to give them that good land." p. 66. It is further faid that " Had th^it parental duty^ which was in-pli- ed in the practice of infant-circumcifwn. and connec- ted with it, been faithfully and punclually performed j and, yet, the land of Canaan not given to the chil- dren of Abraham, it might with reafon, for ought we can fee, be objeded, that God had (uffeied his faithfulnefs ro fail. p. 68. Again, it is further faid, p. 70. " If the Deity were bound, in covenant faith- fulnefs, to give the land of Canaan for a poiisllion to thenaturaloffspringof Abraham, on condition that infant-circumcifion was pradlifed and thofe parental . duties conneded with it faithfully -performed in every fuccefTive generation ; He was, alfo, equally bound, in covenant faithfulnefs, on the fame condition, to be the God of the fame natural offspring." And, it is further faid,,that, " If the Deity were bound, by promife to Abraham, — to beftow the land of Canaan upon his pofterity for a poflefiion ; the fame covenant and promife fecured the exiftence and continuance of real religion, — a true church in his family and pofterity.'* p. "jG. In reply to what is here urged, it may be obferved, that every thing contained in thofe promifes may be admitted, and yet nothing would follow in favour of Abraham's offspring being refpecled as the feed to whom the Lord would be a God ; or in any fenfe help the inquiry relative to the true fced.-tr-If God did promife Abraham, that his natural feed fhould inherit Canaan — ^That a Church fhould be maintain- ed among them ; and Abraham were faithful in keep- ing covenant with God, it is doubtlefs true, that if God had not given Canaan as a poffeffion to Abra- ham's pofterity, and had not kept up a Church a- mong them, he would not have been faithful to ful- fil his promife. — But then, what would follow as a confequence, which would determine any thing of importance, in the prefent inquiry ? Would it f ollowj that Abraham's natural offspring, as fuch, u>ere the feed to whom the Lord would be a God ? What was the import of the promife ? Was it, that God would bring «// Abraham's natural pofterity into Canaan r That he would keep up a church, which fliould em- brace all his natural pofterity ? Certainly, this was not defigned in the promife. Several generations were wafted, before one of that pofterity entered on that good land. The pofterity of Iftimael and of Efau never did inherit it. What was defigned in the promife was, that Canaan fhould be poffeffed by A- braham's pofterity ; not by all his pofterity ; but the inhabitants fhould confift of his pofterity ; — and, that « church fhould be kept up among them. Not that 5$ all his pofterity fhould be the fubjeci:« of thofe gra- dous quahfications, whicl I were reqiiifite to qualify ihem, as members of th e church ; but, that fuch qualifications fliould be bc-flowcd upon a fufHcient number. What the numl'er was to be, and who the individuals fhould be, which fnould compofe it, was left to the fovereign deternsination of God. The promife had the fame refpe^t^ to Abraham's naturai poderity, that the promife m-ade to Chrift, of a htd, had to mankind. Although the Father did promife Chrifb a feed, and that this feed Ihould confifl oi ??ien ; and although the Father would not have been faith- ful, if he had not given ?;ic?i to Chriil as a feed ; and although the promife implied, the fupport of religion among men ; yet would it be any diftinguifhing charaderidic, of the feed, refpe«.^ed in the promife to Chrifl, to fay, they were men ? i^t would be juil fuch a dcfcription of Chrifl's feed, as is given of the feed refpecl'ed in the promife to Abrah;im, when it is faid, Abraham's natural feed was the feed relpeded in the promife. For the promife only reipected Abra.ham's natural offspring, as the people out of whom the feed, who fbould inherit Canaan.&c. fliould b e col- leoured proofs, that Abra- ham's natural feed was the kcd refpe6ted in the promife made to him, are of no confequence ; for it is admitted they were refpe(5led, in the fenfe in which it is pretended they were j yet, not in fuch a fenfe as gives any diftingulfliing, markof the particular feed, which the inquiry refpcfts. It conveys a plaufible ibund, but conveys no more diftinct ideas concerning the feed, who fnall inherit the promifes, than faying men are refpecled as tbe leed given to Chrift, dillind- iy defcribes the feed which were given to him. Another argument to Ihow, that Abraham's nat- ural pofterity were refpe£ted as the feed, mentioned in the promife to Abraham, is derived from the ex- preflions of the Apoftle Paul, Rom. ix. 4. In which the apoftle, when fpeaking ©f the Jews the natural pofterity of Abraham, fays, " To whom pertaineth^ the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the laiv 2ind the promifes." It is faid, that " the terra adoption, as it is invariably ufed, by this apoftle, implies, the polfeftion of that Ji/ial Jpirit, whichi diftinguifties the faints, and entitles to all the gracious promifes of the gofpel, in their fuUeft ex- tent." p. 10, II. In anfwer to what is here faid, it may be obferved, that if adoption in that text muft be underftood, as a diftinguifhing mark of the feed, and is to be confid- ered, as implying " the poiTeflion of that filial fpirit, which diftinguilhes the faints," kc. then it compre- hended believers only ; and fo believers only were -refpefted as the feed. Besides, it may be inquired, whether the Jews were, as a people, adopted in fuch an high fenfe ? They certainly were not confidered, as adopted in fuch a fenfe, as implied that they were real faints ? If 55 •the word adoption rauft be confidercd. In the fcnfe mentioned^bove, there is no warrant for applying it to the Jews, confidered, merely, as the pofterity of Abraham. That the apoftle does apply thofe expreflions, to Abraham's pofterity, is undoubted ; and that there was a propriety in his doing it is manifeft ; without fuppofmg, that Abraham's natural pofterity were refpedlcd as the feed, in any fuch fenfe, as will help us to diftinguilh the true feed, to whom the Lord will be a God. — It is granted, God did promife Abraham, that he w^oald maintain a church, for a feafon, among his poflerity, in diftinclion from other nations. That is, that he would collect from them, a feed, which fhould Inherit the promifes. God entered upon the execution of that defign. Abraham's pojflerity was, in this fenfe, adopted, in diftlndion from the Gen- tiles ; yet, that promife did not diftinguidi any indi- vidual, as one who Ihould inherit the promife, of ha- ving the Lord for his God. But God defigned to feparate from them a feed» to whom he would be a God. As this was God's defign, the adoption ■diViA the promifes did refpedil them, in fuch a general fenfe. So it was proper, that the giving of the law and all the fpecial means of grace fhould be reflrlcled to them. The natural pofterity of Abraham might juftly be feid as a nation and people, to be adopted^ to have the law and the promifes ; for as God had fpecial defigns refpeccing them, even fuch defigns as required, that the law and the profiiifes fliould be exhibited, particu- larly to them, fo the promifes. Sec. might, with pro- priety, be faid to pertain to them» And yet, they were not. on that account, the feed to whom the Lord will be a God, any more than mankind are the feed given to Chrift, becauie they are adopted, as a body, in diftinCtion from devils, and have the meanti of falvation reitricled to them. Thefe obfervation* are fupportpd, by what the apoftle obferves, In the words which JPollow the expreiiions under confidcra- tion. The apoftle who Is the beft interpreter of his own expreffions, openly declares, he would not be underftood to fay, that the natural feed of Abraham were to be confidered, as the feed which fhould in- herit the promifes. " Neither, fays he, becaiife they are the feed cf Abraham are they all children ; hut in Ifaacjhall thy feed he called. That is, They which are the children of the flefh,//'^ are not the children of God.'* Verfe 7, 8. Nothing can be inferred, there- fore, from the expreffions under confideration, in fa- vour of Abraham's natural feed being the feed ref- pefted in the promife, in any fenfe, which concerns the prefent inquiry ; as thofe expreffions do not im- ply, that Abraham's natural offspring did conftitute the ked, to whom the Lord will be a God. It is further fdd, that it is evident Abraham's nat- ural pofterity were peculiarly refpecled, as the feed mentioned in the promife to Abraham, from the ob- jedion which the Jews make to their rejedion, and the apoflles anfwer. Rom. iii. i ; and Rom. xi. i, 2. The Jews objeft, that their rejedtion would not con- fifl with the truth and faithfulnefs of God —That it would not confifl with the promifes he had made concerning that nation. The objedion goes on the ground, that there was a particular refpeci to them in the promifes. p. 12, 13. And it is faid, that the apoflle " gives an anfwer, which fuppofeth, that the _promife had, indeed a particular refpeft to the natu- ral feed of the father of the faithful." p. 13. It might be fufficient, to remove the apparent force of this argument, to fay, that the natural feed of A- braham were diftinguiflied by the promife made to Abraham, as the feed out of whom the true feed, who fliould inherit the promifes was to be collected ; but not as being the true feed, confidered fimply, as Abraham's natural feed. This is a granted point ; tor it is acknowledged, p. 14, 15, that, " T hey which '* are the children of the flefh thefe are not the chil- " dren of God, but the children of the promife are SI *' counted for the feed— The import of this leafon- *' ing is, that the promife did not imply, that the " Lord would be a God to the feed of Abraham " merely becaufe they were his natural aff spring ; " but over and above this, they muil be the children «' of promife.-— It is, on all hands, conceded that " there is no promife, that the Lord will be a Gotl " to any but believers." It is, therefore, exprefsly acknowledged, that the promife did not refpeO: the natural feed of Abraham, in any fuch fenfe, as gave them any intereft in the Lord as their God, only, as being believers. Besides; whatever that refpecl was, which was paid to the Jews, the apoflle is clear in it, that it was not fuch an one, as conftituted them the feed ; but that it was their being believers. This is clear from the apoftle's reafoning, contained in Rom. xi. chap- ter. He there teaches the Jews, that their unbelief was the ground of their rejedion — -That no promife Hood in the way of their rejcdion, in cafe of unbelief — That their being the natural ofispring of Abraham, was not the leaft objedion to their being rejected. The promifes, therefore, muft refpecl them in the character of believers, and in no other chira61:er. Confidered as unbehevers, God was under no greater obligations to them, on account of the promife he made to Abraham, to be their God, than he was to the poflerity of Ham. The refpeft which God had to them, merely as natural defcendants from Abra- ham, was, in itlelf, not the lead objection to their re- jedion. The obfervatlons which have been made, in reply to the preceding arguments, may ferve as a reply to feveral other things which are confidered, as favour- ing the pofition, that Abraham's natural offspring were refpedled as the feed, mentioned in the promife. On the whole, it appears, from what has been faid, that if It were conceded, that -Abraham's natural feed H 58 hada refpeftpaid them, as the people, from whom the true feed were to be collefted ; yet, it would give no diftinguifiiing charaderillic of the feed, to whom the Lord will be a God. SECTION VI. In which it is inquired, whether there now is or e-ver was^ any covenant or promife, which ahfolutely con- ne6ts the piety of children , with the piety and faith- fid exertions of parents. THAT there is a promife, which fecures the faith and falvation of children, on the condition of parental faithfulnefs, is elfential to the fcheme of bap. tifm, which is advanced, in oppofition to that contain- ed in my former inquiry. If it were admitted, that there was a promife of that nature, and qualified as that is, I trull it appears, from what has been already advanced, that it would not afford a fufficient fupport of the fcheme of baptifm, founded on it, nor militate againft the fcheme I have advanced. Neverthelefs, ifit canbefhown, thatno fuch promife or article is contained in the covenant, which God eft abhfhes, be- tween himfelf and believers, it will go far towards ac- commodating differences. If the promife in queftion did iexift, it would afford no greater fecurity of the falvation of children, than is contained in the tender of falvation, upon the condition of the repentance and faith of fuch children ; for it is not pretended, that the faithfulnefs of parents is fecured, by any covenant. It amounts, to no more than a tender of falvation, on certain conditions, which conditions, are in no way fecured. All this may be faid, concerning the gene- ral tender of falvation, which is made in the gofpel^ on the condition of perfonai faith. In the latter tejtf- 59 der, there is no fecurity of faith ; and in the former, no fecurity of parental faithfuhiefs. But the queflion, now under confidcration, ;ief- peds the be'mg and exijlence of a proinife or conflitu- tionof God, which conne6ls the fate of polierity, with the condu<^ of parents. Several things have been offered to confideration, to (hoW;, that this is the cafe. — Thofe arguments will now be particularly con- fidered.