Object 1. First That Christ is said to be the Saviour of all men 1 Tim. 4.10 To be the Saviour of the world John 4.42 and therefore though it should be granted that the Infant-seed of believing Parents are under the Promise of being saved by Christ it will not follow that they were looked upon as appertaining to or as Members of his mystical Body Answ To that I answer that though Christ in a large sence may be and is in Scripture said to be the Saviour of all men and the Saviour of the world yet no particular or individual person is actually and that for the present as personally considered under any Promise of being saved by him especially taking Salvation of spiritual and eternal Salvation but such who are of or do appertain to his mystical Body therefore it is said of these Ephesians before their imbracement of Christ They were strangers to the Covenants of promise Ephes 2.12 They had nothing to do with the Promises of spiritual and saving Mercies and as they were strangers to the Covenants of promise so they were without hope without any grounded hope interest in the Promises being the alone true ground of all hope of spiritual and eternal Salvation so that interest in the Promise of Salvation declares the persons so interessed to appertain to or to be of the mystical Body of Christ all others being strangers to the Promises and therefore without hope Object 2 Secondly It is objected That when it is said Christ is the Saviour of his Body it is only meant of his mystical body as invisible and consequently in case this Scripture will prove that the Infant-seed of believing Parents as having the Promise of Salvation appertaining to them do appertain to the mystical Body of Christ it will prove that they do universally appertain to his Mystical Body as invisible which it will be said we our selves deny and therefore this Scripture is impertinently brought to prove their relation to the mystical Body of Christ as visible which only speaks of his mystical Body as invisible Answ To that I answer This Objection will receive a more full answer by and by where I shall meet with it again at present I shall only say 't is evident the Apostle speaks of the mystical Body of Christ as visible and not meerly as invisible for let it be observed that Body and Church in this discourse of the Apostle are Synonimies or words exactly answering one another in sence and signification whom he intends by Body he intends by Church and so on the other hand whom he intends by Church he intends by Body Now this Church or Body of Christ of which he is said here to be the Saviour was that Church or Body of which the Ephesians were an homogeneal Part that is a part of the same kind with the whole hence the Apostle speaks of them as joynt Members with himself of this Body verse 20. for we are Members of his Body of his flesh and of his bones Mark he takes in the Ephesians universally and indefinitely one as well as another as joynt Members with him of this Body So Ephes 2.19 Now therefore ye are no longer Strangers and Forreigners but fellow-Citizens with the Saints and of the Houshold of God To be fellow-Citizens with the Saints and of the Houshold of God is all one with being of this Church or Body Now it is evident the Apostle did not suppose that every indivipual person of this Church were Members of the invisible Body of Christ what he saith Acts 20 30. plainly declares the contrary Now then this Church or Body of which the Apostle saith Christ was the Head and Saviour being that Church or Body of which the Ephesians were an homogeneal part and they not being supposed by the Apostle universally to appertain to the Church or Body of Christ as invisible It will undoubtedly follow that he doth not speak of the Church or Body of Christ meerly as invisible but as visible Christ is in Scripture said to be the Saviour of his Church or Body as visibly considered and the Infant-seed of believing Parents being under a Promise of Salvation by him or of being saved by him they must needs by the Apostles be owned and looked upon as Members of that Body of which he is the Saviour none as I have said being under a Promise of being saved by him but such as do appertain to that Body of which he is the Saviour Secondly All those who under the Gospel administration and that as personally considered are the actual Subjects of that Promise wherein God ingaged himself to be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their Generations were owned and looked upon by the Apostles as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ as visible But the Infant seed of believing Parents under the Gospel administration and that as personally considered are the actual Subjects of that Promise therefore c. The Major is undeniably proved by that positive Assertion of the Apostle Galatians 3.16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made he saith not to is Seeds as of many but to thy Seed which is Christ that is Christ mystical Now if that Promise were made to Christ and to Christ only as we see the Apostle denyes it to be made to any other it was not made to Seeds but to Seed to thy Seed which saith the Apostle is Christ I say if this Promise was made only to Christ it will undeniably follow that whosoever that Promise was made unto or to whom that Promise may by Scripture-warrant be applyed as the Actual Subjects of it and that as personally considered they must needs by the Apostles be looked upon and owned as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ and therefore let none evade this plain evidence to the deceiving themselves or others by saying that there are Promises made to others that are not Members of the mystical Body of Christ Let it be remembred the Argument speaks not of Promises in the general nor of any kind of Promises but of this Promise in special nor doth it speak of this Promise as an indefinite Promise made to any sort or species of persons collectively taken where 〈◊〉 single or individual person can be said to be an actual Subject of it as personally considered and therefore so produce any such Instances is wholly impertinent as to the Argument in hand let it be shewed that any person whether old or young might according to Scripture be accounted an actual Subject of this Promise and that as personally considered who yet was not by the Apostles owned or looked upon as appertaining to or as a Member of the mystical Body of Christ till which be done which I shall not doubt to affirm is impossible to be done we may undoubtedly conclude that all those that are the actual Subjects of that Promise as personally considered were owned and
regard had to the case and condition of the persons so baptized antecedent to their Baptism and consequently without considering the true reason and ground of their Baptisme at that age and upon such a profession and taking them as a full explication of that Commission of Christ warranting the application of Baptism under the new Testament administration as well negative shewing who ought not to be baptized as positive shewing who ought not to be baptized as positive shewing who ought to be baptized And hence two things are inferred and concluded First That a solemn profession of Faith and Repentance ought to precede the application of Baptism Secondly That none ought to be baptized but upon the precedency of such a profession But now let the cases and conditions of the persons whose examples are produced be considered and let the true reason and ground of their Baptism at such an age and upon such a profession be inquired into and thus we shall find that the persons we are now speaking of were either such as were Memebers of the Jewish Church as the natural Jews and Gentile Profelites or else they were such who were converted from among the Gentiles As for the case of the Gentiles the reason and ground of their Baptism at such an age and upon such a profession is obvious to all and when any are still converted from among the Heathens and brought over to the imbracement of Christianity 't is readily granted they are to be baptized according to the Instances produced but from thence it cannot with any shew of reason be concluded that such a profession must universally antecede the application of Baptism and as for the case of the Jews and Proselytes who before were Members of the Church and answerably had 〈◊〉 need of any new admission into it the Church still remaining one and the same the case and condition of none since the desolution of the Jewish Ecclesiastical Polity can possibly be imagined to answer thereunto or correspond therewith and therefore the Instances produced either of Jews or Gentile Proselytes being baptized at age upon their personal profession of faith and Repentance ought not to be made the pattern of Baptism as administred to or among the Gentiles neither can any such alteration in the Subjects receptive of the Sign and Token of the Covenant be concluded from these Instances as is pretended the reason of their Baptism upon their personal profession was not because under the new Testament administration such a profession is constantly and universally to antecede the application of Baptism But the Reason was evidently twofold First Because now a new Sign and Token of the Covenant was instituted and appointed by Christ which Abraham's Seed in their Generations were under an Obligation by vertue of that first Command to keep and hence as during the continuance of the first Token viz. Circumcision they were as to be incorporated into the Church or visible Body of Christ under an Obligation to receive and bear that so upon the institution of a new Token viz. Baptism they were still supposing the continuance of their Membership in the Church obliged to receive and bear that and hence though they were duly admitted into the mystical Body of Christ by Circumcision applyed to them in their infancy and had no need of another admission yet when another Sign or Token was appointed though by the cessation of Circumcision their Membership in the Church was not nulled or broken off yet it was necessary they should receive and bear that other Sign or Token now instituted by Christ and that that they might continue their obedience to that first Command to keep the Covenant Secondly Because the continuance of their Membership did indispensably require as a reformation in their judgments and practises which was to be begun in Repentance so they were to believe a new Article of Faith viz. That that individual Person the Man Christ Jesus was the Son of God the promised Messiah and Saviour of the World which Repentance and Faith were visibly to be professed in order to their visible continuance in the Church or mystical Body of Christ hence it was that antecedent to their Baptism the new Token of the Covenant they were to make that profession of their Faith and Repentance from whence it appears that their Baptism upon their personal profession of Faith and Repentance neither concludes themselves antecedently not to be Members of the same Church or mystical Body of Christ that baptism admits into nor yet that a visible profession is indispensably necessary antecedent to the application of Baptism Secondly The other thing inferred from the forementioned Instances and Examples and which follows upon this is That none ought to be baptized but such as are capable of making such a Profession but now it will not follow that because some Instances are left upon record of persons being baptized at age upon their personal Faith and Repentance that therefore none may be baptized but upon such a profession these Instances shew us what we may and ought to do when a sutable case occurs but declare not what we ought to do when cases are no way parallel hence though we have no express mention made of the Baptism of Infants in totidem verbis yet having sufficient discoveries of the mind of Christ as to that matter the want of such express mention ought to be no let in our way as to the application of Baptism unto them therefore if we would come to the knowledge of the will of Christ relating to the practice under debate take heed we do not stumble at this stone do not take up with the bare Instances and Examples of persons baptized in primitive times as though the full explication both negative and positive of the Commission of Christ for the administration of Baptism were to be deduced from them but take in and improve the whole of what Christ hath left us in his Word whether in the Old or in the New Testament for the finding out of his mind and will relating unto this practice And thus I hope Reader thou wilt find in the insuing Treatise that he hath given us sufficient discoveries of his mind and will Fourthly That which hath given no little advantage to the opinion and practise here opposed is the comparing the supposed littleness of good and smalness of advantage accrewing to the Seed of Believers by the utmost of what we contend for on their behalf supposing that were granted to them with the supposed greatness and variety of inconveniencies and ill consequences arising from the granting of it unto them Hence we may observe how our Opposers with all their might endeavour to diminish the good pleaded by us to redound to the Seed of Believers by their interest in the Covenant and Baptism supposing the one should be granted as their priviledge and the other applyed unto them and on the other hand aggravate and set forth the variety of
