Infant-baptism Plainly Proved A DISCOURSE WHEREIN Certain select Arguments for INFANT-BAPTISM formerly syllogistically handled are now reviewed abbreviated and reduced to a plain Method for the benefit of the Unlearned and Persons of weaker Capacity By JOSEPH WHISTON With a large Epistle to the Pious and Learned among the Anti-paedobaptists especially the Authors of the late Confession of their Faith Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures Mat. 22.29 Quo imperitior Sermo hoc illustrior Ratio est Minutius Felix LONDON Printed for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Pauls Church-yard 1678. Christian Reader THe ensuing Sheets are only an Epitome of that Plea I have heretofore more largely managed on the behalf of the Covenant-Interest and Baptism of the Infant-Seed of Believers wherein as thou hast the main Principles I have proceeded upon so the Strength of those Arguments urged for their establishment in a Method better suting ordinary Capacities The Alterations I have made are only such as either the Method I have now proceeded in made necessary or I judged useful for the more full explication of those Principles and enforcement of those Arguments with reference whereunto I have sometimes made considerable Additions which I can with much freedom and cheerfulness of Mind put into thine hands because they now for some years have offered themselves to the severest Test of the most Critical Opposers of the Practice pleaded for who either have utterly declined their Examination or after the strictest Examination of them have not been able to produce any just exception against them And besides they are now reduced to such a Method and clothed in such a Dress as subjects them to thine own Test and Examination thou mayest as I may say see with thine own Eyes Here are no Majors or Minors to puzzle thy Head withal but as the Propositions containing the Principles I have proceeded on are plainly set down so their Explications and Proofs are both in respect of Method and Terms used accommodated to thine own Vnderstanding Neither is there any great Strength of Memory required to retain the first Proposition with the Evidence given in thereunto till thou comest to the second nor to retain that or the second till thou comest to the third nor any great Acuteness of Vnderstanding to discern the reference that one Proposition hath to another nor how the main Conclusion results from them all three as laid together Yet this must be said it cannot be rationally expected that a Truth perplexed with such variety of Disputes and entangled with such variety of Objections as this contended for hath been should immediatly be extricated out of all and made to appear with that clearness as that it should command the Vnderstandings of all Men to a submission thereunto without some Diligence used and some Prudence exercised both in examining the Principles laid down with the Evidence given in for their Confirmation their subordination and reference the one to the other and the justness of inferring and concluding the Truth asserted from them all The Method Christian Reader that I would commend unto thee in examining what is here offered is the same that I formerly advised to 1. Throughly enquire into and labour to come to a Resolution about the Covenant-Interest or Federal Holiness of the Infant-Seed of Believers For though our Brethren of the Antipaedobaptist Perswasion seem willing to avoid a Contest about this and to think that the main Difference between them and us is about their Baptism yet indeed it is quite otherwise Would they but bonâ fide own and assert their Covenant-Interest with us our Differences would be brought into a much narrower Compass than now they are neither should we look upon these Contests of such an importance as at present we cannot but do 'T is their Covenant-Interest that we mainly contend for and whosoever shall grant that I doubt not but they will be easily brought by the Evidence that is and may be when necessary produced from the Scriptures for their Baptism if not to Compliance with yet to cease all further Opposition against it 'T is then their Covenant-Interest that I would advise thee first to enquire into and labour to come to a Resolution about and in order thereunto to search into and labour to get satisfaction about the Covenant as at first establish'd with Abraham When the Apostle would establish the Doctrine of Justification by Faith without the Works of the Law he refers us once and again to the way and manner of Abraham's Justification see Rom. 4. begin Gal. 3.6 plainly shewing that God set a Pattern in Abraham according to which he would ever after proceed in justifying the ungodly as the Apostle speaks So in all other things appertaining to the Essence and Substance of the Covenant he hath set a Pattern in Abraham according unto which he always hath and will deal with all who are taken into the same Covenant with him Hence would we be satisfied about the Tenour of the Covenant in regard of its Extent and Latitude that is would we know whether it extends to and takes in Children with their Parents or be only made with Parents themselves put that Question to our selves that the Apostle doth Rom. 4.3 What saith the Scripture that is In what tenour doth the Scripture declare that the Covenant was made with Abraham And we shall evidently find it was made not only personally with Abraham but with him and his Seed that is his Children immediatly proceeding from his own Loins The evidencing of this is the design of my first Proposition And having found out the true tenour of the Covenant as at first established with Abraham the Father of the Faithful Then proceed to enquire how it hath been hitherto and still is continued to all his Seed whether of his natural Posterity or of the Gentiles and thou wilt evidently find that as it is the Covenant established with Abraham that is the Covenant Believers are still under so that it always hath been and still is continued in the same tenour to them all This my second Proposition with the Evidence given thereunto proves pardon me though I say it against all rational Contradiction And clearly understanding and being establish'd in the Truth of these two first Propositions thou mayest regularly proceed to the examination of the third Neither do I much doubt thy ready Compliance with that and consequently the Truth contended for And the truth is were but what Mr. Baxter hath said to prove the Church-Membership of the Infant-Seed of Believers an Abbreviation of which is now extant and what is even here offered for the establishing of their Interest in the Conditional Covenant of Grace from whence their Right to Church-Membership doth arise and the Arguments to prove the Rightfulness of their Baptism upon supposition of that their Covenant-Interest and Right to Church-Membership thorowly and impartially weighed I cannot but hope this Controversy would hasten to a Period among
immediatly discern such evident Notices of the Mind and Will of God concerning the Infant-Seed of his People as upon which our Understandings taking hold and we being guided by the further Manifestations that God from time to time till the sealing up of the Vision as Daniel speaks hath made of his Mind and Will concerning them we shall as by a safe Clew be led to such a clear Insight into and Understanding of the Agreeableness of that Practice we inquire after to the Mind and Will of God as we may comfortably acquiesce and proceed on therein For the clearing up of which let a threefold Proposition with that Evidence the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament give unto each of them be carefully attended to Prop. I. That when God at the first Establishment of his Covenant with Abraham promised to be a God to him and to his Seed in their Generations he in that Term Seed intended his natural Children immediatly proceeding from his own Loins Prop. II. That this grand Promise of the Covenant is continued to New-Testament Believers in the same Extent and Latitude in which it was at first given to Abraham Prop. III. That all those that are under or are the actual Subject of that grand Promise of the Covenant are the due Subject of Baptism Supposing the Truth of these three Propositions none can with the least shew of Reason question the Agreeableness of that Practice of Infants Baptism the Practice enquired after and by us contended for to the Mind and Will of our Lord Christ To begin with the first Viz. Prop. I. When God at the first Establishment of his Covenant with Abraham promised to be a God to him and to his Seed in their Generations be by that Term Seed firstly and immediatly intended his natural Children and that as immediatly proceeding from his own Loins For the right understanding of this Proposition and preventing all Mistakes about it I readily grant yea positively affirm that together with his natural Children his Spiritual Seed viz. true Believers whether living under the Old or New-Testament-Administration were included and as taken of his natural Seed I do not say that his Children immediatly proceeding from his own Loins were only but this I say they were firstly and immediatly intended I readily grant the Promise had a respect unto and did include all the natural Jews yea even those yet in being Yet this must be carefully observed That though in this Term Seed God intended and had respect to all Abraham's natural Posterity as well as his Children immediatly proceeding from his own Loins yet he did not intend nor had respect to both as falling under one and the same Notion had Consideration As for his Children immediatly proceeding from his own Loins he intended and had respect to them as severally and particularly considered that is he intended and had respect to each of them in particular as Ishmael and his Children by Keturah as well as Isaac but as for his Posterity mediately proceeding