- There are feveral arguments from anato- gy, to which it may be proper to attend, although it is prefumed, that arguments of that nature, cannot go very far, in determining, the nature and defign of pof- itive mftitutions. I . It is argued, that it is altogether rational to fup- pofe, that there is full provifion made, for the falva- tion of infants, as they ihare in all the difadvantages ofthefalL p. 54, SB- To which it may be anfwered, that it will not be queftioned, whether there is provifion m.ade for the falvation of children j but it is not feen, that more can be inferred from it, as the argument is expreffed, in favour of the children of believers, than in favour of other children. Other children (hare, in all the dif- advantages of the fall, as well as the children of be- lievers. If the bare participation of the difadvan- tages of the fall be a fufficient reafon for the conclufion, that the children of believers have ample fecurity of falvation, may not as much be inferred concerning other children ; for it is as true, that the children of unbelievers (hare in the difadvantages of the fall, as that the-chiidren of believers do. Befides, there is no divine conflitution, that either one or the other fliall be faved, fhort o^ pcrfonal hkh. 2. Another argument is grounded, on the cove- nant and conflitution which God made with the hrft parents of mankind, refpe61ing their children. It is faid, the fate of their poflerity v/as fufpended on thei3- condud — That their offspring were comprehended ■with them. And, as a conflitution of fuch a nature 6o was begun at their original creation, it is no more than reafonable to fuppofe, that it is ftill continued, and will be continued, through all fucceffive genera- tions, p. ij6. In anfwer, it may be obferved, that this argument is founded on a principle, which would involve fuch confequences, as the author of it would be unwilling to admit. The argument proceeds, on the principle, that the prefent conflitution, which God has eflablifh- ed, comieds the condud of parents and the fate of their pofterity, jufl as the firfl covenant connected the fate of Adam's pofi:erity,-\vith his conduct. Oth- erv/ifeit is fuppofed, that the advantages derived from Chrifl, would not be " paramount to the difadvan- tages, wnich, in the fame refpeft, were derived from Adam.'' In the latter cafe, — the cafe of Adam, the fate of ail his pofterity, to the remotefl ages, was fuf-. pended on one a6t of difobedience. Ifthe argument mufi; be allowed any weight, let it go its full length, and then this conclufion muft be adopted, that one ad: of faith, or one act of unbelief mufl determine the fate, not only of the next fucceding generation, but of all generations to the end of time. Would the advantages derived from Chrifl be, otherwife, " paramount to the difadvantages, which were deriv- ed from Adam ?'* The comparifon, inftead of being made, between Adam and believing parents, ihould have been made, between the firfl A*dam, and Jefus Chrifl, the fecond Adam. Inflead of parents being conflituted the fed- eral heads of God's new and gracious covecant with men, that is applicable only to Jefus Chrift. Adam was the federal head of his poflerity ; but Chriil is, now, the head of his fpiritual feed. And, as the fate of thepoflerity of Adam, was iufpended on his con- dud, fo the fate of men, is determined by a union with Chrifl the fecond Adam, as a fruit and effed of his atonement. As in Adam all died, fo in Chrift, all his fpiritual feed, fhall be made alive. The con- rexign which fecures life, is a connexion with Chrifr, 6i not a connexion, merel;/, with pious parents. It is acknowledged, however, that a connexion with pious parents is hi^rhly important, as it implies, the enjoy- ment of the beft means of lalvalion. Yet, the facred fcriptures confider a connexion with Jefus Chrift, as that which alone fecures falvation. We are no Avhere taught to fay. As in Adam all died, fo in believing parents ihall all be made alive. It is, therefore, ton- cluded, that it is union to Chrid, and not to beheving parents, which fecures the bleffings pf the new cove- nant ; — that Chriil is the federal head and not be- lieving parents. It is farther faid, " As the difadvantages, arifing from the fall of Adam are more than compenfated to the world by ChriH ; this would give us reafon to fuppofe, that in the covenant eftablifhed in Chrift, there is as real and ample provifion made for bleff- ings to be tranfmitted from believers to their feed, as there was in the convenant made with the origi- nal parent of mankind," p. ^j. But, adopting the fame mode of reafoning, may it not be further faid, " Inafmuch, as the difadvantages arifmg from the fail of the hril Adam, are more than compenfated to the world in Chrift -/* and inafi^iuch, as the ruin of the whole human race was infallibly conneded with the difobcdience of Adam ; fo there is reafon to be- lieve, that thdre is provihon made, not only for the fecurity of the falvation of the children of believers, but for the actual falvation of the v.b \v. hnraan race. Would this bleiTmg more than '- -^ ■ ■■^nfate the difadvantagesof the fall r" I wo: :o means intimate, that the author would d.^._ .. ,i:y advaiice fuch an idea ; but is it not a ccni.-.qii.ruce, v/hich would rieceifarily follow from the pr'uciple and mode or reafoning, which is adopted, in the argument un- der confideiation ? 3. The connexion under confideration between parents and children, particularly between believing parents and their offspring, is argued from the ex- iciu cf Chrift's propitiation, p. 58. It is faid,' 6i Chrift's atonement was made for the whole world— < That the covenant was fprinkled, with the blood of Chriff. And, that, " The riches and grace afthe new covenant do in fa6l^ unquejiionably correfpond with the worth and virtue of that blood with which it is/prink- led, and in which it is ejiahlijfjed ; and are commenfu- rate therewith. But on no other hypothejis is this cor- refpondence fo viftble, as on thai which fuppofetb the covenant ofgraee to be fa formed as to tranfinit its blejf- ings topojlerity." p. 58. In reply, it may be alked, whether the principle and mode of reafoning, adopted in this argument^ would not moft neceli'arily terminate in error? May it not be faid, that Inafmuch as the new and gracious covenant of God, isfpiinkled with the precious blood of Chrift, fo the grace of that covenant, will unquef- tionably correlpond with the worth and virtue of that blood, and be comnienfurate with it. But, on no other hypothefis, is fuch a correfpondence fo vifible, as in making efFe£lual provifion for the falvation of all men ? Or, would that have been too great an ex- prefTion of grace, to correfpond with the worth and value of ChrifPs blood ? The principle and mode of reafoning, adopted \\\ this argument, concludes as llrongly, in favor of univerfal falvation, as in favor of the promife it was defigned to eftablifh. That the meafures God will take, will be fuch, as will corref. pond with the blood, with which the covenant is fprinkled, cannot be doubted ; but men are inade- qupte, to the talk of pointing out the meafures, which will belt correfpond with the value and worth of Chriit's blood. Shorc-fighted man would naturally conckkle, that the falvation of all m.en would be fuch a difplay of grace as would, above all, correfpond with ib precious l^lood as that of Chrift*s. But, rev- elation teaches a different dofkrine. A conclufion, formed on the premifes advanced in this argument, can amount to nothing more than mere prefump- tion. 63 4. tt is urged in favor of the promifc, fcfi:ablilK»- ing a connexion between the faith and piety of pa^ rents, and the piety of their children, that, "There are many things in God*s providential dealings," which teach it — That a divine conftitution, of the fame nature, is vifible in wicked men's tranfmitiing their moral charaders to their pofterity. And, " There is no more natural inconfiftency in fuppo* fmg, that pious parents fliould tranfmit a good moral charafter to their pofterity, than that impious pa- rents fhould tranfmit one, that is bad.*' p. 60, In anfwcr to this argument, it may be obferved^ that it is as true, perhaps, that good men do tranfmit a good moral character to their pofterity, as that wicked men tranfmit a bad one to their pofterity.— And there could be no reafonable objeftion, againfl the rectitude of God's government, if he had fixed an invariable conftitution in both of thofe cafes. But it does not appear, from obfervation, that there is a fixed and invariable conftitution in either cafe.— Good men, fo far as pofe their children to ruin j and are taking the 67 moft direct meafures to fecuve it. If that be all, which can Mely be inferred concerning wicked pa- rents and iheir children, then more cannot be deter- mined, in the cafe of faithful and pious parents, than that they are taking fuch meafures, as have the great- eft tendency, to fecure the falvation of their children. The threatning is as politive and extenfive as the promife. But, 3. It is very evident, that it was not the defign of the facred writers, in the paiTa^es now under confid- eration, to fuggeft a fmgle idea, concerning the f'.Vii:«^ of the covenant. Whoever pays a particular attention to the con- nexion, between thoie words, in Deut. vii.9. and wh^t precedes, muft be convinced, that the words v/ere de- figned, to enforce a fenfe c{ ihefaithfulnefs of God in keeping a covenant which he had made, and not to ihow the esctejit of the covenant. In the preceding- part of the chapter, Mofes had been enumerating, the numerous favors which God had beftowed on the If- raelitGS, He then faid that God had done all this, " Becaufe he would keep the oath which he had fvvorn unto their fathers"— -^That God had for fg long a time, and through fo many generations, been pundual in fulftlHng his covenant. Then come in the words, " Knoiv^ therefore-, that the Lord thy God he is God, the faithful God which keepeth covenant and mercy, &c. to a thoufand generations.** Th« faithfulnefjj of God, is the great thing, which was defigned to be enforced in thofe words — ^That he is not like fickle m.cn, who foon Jorget their promifcs ; but that he remembers his covenant, from generation to generation, even to the moft diftant period. It was altogether foreign from the dcCi^n of Mofes, to fugged aa idea, relative to the ^A'/t'?