expression and too many interruptions in the sence I am unwilling to trouble thee with an account how it is come thus to pass let me only say it comes to thee not only through the hands of a Printer and Corrector but of more than one Transcribers I have only to request on my own behalf that thou wilt have so much Charity for me as to judge it went out of my hands compleat as to sence though not cloathed with such apt and fit expressions as it might have been on their behalf I shall request that thou wilt not lay the blame upon any one of them they have all their respective shares in it I hope thou wilt be so ingenious yea so wise for thy self as to look at the strength of the Argument and not at the defects of the terms Thirdly I have only this further to request of thee That thou wilt joyn with me in fervent prayers unto God like unto whom none can teach that he will lead both thy self and me into all truth and through the true knowledge and practice thereof unto that Assembly of the First born among whom no contest of what kind soever have any place Jan. 20. 1670. Thine in the Service of the Gospel Joseph Whiston Reader least thou shouldest either not understand or misunderstand the Authors sence in these passages wherein these Escapes have slipt the Press which are somewhat more than is usual in so small a Treatise as this is thou art desired before thou readest to correct them with thy Pen. In the Preface page 7. line 11. read incurring PAge 13. line 1. blot out in after ages p. 18. l. 24 for that r. these are p. 29. l. 23. put a full stop after family p. 42. l. 19. r. indefinite p. 44. l. 20. before the add all p. 47. l. 2. f never r. now p. 49. I. 12 r. from p. 52. l. 20. f party r. parts p. 55 l. 20. f. the r. no p. 57. l. 29. blot out verse 12 p 68 l 18. r. inconsistent p. 76. l 32. f. as r. is p. 7◠l. 24. f. we r. he p. 84. l. 7. blot out that l. 14. r. general p. 87. l. 1. f. 1 r it p. 93. l 10. r. his p. 94 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 108. l. 10 f. father r. faith l. 20. r. that p 112. l. 1. blot out himself p. 113. l. 14. r ther houses p. 123. l. 28 blot out one p. 135. l 24. r. concerns p. 142. blot out part of the second and third line p. 147. l 12. blot out to say that p. 149. l 19. blot out all p. 153. l. 25. r carefully p. 179. l. 12 r. political p. 184. l. 9 f was r. as p 197 l. 31. f. but r. that p. 203. l. ult r. their p. 212. l. 17. r. not p. 216 l. 28. r. offert p 242. l. 17 r. when so p 245. l. 24 p. 246 l. 11. f. generally r. Gentiles p 249. l. 9 f. or r and p. 258 l. 28. r. contradislinction p. 272. before only add not p. 273. f. there r. these p. 306 l 26. r. deduced There are its true some other mistakes of a less moment which the Reader will easily perceive and rectifie as he goes along or if he discern them not he is in no danger to be prejudiced by them as sometimes the plural number put for the singular sometimes the singular for the plural The Readers must also take notice of a mistake in the Folio's the Folio's from 156. to 177. being wanting where yet nothing is wanting in the Book of what was intended Infant-Baptism from Heaven and not of Men. CHAP. I. The main Proposition discussed in the ensuing Treatise laid down in order to the confirmation of which three subordinate Propositions proposed The grand Promise of the Covenant wherein God promised to be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their Generations largely explained The full mind and meaning of God in that Promise held forth in five Conclusions The sence in which the first subordinate Proposition is to be understood declared Proposition THat it is the will of our Lord Jesus Christ that the Infant-seed of one or both believing Parents should be baptized For the more full evidencing the truth asserted in this grand Proposition I shall day down and speak to three subordinate Propositions which being distinctly and fully proved the truth of our grand Proposition will as certainly and infallibly be inferred and concluded from them as the salvation of any particular Believer can be inferred and concluded from that universal Propoposition viz. He that believes shall be saved These subordinate Propositions are First That when God at his first entring Covenant with Abraham promised to be a God to him and to his Seed he inteaded his natural Seed as the first and next Subjects of that Promise Secondly That this Promise in the seuce after to be declar'd is by God himself settled upon and confirmed to believing Gentiles Thirdly That all those that are under or are the actual Subjects of that Promise ought according to the will of Christ to be baptized To begin with the first Viz. 1. That when God at his first entering Covenant with Abraham promised to be a God to him and to his Seed he intended his natural Seed as the first and next Subjects of that promise Abraham's natural Seed were intended as the immediate Subjects of that Promise as made to him with reference to his Seed The Promise I have reference unto is that in Gen. 17.7 where note that I do not say that they are the only nor yet the principal Subjects of that promise but the immediate and first subjects the promise in the letter of it did immediately and primarily respect them Now that the sence and meaning of this Proposition may more fully appear and all mistakes about it be obviated and prevented I shall enquire into three things with reference to that Promise First Who are intended in that term Seed according to the true and full acceptation of it in that promise Secondly Under what notion or in what capacity Abraham is to be considered as receiving that promise or having that promise made to him by God Thirdly What is the true intent of that promise in regard of the extent and latitude on the one hand and the limitations on the other For the first We may observe that the Scriture speaks of a twofold seed of Abraham 1. There is his natural Seed 2. There is his spiritual or mystical Seed I shall speak to this term Seed in the latter notion of it in the first place namely as it intends or signifieth Abraham's spiritual or mystical seed and thus by seed we are to understand Christ mystical or whole Christ as I may so speak including both Christ himself as Head and the whole universal Church consisting both of Jews and Gentiles as the Body Thus this term Seed is taken Gal. 3.16 When God made promise to Abraham he saith not
not agreed among themselves some granting that Ishmael was intended in that Promise and consequently that he was a party in that Covenant but deny that that Covenant was a Covenant of Grace Others granting that that was a Covenant of Grace but deny Ishmael to be a party in it whence it appears that in all these three Assertions viz. that Ishmael was intended in that Promise that the Covenant in which the Promise is contained is a Covenant of Grace That the Covenant of Grace cannot be broken we have the suffrage of some of our Opposites as they are taken severally But you will say They all agree 〈…〉 be all true taken conjunctively It is tâ—â—â— they do so and where their mistake lies either as 〈◊〉 what we affirm or as to the truth it self shall be now considered First And I shall first shew in what sence we hold and maintain the Covenant of Grace to be an immutable and unchangeable Covenant a Covenant that cannot be broken Secondly Lay down some Propositions for the vindicating the truth asserted in this first Proposition for carrying any appearance of repugnancy to that Principle held and maintained by us in the sence it is held and maintained by us concerning the immutability of the Covenant of Grace For the first and thus we must observe a twofold distinction First We must distinguish between an external and visible and an internal and invisible being in Covenant or between the Covenant of Grace as externally and visibly and as internally and invisibly plighted or mutually entred between God and men that there is an external and visible being in Covenant or that there is an external and visible plighting or mutual entring of Covenant between God and men where yet there is not an internal and invisible being in Covenant nor any internal mutual entring Covenant between God and men is evident through the whole Scripture and is so demonstratively proved by others especially Mr. Cobbett of New-England that it is wholly superfluous to add any thing I shall therefore only say that unless we do grant this distinction we must hold that either Christ hath no visible Body Church or People in the World or else that some may be of the visible Body Church or People of Christ who yet are not in any sence in the Covenant of Grace the former sure none will affirm and the granting the latter will grant what I contend for as will appear in the process of our discourse Secondly We must distinguish between being in Covenant through a personal acceptation of the terms of the Covenant and ingaging with God in a Covenant way and being in Covenant by vertue of the gratious tenour of the Covenant it self as made with Abraham and his Seed in their generations that there is a being in Covenant by a personal acceptation of the terms of the Covenant and ingaging with God in a Covenant way will be denied by none and that there is a being in Covenant or being under the promises of the Covenant by vertue of the gracious tenour of the Covenant it self will I hope sufficiently appear from the proof of this and our next Proposition Now when we say the Covenant of Grace is an immutable and unchangeable Covenant a Covenant that cannot be broken we intend it of the Covenant as personally and that intnely and sincerely entred by a truly regenerate Soul and not of the Covenant as only externally and unsincerely entred by Hypocrites nor of the Covenant as made with believing Parents with reference to their natural Seed and the meaning of what is affirmed concerning the immutability and unchangeableness of the Covenant of Grace is only this that when once a Soul is savingly wrought upon to a rightly closing in with Christ and a saving closing with the terms of the Covenant that Soul shall never totally and finally fall away so as to suffer an absolute and total loss of that Grace wrought in it nor be absolutely cast out of a Covenant state and relation God-ward whether these promises upon the warrant of which this immutability and unchangeableness of the Covenant is afferted and maintained will prove any more shall be considered at least so far as concerns my present purpose by and by Having then given the sence in which we hold the Covenant of Grace to be immutable and unchangeable I proceed to the second thing promised the Propositions and they are these First That this Covenant now established between God and Abraham and his Seed in their generations which I grant yea affirm that it was a Covenant of Grace the same in substance that Believers are still under was and still is a conditional Covenant Let not that term conditional offend I intend no more than what I suppose will on all hands be granted viz. That as God promised good to Abraham with reference both to himself and his Seed in their generations so he required the performance of duty as from Abraham himself so from his Seed in their respective generations In brief thus this Covenant contained promises of good from God yet with a restipulation of duty from the parties with whom it was made and unto whom the promises did appertain and this is essential to the very being of a Covenant as properly taken It is true this term Covenant is variously used in Scripture sometimes for a bare promise on Gods part sometimes for the restipulation on mans part sometimes for the token of the Covenant but these are improper significations of the word when it is properly taken it alwayes signifies a mutual compact between God and man wherein God ingageth himself by promise to them and ingageth them to the performance of what himself hath constituted to be their duty a Covenant in general when properly taken and consequently this Covenant in particular which must partake of the general nature of Covenants every Species must partake of its Genus being quiddam complexum implying two or more parties covenanting so two parties covenanted the giving of some good on the one part and the return of some performance on the other and that as indispensably necessary to the preservation of the Covenant inviolate on each part Secondly That this restipulation or condition on Abraham's part did concern him both as a single person and as a Parent standing in a parental relation towards his Seed taken in as joynt parties with himself into covenant my meaning is evident Abraham stood in a double capacity as a single party with whom God entred covenant and as a father of children to whom the promises of the Covenant did in common with himself appertain Now as Abraham as a single person in covenant was to accept of and perform the conditions of the Covenant he was in that capacity ingaged to by God so as a parent he had something of duty incumbent upon him with reference to his Seed as immediately descending from his own loins and as his faithful performance of that duty incumbent
Ordinance that can with any shew of probability be supposed to be it I shall therefore only instance in a fourfold use and end whereunto Circumcision as the Sign and Token of the Covenant was appointed and whereunto it did serve and then shew the agreement of Baptism with Circumcision in regard of those uses and ends The first and two last I shall do little more than mention and a little insist upon the second First Circumcision as the Sign and Token of the Covenant was the solemn Rite or Ordinance whereby persons were admitted into and incorporated in the Jewish Church and by the reception of which they became actual Members of that Church and consequently was that solemn Rite or Ordinance whereby persons were incorporated in and united to the mystical Body of Christ as visible The proving of this I suppose is needless 't will surely be denyed by none And therefore Secondly Circumcision was to seal and assure to the Subjects of it their enjoyment of the good things benefits and blessings promised in according to the true tenour of the Covenant to the administration of which it was annexed See this in a particular Instance viz. Remission of sin or the Righteousness which is of Faith Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith that is it did seal and assure to the due Subjects of it the non-imputation of their sin or the imputation of righteousness to them upon condition of their Faith Thus it is said of Abraham He received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had being yet uncircumcised Rom. 4.11 The Apostle here shews us one special use and end of Circumcision respective to all to whom it was duly applyed Object But here it is objected That to have Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith was a priviledge peculiar to Abraham the Father of the faithful and was not of that use nor appointed for that end to all to whom it was rightfully applyed therefore it is said He received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith that he might be the Father of all that believe And hence it may seem that he receiving Circumcision under that notion and consideration upon a reason and ground peculiar and proper to himself the priviledge was peculiar and proper to him and not common to any other with him there not being the same reason and ground of their receiving of it under the same notion and consideration To that I answer two things First Those words That he might be the Father of all them that believe depend not only upon the words immediately foregoing but upon the tenth verse taken in conjunction with the former part of v. 11. he did not only receive Circumcision as a Seal that he might be the Father of all them that believe but he both had righteousness imputed to him while in uncircumcision and also received the Sign of Circumcision as a Seal that he might be the Father of them that should believe whether circumcised or uncircumcised So that he did not receive Circumcision as a Seal of the righteousness of faith upon any reason peculiar and special to himself any more than he had righteousness imputed to him upon a reason peculiar and proper to himself And consequently upon the same account that our Opposites appropriate circumcision as a Seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham himself and deny it to be of the same use to his Seed they may appropriate the imputation of Righteousness through Faith and Circumcision it self to him alone and deny that any of his Seed had Righteousness imputed unto them or ought to have been circumcised Secondly I answer That the Apostle here rather speaks of the finis cui than the finis cujus of Abraham's receiving Circumcision as a Seal