from him as all the Jews in following Ages God intended and had respect to them in this Promise only as more generally considered that is he intended and had respect to them only in general as Abraham's Posterity but he intended them not nor had respect to them as severally and particularly considered Hence no one of Abraham's Posterity beyond those that did immediatly proceed from his own Loins had this Promise appertaining to them as singularly or particularly considered meerly as of his natural Seed but whosoever among them were in Covenant or had the Promise appertaining to them they were either such as had personally taken hold of the Covenant themselves or were the natural Children of those who had so done So that for the understanding the full Mind of God in that grand Promise we must distinguish of this Term Seed or of this Seed of Abraham to whom the Promise was made as thus Abraham's Seed is either Natural or Spiritual Again take it of his Natural Seed so they were either such as proceeded immediatly from his own Loins or such as proceeded from those who originally descended from him and were on that account to be reckoned as of his Posterity Now take the Promise as respecting both Abraham's natural Seed immediatly proceeding from his own Loins and also his Spiritual Seed so it was intended of and had respect to each of them in particular But take it as respecting his natural Seed mediatly descending from him in after Ages so it intended and had respect to them only in the general but did not intend nor had respect to any taken apart and singly by themselves As for Instance take the Promise as respecting Abraham's immediate Children so it intended and had respect to Ishmael as well as Isaac and to each of his Children by Keturah as well as either Ishmael or Isaac but take it as respecting his Posterity in after Ages suppose Jacob or any of his Children in Ages at a greater distance from him suppose Moses David or the like so it did not intend them in particular only had a more general respect unto them as of Abraham's Posterity but had no other respect to them than it had to any other of his Posterity that were or are alike descended from him with them But now this I say however this Term Seed is to be understood yet Abraham's natural Seed or Children immediatly proceeding from his own Loins were firstly intended as the immediate and next Subjects of the Promise with Abraham himself Yet further for the fuller clearing up the Mind of God in this Promise and that our Foundation to the main conclusion may be more firmly laid Two things must be carefully observed and remembred 1. That as this promise had a respect to Abraham's whole Seed according as is before opened so it was made to them in their respective Generations that is to them and their Seed that is their natural Children immediatly proceeding from their own Loins 2. That as it respected all Abraham's natural Seed immediatly proceeding from his own Loins and his Spiritual Seed with their respective Children immediatly proceeding from their own Loins as severally and particularly considered so it was made only conditionally it did not secure the Good contained in it absolutely let them live how they would but it did suppose and indispensibly require That as the natural Children of Abraham so the natural Children of all his Seed as grown up to years of Maturity should personally take hold of the Covenant themselves as perform the Conditions of it in their own Persons so that his Spiritual Seed should continue in that way of Faith and Holiness they were entered into in order to their respective enjoyment of the Good promised But to come to the Proof of this first Proposition That Abraham's natural Seed immediatly proceeding from his own Loins were intended in this Promise as the first and next Subjects of it is so
we be Christ's then we are Heirs according to the Promise He doth not it 's true express what we are Heirs unto but this 14th verse tells us it is the Blessing of Abraham that is the Good we are Heirs of Now saith he we are Heirs of this Blessing according to the Promise According to what Promise Why that Promise mentioned vers 16. For that is the Promise that evidently the Apostle intends Hence this Blessing of Abraham come upon the Gentiles must necessarily be that very Blessing contained in that Promise and that was That as God would be a God to Abraham and his Seed that is primarily his natural Seed so he would be a God to his Seed in their Generations that is to them and their natural Children which is the same Blessing that Abraham himself was blessed with So that we see by the express words of the Apostle the Promise is granted unto and setled upon believing Gentiles in the same extent and latitude in which it was made to Abraham IV. and lastly That this Promise is continued to all his Seed and in particular to believing Gentils in the same latitude and extent in which it was made to Abraham may be infallibly concluded from several Passages in the New-Testament as laid together and compared one with another The Passages amongst others are these Mark 10.10 Luk. 19.9 acts 2.38 39. Acts 16.31 1 Cor. 7.14 From these Passages as laid together and compared one with another we may infer these three Conclusions from all which the Truth asserted will evidently appear I. That upon any Parents believing in Christ the Promise of Salvation belongs not only to themselves but to their respective Houses not only themselves as personally considered but their Houses come under the Promise of Salvation This is evident from Luk. 19.9 Acts 16.31 compared together Our Lord Christ tells Zaccheus Salvation upon his believing was come unto his Houses that is as the Apostle explains it his House was now under the Promise of Salvation What Salvation he means is evident from the Apostles words namely Eternal Salvation as begun in this Life therefore saith he Thou and thy House shall be saved which is all one as to say Salvation shall come to thy House for Salvation to come to a House is all one as to say that House shall be saved or is under the Promise of Salvation Hence no Man can rationally interpret Salvation in that Passage of Christ to Zaccheus of Christ himself Indeed Christ is no where in Scripture called Salvation simply and absolutely nor can Christ possibly intend himself because he lays the Ground of this Salvation's coming to Zaccheus's House in that new Relation he was received into unto Abraham he was now become his Son and upon that very Ground Christ tells him Salvation was come to his House Now that cannot be supposed to be the Ground upon which Christ himself came to his House he came rather that he might become a Son of Abraham than because he was so so that he must needs here intend Salvation in a proper sence So that we see expresly that upon Parents believing the Promise of Salvation belongs to their Houses II. That under this Term House the Children of believing Parents are in a peculiar and an especial manner included and intended I do not deny but the Term House may take in more than their Children but that they are included cannot be rationally questioned Hence for Salvation to come to the Houses of believing Parents is all one as to say Salvation is come to their Children For as our Lord Christ tells Zaccheus Salvation was come to his House so the Apostle Paul assizes the Jaylor that upon his believing his House should be saved and the Apostle Peter tells the Jews that upon their believing the Promise would be to them and their Children and our Lord Christ tells us that of such speaking of Children is the Kingdom of Heaven Now all these Passages as in the general and for the substance intend one and the same thing so they mutually explain and confirm each other Hence for any to understand Salvation of Christ himself or House of Zaccheus himself is not only unreasonable Salvation when absolutely put never signifying Christ nor a Man's self said to be his House but it is to shut their Eyes against that Light the Holy Ghost himself holds forth for the discovery of the Mind and Meaning of our Lord Christ in that Passage to Zaccheus III. That Salvation belongs to the Houses especially to the Children of believing Parents meerly as such that is as they are the Children of such Parents without consideration had to their personal Faith and Repentance Now this which it is true is most liable to exception may be undeniably demonstrated not only from the Letter of the forementioned Passages no mention being made of the Faith and Repentance of those Children of whom it is said Salvation was come to them or the Promise is to them but from a twofold Consideration 1. That the Promise of Salvation belongs to the Houses that is as before the Children of believing parents meerly by virtue or on the account of such a Relation they stand in to Abraham as is common to all Believers this is that of Children Thus saith Christ This day is Salvation come to thy House forasmuch as he also is the Son of Abraham Mark what it is that our Lord Christ grounds his Assertion upon it is evidently Zaccheus his Relation to Abraham as his Seed And the like must be understood as the Ground of that Promise of Paul to the Jailor he and his House upon believing would come under the Promise of Salvation forasmuch as he then would become a Son of Abraham as God promised to Abraham to be a God to him and his Seed which is all one as to say to him and his House so that he would be a God to his Seed in their Generations which is all one as to say to them and their Houses So now Zaccheus being through his Faith in Christ become one of Abraham's Seed our Lord Christ tells him Salvation was come to his House he and his House especicially his Children were now under the Promise of Salvation which is the same for substance with that of God's being a God to them Neither can any with any shew of Reason plead the necessity of Faith or the actual Calling or Conversion of his House to their Joint-Interest with him in this Promise seeing not only there is no such Qualification intimated to be necessary but on the other hand their Interest is evidently declared by our Lord Christ to be Zacheus's Relation to Abraham as one of his Seed our Lord Christ speaks of the Time present Salvation was then come to his House upon the very first Moment of his believing and that upon this very account that he now was become a Son of Abraham And this Good viz. to have Salvation come to his