// of the covenant, It maybe inferred from the words, indeed, that the covenant which God made with the fatliers, had a rt-fpecl to that generation ; a refpect fnnilar to that which ha? already be«i defcribcd ; but there i> not 68 the leafl: intimation, of fuch a promlfe, as conne^s the piety of parents with the piety of children. The plain and fimpje truth in view was, that God is a faithful God to keep covenant, and not to fuggeft a nngle idea concerning the extent of any covenant, which God had made. Similar obfervations may be made, on the other paffage, which refpeds the wicked, taken in its con^ nexion. There God alferts his determination to ex- ecute his threatenings. No one would choofe to af- fert, that the defign of thofe words was, to eftablifli this as a truth, viz. That if any parent fuftains a wick- ed chara^Sler, that his children and his children*s children, to the fourth generation, fhall unavoidably be damned, It appears frem thefe obfervatjons,that the paflages which have now been confidered, never were defign- ed t© teach the exiftence of any fuch covenant or promife, as that which fufpends the fate of children on the charafters of parents ; or abfolutely conneds the piety of faithful parents, wjth the piety of their children. But it may be a(ked,what fliall we make of the many declarcuionsjwhich appear to promife and connefl: the piety of children with the faithfulnefs of parents ? Anfvjer. Many of them, at lead, have a rcfpe£t: to ^f?/ of the covenant, &c. i.e. A token of their keeping covenant, and fo cf the confummation of the covenant, betwixt God and them — As to God's keeping covenant, it did not admit of a queftion. But there needed fome tell or mark of the faithfulneffi, or covenant engrigements of men. The covenant was propofed and tendered by God ; nothing but man's coniplianer with it was needed ; circumcifion was a token of this. Bcfides, the Apoftle Paul, evidently, confidered the cafe thus, Rom. iv. 11. " And he (Abraham) received the fign of circumcifion, a jtal cf the rlvhteoiifriefs of the faith 'which he had, being yet uncircumcifcd." Circumcifion, as a feal of the covenant, is confidered in this paffage, a:; having a fr,le rcfped: to Abraham. It is from fach a view of it, that circumcifion under the old Tefiament was confidered as a fign vii /(irMification, QV i[\t v.cw Heart: And baptifm, in the gofpcl, is confidered as the fiv.n oi rcgefieration, and oi piiitir.^ en Chri/i \ with- out fo much as hi-nting, as I do not recolledt it is ever hinted, that it iignified any thing, relative to God's faithfulnefs in keeping cove- nant. From thefe confideratisns, there is reafon to conclude, that circumcifion and fo baptifin, as feal.s of the covenant, are Itals cnthc part of believers only. Whether this be a juft conception of them or not,, is not eflential to the general inquiry under confideration ; yet, it i; not an inquiry altogetticr fureign to the fubje^^. 7S i<;ct's title to the bleflings of the covenant ; or of his faith and compliance with the covenant. But, could it have the fame deiign and import, refpe£ting the circumcifed iniant ? Could it when ad- miriiftred to an infant, be a fign and " feal of the fubjecl's title to eternal life r" When " No promifes whatever are made to the child." p. 90. Could^ it be a " confirmation oi every hlcjjlng contained and expreffed in the covenant of promife, as it was to A- braham ; when infants were intirely pailive, and had no promifes fealed to them, as is aflerted refpeding baptized infants ? p. 108. And could it poiTibly be a fign of the fubjecFs title to eternal life, in the cafe of infants ? when fuch \\\{2ints *^ are poffejfcd of no 6ther rights than thofe of unbelievers,'' 'till God is .mercifully pleafed to regenerate them, as is direftly atferted, p. 108. It could not import the fame thing on thofe principles, nor upon any other. — As the male-children of believers were to be circumcifed, it mufl be, for fome other purpofe, as infants were re- fpefted, than that which was defigned refpeclins: the adult. The parent or adult was to be circumcifed, as a feal of the rigbteotfnefs of his faith. " To the parent it was God's feal of the fubjecl's title to eter- nal life." But his male-children could not be cir- cumcifed, as a feal of any fuch thing ; for they had no other rights than the children of unbelievers, as is alferted. If the infants of believers had no rights, no rights or titles could be foaled to them, without fealing a falfehood. It appears, therefore, although it is thought an objedion of weight aeainih rhe fcheme advanced in my former inquiry, that baptifm was of a different import, when the child v/as refpected, from the im- port it had refpecfing an adult, p. 33, that it mul^ neceffarily be fo, even on the principles of the ob- jedor. ^ The queflion Aill remains, what was figniiied in circumcifion, as infants were refpeded ? In mv for- ii. mer inquiry it was infifted on, tliat ir was a joint-to- ken, with the parent's circumcifion, of" the covenant, or, that the parent did keep covenant with God. Gg4 required Abraham, as a requifite to his keeping cove- nant, to circumcife his male-children ; And, at the fame time declared, that this (hould be a token of the covenant between him and Abraham, Circumcifion, it is granted, implied, the dedication of the male- child. And the dedication of children muft be con- fidered, as a difcharge of a capital branch of the pa- rent's covenant. And what, befides dedication, could be fignified, refpeding the child ? No promifes, it is acknowledged, were fealed to the child. Dedication, with all the obligations and duties which are implied in it, it is acknowledged wjis fignified — All the cove- nant tranfadlions which were fealed in it, it is ac- knowledged were between God and the parent, p. 1 07. And it is certain, that a parent could not have kept God's cpvenant without the circumcifion of his male-child. It was, therefore, in its nature, a com- pliance with the covenant, in the parent. There was a propriety, therefore, in its being joined with a pa- rent's own circumcifion, as a feal or fign of his keep- ing covenant Dedication only, could be fignified refpeding the child ; for it had no covenant rights of its own, as is frequently acknowledged. — As a fign of the covenant, it mult wholly refpeft the pa- rent J for all the covenant tranfadions implied in it, were between God and the parent.- — This conclufion might be formed, from the following declarations, " Whatever divine covenant there is refpeding the " feed and offspring of the righteous, it fubfifts ivhol- ^' ly betwixt God and the pare?it — No promifes what- *' ever are made to the child — but, whatever prom- *' ifes there are, are to the parent." p. 90. The foregoing obfervations may ferve, to point out the defign of circumcifion, both as adults and infants were refpeded. They will, perhaps, be fur- ther confirmed, in a future fedion, concerijing the end and defign of baptifm. n SECTION VIII. 'ihe Se£D rcfpe6tsd in the Ahrahamic covenant^ or covc- ?ia?jt of grace was a fpiritual feed. THE feed refpecled in the Abrahamic covenant, or covenant of grace, confifted cf thofe, who had a title to the good things which were contained in it. Should it be admitted, that during the con- tinuance of the Abrahamic and Mofaic difpenfations, the feed did confiil of fuch only, as were natural de- fcendants from Abraham, yet it could not be infer- red from thence, that Abraham's natural feed were the feed refpected in the covenant j becaufe, fome- ihing, over and above being a dcfcendant from A- braham, was necelfary to conilitute the feed. Chriil*s true feed will confift oi men^ yet men, confidered as men, cannot be called the feed ; becaufe, fomething over and above being fimple men, is neceflary to conftitute the feed. The feed of Chrill and the feed cf Abraham do confift of thofe, who have a real title to the bleffings of the eovcnnnt. The apoftle Paul teaches this in exprefs terms ; Rom. iv. i6. " There- fore it is of failb, that it might be by grace, to the end the promife might be fure to all the feed ; not to that only which is of the law, but to that alfo which is of the faith of Abraham, zfjjo is the father of us all.** According to the apoiile, the feed under every dif- penfation, confifls of thofe, who have a fure title to the promifes, Befides, it i^ conceded, p. 45, that, *' Whatever bellings were laid up in the promifes for *' Abraiiam, were equally laid up for his feed.-~^ " Whatever fecurity there was, that the Lord v/ould " be Abraham's God ; there was the fame that he '• would be the God of his feed. The promifes were "• not fmgly to Abraham, but, they were to him and " tiis feed." If this be the cafe, then the feed have the fame intereft and title to the promifes, and the fame feciirity of the good things proniifed, which Abraham had. Such and fuch only, therefore, as h?.ve that title and fecurity which Abraham had, can be conlidered as, the feed. The covenant confiders and rejpefts fuch as the true feed. But, had all the natural feed of Abraham, and have all the natural feed of believers, the fame title to and the fame fecu- rity of the bleffings of the covenant, which Abraham had ! It is granted and exprefsly affirmed, that they have no other rights than the children of unbelievers, 'till God fliall beftow converting grace upon them, p. 1 08. It appears, from the words of the apoflle Paul, and from the preceding quotation, that the feed refpecled in the covenant, confifts of fuch and fuch only, who have as good, or as fure a title as Abra- ham had, to the bleliings promifed and fecured in the covenant. It remains, therefore, to point out, what that is which gives any one a fure title to the promifes. If it can be determined, what il?at is which does give a fure title to the promJfes, it can be determined, with certainty, of whom the feed confifls — who belong to it and are refpecled as fuch." It is certain, that being a child of Abraham according to the fiefh, or a child of any other behever, never did give a title to the covenant, or mark any one as the feed ; for this is exprefsly pfferted ; p. 16. And it is alfo faid, that fuch have no more rights than the children of unbe- lievers, p. 108. And, in the preceding feclion it was fiiovvn, that perfonal believers only, have a fure title to the bleffings of the covenant. And it is alfo con- ceded, " That there is no promife that the Lord will be a God to any but believers." p. 15. a What will be further attempted, in this feftipn,, will be, to make it evident, that faith in Chrift is tkaf v.'hich alone conneds with thebleffing of the cove- nant, and eftablifhesthat title to them, which Abra- ham had ; and fo that believers conftitute the feed, which the covenant rcfpetts. — That the feed rcfpe^b- 79 ed in the covenant, therefore, is z.fpiriUial and not a natural feed. That this is the cafe appears from the following confiderations. I. If faith were not neceffary, to the enjoyment of a title to the bleffings of the covenant, and to confti- tute the feed, then unbelievers might have, the fame fecurity of God for their God, which Abraham had. If the promife is " made Jure to all the fced^^ aild if the feed have the fame title and fecurity of the blef- fings of the covenant, vi^hich Abraham had, either the feed muft confift of believers, and fo be afpiritu- al feed ; or otherwife unbelievers may have z.fure title to pardon and falvation ; even as fure a title as that which Abraham had. But, is that the language ei- ther of the oldTeftament or the new ? If that were the cafe, why does the apoftle Paul exprefs himfclf in the following manner ? " They ivhicb are of faith, the fame are the children of Abraham — They which be of FAiTFi are bleffed ivitb faithfid Abraham, Te are all the children of God by YM-Yu J Gal. iii. 7, 9, 26. If unbelievers may have, as good a title to and as firm a fecurity of the bleffings of the covenant as Abra- ham had, why did Chrift commiilionate his difciples to go and preach, " He that believcth not jhall he damned!" 