My meaning is this Abraham received circumcision as a Seal not barely for the sake of that relation of his being a Father of them that should believe as it was a good benefit or priviledge to himself but he received it under that notion and consideration In eorum gratiam qui credituri sint for their sake to whom he should sustain the relation of a Father And so the meaning is He received the Sign of Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith not barely that he might sustain the relation of a Father to all that should believe as that was a good to himself but that he might as a Father or common person be a pattern to all that should sustain that relation of Children to him in regard of the good which they as his Children should receive Now then having removed this Objection I shall offer two or three Arguments to prove that Circumcision was appointed for this use and end viz. to seal and confirm the whole Covenant to all to whom it was according to the will of God to be applyed The first shall be taken from the end of Abraham's receiving of it as here declared by the Apostle And thus I argue If Abraham received Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousness which he had through Faith that he might be the Father of and as the Father of a pattern to all that being circumcised should believe then to all that being circumcised did believe their circumcision was and ought to be looked upon and improved by them as a Seal of that Righteousness they had through Faith But the former is true therefore the latter For the Consequence in the Major proposition I suppose that will not be denyed it being past all rational doubt that if Abraham received Circumcision under that very notion and consideration as a Seal that he might be the Father of and as the Father of might be a pattern to all that being circumcised should believe as he did Then look of what use it was to him or to what end he received it it must needs be of the same use and appointed for the same end unto them to whom he was a pattern as receiving it And therefore 't is only the Antecedent that can be questioned which yet is so evident that to understanding and unprejudiced persons the proving of it may seem wholly superfluous That Abraham received Circumcision under this very notion as a Seal of the righteousness which he had through faith that he might be the Father of all them who being circumcised did believe is expresly affirmed by the Apostle all that can be doubted of is whether he was in regard of the use and end of it as received by himself a pattern to all to whom he was a Father But now this is undeniable in as much as his paternity or fatherhood as I may so speak in part if not principally confisted in his being a pattern and example to all tow hom he was a Father This title of a Father is in a peculiar and special manner given to and predicated of Abraham in this very regard that he was set up
Circumcision in regard of these uses and ends is sufficiently evident and consequently must needs be the Sign and Token of the Covenant here injoyned since the laying aside of Circumcision Let us see it in the particulars First For the first use and end of Circumcision viz. It s being that solemn Rite and Ordinance by which persons were admitted into and incorporated in the Church or mystical Body of Christ as visible That Baptism is of this use and appointed for this end is expresly declared by the Apostle 1 Cor. 12.13 Secondly For the second use and end of Circumcision viz. to assure the party to whom it was applyed of the injoyment of the good things benefits and blessings promised in the Covenant That Baptism is of this use is sufficiently evident from that passage of Peter 1 Pet 3.21 where Peter having spoken of the salvation of Noah and his house in the Ark sayes he The like figure whereunto Baptism now saveth us and telleth us how it saveth both negatively and positively negatively it is not by washing the body from its outward filth but positively by giving or effecting the answer of a good conscience towards God through the resurrection of Christ from the dead What the Apostle means by this answer of a good conscience Interpreters are not agreed neither doth it concern my present purpose to determine that which I only intend is that by the resurrection of Christ through a right use and improvement made of Baptism a believing Soul comes to have a good conscience that is an acquitting conscience Now what use or improvement can be made of Baptism in order to the cleansing and purifying the conscience by means whereof it becomes good as the Apostle speaks but as it is looked upon and applyed as a Seal or an assuring Sign sealing and assuring to the Soul the remission of sin through the purchase of Christs death as declared valid and effectual by his rising from the dead this use and end of Baptism is also clearly implyed and held forth in the Apostles Exhortation to those trembling Jews Acts 2.38 Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or unto the remission of sin Now under what notion or consideration doth the Apostle exhort to Baptism respective to remission of sin It cannot be under the notion of a proper cause for Baptism is no proper cause of the remission of sin neither is it so much as a necessary condition as Faith and Repentance in the adult are for then none could receive remission of sin without it but that is false as is evident in the case of the Thief upon the cross and the like is the case of many others who are converted immediately before death Neither doth he exhort to it barely under the notion of a Sign that phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implyes some reference that Baptism hath to remission of sin beyond what it would have were it only nudum Signum a bare Sign or representation of the remission of sins by the blood of Christ and therefore he must needs exhort to it under the notion of a Seal or assuring Sign And for the further clearing up of this let the case and condition of these trembling Jews be considered as they had sinned in crucifying of Christ and were under the guilt of that sin and under an Obligation to suffer deserved punishment so they were under a deep sence of that their sin and that wrath or punishment due to them upon the account thereof Now as the Apostle exhorts them to repent with which a saving faith in Christ must be supposed to concur with a direct reference to their obtaining remission of sin in foro Dei so he exhorts them to be baptized with a peculiar reference to the pacification of their consciences that they might not only have remission of sin in the Court of Heaven but have that remission sealed and confirmed to them to the quieting their afflicted consciences or to the working in them good consciences But that is a second use and end of Baptism Thirdly For the third use and end of Circumcision viz. To oblige and ingage the persons to whom it was applyed to a due and faithful performance of all consequent duties required in the Covenant This is true also of Baptism Baptism is not only a sealing or confirming Sign but an obliging Sign by it the person baptized is obliged to take God in Christ for his God and give up himself to him in universal and constant obedience to his will This is clearly held forth in that Proposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptism is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Into the Name of the Father Matth. 28.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Into Christ Gal. 3.27 But this I suppose will be granted on all hands I need not stand upon it Fourthly For the last use and end of Circumcision viz. To be an outward Sign or badge of that covenant-relation the Soul was taken into with God in Christ whereby the person was known and taken notice of as visibly belonging unto God as one of his covenant-people This again is true of Baptism hence those that are baptized are said to put on Christ Gal. 3.27 As many as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ they visibly appear as Members of his mystical Body as contradistinguished from the non-baptized from all it evidently appears that Baptism is indeed that Ordinance appointed by our Lord Christ under the new Testament serving to and performing of those uses and ends with reference unto which a Sign or Token in the general was annexed to the Covenant established between God and Abraham and his Seed in their Generations But let that suffice for the fourth particular Lastly That this Command doth alike oblige believing Gentiles respective to Baptism that it did the Jews respective to Circumcision As it obliged the Jews during that first Testament administration to be circumcised themselves and see that their Infant seed were circumcised with them so it doth still oblige believing Parents to be baptized themselves and see that their Infant-seed be baptized with them This is evident from the consideration of two things in the Command First The extensiveness of it it reaches Abraham's Seed in their Generations as we have afore proved Secondly The applicability of it as more generally laid down to Baptism as well as to Circumcision And for the clearing up of this let it be carefully observed that the Command obliging Abraham and his Seed in their Generations to keep the Covenant meaning as before noted the Token of the Covenant did not at all intimate much less determine what that Token should be it only constitutes the general duty of Abraham and his Seed in their Generations respective to the Token of the Covenant whatever that should after be determined by God himself to be the words are plain and express Thou shalt keep my
in some sort the more especially seasonable at such a time as this But suppose notwithstanding what hath been said the sending abroad of these Papers at this time should by any be judged unseasonable I have three things yet further to offer for my vindication First I considered that for the Mind to hang in suspence and lye under the pressure of fluctuating uncertainties about the mind and will of Christ relating to the discharge of duty is at any time greivous but more especially when the hand of God is lift up and that I know is the case of some truly conscientious Christians in reference to the practice here pleaded for and I judged it my duty to yield unto them what relief my mean ability would reach unto Secondly I considered that saying of the Wise man He that observeth the Wind shall not sow and he that regardeth the Clouds shall not reap Eccles 11.4 And whether I might live to see a more seasonable time was altogether uncertain unto me and for me to observe the Wind and stand gazing on the Clouds till overtaken by the night of death where no man can work and laid to sleep in the dust and thereby have lost my season for the sowing the Seed that Seed of which I may and must say it is Meshee as that word Psal 126.6 is rendred by Junius and some others it is Semon acquisitum Semen aliunde comparatum Seed that I have through Grace obtained from anothers store I hope I may truly say from his who as the Apostle saith Ministers seed to the sower and bread to the eater and that to use the Author aforementioned his words Prece pretio yet not so much of Silver and Gold as of that which by the Testimony of the Holy Ghost himself is the issue of much study viz. weariness and I may add wearing away of the flesh I was saying should I have observed the Winds and stood gazing on the Clouds till lost my season to sow this same Seed contained in the ensuing Treatise I could not have expected to reap when the Harvest comes what now through Grace I can in some measure live in the comfortable expectations of seasons lost though someting unseasonable prove a loss to the Husbandman when the harvest comes Thirdly The sending forth these Papers was necessary to prepare a way to and lay a foundation for a few practical sheets which if the Lord vouchsafe life and opportunity may follow wherein I intend as the Lord shall assist to make a more full enquiry into these four things First What are the Reasons of Gods appointing the application of the Token of the Covenant to the Infant seed of his people Secondly What are the benefits and advantages arising to them thereby Thirdly What is the duty of Parents towards their Children as incorporated by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ as visible And fourthly What is the improvement that Children themselves may and ought to make of their Baptism applyed unto them in their infancy as they grow up to years of maturity which things I could not fitly speak unto before their Covenant-interest and right to the Sign and Token of the Covenant arising therefrom was proved so that the appearing thus in publick in the defence of the practice of Infant-baptism was in some sort necessary unto me Secondly Another thing I conceive necessary for the preparing the Readers way to a more profitable perusal of the insuing Treatise is to make some enquiries what may have had and still hath too great an interest in the so far prevailing of the judgment and practice of lying opposite to that here pleaded for 't is I confess something strange to me whence it should come to pass that so many and those at least many of them truly conscientious Christians should at so easie a rate part with and give up their Childrens priviledge as to interest in the Covenant and the Token thereof and so readily take up an opinion and practice divesting them thereof Three things have often occurred to my thoughts as rendring this matter of wonder unto me First The plain evidence as to my understanding given in by the Scriptures to that their priviledge Secondly The utter silence of the Scriptures as to any express yea or plainly deduced consequential denial of it to them Thirdly That tenderness of affection natural and sure Grace destroyes not Nature to Parents towards their Children Hence notwithstanding what is urged on their parts from the Scripture yet I cannot but conceive there is either something wholly excentrical to the Question it self or some irregularity in the management of their enquiries in reference thereunto that hath had and still hath a considerable interest at least in manyes rejection of the Truth pleaded for and their imbracing the opinion and practice opposite thereunto Now it may not be altogether unprofitable to make some inquiry what that should be that so the Reader being forewarned may disintangle himself and have his mind more free to attend to and impartially weigh what is here tendered to him and upon a serious enquiry I conceive these six things may be assigned as of the importance mentioned First I cannot but think it must in part be imputed to a want of that tenderness of affection on towards Relations attended with the want of a right apprehension and true sense of the worth and excellency of spiritual Blessings and Covenant-priviledges that Christians ought to labour after the Apostle mentions it as one of the evils of the last times That men shall be without natural affection Now though this evil prevail not in the hearts of truly gratious Souls to a predominancy as it may and doth in the hearts of such who have only a form of Godliness yet it is too usually found that truly gracious Souls are more or less corrupted by the Epidemical evils of the times and places where they live in infectious times their blood and humors may be vitiated and corrupted to the producing of some evil symptomes upon whom yet the infection prevails not to the breaking out into a Disease to the taking away of their lives Thus I cannot but think that this evil of the want of natural affections too far prevails in though it prevails not over truly gracious Souls to the giving a very great advantage to the so far spreading of the opinion and practice aforementioned yet I do not say neither would I be understood as though I did suppose that this same evil hath been or is the cause or occasion of all their rejection of the practice pleaded for and complying with the opposite opinion and practice who yet do reject the one and imbrace the other I do not doubt but there are many among the contrary minded who are persons of much tenderness of affection towards their Children and have in a good measure a right apprehension and due sence of the worth and excellency of spiritual Blessings and Covenant-priviledges nor