particularly considered much more it might be so respect of those who were the Subjects of this Promise only as it had a more general respect to them as of Abraham's Posterity But hence it is evident the Apostle is so far from denying either that Abraham's own Children or Isaac's Children were Subjects of this grand Promise of the Covenant that he plainly grants and supposes that they were for in case the Apostle did not suppose and take it for granted that the rest of Abraham's Children had been accounted the Subjects of this Promise with Isaac and the rest of Isaac's Children with Jacob his instancing in them as being the Children of God and accounted for the Seed had made nothing to his purpose considering the Question he was now resolving but would rather have made against the Resolution he gives of that Question as will evidently appear to any that shall throughly weigh the whole Context So that this Text of the Apostle is so far from opposing that it doth greatly establish the Truth of our first Proposition the Apostle evidently granting that Ishmael and Abraham's Children by Keturah were the Subjects of this Promise as well as Isaac and Esau as well as Jacob. Object 2 It is said by some That this Covenant the Establishment of which with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations is recorded Gen. 17.7 is not that Covenant of Grace under which Believers under the New-Testament are Hence though this Covenant establish'd with Abraham did run in that latitude and extent pleaded for viz. as taking in Parents with their natural Seed under the First-Testament yet no Argument can be drawn from thence to prove that the Infant-Seed of Believers are still taken into covenant with their Parents seeing the Covenant under which Believers now are is a Covenant quite different from this established with Abraham this being the Old and that the New Covenant Answer This Objection will be sufficiently removed by the Proof of these two Propositions 1. That this Covenant then established with Abraham was a Covenant of Grace that is a Covenant assuring of Spiritual Blessings the very same Blessings assured and conveyed to Believers by the Covenant they are now under and a Covenant assuring of such Blessings will doubtless be granted by all Men to be a Covenant of Grace That this was such a Covenant will appear by these four Considerations 1. That in case this Covenant only assured Abraham and his Seed in their Generations of a temporal Good then many thousands that were the undoubted Subjects of it and that as personally and particularly considered might and did never enjoy and Good or Benefit by it and this without any default on the part either of themselves or any others through whose default they could be supposed to be justly deprived thereof and consequently meerly through God's not performing his Promise This is evident thus Because many thousands that were the undoubted Subjects of this Covenant might and did die in their pure Infant-state and consequently were utterly uncapable of enjoying any temporal Good Hence in case this Covenant only assured of a temporal Good all those so dying must needs fall short of the Good promised And this could not be through any default of their own seeing they were as in their Infant-state uncapable of doing either Good or Evil. And this might be and often was found true in respect of the Seed of Believers and consequently no forfeiture of the Promise was made by their Parents hence their not enjoying the Good of the Covenant supposing it to be only temporal could be assigned to no other Cause but meerly God's not performing his Promise But now it is certain none ever did or shall fall short of any Good promised meerly through a Failure on God's part in making good his Promise Hence it must needs be a Spiritual Good which might be enjoyed in another Life that was the chief and principal Good intended in this Promise 2. Consider the Subject Matter of this Promise or the Good promised and that was that God would be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their Generations Now the Psalmist expresly prefers this above any temporal Good whatsoever Psal 144. last verse And consequently it must needs be a Spiritual Good seeing it is impossible that there should be any Good that is greater than any temporal Good and yet it self is no spiritual Good 3. Consider that the Promise of the Land of Canaan which according to the Letter of the Promise only intended a temporal Good yet according to a more inward and Spiritual Sence did intend a Spiritual Good viz. Heaven as is evident from Heb. 11.9 10. and is acknowledged at least by some of our chief Opposers And how unreasonable and absurd is it to imagine that the Promise which according to the Letter intends only a temporal Good should yet according to a more inward and Spiritual sence intend a Spiritual Good and yet that this Promise of God's being a God to them which according to the very Letter intends a Spiritual Good should only intend a temporal Good 4. Consider that this Promise as is granted on all hands intends a Spiritual Good as made to Abraham's Spiritual or Mystical Seed and answerably must needs intend the like Good as made to his natural Seed seeing God hath no where in his Word given us a Warrant to interpret it of one kind of Good as made to his Mystical Seed and of another kind of Good as made to his Natural Seed So that this Covenant must necessarily be a Covenant of Grace the Good contained in it was a spiritual and Eternal Good and such a Good can be granted to or enjoyed by Man as now fallen by no Covenant but what is a Covenant of Grace But II. That this covenant mentioned Gen. 17.7 was the very same for the Substance of it that Believers under the New-Testament are under It is not only a Covenant of Grace but the very Covenant of Grace that Believers are still under Now this is undeniably evident from the Apostle's Discourse in Gal. 3. Let only two things be considered 1. The Apostle positively affirms that this Covenant was never disanull'd or abrogated Thus vers 17. This I say That the Covenant which was before confirmed of God in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disanull that it should make the Promise of none effect That the Apostle speaks of this very Covenant made and establish'd with Abraham is sufficiently evident from the whole Context 'T is that Covenant the grand Promise whereof ran in that tenour To thee and to thy Seed see vers 16. Which must needs be this Covenant no other Covenant made with Abraham containing any Promise to his Seed running in that tenour Now saith the Apostle The Law which was four hundred and thirty years after could not disanul this Covenant so that this Covenant was not disanull'd by the Law And let it be
evident that it seems impossible that any pretending Sobriety should deny it For 1. 'T is undeniable from the very Letter of the Promise I will saith God be a God to thee and to thy Seed Now this Term Seed in the first and most proper Signification of it must needs intend his natural Children And had not the Holy-Ghost himself shewed us that Abraham was to be the Father of a Spiritual Seed and that this Seed was included with his natural all Men must have rationally understood it of his natural Seed only and it had been the highest presumption to have applied it to any other And though the Holy-Ghost hath shewed us that Abraham was to have a Spiritual Seed and that that Seed was intended yet for any to exclude his natural Seed when they have no warrant from Scripture so to do savours of no small Presumption It is a known Rule for the Interpretation of Scripture that when a Word that admits of various Interpretations and is applicable to various things is put absolutely it must at least firstly and primarily be understood according to its most proper Intent and Signification Hence for any to understand this Term Seed in this Promise of Abraham's Spiritual Seed to the excluding of his Natural Seed when they have no warrant from Scripture so to do is unreasonable and absurd And as it must most properly signify his natural Seed so it cannot without the greatest affront to common Speech and all Rules of Interpretation be understood of his Posterity in after Ages to the excluding of his natural Children immediatly proceeding from his own Loins so that as for any to have understood this Promise of Abraham's Spiritual Seed had not the Scripture warranted them so to do had been Presumption So to understand it of them to the excluding his natural Seed when there is no warrant so to do is unreasonable And to understand it of his remote Posterity to the excluding his Children descended immediatly from his own Loins is alike presumptuous unreasonable and absurd with either of the former And hence would but the contrary-minded keep to the Letter of Scripture which sometimes they stand so much upon a good Foundation would be laid for the ending of this Controversy 2. That Abraham's natural Children were firstly and immediatly intended in this Promise by this Term Seed is evident from Abraham's application of the Token of the Covenant wherein this Promise is one special Article on God's part and that under that very Notion viz. as the Token of the Covenant to them And this also according to the express Will and Appointment of God Himself that God did appoint Abraham to apply the Token of the Covenant