1? no unbeliever, whether a natural defcendant from Abraham or not, can have a fure title to the bleffings of the covenant, even as fure a title as Abra- ham had, then it will follow, as a certain confequence, that believers alone do conflitute, and are refpeded as the feed ; and confequently, that the feed refpect- ed in the covenant is a fpiritual feed. II. That the feed refpetted, in the covenant of j^race, is a believing or fpiritual feed is evident, as A- braham himfelf became entitled to the bleffings of the covenant, by faith. The feed have the fame title, to the bleffings of the- covenant, which Abraham had ; aiid, if Abraham's title took place, through faith and on no other condi- 8o tion, it may be fafely concluded, that believers only conflitute the feed, or are refpe£led as fuch. It is not to be fuppofed, that faith was requifite to fecure cov-^ enant-blefTmgs to Abraham, and not to his pofterity — that there were different conditions of the covenant prefcribed for Abraham, from thofe which were pre- fcribed for othe"l-s< That Abraham's title took place^ through faith, cannot be doubted ; and that the fame thing is requifite, to conftitute other perfons his feed, IS as certain. " They which be of faith are bleffed with faithful Abraham, They ivhich are of faith the fame are the children of Abraham^' Gal. iii. 6, o. As it was the faith of Abraham, which entitled him to the promifes, and as it is faith which entitles oth- ers to them, and conftitutes them his children^ and introduces them to a title to the blefhngs of the cov- nant, it will follow that believers are the feed refpec- ted in the covenant, and that the feedj of confeqUence, is a fpiritual feed. III. The fame thing appears, from hence, as the natural feed of Abraham were not, as fuch, confid^r-* ed as the feed refpefted in the covenant. That is, whatever refpe£t there was to Abraham*s natural off- fpring, in the covenant God made with him, it is cer- tain, that it did not conftitute all his natural offspring the feed. — IJIomael, who was Abraham's child, was not confidered as having any title to the promifes, and was not refpeded in the covenant. This appears from Abraham's interceffion, on his behalf. " O that IfhrnaelmightHve before thee. And God faid, Sarah thy wife fhall bear thee a fon, indeed ; and thou fhalt call his name Ifaac and / ivill eflablijb my cove- nant with hi?7i^for an everlqfling covenant and with his feed after him. As for Ijhmael^ I have heard thee. Behold I have bis/fed him and will make him fruitful^ and will multiply him exceedingly. Twelve princes Jhall he beg'et, and I will make him a great nation. But my COVENANT zuill I e/iablijio with Isaac. Gen. xvih* 1 8 — 21 In God's reply to Abraham, he does not 8i iay, that he cjiablijhcs hh covenant with JJhmael ; but he does fay, that he eilablilhes his covenant with Jfaac^ in difh'ndion from Ilhmael. He fays, that he will blefs JJhmael, by rendering him fruitful, &c. It is evident, from the whole tenor and complexion of the declaration, that Iflimael was not rcfpefted, in the promife, as one of the feed, wiio fliould inherit the prpmifes. — In my former inquiry this was introdii- ced, with a defign to iliow that circumcifion, as in- fants were rcfpedcd, was not intended as a token, that fuch infants were in covenant ; becaufe, Ifhmael was circumcifed as well as Ifaac, when it was declar- ed, at the fame time, that Ifl'mael was not refpedted in the covenant.* The argument was not defigned to fhow, that God, in the difpenfation of his covenant, had not fome fpecial defigns refpei^ing Abraham's natural feed ; particularly that part of it, which def- cended from the loins of Ifaac, Jacob, he. But, that Abraham's natural pofterity, as fuch, were not refpedled in the covenant, nor were circumcifed in to- ken of their covenant-ftanding. This it was fuppo- fed would be evident, from the confideration, that a part of his natural pofterity were excluded, as in the cafe of lilimael. This argument, it is believed, is a conclufive one, nolwithllanding the objections which have been made to it. It is faid, byway of objec- tion, " It by no means apperirs, that Iflimael was ex- cluded from the promife which God made to Abra- ham. We find — the fame exprelFions are ufed rela- tive to bis death, as to the death of Abraham j viz. ^'^ He was ^aibered to Jjjs people.** To which it may be fufficient to reply, i . Were it true, that Iflimael was not refpeded as one of the feed, becaufe he was a natural defeendant from Abraham, yet, li he ever became a believer he might inherit the eflfential blef- ilngs of the covenant. Although it was God*s de- Scc my Inquiry, p.;ij ;;. L 82 fign, to colleft a church from the poflerity of Abra- ham, yet other nations, which were uot refpefted in the promife, were not excluded from the blefllngs of the covenant, in cafe ihey fliould own the God of If- rael as their God ; as is evident from Exodus xii. 48,. 4g» If it were the cafe, therefore, that lihmael did die a faint, it would be no real objedion to the argu- ment. 2. It may be afted, whether it appears, that God did, in fact, eftablifh his covenant with JJhmael and his feed, as he did w'lih. Jjaac and his feed ? The anfwer muft be, that it does not appear ; but it is evident, on the contrary, that God did eflabhfh his covenant with Ifaac, in diftinftion from IflmiaeJ. How can it be faid then, "that, " There is no evidence that JJJjmael was not blefled with faithful Abraham, as- really as Ifaac ?'* Again ; does it appear, that God had the fame refpeft to lihrnael's offspiing, that he had to the oif- fpring of Ifaac ? Concerning Iflimael, including his pofterity, it was previoufly declared " He 'will be a zvild ?nan, his hatid will be againji e'vcry man, a7id every marl's h mid againji him.** Gen. xvi- 12. And the apofllePaul, Gal. iv, 29 — 31, confiders Iflimael and his poflerity, as reprefentatives of the enemies of Chrift and his church. Were Ifnmael and his pof- terity refpeclcd as the Deople, in whom the promifes, which God made to Abraham were to be accom- pliihed ? Let fads determine. Was the faviour to proceed from the loins of lilimael ? Was the poflerity of Iflimael ever defigned to inherit Canaan ? Was it the defign of God to maintain his Church, in the^anio ily of Iflimael ? This prcmife, of maintaining a church in Abraham's family, is fuppofed to be the promifej, which comprehended Abraham's natural offspringjin fuch a fenfe, as to render it proper and fuitable, that his males fliould be circumcifed, in token of their in- tereft in the covenant. But it is as evident, tl:at God had no view to Ifhmael and his poflerity, in hi* promife to fupport a church in the family of Abra- ham, as that he had no refped: to them, as the peoulej who fliould inherit Canaan. The fact is, God never defigned to include Ifiiniael and his pofterity, in ei. therofthofe promifcs ; and accordingly the iulfil- ment of tl^Cpromifes never extended to them. But, on the contrary, agreeable to the preditlion which was publiflied, concerning Ilhrn^el and his pofcriry, they have, through each fuccelTive generation, been under the influence of a fpirit, fo oppofed to the law and the gofpel, as has led them, to lift up their hands againit every man. It is certain, therefore, that Ifh- mael and his pofterity v/ere not refpeded as Ifaac was, in the promifes which were made to Abraham. It has been further faid, refpecling Abraham's im- portunity, on the behalf of Ifhmaei, " The Lord *' (hewed favour to Ilhm-ael, becaafe he was Abra- *« ham's fon ; and for this reafon the feal of the cov- " enant, " I will be a God to thee and to thy feed " after thee" was fet upon him. Surely when the " Deity made Ifhmael an objed ' of peculiar favour *' and bkffing becaufe he ivas Abraham's Jleed, this *' fame Ilhmael can, \yitli very little appearance, of " reafon, be produced as an inftance in proof that the *• feed, in the promife had no relation to Abraham's *' natural offspr'ni'^.** p. 49. In reply, it may be obferved, in general, tliat Ifh- mael was not produced as an example to prove, that God's promife to Abraham had " no relation to A- braham's natural offspring j" but to fnew, that it had no relation to Ilhmael and his polterity j and confequently, that it was not a natural oflspring which was refpeded as the leed : and therefore, that infant circnmcifioii, which was extended to ifnmael, did not lignify or import, that the infant circiimcifed was in covenant.! In the above quotation it is faid, " The t Had Illimad been relpeded, in the nromiu', : » Ifaac Vva.>, God yas under the fame obligations to fuppnrt religion araonrr his porter- Uy,atiamong the pafltTity of Ilr.sc— The covtiK^ist fccurld jincicus v>4 Lsrd Jkewed favour to Iftjmad hecaufe he fvas Ab'ra- haul's feed; and for this reafm the feal of the covenant ; J ivill be a God to thee and thy feed ^ vjas fei upon him.'** Upon which it may be inquired ; — I. How did God lliew favour to Iflimael ? Were the bleffings he conferred on him the great' blefliigs of the covenant ? Why, then, was that di'fcriminat- ing claufe added, " But my covenant will I eftablifh with Ifaac ?'' Is it not diredly oppofed, to the maniferl: import of the declaration made, concerning Ifaac, to fuppofe that Ifhmaei was refpeded in the covenant, in the fenfe in which Ifaac was refpeded ? There is no pretext for faying, that Iflimael had the bleifmgs of the covenant bcftowed on him except what arifes from God's promifmg him worldly profperity. If promifes of fuch bleilings be an evidence of being pe- culiarly refpeded in the covenant, molt certainly, fuch men as are in fad, profperous in worldly mat- ters, have a brilliant evidence of an intereil in the covenant. 2. Let it be inquired further, whether it be true, that the reafon, why God directed the feal of the cov- enant to be fet on Iflimael was,becaufe God had pro- nounced thofe favours on Ifhmaei, in confequence of Abraham's importunity ? Was not Abraham, di- rected to circumcife his male-children, and Ifhmaei among the reft, before thofe temporal bleflings were conferred on Ifhmaei ? He certainly was, as is evi- dent from Gen. xvii. lo, i2. It was not for " that reafon" that Abraham was directed to circumcife Ifli- mael. Had thofe blefiings never been giv^en, Abra- ham mufl have circumcifed Ifhmaei, in obedience to a previous command. The favours bellowed, did not comprehend the bleffings of the covenant, Iwill he thy Gcd ; nor did Abraham circumcife him, be- caufe God had pronounced thofe temporal blefTmgg qualifications to Iflimaers poftei i: y as it did to Ifaac's. But notliing c^ri be more evident, than that noneofthefc things weie true, rtl- peding IlhmacI and his p«ftcrity. on him ; for he was exprefsly direcled to do it, be- fore any fuch bleiilngs were given. 3. Was circumcilion, as Iftimael was refpedled, a feal of the covenant, " I will be a God to thee and thy feed after thee ?" If it was, it was in the ob- jedor's view God's feal. God thereby engaged to be the God of Ifhrnael and his natural feed, in the fame fenfe, that he engaged to be the God of Abraham and his natural feed. So thatlfliinael and his poifer- ity mult be interelled, in the fime promife, in which Abraham and his natural feed were interelled. The promife of Canaan — of having a Church maintained among- them — of a defcent of religion from parent to child ; aad of fuch gracious qualifications as were n^celfary to fupnort a Church among them, &c. nmfl refpetl them. But, God never fealed any fuch prom- ifes refpecling Ifhrnael and his poilerity ; or at leall, if he did, he never carried them into execution. FiiOM thefc obfervations, it is evident, that Illimael was not refpecled as the feed, in the covenant which God made with Abraham ; even in that remote fenfe in which Ifaac and his natural poderity were ; yet he was circum.cifed. Similar obfeivations might be made, refpecling Efau. hut it is unneceflary to enlarge further on this argument. 