as at first made to Abraham with reference to his Seed it was made to his Seed in their Generations that is to them and to their Seed or their Children as immediately descending from them for so the Covenant was established not only with Abraham himself but with him and his Seed in their Generations and in the same extent and latitude the Promises of the Covenant must be interpreted and understood as the Covenant was established with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations so the Promises of the Covenant were to him and to his Seed in their Generations and answerably I have so exprest my self throughout the ensuing Discourse And here let two things be carefully observed First That the Promise is made to Abraham's whole Seed both natural and mystical in one and the same tenour Hence secondly Look how the Promise was to be understood as referring to either kinds or species of his Seed so it is to be understood as referring to the other as it was to be understood as referring to his natural Seed so it it is to be understood as referring to his mystical Seed Now that it was as referring to Abraham's natural Seed to be understood as including Parents and Children is evident partly because the Promise as thus made as referring to them will admit of no other sence or meaning consistent with the truth and faithfulness of God in his Promises partly because God by his after dealing with the Jews declares that to be the sence and meaning of it and partly because the Prophets so expound it as to be fulfilled in Gospel times Now this Promise being so to be understood as referring to Abraham's natural Seed it must needs be so understood as referring to his mystical Seed Secondly This second Proposition is further evident from the Promises and Prophesies of the old Testament relating to new Testament times Thirdly From the express letter of new Testament which affirms positively that the Blessing not this or that part of the Blessing but the Blessing simply and absolutely is come upon believing Gentiles by Christ Fourthly From several passages in the new Testament which though they do not in express terms hold forth this settlement of this Promise upon believing Gentiles yet do plainly imply it For satisfaction in all which things I am necessitated to refer the Reader to the Discourse it self where he will find them largely spoken to These two former Propositions being established the third as I judge will be questioned but by few and it is evident thus for as Abraham's whole Seed are in their Generations that is both Parents and immediate Children under the Promise so they are under the Obligation of the Command to keep the Covenant that is the Sign or Token of the Covenant whence its evident that as the Covenant that Abraham's Seed in their Generations then were or after should be received into had and was to have a Sign or Token annexed to the administration of it so that it alwayes was and is the duty of Parents in Covenant as to receive and bear that Sign or Token themselves so to take care that their Infant-seed as joynt Heirs with themselves of the same Promises should receive and bear it and consequently that believing Gentiles they being the mystical Seed of Abraham are still under the Obligation of this Command and ought to be baptized themselves Baptism being the present Sign and Token of the Covenant into which they are received so to see that their Infant-seed be also baptized and as the Promise and Command are of an equal extent so interest in this Promise declares the person so interested to have such a relation to the mystical Body of Christ as is an undoubted ground of implantation and incorporation into that Body as visible by Baptism the Promise is made unto Christ and only to him either personally or mystically considered hence whoever have an interest in this Promise they must undoubtedly have so far relation to Christ as will warrant their implantation into him as mystically considered by Baptism that being the only means appointed by Christ for the implantation of any into his mystical Body And further we find the Apostle grounds his Exhortation to Baptism upon interest either in this or some other equivalent Promise which he would never have done had not interest in that Promise been a sufficient ground for the application or reception of Baptism but I must come to a close And thus Reader though there are some other things I would willingly have spoken to yet I shall only acquaint thee with two things and request two or three things of thee and then dismiss thee to the serious perusal of what is here tendered to thee First That which I would acquaint thee with is That whereas there are several Scriptures usually insisted upon for the proof of the lawfulness of this practice of Infant-baptism which thou wilt find in the insuing Treatise either not at all or very little touched upon the reason is not that I judged them impertinent or insufficient for the proof of that practice I judge they are full and pertinent and some of them especially that 1 Cor. 7.14 as managed in special by Mr. Baxter unanswerable but know that I do but glean after others and therefore have especially insisted both in the Arguments I have managed and Objections I have answered upon such Scriptures as have been more briefly touched upon by them and would desire the Reader as he hath opportunity to take what they have said from those Scripture for his more full confirmation supposing any doubts may yet remain in his mind in the Truth that I in common with them have pleaded for Secondly Another thing Reader that I would acquaint thee with is this That whereas 't is possible thou mayest have met with some Objections which are not here taken notice of the reason is because I judged them no way able to counter-ballance in the judgments of any of a competent understanding the evidence produced in confirmation of what I have asserted or else because they wholly concern others and not my self in the way I have proceeded in That which I would request of thee is First That thou take the three subordinate Propositions in that order I have laid them down and fully weigh the first before thou proceed to the second and then throughly weigh the second before thou proceed to the third to be satisfied in the truth of the first will conduce not a little to thy entertaining the evidence produced for the confirmation of the second and to be well established in these two will much facillitate thy imbracement of the last wherein the main Truth contended for is contained Secondly Let me request a favourable construction of what weakness appears in the management of the whole Debate thou wilt soon find that the Discourse here put into thy hand comes abroad in a very mean dress and not without many incongruities in
to thy seeds as of many but to thy seed which is Christ id est Christ mystical and thus the Gentile-Proselites under the first Testament Servants bought with money or born in the house were accounted for Abraham's seed all those that were admitted into fellowship with the people of God in the Covenant and benefits blessings and priviledges of it how or by what means soever they came to have their admission were accounted for Abraham's seed and had the actual enjoyment of the good of that Covenant I mean so many as did actually enjoy it as Abraham's seed by vertue of this Promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed So believing Gentiles or any other who with them have admission into the Covenant are accounted for Abraham's seed all that inherit the good promised inheriting of it under that notion as his seed by vertue of that forementioned Promise and thus the natural feed of Abraham in another sense were his mystical seed the whole mystical body of Christ made up as I have said both of Jews and Gentiles is the feed here intended And this spiritual or mystical seed of Abraham falls under a two fold consideration 1. As visible and denominative 2. As invisible and real The Apostle gives us this distribution of Abraham's seed Rom. 9.6 All are not Israel that are of Israel c. that is all that are of the mystical body of Christ as visible are not really and truly of his body mystical as invisible the visible body of Christ is of a larger extent than his invisible 't is all one as if the Apostle had said some are visible and denominatively the seed of Abraham who yet are not truly and internally his seed That this is the meaning of the Apostle is evident from the following verses of which place more hereafter Hence this term seed is to be understood sometimes of his seed as visible and denominative sometime of his seed as invisible and real in the former sence we are to understand it in the place forementioned Galat. 3.16 By Christ we are to understand the mystical body of Christ as visible as is evident because 't is by Baptism that the several members are incorporated into and united unto the body of Christ as here spoken of Now Baptism doth not properly incorporate into the body of Christ as invisible but as visible in the latter sence we are to understand it Rom. 9.8 Seed here we are to understand of the elect and the meaning is that all they that are the children of the flesh are not elected and in that respect not the Children of God nor accounted for the seed Some that are the children of the flesh are the children of God and are accounted for the seed but all that are the children of the flesh are not the children of God nor accounted for the seed that is in this strict notion and consideration of this term seed as it signifieth the true internal and invisible seed of Abraham Children of God and Seed here are termini convertibiles convertible terms now as persons are denominated the children of God either in regard of their visible and external appearing so to be or in regard of their really and internally being such saith Christ 'T is not meet to take the childrens bread and give it to dogs it 's meant of the things of the Gospel primarily appertaining to the Jews as yet the Covenant-people of God Now Christ calls them indefinitely considered children that is children of God when as it appears by their so general after-rejection but few of them were really and internally the children of God So some are the seed of Abraham and so to be accounted in regard of their visible and outward appearing so to be who yet are not really and internally his seed Others are not only visibly and in regard of an external appearance the seed of Abraham but are internally and really so Of these latter this term Seed in this place is to be understood the children of the promise are accounted for the Seed that is they and they only are internally the Seed of Abraham I mean his spiritual and mystical seed for in that sence this term Seed is here to be taken Secondly There is Abraham's natural Seed only for preventing mistakes Note That though I lastinguish between Abraham's spiritual and natural Seed yet the difference between them is only respective the same persons might be and in respect of many were both his natural and also his spiritual Seed of which more after This being noted I say there is Abraham's natural Seed and this phrase Abraham's natural Seed may be taken two wayes 1. As signifying his Children descending immediately from his own loins as it is said of Ishmael he was Abraham's seed Gen. 21 13. He is thy seed saith God to Abraham speaking of Ishmael and the like may be said of all his other children they were his natural seed 2. This phrase may be taken as signifying his whole race or posterity or all those that did mediately descend from him in after ages thus Gen. 15.18 Vnto thy seed saith God have I given this land it is meant of his race or posterity or his seed mediately descending from him Secondly Under what notion or in what capacity Abraham is to be considered as receiving this promise from God I answer That Abraham is to be considered both as a natural and also as a spiritual father or both as a natural Father and as the Father of the faithful That God did look on Abraham as giving him this promise as the father of the faithful is evident from Rom. 4.11 12 13. and some have thought that be was eyed and looked upon only under that notion and in that capacity but that he was not only looked upon as the father of the faithful but as a natural father is evident by this Argument If Abraham's natural seed were intended as the immediate and next subjects of this promise and that as such then Abraham as receiving this promise or having this promise made to him with reference unto them must needs be eyed and looked upon as a natural father but the former is true therefore the latter the consequence in the major proposition cannot be denied for if God intended Abraham's natural seed as such that is as his natural seed then he must needs eye Abraham as a natural father as making this promise to him Now that he did intend Abraham's natural seed will I doubt not be sufficiently evident by the proof of this first proposition and that they were intended as his natural seed is evident because in respect of some of them they could be looked upon under no other notion they could not be looked upon as his spiritual seed for such they were not whether we respect election or actual faith take it of Ishmael he was neither elected nor had actual faith as for what some think concerning his future repentance 't is