and that under that very Notion and Consideration as the Token of the Covenant to his natural Children immediatly proceeding from his own Loins and that to all of them without any limitation or exception of the one or the other is in so many words expresly declared in that Gen. 17.9 10 11. In ver 9. the Command is given in more general Terms Thou shalt keep my Covenant and what he intended by Covenant in this 9th verse he explains in the 10th viz. the Token of the Covenant which under the First-Testament Administration is expresly declared to be Circumcision Every Man-child among you shall be circumcised And that God appointed and enjoyned it under this Notion as the Token of the Covenant is evident in that God tells them expresly it should be the Token of the Covenant between him and them And that Abraham did apply this Token of the Covenant to all his natural Seed immediatly proceeding from his own Loins and that as the Token of the Covenant is undoubted 't is expresly declared both of Ishmael and Isaac Gen. 17.13 21. Gen. 4.8 Though the Circumcision of his Children by Keturah is not mentioned yet that they were circumcised cannot be questioned seeing the Circumcision of some others as of Jacob and his Sons who yet past all doubt were circumcised is not mentioned The Command of God to circumcise them considering the Testimony that God Himself gives of Abraham's Faithfulness as also his circumncising his Servants who were more remote from him than his own Children sufficiently assure us that they were circumcised though their Circumcision be not mentioned in the Story And to suppose that he should apply the Token of the Covenant under any other Notion than as the Token of it seeing under that Notion it was commanded would be unreasonable and absurd Now Abraham's applying the Token of the Covenant wherein this Promise was a special Article on God's part and under that very Notion puts it past all scruple that by Seed in the Promise his natural Seed and that as immediatly proceeding from his own Loins were intended otherwise the Token of the Covenant and that under that very Notion as the Token of it would and that according to the appointment of God Himself have been applied to some utterly uninterested in the Covenant which is most unreasonable to imagine yea then God should have spoken that which had been utterly false to say of Circumcision it is the Token of my Covenant between me and you in case any to whom it was applied had not been in Covenant which in case this Promise took them not in they had not been had been utterly false so that to imagine God should appoint Abraham to apply the Token of the Covenant and that as the Token of it to any uninterested in it would be to imagine him not only guilty of Irrationality but Falshood Hence nothing can be more evident than that they were Abraham's natural Seed immediatly proceeding from his own Loins that were firstly and immediatly intended in that Promise 3. This might be further evidenced were it at all necessary by instancing in such of Abraham's natural Children as upon supposition of whose being intended in this Promise it will undeniably follow that all his immediate Children were intended in it And proving that they were indeed intended thus we might instance in Isaac and Ishmael that they two were intended in this Promise is evident from Scripture As for Isaac that of Gen. 21.12 expounded by the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. fully declares it hence he is said to be an Heir with Abraham having respect to this very Promise Heb. 11.9 And as for Ishmael the Apostle puts it out of doubt that he was intended in this Promise when he tells us that upon his persecuting Isaac he was cast out Ga. 4. latter end Now he could not have been cast out of Covenant had he not been before in it and that he was not only cast out of Abraham's Family but together therewith out of Covenant is evident as other ways so from Abraham's grief for the same Now if those two were intended in the Promise it will undeniably follow that all Abraham's natural Children were alike intended in it We see the Promise is made in universal Terms not
excepting any of his Seed in particular And these two being evidently intended there is no reason imaginable why any of his other Children should be excluded From the whole of what hath been said the Truth of this first Proposition appears past all rational Contradiction Whence supposing this Covenant mentioned Gen. 17.7 be the Covenant of Grace under which Believers now are and that this Promise respecting the Seed be of the Essence and Substance of the Covenant of both which more hereafter We have gained thus much viz. That at the first Establishment of it the first Person viz. Abraham with whom it was established and that as the Father of all that should have after admission into it had his natural Seed or Children proceeding from his own Loins taken into the Covenant with himself which how fair a Foundation it lays to our general Conclusion is plain to all of a competent understanding And the Evidence given in to this first Proposition being so full and clear and the Objections made against it being so inconsiderable or if any thing may seem to have any weight in it it will be met with afterward I shall not interrupt the Order with the recital of them if any Scruple arise in the Minds of any they may find Satisfaction in my first Book chap. 3. But to proceed to the second Proposition CHAP. II. The second subordinate Proposition propounded briefly explained confirmed First from the express Letter of that Promise Gen. 17.7 The true Sence of that Promise stated and confirmed by a threefold Consideration Secondly by several Promises and Prophecies relating to New-Testament Times Prop. II. THat this grand Promise of the Covenant is continued to New-Testament-Believers in the same Extent and Latitude in which it was at first giâ—â—â— to Abraham Or take it thus This Promise always hath been and still is continued to all Abraham's Seed in the same Extent and Latitude in which it was at first given to Abraham their Father Look in what Sence it is to be understood as made to Abraham in the same Sence it is to be understood as continued to his Seed or to those whoever they were or are that were or are intended in this Term Seed and consequently to New-Testament-Believers they being undoubtedly intended in it Plainly thus as God in this Promise as at first made to Abraham had a particular respect to all his Children immediatly proceeding from his own Loins and only a more general respect to all his Posterity mediatly descending from him and answerably each of his Children immediatly proceeding from him had an actual Interest in the Promise were in the Covenant and had a right to the Sign and Token of it whereas the rest of his Posterity though God had a more general respect to them yet none of them had an actual Right to the Promise neither were they in Covenant as particularly considered nor could have the Token of the Covenant duly applied unto them So now in this Promise as continued to Abraham's Seed whether of the Jews or Gentiles God always had and still hath a particular respect to all their Children immediatly proceeding from their own Loins and answerably each one of them in particular are under the Promise within the Covenant and have a right to the Token of it but as for their mediate Posterity to God always had and still hath a more general respect to them yet none of them have an actual Interest in the Promise neither can they rightfully have the Token of it applied unto them And if it be said In case God had only a more general respect to Abraham's Posterity mediatly descended from him by virtue of which respect none of them were actually in Covenant nor had a right to the Sign and Token how came it to pass that the Covenant was continued for so many Generations amongst the Jews and they had this Promise of God's being a God to them continued successively from one Generation to another unto them I answer to touch upon this by the way it was thus First God enters the Covenant with Abraham and therein promises not only to be a God to him in his own Person but to be a God to his Seed that is as before proved his natural Children immediatly proceeding from his own Loins These Children as in their Infancy were under the Promise as they were naturally descended from him and they growing up to years of Maturity so many of them as took hold of the Covenant had now the Promise continued to them in the same extent and latitude it was given to Abraham it is now to them and their Children immediatly proceeding from their own Loins These Children again during their Infant-state were under the Promise as descending from such believing Parents and they again growing up to years of Maturity so many of them as took hold of the Covenant had the Promise continued to them in the same extent in which it was given to Abraham and their immediate Parents had it continued to them and so from one Generation to another But in case any of Abraham's immediate Children as in the Case of Ishmael or of such Parents as had taken hold of the Covenant as in the Case of Esau did apostatize from God they did thereby not only forfeit their own Interest in the Promise but did cut off the Entail from their Posterity themselves having lost the Promise or forfeited their Interest in it their Children must needs lose their Interest with them and answerably they were to be cast out of the Church look'd upon and dealt with as Strangers to the Covenant and Promises of it till themselves should personally repent and believe and in some cases were to be cut off by Death and if they were not it was the fault of those in whose hands the Administration of Church-Censures was put But so long as Abraham's Posterity did successively one Generation after another embrace the Covenant so long the Promise was continued to them in the same extent and latitude in which it was at first given to Abraham And as it was thus in respect of the Jews or natural Posterity of Abraham so it is in respect of the Gentiles Whoever under the first Testament was or under the New-Testament is to be accounted for Abraham's Seed they always had and have the Promise continued to them in the same extent and yet with the same limitations in and with which it was given to Abraham though it is true Abraham in several respects had a preheminence above any of his Seed as in respect of Paternity or Father-hood so in respect of the Continuance of the Covenant amongst his natural Posterity but this I say Take Abraham as a believing Parent of natural Children so as the Promise was made at first to him and his natural Children immediatly proceeding from his own Loins so it always hath been and still is continued to all that were or are to be accounted for his Seed