4. It may be concluded, that the feed refpecled in the promife made to Abraham was not his natural feed, f\-om the command given to Abraham to cir- cumcife his fervants. That there was fuch a command, dees not admut cf a doubt. Bur, if Abraham's natural feed was the feed refpecled in the promife, his fervants could nor. have been circumcifed, as belonging to the feed. 1 hey either mull have been circumcifed for fome other reafon, than to denote they weie the feed ; or, if they were circum.cifed as a token or their being the feed, it will be evident, that Abraham's natural feed, as fuch, was not the feed refpeded in the covenant. It is infifled on, p. 50, 51, 52, that Abraham's 86 fervants were not mere patients in circumcifion ; but were active and " received and praftifed circumcifion upon the fame principles that Abraham himfelf did.'* If this were the" cafe, then they had a title to the prcmiles, which was as valid as Abraham's title; and fo were as certainly the feed, as were ilbraham's natural offspring. It will avail nothing to fay, that Abraham's fervants were fuppofed to , believe, and fo by faith became enrolled among the feed j for that would fuppofe, that believers of every nation were the feed, as well as the believers of Abraham's natu- ral pofterity. It is faid, that Abraham's natural feed, were not, really, the feed, except through faith. If other men, who were not Abraham's natural off- fpring, even his fervants, might alfo be received and treated as the feed, upon the fame condition, then the feed, in reality, confifted of believers, whether they were Jews or Gentiles. Befides, if Abraham's fer- vants received circumcifion, upon the fame princi- ples that A.braham did j then their feed muft, on the principles of the objeftor, be refpecled as the feed, equally with Abraham's natural feed. It is iniifted on, as appears from many quotations already made, that circumcifion fealed a covenant, on God's part, refpeciing the natural feed of the adult, and fecured faith and falvation to his feed, on the condition of his faithfulnefs ; and, that Abraham pradifcd cir- cumcifion on this principle. If Abraham's* fervants practifed upon the fame principle, and that by divine appointment, then their natural feed were as much relpeded as the feed, as the natural feed of Abraham. ———On no principle, therefore, whether A-braham's fervants were ^gerJs or patients^ was Abraham's nat- ural feed the feed refpecred j^ the coven?vnt. On the principle of then being agents, and by faith becom- ing the feed, it is evident, that it was believing which t fiiould be reckoned to Abraham as his " feed, it will, then, be manifeft that infant circum- " cifion was a feal of no promife of bleffings on the *' child : and if this be the light in which the fcrip- " tures truly lead us to confider the fubjeft, it will " be natural to fuppofe, that infant baptifm is noth- " ing more than a mark of parental dedication." p.. 119. It is fubmitted, whether the mofl fatisfado- ry proof, of fuch an import of the covenant, has not been produced, in the preceding feclion. The fame thing cannot be fealsd to an infant, in its baptifm, as is fealed to an adult, when an adult is the fubjed: of it. Although it is a token, in the cafe of an adult believer, of his faith and pardon, or title to eternal life ; yet it cannot feai any fuch title to infants. This appears not only from the fentiments advanced in the foregoing fedion ; but it is equally clear from the fentiments contained in the quotations, whieh have been made. Having fhewn, what cannot be deigned by the circumcifion or baptifm of infants, a pofitive anfwer to the inquiry, will now be attempted. Here it may be obferved, that although no titles to the bleffings of the covenant can be fealed to in- fants, in their circumcifion or baptifm, as they have no fuch titles ; yet it may ferve to fignify and feal the parent's titler,, or intereft in the bleffings of the 95 covenant. That it implies dedication on the part of the parent) no one will dqubt. It is acknowled that " In order that Chriitian parents may take hold of the promifes of the new covenant — they mud cordi- ally give them (their children) up unconditionally into the hand of God." p. loo. And it is doubtlcfs true, as is aflerted, p. 92, that, " Dedicating children to God, agreeably to divine appointment, implies'a folemn engagement to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." The baptifm of chil- dren may be confidered, therefore, as a public mark and tcken of a parent's comphance with his duty, in dedicating them to God. The parent cannot be faid, to keep covenant with God, withput fuch a ded- ication of his children.— The baptifm of infants may be confidered, therefore, as having the fame import, refpefting the parent, as his own baptifm. It may, with propriety, be confidered as a public token of his keeping the covenant j and of his engagements to perform the duties it enjoins. As to the child, it can be a token of no engagements or titles j for it makes no profeffions, and it has no titles. It is ded- icated, and fealed or marked as fuch, according to divine appointment. Dedication, therefore, is pecul- iarly fignified refpeding an infant, and that the pa- rent^ who dedicates it, will keep God*s covenant, a§ he is refoeded. It would be natural to conclude, that this mufl be the defign and import of infant bap- tifm, from fome reprcfentations which are given of the tranfadions, although defignedly in oppofition to- fuch an idea of it. It is faid, *' Whatever divine covenant there is refpeding the feed and olTspiing of of the righteous, it fuhfifts ivholly betwixt God and the ■parent, — No promifes whatever are made to the chikU* p. 90. And " the covenant tranfadion^ when baptifm is adminiflered to infants, is wholly betwixt God and the parents.^* p. 107. If it be the cafe, that the cov- enant tranfadion is wholly betwixt God and the pa- lentSj ajid the infants of believers have no covenant 9^ rights, then, fo far as the baptifni oi inrants is a token of the covenant, it mull refpeft the parent's covenant. If it fignifiy, that any one concerned in the tranf- aftion, is in covenant and entitled to covenant blef- fings, it mud fignify it refpeding the parent, in dif- tindion from the child. And what confirms this idea of the tranfadlion is this ; that God declared to Abraham at the time infant circumcifion was inltitu- ted, that iffliould be confidered as a token of the covenant between God and him : and fo between God and other believing parents, who fhould follow his example, ;■' fucceeding generations. And it is to be obferved, that for the lame reafon it fignified ded- icatwn as the. child \v:i3 refpefted, it was a token of the parent's compliance with the covenant, as the a- gent. But, although it be thus evident, that infant bap- tifm is defigned, as a fign or token of the parent's or dedicator's covenant, as the covenant is v.diolly be- twixt God and the parent ; and that as the baptized infant is refpecled, its folemn dedication and fepara- tion for God is fignified ; yet fuch a concluiion meets with objedlions, to which it is neceifary to attend. It may be neceifary, hdwever, to m.ake one gene- ral obfervation previous to anfwering objeftions. The obfervation is this, that pofitive inftitutions are of fuch a nature, as that it is impoffible, in every re- fpeft, to account for them, from reafon and the na- ture of things. Difficulties may, therefore, occur, which are inexplicable to men ; becaufe they cannot fee as God fees, or enter into all the reafons of the divine conduct, refpeding pofitive injunftions. How- ever, it is apprehended, no fuch difficulties will oc- cur, in the following objedions to what has been ad- \^anced, concerning the import and dengn of infant baptifm. Objection I. If the account which has been giv* en of br.ptifm be true, " It was of an i.mport perfeci- " ly different when applied to the child, from that 97. ^' which It was cf when ?.pplied to the parent. To *' the parent it vas God's feiil of the fubjea's title to *'■ eternal life ; to the child a feai oi no blelling or " good whatever.*' p. 33. Answer. So fiir as the different import of bap- tifm, relative to the parent and the baptized child is refpetted, which is the principle fet up in the objec- tion, it is readily admitted. But^ what if the import of it relbe6:ing them be different ? Is it not necefliiry to adopt fuch a conclufion, from a confideration of the different circmnllances of the fubjecSls, concerned in the tranfadion ? The parent is alone a^'roe ; the infant is " v/holly paflive." The parent adually ex- ercifcs himfelf, in a compliance with the covenant, in both cafes.— The infant has no exercifes in either cafe. The parent is confidered as being, in fad:, in covenant and entitled to its bleilings The infant has no rights whatever. Is it poffible, that the im- port Ihould be the fame in both cafes, refpeding the fubjeds ! To the parent it is faid, to be God's feal of the fubjeft's title to eternal life. But can it be a feal -of an infant's title to eternal life, when it is admitted, on all hands, that it has no title ? On fuch a fuppo- fition, it mud be, an infllcuted feal of an allov/ed falf- hood ! Befides j although fuch an objedlion is fuppo- fed to have weight, againft the fcheme advanced in my former inquiry ; yet what is advanced, as the re al ground of the objeftion, is admitted by the object- or, as being true. It is acknov/ledged (p. 47.) that " Circumcifion was a feal and confirmation to Abra- ham of every blefling contained and expreffed in that covenant of promife of which it was a token." But when treating of baptifm in infancy, it is direftly af- Icrted, that in it " no promifes were fealed to us." p. 108. The objeftlon, therefore, if it can be confid- cred as fuch, lies equally again fl the objedlor's fchem.e, Hs againfl die fcheme advanced in thh and ray former inquiry. 98 Obj. II. According to the account which has been given, of the defign ol infant baptifm, " It did '^^ not, nor was it ever deiigned to form any diflinc- '* tion betvi^een the circumcifed or baptized infant^ " with refpecl to any relation it bore to God, his *' Church, his covenant or his kingdom, and thofe " C'i unbeiievino^ parents, or, of the whole heathen " world." p. 32. Ans. This objection, fo far as it has a refpecl to the perfonal rights and claims of the baptized child, can have no weight in it, even in the view of the ob- jeftor. In reference to the rights of fuch a child it is faid, when " God is mercifully pleafed to beliiow re- '' generating grace upon the child, it then becomes '* pofTeiTcd of the fiime right to the promifes and blef- *' fmgs of the covenant of grace that his parents had " before him. But, until then, the children of be- " lievers are pofTefled of no other rights than thofe' " of unbelievers." p. ro-B. It is further faid, that baptifm in infancy does not " give us any more right, " when we come to- adult age, to bs confidered, re- " ceived and treated- as chrijl'ians and" as being our- *' fclves in covenant with God, than if we never had " been baptized." (Ibid.) The fame thing is exprefs- ly admitted in tlieobjctlor'sfcheme of baptifm, fo far as the perfonal rights of baptized children are re- fpefted, as is contained in theobjecHon under con- fideration. However, if the objeftibn be well foun- ded, and be a real objection, it ought to be obviated. In general it may be obferved, that the objection is not true, in any lenfe in which it can be confider- ed as an objedion of confequence. 1.. It is a midake, that infant baptifm according to the fcheme advanced in this and my former inqui- ry, fets up no diflindlon between the baptized child and the children of heathen. ^ There is, moil certainly, this diflinclion between them. The one is folemnly dedicated to God ; but it is not the cafe, as to the children of heathen.