wholly groundless we having no intimation of it throughout the whole Scripture but the contrary is intimated or ratherr plainly implied in that Rom. 9. Now if he and 't is like the same was the case of some at least of Abraham's Sons by Keturab could not be looked upon as Abraham's spiritual seed he must needs be looked upon under that very notion and consideration as his natural seed and as such was intended as one subject of that promise And whereas some think that the Apostle Rom. 4. expounds this promise as made to Abraham only as the father of the faithful 't is a great mistake That he was eyed as the father of the faithful is readily granted but that he was eyed only as such a father is denied and is not in the least intimated by the Apostle in that place But not to stay on this it is sufficiently evident that as Abraham sustained that two-fold relation viz. of a natural and of a spiritual father so he was eyed under both notions as receiving this promise on the behalf or with reference to his seed Thirdly What is the true intent of this promise in regard of the extent and latitude on the one hand and the limitation on the other Before I answer this Question let me only premise that the true determination of this Question conduceth not a little if I mistake not to the clearing up and determining the truth pleaded for as the not right understanding the true intent of this promise in the regards mentioned hath been one considerable cause of so many rejecting the truth we plead for and their too ready imbracing of the opinion we oppose Therefore I desire that what I have to say in answer to the Question may be diligently attended to First then for the intent of this promise in regard of the extent and latitude of it take it in these two particulars 1. That under this term Seed in this promise the whole seed of Abraham whether natural or mystical are comprehended hence though I say his natural seed as afore expressed were firstly and immediately intended as the first and next subjects of this promise yet not excluding any other who according to Scripture account were to be reckoned unto Abraham as his seed As we are not to interpret this term Seed of Christ personally so as to exclude his mystical body nor of his mystical body invisibly and internally considered so as to exclude any that are of his mystical body as externally and visibly considered nor of his mystical body whether visible or invisible to the excluding of his natural seed whether immediate or mediate So on the other hand we must not limit it to his immediate seed to the excluding of his mediate nor to either so as to exclude his mystical seed but we are to understand it in its full latitude and extent as comprchending and including his whole seed That Abrahams natural seed as immediately proceeding from his own loins were intended will appear by the proof of this first proposition and is the only thing there to be proved that his whole race and posterity as mediately descending from him were intended shall be granted That Abrahams spiritual or mystical feed were intended is sufficiently evident as from the denomination they bear of Abrahams seed so by their inheriting all the good of the Covenant of Grace as Abraham's seed by vertue of this very promise as will more fully appear by the proof of the second proposition so that I say this term Seed is to be understood in such an extent and latitude as to take in and comprehend Abraham's whole seed but this I say that his natural seed were firstly and immediately intended as the first and next subjects of that promise 2. Which I desire with the like care may be attended to This promise as made to Abraham's whole seed was made to them in their respective generations under which phrase their generations we must understand Parents and their Children immediately descending from their own loins so that the promise runs to Abraham's seed in their generations that is to all his seed and to their respective natural seed in conjunction with themselves Secondly We may consider the intent of this promise in regard of the limitations of it and thus this promise had a two fold limitation 1. It had a limitation in regard of the persons actually interested in it 2. In regard of the continuance of that their interest in and their actual possession and injoyment of the good of the promise they were before interested in 1. Then I say this promise was given to Abraham under a limitation in regard of the persons actually interessed in it and thus it was limited to Abraham's seed in their respective generations including as before parents and their immediate children my meaning is that this promise taken as a definite promise made to Abraham with reference to his seed distributively taken that is as they were severally and each in particular intended in it so it did reach to and take in only Abraham's seed in their respective generations they and their immediate children It 's true as it was an indefinite promise made to Abraham's natural seed collectively or generally taken so it had respect vnto his whole race and posterity whether mediately or immediately descending from him but I say take it as a definite promise made to Abraham's seed distributively or particularly taken so it was made only to each of them respectively in their generations that is to them and their immediate children To explain my meaning take for instance any parent that was related to Abraham as one of his seed let Isaac be the instance Isaac was one of Abraham's seed and as so related to Abraham was under this promise That God would be a God to him in his generations Now as in this phrase his generations Isaac and his children immediately descending from him in after ages were personally included or particularly intended in it it was to Isaac as Abraham's seed in his generations to him and to his immediate children As this promise is to be understood in the extent mentioned as including parents and children sort is not to be inlarged beyond what was the true intendment of God in it Now though God made it to each of Abraham's seed whether immediately descending from his own loins or otherwise standing related to him as his seed in their generations yet his intendment was not that all that should successively in following ages descend from them respectively should be included as joynt subjects with them of this promise so as to claim by vertue of their relation unto them a joynt right and title to the promise with them his intendment only was that his seed in their generations that is parents and immediate children should be accounted as joynt subjects of this promise and in this regard this promise was one and the same or ran in one and the same tenour to
Characteristical difference between the Covenant of Grace and the first Covenant and the peculiar excellency in respect of which the Covenant of Grace doth excel that former Covenant Hath not God promised to write his Law in the inward parts and put his fear in the hearts of all that have admission into this Covenant as the means to prevent their breach of it Now it will be said How could Ishmael or any Child of believing Parents supposing he was and they are in the Covenant of Grace sâ—il in performing the conditions of that Covenant unless God should fail in making good these Promises which to affirm would be blasphemy and therefore sure had he been and were they in the Covenant of Grace he never had not they never would break Covenant through a failing in performing the conditions of it Now to this I answer That take these Promises as indefinitely laid down so they are only made to the Church indefinitely as a collective body and indefinite Promises as so made do not infallibly secure the good promised to every individual person externally interessed in them But you will say Suppose the truth of this first Proposition viz. That Abraham's natural Seed immediately proceeding from his own loins were to be looked upon as the Subjects of this Promise distributively taken then every one in particular had a real and actual interest in it To that I answer It is true but consider what hath been already said the Covenant and Promises of it were conditional and his not performing the conditions forfeited the good promised But you will further say Are not these promises of writing the Law in the inward parts c. included in that grand Promise wherein God promiseth to be a God to him and them and consequently their performance of the condition was virtually included and implyed in the Promise it self and so the Promise did secure their performance of the condition though the Covenant of Grace hath conditions yet they are Couditiones conditionatae conditions which are themselves promised in the Covenant hence though the Covenant be not absolutely unconditional yet it is equivalent thereunto in as much as the conditions are themselves included in the Promises of the Covenant and therefore sure if they had been actually under Covenant their performance of the conditions had been secured by this Promise To this I answer two things That though these Promises do hold forth the main and principle conditions of the Covenant as Regeneration Faith Repentance and the like and they should be included in this Promise of Gods being a God to his people and though they run in the external tenour of them absolutely yet they are not absolutely absolute as I may so speak they have a subordinate condition and that is that the parties concerned in them do faithfully use the means appointed of God in a subserviency to his working in or bestowing upon them the good promised this is evident from Ezek. 36.37 where we have the very same good though in other terms or phrases promised so also in Prov. 2.6 these Promises hold forth what we of our selves cannot attain to or perform but they suppose and require our use of means which as Mr. Feuner excellently expresseth it lye between our can and our cannot and though it is true a man while in his natural estate cannot use the means so as shall infallibly secure the good promised to himself yet his not using of them according to what through the improvement of what ability whether natural or spiritual he hath received he might do will acquit God from unfaithfulness in denying the good promised But secondly I answer That take the Covenant as externally made and declared to Abraham and his Seed in their generations as implying a stipulation on Gods part and a restipulation on mans part so these Promises of divine teachings writing the Law in the heart c. are not included as essential to this Promise of Gods being a God to them but are distinct Promises made indefinitely to the Covenant-people of God in making good of which God acts according to his Soveraign will and pleasure in a complyance with his eternal Decrees and Purposes of election and preterition and answerably no individual person can lay an actual claim to them afore they are at least initially or inchoatively fulfilled Gods being a God to any individual person doth require and presuppose that they do for the present supposing them capable or for the furture as soon as capable take God in Christ as their God which that his Elect shall do is secured by these Promises but that every individual person externally in Covenant and under the Promises thereof shall do is not secured by them If any shall affirm that these Promises are included as an essential part of the good of that grand Promise of the Covenant it concerns them to make good what they affirm and shew how the very same Promise at least for the substance of it was made good to the seed of the Jews and how it came to pass notwithstanding that Promise that they never had their hearts truly circumcised to love the Lord with all their hearts and all their souls as the letter of that Promise Deut. 30.6 affirms they should Besides let it is be further noted that the Covenants-relation stablished between God and the seed of believing Parents meetly by vertue of the external tenour of the Covenant is not so full and compleat as that is which is constituted through a Souls personal acceptation of the Covenant and actual ingaging with God in a Covenant way the Covenant in a proper and full sence must be mutual but so it is not in the case of the Infant-seed of believing parents their being in covenant is rather a being under a conditional Promise of the good contained in the Covenant than being properly and compleatly in covenant with God though in a sence God may as he is in Scripture said to enter covenant with them he enters covenant as he makes promise of the good of the Covenant to them which yet he doth as I have said only conditionally and the compleating of the Covenant-relation between God and them depends upon their personal acceptance of the terms proposed in it when they come to ripeness of years To put a close to this first subordinate Proposition by what hath been said I suppose the truth asserted in it is sufficiently evident notwithstanding what may be objected in a way of opposition to it and I have insisted the longer upon this because it is the foundation to our whole Structure to be raised in reference to the confirmation of the truth pleaded for and the full evidencing of this will make out way plain to the following Propositions in as much as Abraham being the first person with whom the Covenant was at least in such a latitude formally and expresly entred he must needs be the rule measure or pattern according to which the Covenant