And the Truth of this Proposition is alike evident from Scripture with the Truth of the former As I. It is evident from the very Letter of the Promise I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed in their Generations God we see promises not only to be a God to Abraham's Seed but to be a God to them in their Generations Now in this Phrase their Generations their Children are included Thy Seed in their Generations in this latter Branch of the Promise is equivalent to thee and thy Seed in the former Branch of it as that was made to Abraham as a natural Father of natural Children for God to promise to be a God to Abraham's Seed in their Generations is all one as if he had as before he did to Abraham promised to be a God to them and their natural Children So that in this Phrase in their Generations is included the natural Children of all those to whom the Promise doth appertain For the clearing up of this it must be premised That in the same Sence this Branch of the Promise is to be interpreted as it had respect and was continued to the Jews who were Abraham's natural Posterity in the same Sence it is to be interpreted as it had respect has been or is continued to those who from among the Gentiles were or are to be accounted the Seed intended in this Promise And the Reason is evident because the Jews his natural Seed as grown up to years of maturity held their Interest in the Promise not meerly as his natural but as his Spiritual Seed as is partly evident from what is already said and will more abundantly appear from what follows Hence undeniably as this Phrase in this Promise was to be interpreted as it respected the natural Posterity of Abraham so it is to be understood as respecting the Gentiles Now that this was the Sence of this Promise as it respected Abraham's natural Seed and Posterity is evident three ways First Because it can be no otherwise understood but the Truth and Faithfulness of God will be impeached thereby Let any other Sence imaginable be put upon this Branch of the Promise and it will be found inconsistent with the Truth and Faithfulness of God in his Promises for there is no other Sence besides that afore mentioned can with any shew of reason be put upon it except only this viz. That when God promised to be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their Generations his meaning was That he would be a God to them in the several Ages and Generations of the World wherein they should respectively live But now this Sence is utterly inconsistent with the Truth and Faithfulness of God in as much as in case this had been the sence and meaning of this Branch of the Promise then each one of Abraham's natural Posterity would have had particular Interest in it and consequently God had engaged Himself to be a God to each of them for in case this Phrase thy Seed in their Generations extends not the Promise beyond those immediatly and firstly intended in that Term Seed then the Promise to whomsoever it should appertain would have been a particular Promise entitling each of them to the God promised That it is to be understood as a particular Promise as appertaining both to Abraham's natural Children immediatly proceeding from his own Loins and to his Spiritual Seed entitling each of them to the Good promised is past all rational doubt and will be further proved hereafter and answerably in case that Phrase in their Generations should not extend the Promise beyond those firstly and immediatly intended in that Term Seed it must be so understood as appertaining to all Abraham's Posterity for that it did and doth in some sence appertain to them is expresly declared in Scripture But now it is undeniable that God was not the God of Abraham's Seed in their Generations in this Sence there were many of Abraham's Seed in after generations that God was not a God unto So that let Men study to the utmost they will never be able to find out any other Sence of this Promise than that I have before given as it respected Abraham's natural Posterity but it will be found inconsistent with the Truth and Faithfulness of God in his Promises Secondly That this is the true sence and meaning of this Branch of the Promise is evident because God himself so expounds it when he comes afterward to deal with the Jews in a Covenant-way thus Deut. 29.10 11 12 13. There we shall find when God comes to renew his Covenant with him he takes in their natural Children with themselves as Parents into Covenant with Himself and that in prosecution of this very Promise In the 11th vers it is expresly said The Covenant was entred with their little Ones And that this was in prosecution of this Promise is expresly affirmed v. 13. And that he did not take them in meerly as they were of Abraham's Posterity is in part evident and will further appear in the next particular So that God himself expounds this Phrase in their Generations as including Parents and Children Thirdly That this is the sence and meaning of this Branch of that Promise is evident de facto Abraham's natural Posterity so long as the Covenant was continued among them yea not only his natural Posterity but also such who from among the Gentiles took hold of the Covenant enjoyed the Promise as including their Children with them Parents and Children were always Joint-Heirs of the same Promise what Parents soever whether Jews or Gentiles had the Promise appertaining to them their Children had it alike appertaining to them Now this is evident past all rational doubt these three ways First From the constant application of the Token of the Covenant and that according to the appointment of God himself to their Children that both the Jews and those who from among the Gentiles joined themselves to the Jewish Church were according to the appointment of God to and answerably did apply the Token of the Covenant to their Children is sufficiently evident throughout the Old-Testament and is denied by none 2dly This is evident from the Ground upon which the Token was applied to them and that was their Interest in the Promise And that the Token of the Covenant was applied upon that Ground is sufficiently evident from what hath been already said For 1. It was applied under that very Notion and Consideration viz. as the Token of the Covenant 2. The Application and Reception of it is said to be the keeping of the Covenant 3. The Command enjoining of it was grounded upon Interest in the Covenant 4. Otherwise God could not truly say it was the Token of the Covenant between him and those to whom it was applied which yet he doth 5. Because otherwise it had been the universal Duty of all Abraham's Posterity descended as well by Ishmael as Isaac and by Esau as Jacob to continue
the use of Circumcision throughout all Ages though rejected of God from being his People which is absurd to imagine 3dly Let this be added that the Promise could not appertain to the Children we now speak of neither could they have been in Covenant unless included in this Phrase Thy Seed in their Generations That they had an Interest in that Promise and were in Covenant is undeniable from what hath been already said Now I say they could have had no Interest in that Promise neither could have been in Covenant had they not been included in that Phrase For 1. It cannot be supposed neither will any affirm they could have that Promise appertaining to them by virtue of any personal Act of their own by what way or through what means then can they be supposed to have had such an Interest in the Promise but only this that it did reach and take in Children with their Parents If any shall say it was by virtue of their Relation to Abraham as his Seed though mediatly descending from him To that I answer That there is no Ground for this pretence in respect of the Children of those who from among the Gentiles embraced Abraham's Covenant they were not either immediatly or mediatly descended from Abraham hence in respect of the Children of Proselytes there is no other way imaginable how they should come to an Interest in the Promise and without that they could not have had the Token of the Covenant applied to them which undeniably they had but that before mentioned viz. through the extent of the Promise as made to Parents and Children in this Phrase Thy Seed in their Generations And as for the Children of those who were of the natural Posterity of Abraham neither could they have the Promise appertaining to them as descended from him and that is undeniable from hence because their Parents as grown up to years of maturity and as Parents they must be granted so to be they had not the Promise continued to themselves meerly as of the natural Posterity of Abraham but as having personally taken hold of the Covenant themselves and so as Believers and consequently as Abraham's Mystical Seed The truth is that none of Abraham's natural Seed whether grown up to years of Maturity or Infants beyond those immediatly proceeding from his own Loins as Ishmael Isaac c. and they too only during their Infant-state had an actual