- 99 Ihere is, alfo, an important diftinftion, which relates lo their religious education. As to the baptized chil- dren of believers, their religious education is fecured, as far as the mod folemn tranfadtions and enga,2;e- ments can fecure it. In the very, tranfaclion, the parent, in the raofl: folemn manner, engages to edu- <;ate his children for God ; and the very ordinance is a fign and feal of his engagements. Befides, the *inited efforts of the whole Church are fccured ; for the Church, as a confederated body of cliriftians, is engaged, by covenant, to fee to it that parents are faithful, in the education of their children, as weji as in other refpeds. 2. It is alfo a millake, when it is faid, that on the fcheme of baptifm, which is advanced in the preced- ing feclion, there is no difference formed between baptized children and the children of heathen, re- fpecling the Church. Although the Church, as fuch, has no fpecial refpect to the heathen world ; yet it has a molt fac- red refpeft to baptized children. And, although, neither on the objeftor's fcheme, nor on that which has now been advanced, baptized children, as fuch, are to be confidered as diftincl and perfonal members of the Church; yet, they certainly have fuch a fpe- cial relation to ir, as cannot be pretended, refpeding the children of heathen. 3. It is a miilake in the objeclor, when it is ur- ged, that there is no diftiricltion formed, on the fcheme now advanced, between baptized children and the heathen world, refpecling the Kingdom of God. There is, indeed, a very important diflinftion, in favour of baptized children. They ffand a faircv chance for the kingdom of God, than can be preten- ded, concerning the children of luibelievers. . If the enjoyment of the bed means, forms a favourable dif- tinftion relative to the kingdom of God, then the children of bciicvcrs have an important diitincHon in their favour. Their p;ireiits arc diriituins— have dedicated them to God, rjid have fet up a memorial of their co\'enant engagements. Bgfides, the fidelity of the whole Church is engaged, to fecure the moit faithful exertions for their good. In a word, if the fecurity and enjovment of the beft means, has a fa- vourable afpeft on the welfare of children, and opens a favourable profped; relative to their falvation, there is an important diftinclion in the cafe of baptized children refpeiSiing the kingdom of God, which can- not be pretended refpeding the heathen world. From thefe obfervations it appears, that the objec- tion is wholly founded in miftake. If it were not, it is equally an objeftion to the objector's, fcheme, For, although the objetcor fuppofes, a certain prom- ife to befealed, in the baptifm of cliildren, which fe- cures their falvation ; yet it is a conditional one ; — the conditions are not fulfilled, at the time baptifm i§ adminiilered ; and there is nothing in the covenant, which fecures a fulfilment of them. Obj. IU. ^' If circutTicifion when applied to the " infant, fealed no promife whatever except to the " parent, and, thefe refpecling only his own falva- " tion ; how could the child's being afterwards a " breaker of the law invalidate the parent's claim tv» *' the promifes of that covenant of which circumcil- " ion was a feal, and fo become uncircumcinon r" p. 34. . As 3. It is neither alTerted nor implied in the fchenie which has been advanced, nor in the words of Saint Paul, to which there is a reference, in the objedion, that if the circumcifed child fhould break the law, the parent's claims would be. invalidated, unlefs owing to the parent's negligence ; and foit im- ply a breach of -ovenant in the parent. The pa- rent's covenant-claims, always did and ever will de- pend on his own exercifes ; but the child's being a breaker of the law, never was fuppofed on any fcheme, to invalidate a parent's covenant-claimj-. lOl According to the fchcnie which has been .lavrdiced, the clrcuincifioii of an infant, was a iign of the pa- rent's covenant title, as he alone was aiStive in it, and the child wholly pafiive. The circumcifion of the parent, therefore, could become uncircumcifion in no way, but by his breaking of the law. The ob- jection, therefore, derives all its plauhbility, refpect- ing the fclieme it was defigned to oppofc, from m'lf- take. — r-rBefides, the objecdon may be retorted on the objector's own fcheme ; for in p. 90, it is afferted, "^ Whatever divine covenant there is refpedting the feed and offspring of the righteous, it fubfiPcs wholly betwixt Cxod and the parent.'* i^gain, it is faid, ^' Our having been the fahje£ls of baptifm in infan- cy, in which v/e were pcrfcBly pajjivc^ and in which no promifes were fealed to us," &c, — -It may then be alked, hov.', on thefc principles, a child's being a breaker or the law, invalidates his ewn claims, w^hen he has none ; and efpecialiy, fmce the condition of the covenant is parental fideUty ? But, whether the objedor's fcheme be hable to the objection or not, it is prefum.ed that the fchem.s now advanced ^^0^% not fuffer from it. Obj. IV. If the baptifni of an Infant, as a token of the covenant, refpeds L*:e parent only, and dedi- cation be fignified refpecting the infant, " We can *' difcover no way, in which bapiifm in infancy ever '''■ did or ever can, become a hgn or mark of any *" covenant-relation to God, or God's feal of the - lighteoufnefs of faith, and of the benefits and blef- •' fings of the covenant of ^race to the fubjecl." p. 32, Ans. On the fame ground and v/ith equal jaftice lay it be faid, that if, in the'baptirm of an infant, ae covenant which was fealed was " wholly betv.'ixt ;Jod and the parent ;" and the infant, being " vchoU i)' pajji-vc^ no promifes were fealed to the child," no way can be difcovercd, how tlie baptifm of an infant Ihouid become a ngn of its right to the bleffings of ihe covenant, or a feal of the rightccufnefs oi faith. as the fubjedl is refpecled. Thofe confiderations which will relieve the objetlor's fcheme from this objection, will alfo relieve the fcheme, contained in this and my former inquiry. And the objecloFj it is confidently believed, has fuggelled feme confid- erations which will obviate the difficuhy. p. 108 it is faid, " When in anfwer to the faith and prayerj. ^* of parents, God is mercifully pleafed to beftow '' converting grace on the child, it then becomes ** polTefied of the fame rights to the promifes and " bleiTings of the covenant of grace that his parents " had before him. But, until then the children of *' believers are poiTeffed of no other rights than the *' children of unbelievers." It is here fuppofed, that the infant, at the time of its baptifm, had no rights of its own, any more than if it had been the child of an unbeliever. And it is faid, in thefam.-^ page, that no promifes ivere fealed to the child ; yet it is alferted, that when the child is afterwards converted, or be- comes a believer, he is to be viewed and confidered, as having as real and perfonal a right to the bleffings of the covenant, as his parents had before him. If fo, then for the fame reafon, his baptifm may obtain a perfonal fignificancy ; and be confidered as a feal of the righteoufneis of his faith. The child's being brought to the exercife of faith, and a perfonal com- phance with the covenant, and to engage obedience to its requirements, it may, with propriety, give a perfonal fignilication to his baptifm in infancy. It is a proper time to confider it as a fign and feal of the righteoufnefs of faith ; when there is evidence that fuch a faith does exift. On the objedior's fcheme, antecedent to fuch a faith, the baptized child cannot be confidered as having any other rights, than the child of an unbeliever. On the exiflence of faith, it is faid. the baptized child is to be confidered as ha- ving the fame title to the promifes, that its parents had before him. And there is certainly as good a reafon fc-r ^^>? p^rforal appjication of the ftcrn and 103 feai of the covenant, as for a perfonal application of the promifes themfelves. ObJ. V. It is faid, that Anrlpjedobaptifts, al- though they will in general agree in it, that all pa- rents are under obligations to riW/V^/^ their childtea to God ; yet they will alk, v/hat obligations a parent can be under, to bring his child to baptifm, upon the fchenie which has been advanced ? This covenant was long fince fealed in hie own baptifm. He will further demanct, what propriety there can be, in fet-> ting that feal on children or infants, if they are not comprehended in thecovenantj when baptifm is ac- knowledged to be a feal of the covenant ? p. 1 1 8, 119. Ans. The firft thing to be attended to, in an- fwer to this objedion is, the difficulty contained in the following quellion ; What obligations are pa- rents under to bring their children to baptifm, if it be only a parent's covenant which is fealed in it ? Ans. I. If it be a divine inftituiion, that children as well as parents fliould be baptized, whatever i$ iignilied by it, parents mu(t be under the fame ob- ligations to offer their children in baptifm, as they are fo fubmit to the authority of God, in any other cafe ; — the fame as they are to fubinit to baptifmf themfelves. Ans. 2. Another reafon why parents fhonld of- fer their children in baptifm, although it be a feal of the parent's covenant is, the parent's covenant cannot be complete without it. If the baptifm of chil- dren be a joint-token with a parent's own baptifm, of his keeping God's covenant, then the parent mvift i)e under the fame kind of obligations to dedicate his children, as he is to dedicate himfelf in baptifm. Al- though, previous to becoming a parent, a perfon may have dedicated himfelf in baptifm ; yet fhould he neglett to dedicate his children, after he had become a parent, he would, as truly break the covenant, as Abraham would have done, had he neglected to cir- cumcife his males. The fign of the covenant, re- 104 ipe61:ing hinifelf, coiild not have been coinpiete with- out it. But it is further demanded, whut propriety can there be, in applying that, which is acknowledged to be a feal of the covenant of promife, to one, who is not comprehended in it ? Ans. I. There would be no propriety in apply- ing the feal of the covenant to one, who is not com- prehended in it and has no title to the eflential blef- fnigs of it, provided a perfonal title was fignified in it. Or, if baptifm is to be confidered as a token ot the covenant, as the baptized infant is refpeftcd, there would be no propriety in applying it to infants, or fuch as have no perfonal liiie to its bleiiings. Ic would, in that cafe, be folemmy feaiing a falflvood. But then it will -be remembered, that fuch an objec- tion would be applicable to' the objedor's fcheraCj and not to the fcheme advanced in this and my for- mer inquiry. Upon the fcheme v/hich the objeclion is defigneci to oppofe, the token or feal is fuppofed to have refpeO: to the believing parent who dedicates his infant; and that dedication only is fignified re- fpecling the infant. All v/hich is true on every prin- ciple. —Therefore, 2. 1"ke propriety of applying the feal to children^ although they are not in covenant, appears, as the dedication of children is fuch a capital branch of the parent's covenant, that it cannot be complete with- out it. It was fuch a fignal evidence, of Abra- ham's covenant faithfuhiels\ that he v/ould " com- mand his children and houfhold after him," as that God faid, he hie-io him by that rery thing. Gen. xviii. 19. As the faithful dedication of children, is fo dif- tinguiihing a mark of a parent's covenant faithful^ nefs, there is, m the nature of the cafe, a propriety in fetting the fign of his keeping covenant, as it were, on the forehead of his children. 