truth and faithfulness of God in performing it will be evident by shewing the inconsistency of any other sence and meaning possibly to be put upon it with the truth and faithfulness of God in performing it And for this let us a little inquire what other sence and meaning can possibly be put upon this Promise and I suppose the only sence and meaning that will be attempted to be put upon it will be this viz. That when God promised to Abraham with reference to his Seed to be a God unto them in their generations his meaning was only this That he would be a God to each of them in their respective ages or generations wherein they should live and so by this phrase In their generations we are to understand only each particular or individual person of Abraham's Seed as subsisting in their respective ages or generations and not as including Parents and Children Now let us a little pursue this sence and meaning and see whether it be consistent with the truth and faithfulness of God in his Promises And here let it be remembred that Abraham's natural Seed must necessarily be primarily intended in this Promise as the first and immediate Subjects of it this hath been already proved and therefore I shall take it for granted at present And it must further be considered that though Abraham's natural Seed as immediately descending from his own loins were firstly intended as the primary Subjects of this Promise yet it had a further respect viz. to his whole natural Race and Posterity as mediately descending from him in succeeding ages this is evident as from other Scriptures so from this very phrase their generations and besides the whole Context evidently declares it In Gen. 15.16 it evidently appears that God intended not that Abraham's Seed should possess the Land of Canaan till the fourth generation yet it is promised to the Seed intended in this Promise that they should have the Land of Canaan and that for an everlasting possession So that when God promised to be a God to Abraham and his Seed though he intended his own immediate Children yet he had a further respect to his natural Race and Posterity as mediately descending from him Now let it be considered how it was consistent with the truth and faithfulness of God in his Promises to promise to Abraham to be a God to him and his Seed both immediately and mediately descending from him seeing it is certain he was not a God to all his Seed no not so much as in an external and outward way for when Ishmael was cast out of Abraham's Family and together therewith or thereby out of the Covenant God ceased to be a God to any of his Race or Posterity unless by their personal acceptation of the Covenant they became again incorporated into the Church of the Jews as any other Heathen might be and the like is true of Esau's Race and Posterity so for the whole body of the Jewish Nation at this day there is a cessation of any actual Covenant-relation between God and them Now how could God cast off so great a part of Abraham's Seed from being his people and how could he cease to be a God to them and yet remain faithful to his Promise in case this be the sence and meaning of it Yes it may be some will say the truth and faithfulness of God may be vindicated two wayes First It may be vindicated by the consideration of the nature of this Promise It was as you your selves grant an indefinite Promise made to Abraham's Seed collectively taken and so was verified in the performance of it to some of his Seed though it was not performed universally to every individual person of his Seed But to this I reply two things First That this Promise according to the sence and meaning contended for by my Opposers cannot be an indefinite Promise to Abraham's Seed collectively taken but must needs be a definite Promise to his Seed distributively taken for that is the sense and meaning contended for That God promised to be a God to Abraham and each of his Seed in their respective ages or generations Now according to this sence this term Seed must needs be taken distributively as meant of every one of Abraham's Seed So that whenever in any generation Abraham had one born unto him as one of his Seed the Promise did reach and take in him or her as so born unto him as one of the Subjects intended in it If it had been only said to Abraham to thee and to thy Seed it might have been an indefinite Promise to his Seed collectively taken but when 't is added in their generations according to this sence it must needs be a definite Promise made to his Seed distributively or singularly taken and consequently Gods not being a God unto any of his Seed had been a breach of this Promise as made unto Abraham with reference to his Seed Secondly I answer Though the Promise were an indefinite Promise made to Abraham's Seed collectively taken yet none ever did or ever should fail of enjoying the good promised supposing there had been no failure in performing the condition of it either by the parties themselves or by their next or remote Progenitors Secondly It may be it will be said The Promise was made conditionally and Abraham's Seed failing in the performance of the conditions disobliged God from making good the Promise to them To that I reply That it is readily granted that this Covenant and the Promises thereof was made to Abraham and his Seed conditionally But observe it according to the sence and meaning pleaded for by our Opposers every Child of any Jew or of any of Abraham's Posterity must be in the eye of this Promise accounted as one of Abraham's Seed and as so related unto him be intended in it as one of the Subjects of it And how can a Child forfeit its right to a Promise before it is born So that suppose that the immediate Father had failed in the condition of the Promise and thereby deprived himself of an interest in it yet he could not forseit the Childs right in as much as if this sence were true the Child received not its right from the next Parent but from Abraham himself one of whose Seed this Child is and hence it will unavoidably follow that either the whole Race and Posterity of Abraham at least in their infancy before an actual sorfeiture made by themselves must be under this Promise and consequently in a Covenant-relation with God or else God hath failed in making good his Promise neither of which those that contend for this sence will affirm therefore this sence and meaning must unavoidably be relinquished and there being no other sence and meaning imaginable we must necessarily adhere to that afore-given And indeed should we not understand this Promise in the extent and latitude and with those limitations before expressed one of those absurdities will necessarily
thee and thy house that is eminently thy Children which is all one as to the sence and importance of that promise Salvation shall come to thee and thy house or The promise will be to thee and thy Children all these phrases are of one and the same importance and signification So that from all the truth of this our third Conclusion evidently appears and from it before I proceed to the other we may infer these two things First That it is not at all necessary to affirm or prove that there were any Infants in the Jaylor house at this time in order to the proving from the Apostles making this conditional promise to him and his house that the promises of the Covenant are given to and setled upon believing Gentiles in the same latitude and extent that they were given to Abraham at the first establishment of the Covenant with him if he had any Infants the promise had belonged to them as part of his house the promise was to him with reference to his house as a Believer without consideration had to the personal faith and repentance of any in or of his house hence whoever was to be included in this term house had the promise appertaining to them whether capable of believing or repenting or no and consequently had appertained to his Infants in case he had had any they being necessarily to be included in this term house and suppose there was no Infants in his house at that time yet in that this was a promise not peculiar and proper to him but common to all Believers the promise belongs to the Infants in their respective houses The promise appertains to the house by vertue of the Parents believing as thereby they are ingrafted into Abraham's Family and become one of his Seed and hence all that are included in that term house have the promise appertaining unto them and consequently Infants as well as others And if it should be said There might be some Children grown up who might refuse to accept of the promise as made upon the terms of the Gospel and how could the promise appertain to them I answer Their case would have been the very same with the case of the Jews at the first preaching of the Gospel The promise appertain'd to them as of the houses of believing Parents but their actual refusal would have ipso facto disanulled that their right and title to the promise and so they by their own sin had deprived themselves of the good promised Secondly We may infer that the Scripture frequently mentioning the personal faith and repentance of the houses or of any in the houses of believing Parents no way opposes but on the other hand strongly confirms the truth of what we affirm in this second Proposition concerning the settlement of Abraham's promise in the full latitude and extend of it upon believing Gentiles in that the houses or any in the houses of believing Parents were savingly wrought upon either at the same time or immediately after their Parents believing and accepting the terms of the Covenant it cannot be with the least shew of reason inferred or concluded from thence that they had not the promise of Salvation appertaining to them meerly as the houses or as of the houses of such Parents without consideration had to their own personal faith and repentance but on the other hand it doth strongly prove they were under the promise as the houses of such Parents in their believing and repenting the Promise was verified their believing and repenting was a visible demonstration that the promise in the extent and latitude before exprest viz. as reaching and taking in the houses with the Parents themselves was duly and rightfully applyed to such Parents by the Apostle when we find the Apostle applyes the promises of the Covenant to the Gentiles in the same latitude and extent that they were given to Abraham viz. as taking in their Children with them and them read of the faith and repentance of their Children immediately following upon their own believing it may more fully assure us that the promise runs still in the same latitude and extent that it formerly run in why we have not only the Apostles application of the promise for our assurance but we have God himself confirming that application made by the Apostle in his giving in the good promised in that extent and latitude in which the Apostle did apply the promise The Apostle applyes the promise in this extent Thou and thy house shall be saved God by actually giving in the good promised assures us that the Apostles application was according to his mind and will that he was and would be still a God not only to believing Gentiles personally considered but a God also to their respective houses So that whether there were any Infant-children or any Children in their Infant capacity in these houses the baptism of which is recorded in Scripture or no is all one as to what I contend for The promise of Salvation which is equivolently the same with that of Gods being a God to them appertains to the houses of believing Parents as such without consideration had to the personal faith of those houses or any in them If there were no Infant-children yet the promise appertains to the house if there were the promise appertained to them as part of such a house and the mention made in Scripture of the personal faith and repentance of such houses or any in them no way opposes but confirms their interest in and right to that promise of Salvation and consequently they ought to be baptized as will appear from the proof of our third Proposition But let that suffice for the second Conclusion which is that I principally aimed at and therefore have especially insisted upon it I shall but mention the other two And therefore Fourthly That the interest that the houses of beliving Parents have in the promise of Salvation denominates them holy and constitutes them of the Kingdom Church or Mystical Body of Christ this I gather from Mark 10. and 1 Cor. 7.14 taken in conjunction with those other new Testament Scriptures aforementioned Lastly That this interest in the promise of Salvation accrews to the houses of believing Parents by vertue of such Parents relation to Abraham as his Seed This is evident from that of Christ concerning Zacheus Salvation is come to his house for as much as he is a Son of Abraham And from all it appears that the very same promise made to Abraham and his natural Seed is still continued to and setled upon believing Gentiles which is our second Proposition Let us now hear what is objected against what is asserted in it CHAP. VII Objections against the second subordinate Proposition considered and answered Object 1. 'T Is conceived by some and that not a few that what hath been affirm'd in the foregoing Propositions at least the latter of them lyes in a direct opposition to that Text of the Apostle Rom. 9.7
it only requires in the general that whatever act or duty God himself appoints be exactly observed and performed and that according to the way and manner declared by himself the very same is the case of this Command injoyning the keeping of the Covenant The Command as I have said as thus generally proposed specifies not what that Covenant is or should be only requires the application and reception of the Token of the Covenant and consequently to Circumcision when that was appointed as the Token of the Covenant and during its continuance but upon the cessation of that to Baptisme as that Ordinance which God hath declared to be the present Token of the Covenant Secondly Take another Instance in the fourth Commandment Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy Here is a Command more generally laid down injoyning the keeping holy the Sabbath or rest-day not specifying which day should be that rest-day Now when the Seventh day was instituted as that day of rest this general Command was to be applyed to that particular day and did require the keeping of that day holy but when the Seventh day was laid aside and another day viz. The first day of the week instituted by Christ as that rest day now that Command as so generally proposed is to be applied to this particular day and equally obligeth us Christians to the keeping holy the first day of the week as it did the Jews to keep holy the seventh hence we have no express command in the new Testament for the keeping holy the first day of the week neither is there any need there should that command to remember the day day of rest and keep it holy being equally applicable to one day as to another and God having determined the day the command is to be applyed unto it as so determined by God which again is the very case of this command under consideration it determines not the Covenant to be kept but requires that the Covenant whatever God determines it to be be kept and consequently as it first obliged to the application and reception of Circumcision so now it obligeth to the application and reception of Baptism Now then to come to a close of this first Argument we see the Promises are true and consequently the conclusion is certain namely That it is the will of Christ that the Infant-seed of believing Parents should be baptized CHAP. X. The second and third Argument for the confirmation of the last subordinate Proposition proposed and managed The several Instances of Housholds being baptized considered The second Argument IF the Infant-seed of believing Parents were in primitive times baptized either by the Apostles themselves or by any others by their allowance direction or approbation then it was or still is according to the will of Christ that they should be baptized But the former is true therefore the latter The consequence in the Major proposition will be readily granted on all hands That which alone needs proof is this viz. That the Infant-seed of believing Parents were in primitive times either by the Apostles themselves or by others by their allowance direction or approbation baptized For the confirmation of which this one Argument may suffice If the Infant-seed of believing Parents were by the Apostles owned and looked upon as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ as visible then they were either by themselves or by others by their allowance direction and approbation admitted and implanted into that Body by Baptism But the Infant-seed of believing Parents were owned and looked upon by the Apostles as before expressed Ergo c. Here again the Consequence in the Major proposition will be I suppose readily granted by our Opposers and 't is sufficiently evident by this Argument If Baptism was appointed by Christ for the solemn admission of such into his mystical Body as visible as did appertain thereunto or were Members thereof and there was no other way or means appointed for the same end and purpose then all that