and personal Interest in or Right to the Covenant or Promises of it meerly as his Seed or as of his natural Race and Posterity This is evident for 1. If any had an Interest in the Promise meerly as of Abraham's natural Posterity then all his Posteriâ—â— would have had a like interest In it but it is infallibly certain that all had not 2. In case Abraham's natural Posterity had had an Interest in the Covenant and Promises meerly as such beyond his immediate Children then Breach of Covenant on their part had been simply and absolutely impossible and consequently they must necessarily have continued in Covenant till the Covenant it self had been repealed which to this day is not as will appear more fully by and by and have enjoyed the full Good promised But now to say that Breach of Covenant on their part was impossible is not only to contradict plain Scripture but to charge God with the greatest Unfaithfulness and Injustice How came so many of Abraham's Posterity to be cast out of Covenant if Breach of Covenant had been impossible on their part Or if they are not cast out of Covenant how comes it to pass that they enjoy not the Benefits of it But that the Covenant is broken on their parts is undeniable which had it appertained to them meerly as Abraham's Posterity had been impossible for Abraham's Posterity they still are 3. In case all Abraham's natural Race and Posterity had the Covenant with the Promises of it appertaining to them meerly as his Seed and if any as such had then all had as is proved before then none of them could have been justly or righteously finally cut off cast out or excluded from either the Covenant or Common-wealth of Israel either by the hand of God or by any Ecclesiastical Censure But that some yea or any of them supposing their Apostacy from God might be justly and righteously cut off cast out and excluded and that finally from the Covenant and Common-wealth of Israel either the one or the other way is certain So that none of Abraham's Posterity beyond his immediate Children had an actual personal Interest in the Covenant or had the Promises appertaining to them meerly as or because they were of his Posterity And hence it will undeniably follow that all those of his Posterity that being grown up to years of Maturity had their Interest in the Covenant continued to them it was not meerly because they were of Abraham's Posterity but because themselves had personally taken hold of the Covenant and so were become his Mystical as well as his Natural Seed and all their Children had their Interest in the Covenant not from their Relation to Abraham as of his natural Posterity but from their Relation to their immediate Parents by virtue of this Promise made to Abraham's Seed in their Generations Now then let but what hath been said be well weighed and fully understood and no rational Scruple can remain in the Minds of any about the Truth of what we affirm That which we affirm is this That the Covenant and in particular this Promise of God's being a God to Abraham and his natural Seed immediatly proceeding from his own Loins was continued to his Seed whether they were Jews or Proselyted Gentiles under the first Testament in the same latitude and extent in which it was established with and made to Abraham at the first We see it is evident First from the very Letter of the Promise And that that is the true meaning of that Promise is evident because no other Sence can be put upon it but the Truth and Faithfulness of God is impeached thereby God himself so expounds it and the Jews so enjoyed it throughout all Ages And in the same extent and latitude in which the Covenant and Promises were continued to Abraham's Seed under the first Testament in the same extent and Latitude they are continued to his Seed under the second Testament which evidently appears not only from hence namely Because the Promise equally and alike concerns New-Testament-Believers as Abraham's Seed under the first Testament and no Alteration appears to have been made in the tenour of the Covenant in regard of its latitude and extent Which alone might suffice seeing it must needs be high Presumption for any to make any Alteration in the Covenant beyond what God hath done But I say it appears not only from hence but also from the Consideration of the Notion under which those that then had the Promise appertaining to them and their Children were look'd upon viz. as
Abraham's Mystical or Spiritual Seed which is the very same Notion under which Believers still are look'd upon as having the Promise appertaining unto them Now when the People of God under the first Testament had the Promise continued to them in this extent and latitude viz. as reaching to and taking in their Children with them and this as they were considered under this very Notion as Abraham's Mystical or Spiritual Seed Who can entertain the least doubt whether it be continued in the same extent and latitude to the People of God under the second Testament seeing both those under the first Testament and these under the second Testament are alike included in and spoken to in one and the same Promise and that as look'd upon in the Promise under the self-same Notion and Consideration These things carry so much Evidence that were they well considered it may seem even impossible but that this Controversy among all Persons that give themselves up to the Conduct of the Scriptures must needs have a Period put unto it and indeed it may seem utterly superfluous to add any thing more and therefore I shall more contract in what remains But to proceed the Truth of this second Proposition is evident II. From the Promises and Prophecies of the Old-Testament referring to New-Testament times They evidently shew that God intended this Promise should be continued to Abraham's Seed that is Believers under the New-Testament in the same extent and latitude in which it was made to Abraham at first viz. as taking in Parents and their Children Thus it is evidently prophesied of and promised to some as in particular the Jews that under the New-Testament they should enjoy this Promise in the same extent and latitude in which it was made to Abraham that is That God would be a God to them and their Children with them The Prophecies and Promises are obvious to all that will but consult these Scriptures Isa 44.3 59.21 65.23 Jerem. 31.1 Ezek. 47.21 22. Who that reads these Scriptures especially as expounded by the Apostle Paul in Rom. 11.26 by that universal Phrase All Israel shall be saved can doubt whether the Jews at their future Call and Conversion shall enjoy this Promise in the extent and latitude before mentioned Surely all Men must unavoidably grant that they shall neither do I know that any have expresly denied it Now it is certain they shall be received into the same Covenant that Believers are now under they shall not have another Covenant distinct from that at present made with Believers This is evident by comparing Jer. 31.31 with Heb. 8.8 Now the Covenant being one and the same all the Promises of it may and ought to be indifferently applied unto all under it and consequently to believing Gentiles as well as to the Jews at that their Call and Conversion I mean they may and ought to be applied indifferently both to believing Gentiles and to the Jews when the Good contained in them is not either by the nature or kind of it nor by any revelation from God restrained to the Jews as the Good of this Promise is not And that we may and ought to apply such Promises though firstly and directly made to the Jews to believing Gentiles is sufficiently evident from the Apostles application of Promises to believing Gentiles which were firstly and immediatly made to the Jews Compare Jerem. 31.31 with Heb. 8.8 9 10. Amos 9.12 with Acts 15.16 These Promises primarily and principally respect the Jews at their future Conversion yet we see the Apostle applies them to the Gospel-Chuch under this present Administration In like manner are those other Promises concerning God's pouring out his Spirit and Blessing upon the Off-spring of his People his being a God of all the Families of Israel And the like may and ought to be applied to believing Gentiles though they have a most direct respect to the Jews So that it is evident from these Prophecies and Promises that God intended to continue and answerably has continued this Promise in the same extent in which it was made to Abraham to believing Gentiles The Promise is still to them and their Seed that is their natural Children as it was to Abraham and his natural Children CHAP. III. The second subordinate Proposition further confirmed and that both from the express Words of the Apostle Gal. 3.14 And from several New-Testament-Scriptures as laid together and compared one with another Three Conclusions drawn from them Two Inferences drawn from those Conclusions Three Objections answered THat this Promise is setled upon and confirmed to believing Gentiles in that extent and latitude mentioned is evident III. From the express Letter of the New-Testament Thus in Gal. 3.13 14. the Apostle tells us expresly That Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law himself being made a Curse for us that the Blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles through him So that it is according to the express Letter of this Scripture that the Blessing of Abraham is come upon the believing Gentiles through Christ Hence the only Question is what this Blessing is Now this the Apostle sufficiently declares in the 9th verse of this Chap. where he tells us that they that are of the Faith that is true Believers they are blessed with faithful Abraham that is they are blessed with the same Blessing that he was blessed with Now this was the Blessing he was blessed with viz. that God was his God and the God of his Seed that is as before proved his natural Seed It is true there were other Blessings conferred upon Abraham but that the Blessing contained in that grand Promise of the Covenant is this very Blessing the Apostle hath respect unto and doth intend is undeniable for these three Reasons 1. Because the Apostle expresseth himself in an indifferent or universal Term the Blessing and consequently the Blessing contained in this Promise cannot be excluded whatever other Blessings are included 2. Because all other Blessings conferred upon Abraham were such as each believing Gentiles is uncapable of enjoying as to be the Father of the Faithful to have the Messiah descend from their Loins These and the like Blessings are not compatible to every particular Believer so that no other Blessing that Abraham was blessed with can be intended 3. Especially because the Apostle must necessarily have respect to this very Promise and therefore the Blessing contained in it must needs be the Blessing said by him to be come upon the believing Gentiles through Christ This is evident from the 16th verse of this Chap. where the Apostle cites this very Promise to prove what he had affirmed this 14th verse concerning the Blessing of Abraham its being come upon the Gentiles through Christ Now unless he had intended the Blessing intended in that Promise his Citation of it to prove what he affirms in this 14th verse had been impertinent And besides the Apostle tells us verse 29. That if