3. Another confideration, which fhews the pro- priety of baptizing infants, on the fcheme advanced in the preceding fe^flion, is theufe and defign of feals. Seals are not ufed, folely, to make over and confirm- -bleflings ; but they are ufed, alfo, to indicate and mark property. The hulbandman fets his feal or mark, upon the horns of his oxen and the hoofs of his horfes ; not to confirm them as the property of another, but as a mark of their being his property. The merchant fets his feal on his goods, to denote that they belong to him. From this ufe of feals there appears a propriety in God's direfting his feal to be placed on the children of believers ; for they are God's, not merely by creation, but they are dedica- ted and confecrated to his fervice. From thefe obfervations, it appears, that there is a propriety in the baptifm of infants, although they have, pcrfonally, no covenant titles ; and although, ■IS a fign of the covenant, it is alone applicable to the parent, who dedicates them. It is equally clear, that there would be no propriety, on the fcheme of the objector, of baptizing them as a token of their having any title to the promifes, becaufe they have no fuch tide. ; Obj. VI. The Icheme, advanced in this and a former inquiry, is fubverfive of the praftice of infant ijaptifm. This objection, although it has been made in no publication, has been more privately circulated, as an objection to the fcheme advanced, in my former inquiry. The objedion was then particularly con- iide'red.* It is freely acknowledged, that the prin- ciple on which the arguments in favour of infant baptifm have commonly been formed, viz. that the children of believers are in covenant, is given up as indefenfible. Or in other words, the real defign of infant baptifm, is confidered in a point of light, fome what different from the ufual manner of treating it. ■* See my Inquiry, p, 47—61. o io6 Yet, that it is a divine iniUtution is fully afferted. And, inflcad of weakening the evidence, in favour of fuch a pradice, it is believed, that the priiidple ad- vanced in the fcheine, docs tend, above every other hypothefis, to vindicate it. If the defign of baptifm, as infants are refpeded, be to fignify their dcdidation to God and not their perfonal title to the bleftings of the covenant, the very fmev/s of the obje^ions, which have ufually been made to the prafticeare cut. The objedions of Antipsedobaptifts have been chiefly aim- ed, againil the covenant-ftanding of infants — theif want of faith, &c. But on the fcheme advanced in this and a former inquiry, all fuch objetnons are im^ pertinent. Every one mufl: acknowledge, that the dedication of children is a reafonable duty ; and, that it is alfo reafonable, that fuch a dedication fliould be fignified in fuitable ways. No man's confcience can objcft to it. Some attempts have been made, to prejudice the minds of the lefs difcerning, againft the praftice of infant baptifm, becaufe the advocates for it afe not agreed, in all refpeds, relative to the defign of it# In a late publication, there is the following remark- able paffage. " How many are the inventions of " men! Mr. Emmons and Mr. C. Strong fay, infants " are not members of the vifiblc Church ; and " that '* no covenant relation doth exift between God and " children^ on accoui-t of their being children ofbe- " lieving parents ;" but that they ought undotibted* " ly to be baptized on fome other account. Dr. " Hopkins arid Dr. Weji fay, that the feed mefltidned ** in the promife to Abraham, refpeded and compre- " bended his natural pofterity ; and if parents ded- " icate their children to God, by baptifm, as they " ought, taking hold of the covenant for them by " faith ; and performing their duty towards them in " other refpeds ; as they may and as many parents *' have done, their children (hall certainly be faved ; •' and therefore the children of believing parents arc I07 *' to he baptized ; altho* they do not promifc them ^' the earthly Canaan. Dr. Lathrop and Mr. WilU " icims have feme other fehenie. And hoW many " other fchemes there are, I know not. But one *« thing is evident. If a houfe divided againft itfelf *' cannot (land infant baptifm muft furely fall."-|- It was, undoubtedly, the defign of the writer in the above quoted paffage, to bias the minds of others' a- gainft the practice of infant baptifm ; as well as to fugged a fufficient reafon for his renouncing it him* fclf. The argument is this. Thofe who have be- lieved the practice of infant baptifm to be divinely in- flituted, have been divided in their fentiments con- cerning its end and defign. Therefore, it muft furely fall. The principle, on which this argument is foun- ded, would be fatal, in its operation, to every doftrinc of religion, whether natural or revealed. — The advo- cates for the dodrines of original fin, rcgcticratitn, jujiif cation by faith, &c. have had very different con- ceptions of them, as appears fi-om the different ex- planations which have been given, by different per- fons. Shall we then conclude, that thofe dodrines muft furely fall ! — ^^The.gofpel revelation has been be- lieved, by the whole chriftian world ; yet therJJ h not a dodrine, nor an inftitution, concerning which there has not been dift'erent conceptions. May not a Deift then rife up, Avith a bold face and fay, with as good a grace as it i« faid in the above quotation, if a houfe divided againft itfelf cannot ftand, the chriftian fyftem muft furely fall ! — Ahnoft all man- kind have believed in the being of a God ; yet they have entertained very different conceptions, and jar- ring opinion,S: concerning his nature and perfections Muft it then be concluded, that the fundamental doc- trine of all religion mu<^ furely fall ! Muft we all turn Deifts and Atheifts ! — it cannot efcape the notice oi an attentive mind, that the argument, contained ir. t Sec Mr. TxcotsVLcUcr^p. icj the above quotation, cannot ftop fiiort of univerlal icepticifm, if purfued. Therefore, if there are any, who have found, that their minds have been influen- ced by it, it is high time for them to take a review of the matter ; for a mind which will yield to fuch an argument, is expofed to every kind of error, and pre- pared to fwallow the groifefl abfurdities. — The au- thor, on a review of fuch a raeafure to; influence his own mind or the minds oi others, mull, fee, that how- ever well meant the argument might be, yet it is in fa£l making ufe of a weapoh, which is fatal, to every truth. ", . .•! :■ , But to return ; it does not appear, that the fcheme advanced in the preceding fedion, has the leaft ten- dency to weaken the evidence in favour of the prac- tice of infant baptifm ; but, on the contrary, it ferves to reconcile it with reafon, and with every part of revelation. If the objection is only defigned to fug- gefl, that the pradice of infant baptifm is placed in a different point of light, from w^hat it has fometimes been, it is acknowledged ; yet it is believed at the fame time, that it is put on fuch an iflTue, as that it is capable of a much better defence, than on any other View of it. Ob J. VII. The fcheme of baptifm, advanced in this and a former inquiry, is calculated to gratify the carelefs feelings, natural prejudices and biaflTes of the human mind — There is not that mortification and felf-denial implied in it, as is implied in that fcheme of baptifm, which confiders children as comprehen- ded in the covenant made with parents ; and that their welfare is fufpended on parental fidelity, &c. and, therefore, it is not a fcheme fo conformable to the genius of the gofpel. This objeftion is not dated at large, in any partic- ular paragraph j but feveral fuggeflions of fuch a na~ . ture are contained in p. 1 16, 117. Ans. It is by no means conceded, that the fcheme is liable to fuch an objedion. In regard to dcdicd' i09 iion, where do the corruptions of the human heart moll naturally appear ? Upon the fcheme advanced in the lafl feclion, parents are required to dedicate their children to God, to be difpofed of according to his fovereign pleafure, without pretending to know how God will difpofe of them, altho' parents fliould be ever fo faithful. — Upon the objeftor's plan, pa- rents give them to God, believing, that if they al-e faithful, God will certainly fave their children. — \'Vhich of thefe fchemes are molt trying and felf-de- nying — mod oppofcd to felfifh feelings ? Which of them puts fai.th and refignation to the fevered trial ? I'idelity is folemnly eng»iged in both cafes. In one cafe, it is engaged abfoiutcly v/ithoiit any afiurances, that God will fave fuch children, or pretending to know, how- God will difpofe of them ; but they are given up unconditionally to the Lord. In the other cafe, children are given to God, under the imprell- ion and in the belief^ that God will fave them. In which of thefe tvi^o cafes is fubmiHion put to the great- ell trial t It mufl be in the former. ■ -. Upon the fcheme advanced, in the preceding fec- tlon and my former inquiry, parents are fubjecl to difcipline, and are holden to faithfulnefs in the moll rigid manner. In cafe of negligence, they not only expofe their children to ruin, but they expofe them- felves to be call out of the famiUes of Chrill. And, although their children are not conlidered as perfon- al and diflinft members of the Church, yet, through the medium of their parents, they are fubjecl to a difcipline, which is peculiarly painful and trying. — They are laid imder a necefllty of being. moral, if pa- rents are faithful ; or, of being declared incorrigi- ble, and as fuch given over to ruin.J-— — The fcheme, in this refpecl, is far before that which, although it requires dedication, yet, gratities the felfifli feelings of the dedicator, fo far as to contain alfuraaces of X See my former inquiry, Sect. g. It* juft fuch an iflue, as his private feelings would dlcr tate. And, although the fcheme of the objedor, re* quires a difcipline, which may terminate in the re-f jedlion of the baptized child ; yet it in no cafe re- quires of thf parent, the painful and mortifying tafk of bringing his own child, which is flefli of his flefh and bone of his bone, and declaring, before the Church, that this his fon is a glutton, a wine bibber, &c. an incorrigible fon, who will not obey the voice of his father or mother ; and who has already wea, ried their patience and baffled their moft fs^ithful ef- forts. Oji the whole, it is confidently believed,, that che obje(?:ion, under confideration, is mifplaced. O^j. VJII, The fcheme of baptifm which has been advanced, detrafts from the importance of the inftitution of baptifm j — renders it in a great meaf- ure ufelefs, and leaves very few motives to the prac- tice of it J efpecially as infants are refpefted. Ans. It is acknowledged, that the fcheme does not raife up the ordinance of baptifm jij^ove every other inftitution ; yet, it is by no means, jt^ly liable to this objedtion. This will appear from the follow- ing confiderations. 1. Were there no vifible advantages arifmg from baptifm, either to parent or child, yet there would be motives remaining, for a ferious attendance on it, which are of the greatefl weight in the view of good men ; who are well informed and not influenced chiefly by felfifh confiderations. A love to God, and refpedt to his authority will ever induce good men tQ regard it, as an important inftitution- 2. There is as important an end anfwcred, by the baptifm of children, on the fcheme which has been advanced, as in the baptifm of an adult. — The fame end is anfwered ; for the baptifm of children is au evidence or token, that the parent keeps covenant, as well as the parent's own baptifm. 3. Several particular confiderations, befides thofe which have been mentioned, (hew that the inftitution Ill of baptifm, as it is reprefented in the preceding fee- tion, is ufeful and important, and that there are fol- cnm motives to the practice of it, refpe«^ing infants. Ftr/^ ; It has an. important tendency refpeding the world at large.-^It is one fpecial means of keeping the covenant, in which God is ready to tranfa6l with mankind, in view. It brings up and keeps alive an inquiry, relative to the meaning of the tranfaclion^ and the import and nature of the covenant, which is refpeded in it. Secondly ; The inftitution, as it has been explain- ed, has a very important tendency relative to parents ^ who dedicate their children in baptifm. It being a fign of dedication, and of parents* mofl folemn engagementSj refpeding their children, it ferves to imprefs and perpetuate on their minds, a fenfe of their obligations to bring up their children for God — Thirdly ; The inflitution of baptifm, as it is re^ prcfented in the preceding fedion, is important, as baptized children are refpeded.'