the Apostles did own and look upon as appertaining to or as Members of that Body were either by the Apostles themselves or by others by their allowance direction and approbation admitted and implanted into it by Baptism But the former is true therefore the latter the Minor here alone needs proof and that consists of these two branches First That Baptism was appointed by Christ for the solemn admission and implantation of such into his mystical Body as visible as did appertain thereunto or were Members thereof Secondly That there is no other way or means appointed by Christ for that end and purpose First For the first see 1 Cor. 12.13 For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or free and have been all made to drink into one Spirit What may be objected from this Scripture against the baptism of Infants shall be taken notice of by and by All that I cite it at present for is to prove that Baptism was appointed by Christ for the solemn admission of persons into his Body as visible which is sufficiently evident Secondly That there is no other way or means appointed by Christ for the solemn admission of any into his visible mystical Body If any shall say there is let them shew it and prove from Scripture what they affirm and I shall readily grant the invalidity of this Argument but that doubtless none will attempt to do so that the truth of the Major proposition is unquestionable For the Minor viz. That the Infant-feed of believing Parents were owned and looked upon by the Apostles as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ as visible This will be denyed and therefore must be proved and I shall prove it by these two Arguments both which being grounded upon express and positive Scriptures will render the addition of more wholly needless First All those who were by the Apostle owned and looked upon and that as personally or particularly considered as the actual Subjects of the Promise of Salvation were owned and looked upon by them as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ as visible But the Infant-seed of believing Parents were owned and looked upon by the Apostles and that as personally and particularly considered as the actual Subjects of the Promise of Salvation therefore they were owned and looked upon by them as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ as visible The Minor proposition hath been already proved and as for the Major that is evident thus Christ is the Saviour of his body Ephes 5.23 Now to be under a Promise of Salvation is to be under a Promise of being saved by Christ hence all that are under a Promise of being saved by Christ must needs appertain to or be of his mystical body for 't is of his Body that he is the Saviour But two things will be objected
looked upon by the Apostles as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ which is the thing affirmed in our Major proposition For the Minor proposition viz. That the Infant-seed of believing Parents are under the Gospel administration such Subjects of that Promise this hath been already fully proved whence our Conclusion is undeniable That they were owned and looked upon by the Apostles as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ Object But it will be said That by Christ here we are to understand Christ mystical as invisible and not as visible The Promises are made to Christ that is to the real and internal Members of his mystical Body Answ To that I shall answer these two things First Vbi Lex non distinguit non distinguendum est Where the Law distinguisheth not we are not to distinguish Now the Apostle tells us the Promises are made to Christ not to Christ either under this or that notion or consideration here is no distinction between Christ as visible or invisible but simply and absolutely the Promise is to thy Seed which is Christ But you will say Though the Apostle doth nor here distinguish yet the Scripture elsewhere warrants that distinction and it is certain the Promises do not really appertain to any but such as have a real union with and interest in Christ of whom his Body as invisible is constituted and made up therefore we are to understand the Apostle as intending only the invisible Body of Christ To that I answer It is granted that in order to a due application of this or any other Promise to our selves and in order to our enjoyment of the good promised we must not only look to a visible profession of Christ which constitutes us of his Body as visible but we are to look to the reallity of our union with and interest in him But yet let it be carefully observed that the Scripture presumes and takes it for granted that as to particular persons those who do visibly belong to Christ are of his Body as invisibly as well as visibly considered Hence in all that it speaks to or of the Body of Christ it speaks to or of it simply or absolutely as his Body without distinguishing of it as visible or invisible And let it be further carefully observed that that distinction of Seeds intimated by the Apostle whereof some have the Promises made to them and others not doth not respect the Members of the Body of Christ as visible as though some of them had the Promises made to them in a contradiction from others visibly of the same Body who have not the Promises made unto them but the distinction is either between such who might plead an interest in the Promises as related to Abraham as his natural Children who yet cleaved to the Law for Righteousness and Life Or between such who though in word they did profess Faith in Christ yet did indeed fall in with and imbrace such doctrines and practices as did ipso facto forfeit and disanul their right of membership in the mystical body of Christ as visible and such who did visibly adhere and cleave to Christ in faith and obedience in opposition to the imbracement or falling in with any such doctrines or practices Now the Apostle affirms that to these and not to those the Promise was made Indeed this I shall readily grant that the holy Ghost would have all to know that if any while they keep up a visible profession of Christ and of adhearing alone to him in faith and obedience should yet act short of or contrary to that their profession it was not their meer profession that would give them the actual possession of the good promised they must act according to their profession otherwise though the Promises as externally promulgated and declared are made to them and they in foro Ecclesiae had a right to them yet it was none of the intendment of God that upon the terms of a bare profession they should enjoy the good promised but this I say that the Promises in respect of the external promulgation and declaration of them are made to Christ mystical without consideration had to that distinction of visible and invisible the Holy Ghost speaking to or of then by men speaks according to what visibly appear of them But secondly I answer That Christ here must needs be understood of Christ mystical as visibly considered This hath been touched upon already and for further satisfaction see Mr. Gobbett in his Just Vindication page 57. and it evidently appears from hence because particular and individual persons might ordinarily be known to appertain to and be Members of Christ as here spoken of by the Apostle Now no individual or particular person can be ordinarily known to appertain to Christ or to be a Member of him as invisibly considered see verse 28. where saith the Apostle Ye are all one in Christ the Apostle speaks to the Galatians and saith he Ye are all one in Christ and in saying they were all one in Christ he must needs acknowledge them to be all in Christ how could they be all one in Christ unless they were in Christ But sure none will suppose that the Apostle did infallibly know them to have been universally every individual person among them of the Body of Christ as invisible therefore he must needs speak of Christ here as visible and not meerly as invisible and besides let the foregoing Arguments to prove that the Infant-seed of believing Parents and that as such are included as the actual Subjects of this Promise be well weighed which supposing it to be true it will undeniably follow that the Apostle here speaks of the mystical Body of Christ as visible in as much as the Infant-seed of believing Parents may then be ordinarily known to appertain to Christ as here spoken of by the Apostle And therefore whereas our Opposers affirm That Christ here is to be understood of Christ mystical as invisible and thereupon conclude that the Infant-seed of believing Parents cannot as such be supposed to appertain unto Christ and consequently not included as Subjects of that Promise said by our Apostle to be made unto Christ We on the other hand affirm and I hope have sufficiently proved that they are included as joynt Subjects with their Parents of that Promise and upon that ground ought to be looked upon as appertaining to Christ and consequently that by Christ here we are to understand Christ mystical as visible and not meerly as invisible Now unless our Opposers shall produce clearer evidence that the Apostle doth indeed speak of the mystical Body of Christ meerly as invisible then hath been produced to prove the Infant-seed of believing Parents and that as such to be included in that Promise we shall take it for granted that he speaks of Christ as visible that the Infant-seed of believing Parents do appertain to or are Members of his
mystical Body as visible and consequently Quod erat demonstrandum were either by the Apostles themselves or by some others by their allowance direction or approbation admitted and implanted into that Body by Baptism Now as a close of this Argument it may not be altogether unseasonable to shew in a few words it needs not many what respect we have to that mystical Relation wherein the Infant-seed of believing Parents stand towards Abraham as his Seed in the application of Baptism unto them the consideration of which I afore referred to the handling of this last Proposition and I know not where to touch upon it so seasonably as here And for this let it be noted that in the application of Baptism we have a direct and primary respect to their state as joynt Subjects with their Parents of the Promises of the Covenant the Covenant and Promises thereof being entred with and made unto Abraham's Seed in their Generations as with and to the Parents personally considered so with and to their Seed as such Hence both Parents and Seed are to have the Token of the Covenant applyed unto them they being joynt Subjects of the same Covenant and Promises they are alike to partake of the Sign and Token of the Covenant Hence look what respect we have to the mystical Relation of believing Parents to Abraham in the application of Baptism unto them the same respect we have to the mystical Relation of their Infant seed to Abraham in the application of Baptism unto them The third Argument If interest in that grand Promise of the Covenant wherein God ingaged to be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their Generations be alone and by it self a sufficient ground upon which persons may and ought to be exhorted and moved unto Baptism then all those who have an interest in that Promise may and ought to be baptized But interest in that Promise is alone and by it self a sufficient ground upon which persons may and ought to be exhorted and moved unto Baptism therefore all those who have an interest in that Promise and consequently Infants they having an interest in it may and ought to be baptized The Consequence in the Major Proposition of this Prosyllogism cannot be denied for if a Minister may exhort or move one to be baptized upon this sole ground that he hath an interest in that Promise he may and ought to apply Baptism to him upon that sole ground otherwise persons might be duly exhorted to a duty which would be unlawful for them to practice which would be absurd Therefore 't is the Minor only which I suppose will be denyed which yet I judge will be granted by the major part of our Opposers and for the satisfaction of others let these two Scriptures be compared together and well weighed Gen. 17.9 Acts 2.38 39 saith God to Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed in their Generations saith the Apostle Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sin fir the Promise is to you and to your Children Now let it be diligently observed how the Holy Ghost grounds the Command or Exhortation to keep the Covenant that is the Token of the Covenant upon interest in and right to the Promises of the Covenant I will be thy God saith the Lord to Abraham and the God of thy Seed in their Generations thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed in their Generations Now to what end or purpose can it be imagined that the Command to keep the Covenant should be ushered in with a therefore had not the Command some reference to the Promises immediately afore proposed And what reference can it be imagined to have but this that Gods vouchsafement of these Promises was the ground and foundation of the Command The Command was given upon no other account or conlideration but their interest in the foregoing Promises and the use the thing commanded should be of to them respective to these Promises so that I say the Command is grounded upon their interest in the Promises having these Promises Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant In like manner the Apostle grounds his Exhortation to Baptism the present Token of the Covenant or enforceth it by the consideration of right to and interest in the Promise be baptized for the Promise is unto you And that the truth of what we affirm may more fully appear let us enquire into two things First What Promise it was the Apostle saith was unto them Secondly What the meaning of the Apostle is in these words The Promise is to you First For the first And thus the Promise here said by the Apostle to be unto them must needs be some Promise which is common to all that are called of God and yet peculiar and proper to them and their Children hence it could not be either the Promise of sending Christ or the Promise of the extraordinary gift of the Spirit for as the former is not proper and peculiar to such as God calls so the latter is not common to them all and therefore it must needs be either that grand Promise of the Covenant or some other of the essence and substance of the Covenant as remission of sin or the like which is all one as to our present purpose Secondly For the second And thus I suppose all parties must necessarily and answerably do concenter in one of these two interpretations either that the Apostles meaning is that the Promise was to them so as that they had a present actual and personal interest in it which seems most agreeable to the letter of the words or else that at present the Promise was to them only by way of offer and tender but would be unto them so as that they should have an actual and personal interest in it upon the Lords calling of them or which is all one upon their repentance and that the Apostle doth eye and intend their personal interest in the Promise either as at present according to the first sense of the words or future to be obtained by their repentance according to the latter is evident because otherwise the having of the Promise to them would have been no sufficient ground for the Apostles Exhortation to Baptism neither could he rationally make it a motive to them to be baptized so that according to the latter interpretation of the Apostles words 't is as if he should say the Promise is to you by way of offer and tender at present therefore repent whereby you shall have an actual interest in it and thereupon be baptized and that the Apostle exhorts to Repentance only and not both to Baptism and Repentance in order to their having an actual interest in the Promise is past all doubt in as much as Baptism must necessarily follow upon and not precede interest in the Promise as a means either by it self or as a joynt means with Repentance to obtain that interest so