House being vouchsafed to him upon that Ground it must needs be a Good common to all standing in the same Relation with him to Abraham To say to a Man when made free of a City or Town Corporate this or that is now your Priviledge as suppose to use any Trade or the like forasmuch as you know your self are made free it evidently shews that such a Priviledge is common to all that are free of such a City or Town Corporate So now when our Lord Christ saith to Zaccheus Salvation was come to his House upon that Ground because he was a Son of Abraham it undeniably implies that it is a Priviledge common to all believing Parents as they are the Seed of Abraham and consequently Salvation must needs appertain to the Houses of all Believers as such without Consideration had to any Qualification of those intended in this Term Seed 2. That the Promise of Salvation belongs to the Houses of believing Parents upon their own personal believing is evident from hence because the Ministers of the Gospel may be warrant from God apply the Promise of Salvation to their Houses upon the sole account of their own personal believing This is evident from the Promise of Paul to the Jaylor he promised him that upon his believing both he and his House should be saved Now look as the Apostle doth propose this Promise to the Jaylor as a Motive to him to believe it might have been applied to him upon his actual believing upon the first moment of his believing it might have been said Now the Promise of Salvation belongs to thee and thy House or thou and thy House shall be saved Now what the Apostle did or might have done every Minister of the Gospel may do in the like case upon Parents believing they may apply the Promise of Salvation not only to them as personally considered but to them and their Houses And if it should be said that as the Promise of Salvation was proposed only conditionally to the Jaylor himself so it must be understood as referring unto his House as the Apostle assures him that if he should believe he should be saved so he only assures him that if his House should believe they also should be saved But now for this there can be no rational Pretence for such a sence of the Apostle's words not only because they are exprest and positive without any intimation of any such Condition in respect of his House but more especially because in case the Apostle had not intended a peculiar Good accruing to his House upon his own personal believing which could be nothing else but their Interest in and Right to the Promise of Salvation There can be no Reason imagined why he should add the latter Branch of the Promise concerning his House seeing whether he had believed or no his House should have been saved upon condition of their believing nor to propose that as a Motive to induce him to believe which he might have been assured of though he had not believed had been impertinent yea absurd It must be something accruing to his House by his believing that must rationally be an Inducement to him to believe To tell him that upon his believing and that as a Motive to him to believe his House should be saved when they were brought into no other Capacity in reference to Salvation than they were before or would have been supposing he should not have believed had been ridiculous Hence unless we will charge the Apostle with as great an Absurdity as well Man could be guilty of we must grant he intended as he speaks viz. That upon the Jailors believing both himself and House should be saved that is they should come actually under the Promise of Salvation which in case they should not forfeit by their after failing in performing their Duties indispensibly required to their actual enjoying that Salvation which at present they were actually under the promise of they should infallibly enjoy it For that must still be remembred that though upon Parents personal Faith their Houses and especially their Children come under the Promise of Salvation yet their future Enjoyment of it necessarily supposes their own performance of the Condition of the Covenant of Grace as they grow up to years of maturity and supposing there should be any Children in such Houses as are actually grown up when their Parents do believe though a Right to and Interest in the Promise accrues to them as the Children of such Parents yet unless they consent to and take hold of the Covenant they do ipso facto forfeit their Right to and Interest in it But this we see evidently that upon Parents believing their Children have a Right to and an Interest in the Promise of Salvation without consideration had to any Qualifications in them which sufficiently shews that the Promise which was the thing to be proved is continued to believing Gentiles in the same extent and latitude in which it was made to Abraham at the first establishment of the Covenant with him The Promise was to him and his natural Children so it is to Believers and their natural Children or which is all one to them n their Generations From what hath been said two things may be inferred 1. That it is all one as to the proof of Childrens Interest in the Promise whether Zaccheus or the Jaylor had any Infants at that time If they had any the Promise did belong to them if they had none yet the Promise did belong to their Houses And the same is true of the Houses of all Believers if they have any Infants the Promise belongs to them if they have none yet the Promise appertains unto such as are included in the Term House 2. We may infer That the Scriptures sometimes mentioning the Faith and Repentance of the Houses or of some in or of the Houses of believing parents do no way oppose but on the other had strongly confirm the Truth of this second Proposition Their being savingly wrought upon together with or immediatly after their Parents Conversion hinders not but that the Promise might belong to them as the Houses or as of the Houses of believing Parents but on the other hand rather proves that it did Because we read of the Faith and Repentance of some in or of the Houses of Believers shall we hence conclude that the Promise did not belong unto them as the Houses of such Parents how unreasonable would that be We may rather conclude the Promise did belong unto them But to hasten By what hath beeen said our two first Propositions are abundantly yea superabundantly established and the Truth is the Truth of these two first Propositions appears with so much evidence throughout the whole Scriptures that it is even a wonder how any of a competent understanding that are able to compare one Scripture with another can question the one or the other yea I dare boldly say there is hardly any one Truth in
the whole Doctrine of Divinity hath a more full Suffrage from the Scriptures than this concerning the Covenant-Interest of the Seed of Believers hath How many plain and express Scriptures have we for it And the Evidence given in throughout the Scriptures to these two Propositions being so plain and express it may seem wholly superfluous to take notice of any objections that may be made against them To suppose that any thing may be justly objected from the Scriptures against the one or the other is in effect to suppose that the Scriptures may contradict themselves And therefore I shall only take notice of three or four Objections which our Opposers conceive to have the greatest weight in them The first Objection that I shall take notice of is raised from that Rom. 9.7 8. whereunto is added Mat. 3.7 and Job 8.33 c. Whereas the Apostle denies that the Children of the Flesh are the Children of God so he affirms that the Children of the Promise are accounted for the Seed So John Baptist and our Lord Christ shew the Insufficiency and Vanity of that Plea the Jews made for the continuance of their Covenant-state and Enjoiment of all their Priviledges Benefits and Blessings whether present or future annexed thereunto grounded upon their Relation to Abraham as their Father Object 1. Thus it is objected That in case Abraham's own natural Seed could not have their Covenant-state with the Priviledges and Benefits thereunto annexed continued to them under the Gospel upon the account of their Relation to Abraham as his Seed much less can the Infants of any believing Gentiles be received into such a State and enjoy the Priviledges and Benefits of it upon the account pf their Descent from and Relation to such Parents Answer This Objection hath its rise from the very same Mistake about the true Mind and meaning of God in this grand Promise of the covenant wherein he promiseth to be a God to Abraham's Seed in their