^^It has a moft direct tendency to imprefs God's covenant on their minds. It brings it much nearer to them^ than it would oth- crwife be. Although it does not import, that they ate in covenant, yet it brings the covenant into view ; it is written on their foreheads. In this view of it, it promotes the general good \ and ferves to perpetu- ate the memory of the covenant, and to awaken at- tention to it. It is polled up, as it were, at every corner. The inftitution, therefore, is important for parents^ for children, and for the world in general* Fourthly ; That the bapxifm of infants is import- ant, on the plan which has been advanced, further appears, as it is connected with the molt efficacious means of their falvation. Parental fidelity is confidercd, on all hands, as 2 moft important means of the falvation of children* Parents, if faithful, may do more towards rendering children pious and happy, than can be done by any 112 Other perfons. By faithful and vigorous exertions^ they may hope and expeft, that their children will walk in the way they fhould go. And the fidelity of parents is fecured, in the bed manner, by the inlli- tution of baptifm. In the dedication and baptifm ot their children, they folemnly covenant and engage, to train them up for God j and the token and mark of their engagements is imprefled, on the foreheads of their children, that they may be forever in view. — Befides, the fidelity of the whole Church will be ex- erted, to animate parents to ad with vigor and ref- olution. In addition to thefe confiderations, on the fcheme which is advanced in the preceding fection, bap- tized children have the mofl folemn inducements, to be attentive and teachable ; for they are to confider, that their falvation is depending on perfonal exercifes, and not merely on the faithful exertions of their parents. If it Ihould be faid, by way of objedion, that al- though it be true, that there are many things, on the propofed plan, to fecure parental faithfulnefs, yet there is no covenant fecurity of it ; the anfwer is, although it be true, that parental faithfulnefs is not fecured by any covenant, yet it flands on a level, in this refped, with the plan which is oppofed to it ; for on that plan, it is not pretended, that parental faithfulnefs is fecured by covenant. But it may be inquired, whether, if there were a promife of the falvation of children, on the condition of parental faithfulnefs, and fo if parents were affu- red, that the fate of their children was fufpended on their fidelity, it would not greatly animate them ? Ans. Such a promife might, in feme views of the cafe, animate and quicken parents to faithfulnefs ; as abfolute promifes of fuccefs, in promoting the fal- vation of men, might animate minifters of the gofpel to be faithful in preaching it ; yet no fuch promifes are made in the latter cafe, although a very important one; and from what been faid it appears, that theie, is no fuch promife in the former cafe. Besides ; it admits of a very ferious doubt, wheth^ «r, if theie were a promife in the cafe of parents, qual- ified as the impleaded promife is, it would not, in- ftead of animating them, fink them down into aitate of defpondency. If a believing parent confideredhis own falvation, as fufpended oh his perfeverance in holinefs, and that there was no grace fecured in the covenant to enfure his perfeverance, would he not fmk under thofe views ? It deferves a ferious inquiry, at leaft, whether, if parents were to confider the fate of their pofterity to be fufpended on their faithfulnefs, a faithfulnefs which is not common to believers, nor fecured by any covenant, they would not abfolutely defpair under the apprehenfion ? At leaft, they would conclude, on the whole, that there were no greater profpeds of the falvation of their children, than if it were fufpended, as it really is, on the perfonal repen- tance and faith of children, as the condition ; bec^ufe in either cafe, the falvation of children would depend, on the fovereign and unpromifed interpofition of God. Besides j would not the fuppofition, that the fal- vation of children was abfolutely fufpended on the faithfulnefs of parents, have a moft pernicious influ- ence on children, if it might be fuppofed to animate parents ? Did children believe the doctrine, would they not conclude, that their own attention and concern would be unneceflary ? They have a violent natural propen- fity to negligence ; and if they believed in the doc- trine, that their falvation was fufpended on the con- dition of their parents' fidelity, although they might confider it as highly important, that their parents Ihould be faithful j yet, would they not conclude, that their own perfonal attention and aftlvity were needlefs ? It is a queftion, therefore, whether the fup- pofed promife would, on the whole, have any ufeful tendency ? It really implies no greater fecurity of pa- rental faithfulnefs, than is implied in the other fcheme ; P 114 and it has as dired; a tendency to render children carelefs, us it has to anmate parents. Befides, it ap- pears that God has never feen fit to make fuch a promife. It appears, on the whole, from the obfervations which have been made, that the inftitution of infant baptifm, as it has been reprefented, in this and in my former inquiry, is not only reafonable, but ufeful and important ; and, therefore, that there are moft weigh- ty motives to pradlife it. — i— And, it is prefumed, that the fcheme is not juflly liable to any of the pre- ceding objedions. S E C T I O N X. Concluding remarks and chfervaiions^ IF it be a truth, that the children of believers are not in covenant, and are not to be baptized in to- ken of their title to the bleffings of the covenant, but as a mark and token that their parents will keep covenant, and that their children are dedicated to God, it will follow as a confequence, that baptized infants are not to be confidered, as perfonal and dif- tin£l members of the Church : and, that their con- nexion with the Church, muft be through the medi- um of paients. And, as baptized children are con- nected with the Church, in that way, fo the difcipline which is to be exercifed refpeding them muft, alfo, be throucjh the medium of their parents. Thefe re- marks are jullified by many conceffions. It is faid, *•■ Our having been the fubjecls of baptifm in infan- •" cy, gives us no right to baptifm for our infant feed. " Nor doth this give us any more right, when we " come to adult age, to be confidered, received and " treated as chriftians, and as being ourfelves incov- " enant with God, than if we never had been bapli- ^' zed." p. 1 08. ' 'The preceding remarks are fb obvious, that nothing need to be fald, to illuftratc them. If any wifh for a further illuftration of them, they are referred to my former inquiry ; fedions, 7, Before this inquiry is clofed, after having obvia- ted the obje£tions to the fcheme advanced in this and my former inquiry, it may not be improper to add a few remarks on the plan which has been oppofed to it. And, 1. It concedes the fundamental principle, on which the fcheme held forth in my inquiry, is foun- ded. The principle alluded to is this, that the children of believers are not in covenant and fo not to be bap- tized in token of their being in covenant. There arc many things advanced to fhew that they are rcfpecled as the feed j but after all, it is granted, that they have no promifes made them, rior any more rights than the children of unbelievers. 2. The fcheme advanced in oppofition to my in- quiry, falls totally fliort of the object at which it was aimed. It was del'igned to eftabhfli a fcheme of baptilm, which would have the fam.e import, or render bap- tifm of the fame import, refpeding baptized ehildren, as refpecting a baptized adult ; for it is made an ob- jedtion to my inquiry that different- things were figni- tied refpecling them. p. ^;^-^, Yet it is acknowledg- ed ; that as to the adult, it feals his title to eternal life, but as to the infant no promifes were fealed. 3. The fcheme is, in fome. refpecls, unintelligible. The condition of the promife, which is fuppofed to be fealed in baptifm, is parental rlilihf ulnefs. Bui it is not fuch a faithfulnefs as is common to true be- lievers in Chrift. It is a faithfulnfs which cannot be defcribed ; it is to be found fom.ewhere between ab- folute perfedion and total neghgence. Befides, the promife itfeli is fuppofed to contain a fecurity of piety ii6 to children ; yet it depends upon fuch a faithfulnefs in parents, as is not common to true believers, and as is fecured in no covenant whatever ; but is as un- promifed a favour, as the regeneration, repentance and faith of children. 4. The plan is calculated to promote and uphold prefumpt-ion. Those who offer up children upon that plan, mufl believe in the fuppofed promife, and engage the re- quifite faithfulnefs. But, if they do engage it, they muft do it in their ovm ftrength ; for it is fecured by no covenant or promife ; for there is no covenant which promifes it, even to true believers in Chrift. Such as prefume to enter into fuch engagements, muft truft to their own refources and fufficiency. 5. The fcheme is inch, that fuch only as have a high conceit of their own eminent piety would prob- ably venture to praclife upon it, if it were thoroughly underftood. The faithfulnefs which is one condition of the prom- ife, is not common to real believers ; — and, no cove- nant fecures it. Therefore fuch perlpns as venture to proceed, muft do it, on the idea, that they have fiwre grace and fhall be more faithful than believers in common. They muft proceed, believing, not only that they arc real faints, but that they are eminent faints. This obfervation is defigned to apply to the fcheme, and not, by any means, to the perfon who has pub- lifted it. It has been fhewn already, that the promife which is the bafis of the fcheme, is not contained in the fac red fcriptures. And, that were theie a promife, qual- ified as that is, it could, in reality, amount to nothing more than a bare tender of falvation, made on certain conditions, which conditions are fecured in no cove- nant whatever.— And, if it were fuch as it is fuppofed to be, it in no meafure ftiews, chat the infants of be- iievers are in covenant. The plan of baptifm advanced in this and my other inquiry, I truft, muft appear to be plain and confident — to be attended with no intricacies. I HAVE now offered to confideration, fuch obferva- tions as were thought to be calculated to fettle the im- portajit inquiry, relative to the defign arid import of baptifm. Although they have been offered with free- dom, yet, it is hoped in the exercife of candor and friendfhip, to all concerned in the inquiry. Whether the obfervations which have been made, are to the pur- pofe, the unprejudiced and difcerning mufl determine. I fincerely adopt the benevolent wifh ; that, "If what " is here offered to public view, be not agreeable to " the oracles of God, that the mind of no one may be " perverted by it. But if this inquiry contain a jufl " reprefentation of God's neWand gracious covenant^ " it is devoutly to be wifhed, that the bleifing of heav.-. -* en may attend it." Amen. ERRATA. page. Line from top. 17 ij iox covenant xe^^ coinmoH- 25 for promifes read ■promife. %o 22 for make read mark. 31 4 for imparted rend imported, 43 9 ior/eemed rtdA/ecured. 24 27 Xt^AJhonu. 30 33 dele //;'o/d'. 34 38 for has read ^a^. 46 31 read Tremellius. ya 8 rezd /entiments. 77 15 rcad/w/./y. 91 16 readT^^fooy. )( Several errors, of lefsconfequence, in orthography, and feme i* punauation, are not inferted in the table, but are trufted to the can- dor of the reader- ■"L^Wm^ ■^<^ "^- . Vf^-