persons upon the personal profession of their faith and repentance exclusive of all others which our Opposers themselves will hardly affirm that he hath done yet would have given in so full and clear an account of the Apostles practice in execution of their Commission To teach and baptize the Nations as should have evidently obviated all mistakes in a case wherein mistakes so probably would be when it is so evidently declared that under the first Testament upon persons taking hold of the Covenant both themselves and Housholds were admitted and incorporated into the Body of Christ by the then Sign and Token of the Covenant and then declared in the New that together with Parents upon their imbracement of the Gospel their Housholds were admitted and implanted into the same Body as the Apostle is express in Ephes 3.6 that the Body is one and the same by Baptism the present Sign or Token of the Covenant and no account is given of the personal faith and repentance of any in or of those Houses at least some of them as the ground of their baptism besides the Parents alone Sure none can deny but here is a rational ground to suppose at least very probably that the Covenant and together therewith the Sign and Token of it is of the same extent and latitude as it formerly was Now I say consider how extreamly improbable it is that the Holy Ghost should record the Baptism of whole Housholds taking notice only of the faith and repentance of the Parents without giving the least intimation of the faith and repentance of any in or of such Housholds thereby giving so clear a ground of mistake in case none under the new Testament administration ought to be admitted and incorporated into the mystical Body of Christ as visible but upon a personal profession of their faith and repentance Secondly Let it be considered how the Holy Ghost doth vary his manner of expression in his narrative of those primitive transactions when he speaks of the baptism of Housholds he tells us the Housholds were baptized together with their Parents not giving the least intimation of the faith of any in or of those Houses as the ground of their baptism but when he speaks of more general Assemblies or concourses of people he speaks more distinguishingly As many as gladly received the Word were baptized Acts 2.41 And why the Holy Ghost should speak so distinguishingly in one place and not in the other is hard to say unless it should be because in respect of such more general Assemblies and concourses of people consisting of grown persons the personal faith and conversion of each was necessary to their baptism but not so in respect of the Houses of believing Parents but that is for these Instances as taken abstractly in themselves But now compare one thing with another and the evidence is vastly more clear for as considering what hath been said to prove the interest of the Infant-seed of believing Parents in the Covenant and Promises thereof and what hath been said to evidence a right to Baptism to be of equal extent to interest in the Covenant and Promises thereof it is undeniable to me and I can hardly think but it will be so to others who will freely entertain Light when held forth unto them that these Housholds were baptized as the Houses of such Parents upon the account of their interest in the Covenant so on the other hand when we see what hath been before said concerning the interest of believing Parents in the Covenant and concerning their right to Baptism upon that account and then find whole Housholds baptized and that so very probably to say no more as the Houses of such Parents it may much more strongly perswade us of that their interest in the Covenant and Promises thereof and of their right to the Sign and Token of the Covenant But let that suffice for the proof of our third subordinate Proposition What Objections the Truth we have contended for will meet with from the contrary minded shall now be considered CHAP. XI Objections against the last Proposition answered The conclusion of the whole Object 1. NOtwithstanding all that hath been said for the confirmation of the three foregoing Propositions yet some may say That it is not the will of Christ that the Infant-seed of believing Parents should ordinarily be baptized may be at least very probably concluded from those various passages that do occur in the new Testament wherein such things are declared to have attended the administration of Baptism and such things are affirmed of and required from the baptized in the primitive times which cannot attend Baptism as administred unto Infants nor can be truly affirmed of or rationally required from them See 1 Cor. 12.13 21 25. Ephes 4.16 Gal. 3.26 27. Answ This Objection will soon vanish and appear to have no strength at all in it if we consider these three things which because they are so obvious to every one of a competent understanding and at all acquainted with the Scriptures I shall need do little more than mention First Consider that what in these or the like Scriptures is declared of or required from the Body of Christ or the several Members of that Body as united and incorporated by the means whether internal or external appointed for that end and purpose agrees to and equally concerns the whole Body of Christ and the several Members thereof simply and absolutely in all times and ages the Body of Christ is but one successively continued throughout all ages and hence it may as well be concluded from these Scriptures that Infants never were nor ever shall be admitted into this Body the contrary whereunto is most evident as that in the primitive times they were not by Baptism admitted into it as then existent in the world Secondly Consider that it is a thing of frequent occurrence in Scripture for things to be declared and spoken of or to whole Bodies or Societies and that in the most universal and indefinite terms which yet are to be understood and applyed variously with respect to the particulars according to their respective capacities and concernments in what is so declared or spoken See this abundantly verified in that Speech of Moses to the whole Congregation of Israel recorded in the twenty nine and thirty Chapters of Deuteronomy there are some things spoken as universally true of them all So their standing before the Lord in order to their renewal of their Covenant with him thus Dout. 29.10 11 12 there are other things spoken which were alone true of the grown persons among them and that but in part true of some of them in whole true of others Thus their seeing what God had done for them in Egypt and in the Wilderness some had seen both the temptations they had been tried with and the Signs wrought before them in the Wilderness but had seen nothing in respect of a personal sight of what God had done for
incline the heart of the Seed of Believers to a right and willing complyance with that Obligation put upon them by it and by this little hint we may easily perceive that God had weighty ends in injoyning the application of Baptism the present Token of the Covenant as well as Circumcision of old the then Token of the Covenant to the Infant seed of his People and that the application of it is of admirable use and benefit unto them when duly improved by them and certainly then it must needs be not only highly injurious to the Seed of believing Parents to withhold the Token of the Covenant from them they being thereby deprived of a special means subservient to their preservation in their Covenant-state and injoyment of all the good of the Covenant but exceeding prejudicial to the interest of Christ in the world the Tabernacle of David as we have before proved is raised up and upheld among the Gentiles by Gods taking Families into Covenant with himself Now to neglect a special means that God hath appointed subservient to the preservation of these Families in their Covenant-state must needs directly tend to the ruine and overthrow of the interest and Kingdom of Christ in the world But not to inlarge upon this at present From this little that hath been said we may easily perceive that the application of Baptism to the Infant seed of Believers is no such vain or useless thing as it is by two many supposed I have only a few more words to add as a Coronis to the whole foregoing Discourse and I have done That it is the will of our Lord Christ that the Infant-seed of one or both believing Parents should be baptized is to me upon the grounds afore laid down unquestionable how far it will be so to others I cannot say only this I know that whatever light is held forth by man for the discovery of the mind and will of Christ relating to any practice yet unless he who is the great Prophet of his Church shall vouchsafe to open the eyes of the mind and prevail upon the heart to imbrace and submit unto that light held forth the holding of it forth will be wholly insignificant as to any benefit accrewing therefrom unto men Man may according to what assistance is vouchsafed from Christ hold forth light discovering the way he would have his People walk in but 't is wholly in his own power whose Prerogative it is to lead into all Truth to inlighten the mind and cause that Soul to walk in that way Leaving therefore the whole of what hath been said in his hand and to his blessing I shall wind up all with a threefold advice according to the various sentiments of men about and their various concerments in the practice I have contended for First As for such who have been and notwithstanding what is here offered or hath been by others shall still remain to be so far dissatisfied about the practice we plead for as wholly to omit it and walk in that way that lyes in a direct opposition thereunto let me advise and in the Spirit of meekness earnestly beseech them to carry it under their present perswasions and practise with a holy fear and trembling The grounds held forth in the foregoing Treatise and by several others pleading for the same Truth seem so full and clear yea to me so convincing that I can hardly fear being accounted over confident though I take it for granted that the most confident and resolved of our Opposers must needs acknowledge that our doctrine and practice of Infant baptism stands upon the same level of probability if the advantage be not on our side that the opposite Doctrine and practise doth and that upon supposition of our Doctrine and practice being found agreeable to the mind and will of Christ the opposite Doctrine and practice must needs be highly prejudicial to the comfort of believing Parents the good of their Seed and which is most of all eo the supportation and propagation of the interest and Kingdom of Christ in the world And let me add that when the consequences of refusing or claiming a priviledge are of an even size the refusing such a priviledge suppose it be indeed granted and ought to be accepted of is a greater sin and more displeasing unto God than the claiming and appropriating of it supposing it be not granted nor that claim really warranted by Scripture is as is evident to every considerate person we see how much God was offended at Ahaz his refusing a Sign when offered to him how much God was displeased with Moses for neglecting to circumcise his Child therefore I say walk with a holy fear and trembling lest as some will meet with a Who required this at your hand so you shall meet with a How durst thou refuse this priviledge at my hand Secondly As for such whose judgment and practice agree with and answerably are confirmed by the foregoing Discourse especially such to whom God hath vouchsafed that blessing of Children let me advise and importunately intreat them yea in the Name of our Lord Christ command them that they satisfie not themselves in the bare discharge of their duty in regard of the application of Baptism to their Seed in their infancy know that your work is not done when you have brought yours within the verge or under the bond of the Covenant you will find in the foregoing Papers that your Seeds inheriting the good which in common with you they are Heirs unto depends much upon your faithful and wife discharge of your duty towards them as growing up to years of maturity Abraham must command his Houshold that they keep the way of the Lord and that to this end that God might bring upon him the good promised with reference to his There is hardly any thing a greater discouragement to Ministers in pleading for an administring Infant-baptism than the great neglect of Parents towards their Children when baptized and grown up to a capacity of understanding and improving their Baptism afore administred to them therefore seeing you lay claim to Abraham's blessing as his Children walk in Abraham's steps both in respect of your own personal faith and holiness and also in instructing and commanding your Children that they may keep the way of the Lord In particular let them know their priviledge and the danger of forfeiting of it by breaking that Obligation put upon them by Baptism thirdly and lastly As for such who are the Seed of believing Parents and who by Baptism have been dedicated and given up unto God in Christ and incorporated into his my stical Body as visible Let me advise perswade and charge them that they lay no more weight upon their Baptism in relation to their eternal happiness than the nature of the Ordinance and the end of Christ in appointing the application of it will warrant Baptism abstractly taken infallibly secures Salvation to none neither can Baptism of it self be laid as a sure ground to bottom a plea for Salvation upon He that beliveth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not however baptized shall be damned is one of those unalterable Decrees laid up in the Records of Heaven In respect of which we may say as Job in another case of God He is of one mind and who shall that is none shall turn him Job 23.13 Your abiding in and injoyning the benefits of the Covenant into which 〈◊〉 as the Seed of such Parents you were admitted in you infancy undispensably requires your personal faith and obedience therefore be faithful in the discharge of your duty and in so doing you may upon sure grounds apply and improve your Baptism as Gods Seal infallibly securing your injoyment of the good promised FINIS