Generations which the Jews themselves lay under the rectifying of which was the Design both of John Baptist our Lord Christ and the Apostle Paul in the places mentioned And the Mistake is this the Jews thought and the Framers of this Objection will needs take it for granted that this Promise did so appertain to all the natural Seed of Abraham whether immediate or mediate as that they had universally a personal and particular Interest in it and hence the Jews thought that they could not be cast off nor deprived of the Blessing and Benefits of the Covenant without a failure on God's part in his Promise Our Opposers seem to see no other way to vindicate the Faithfulness of God in their actual rejection than by affirming this Covenant is disanull'd at least the tenour thereof altered so as not to take in the natural Seed as it did as they suppose during the first-Testament-Administration but the Mistake as to the tenour of the Promise or Covenant is the same in both Now the rectifying of this Mistake was the Design both of our Lord Jesus Christ John Baptist and the Apostle Paul where let three things be considered 1. That neither John Baptist nor our Lord Christ nor the Apostle Paul do deny that the Promise had respect to them yea the Apostle Paul doth suppose and implicitly grant that it had which could be no other than that more general Respect before mentioned 2. That they all speak to or of the Jews then in being 3. That they speak to or of them as grown up to years of maturity and hence their Design is only this viz. to shew that the Promise as made with such a respect to them did not infallibly secure their covenant-state nor their Enjoyment of the saving Benefits and Blessings of the Covenant without Faith Repentance and Holiness on their parts the Apostle withal shewing that there was an Election of Grace as he after speaks which did and should obtain the Good promised which they did in respect of those who were grown up to years of maturity through their Faith and Holiness but in respect of Infants it was through the gracious Promise of God reaching and taking in them with their Parents and hence neither the one or the other speaks to or of the Jews in these places carries the least shew of Opposition to either of the foregoing Propositions but on the other hand as what the Apostle Paul speaks of them taken in conjunction with the Context undeniably implies the Truth of our first Proposition So what they all speak adds no small Confirmation to the second as might easily be made appear were it necessary Let us only see the Truth of what we now affirm viz. That which the Apostle Paul speaks of the Jews is so far from carrying any Opposition to that it evidently implies the Truth of that Proposition For the making of this plain it may be observed that the Question the Apostle is there resolving as is granted on all hands and is evident from the Context is How so great a part of the Jews could be rejected and yet the Faithfulness of God in that Promise made of no effect thereby Now for the Resolution of this Question he first more generally asserts that all the not Israel that are of Israel And then more particularly 1. Denies That all the Seed of Abraham that is his natural Seed were Children that is the Children of God as he expounds it vers 8. He denies not but that some were the Children of God all that he denies is that they were all so And 2. On the other hand affirms That in Isaac the Seed were to be and answerably were called which he explains in vers 8. namely That the Children of the Promise were counted for the Seed Where let it be observed he speaks not of that grand Promise of the Covenant but of those two Promises the one made to Abraham concerning the Birth of Isaac and the other to Rebecca concerning the preheminence of Jacob above Esau and by the Children of the Promise he means the Elect. Now these are such he accounted for the Seed that is they are the Persons designed to enjoy the Good promised For the illustration and confirmation of which he shews That Persons might be Subjects of this Promise of the Covenant yet not be Children of God nor accounted for the Seed that is not appertain to the Election of Grace and consequently might not enjoy the Good promised and yet this no Impeachment of the Faithfulness of God in the Promise And then shews it was so 1. Among Abraham's Children descended from his own loins 2. It was so among Isaac's Children who were Subjects of this Promise as included with Isaac their Father in that Phrase thy Seed in their Generations vers 8 9 10. Hence he argues a fortiori If it might be thus in respect of Abraham's own Children and in respect of his next Son's Children who had the Promise appertaining to them as severally and
Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations And that it may clearly appear how this Command doth warrant yea require the Application of Baptism to the Infant-Seed of Believers as they are Subjects of the Promise these five things must be distinctly proved 1. That by Covenant in this Command is meant the Token of the Covenant 2. That the Covenant of Grace always had and still hath an out outward Token annexed to it 3. That this Command obligeth not only Parents to have the Token applied to themselves but to apply it or to take care that it be applied to their Infant-Seed as Joint-Subjects with them of the Promise 4. That as Circumcision was the Token of the Covenant during the Old-Testament-Administration so Baptism is the Token of the Covenant under the New 5. That this Command doth equally and alike concern Believers with respect to Baptism as it did the Jews with respect to Circumcision These five things being cleared up and proved what we affirm will be sufficiently established And therefore for the first 1. That by the Covenant in this Command is meant the Token of the Covenant This is plain from the Verse immediatly following Only let it be observed that the Covenant is first more generally laid down Thou shalt keep my Covenant thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations And then what should be this Covenant at that time during the first Administration is declared in the next Verse it should be Circumcision The Command requires the keeping of the Covenant in general Circumcision is specified to be the Covenant at that time to be kept though not the only Covenant to be kept 2. That this Covenant which hath been already proved to be the Covenant of Grace always had and was to have and consequently still hath a Token annexed to it This is evident 1. From the express Letter of the Command We evidently see the Command is given to Abraham's Seed in their Generations that is to all his Seed in their Generations 'T is not limited to either his Natural or Spiritual Seed but takes in both And that this Command reacheth Abraham's Spiritual Seed as well as his Natural is further evident because the same Persons must needs be intended in the Command that are intended in the Promise vers 7. Now Abraham's Spiritual as well as his Natural Seed were undoubtedly intended in the Promise Hence this Command obligeth the one as well as the other So that while Abraham had a Seed upon the Earth they in their Generations that is they and their Children are under the Obligation of this Command which undoubtedly proves that this Covenant always had and was to have a Token annexed to it otherwise God would not command Abraham's Seed in their Generations to keep the Covenant unless there had been a Covenant that is a Token to be kept 2. And yet further this is evident de Facto that there always has been and still is a Token annexed to the Covenant That it had a Token annexed to it during the Old-Testament-Administration is granted by all and that it still hath a Token and that Baptism is that Token will appear when I come to the fourth Particular And therefore 3. That this Command obligeth Parents not only to have the Token applied to themselves but to apply or take care that it be applied to their Infant-Seed This is evident two ways 1. From the express Letter of the Command Abraham's Seed in their Generations are expresly commanded to keep the Covenant and under that Phrase their Generations we are to include their Infants both Parents and Children are included in the Promise and consequently both must needs be included in the Command So that Children are under the Command to keep the Covenant which in respect of them can only intend their reception and bearing of the Token of it and so they are under the Obligation to keep it Whence they not having it applied to them are said to break the Covenant And if they are thus far to keep it it will undeniably follow that it is their Parents duty to take care that it be applied to them 2. This is evident from the Displeasure of God against Parents when the Application of the Token of the Covenant to their Children hath been neglected Exod. 4.24 25 26. From whence it is plain that as the Infants of Abraham's Seed be they Jews or Gentiles are under the Obligation to keep the Covenant that is the Token of it so it is the Duty of Parents to take care that it be applied to them and answerably that they do keep it 4. That as Circumcision was the Token of the Covenant under the First-Testament so Baptism is the Token of the Covenant under the New That Circumcision was the Token of the Covenant under the first Testament is expresly declared Gen. 17.19 And that Baptism is the Token of the Covenant under the New-Testament is evident in the general 1. Because unless Baptism be the present Token the Covenant hath no Token at all which we proved before it was to have Now if Baptism be not the Token what is the Token to be kept The Command is yet in force therefore there is a Token still to be kept But now there is no Token can with any shew of Reason be supposed to be intended in this Command but only Baptism and therefore that must needs be the present Token of the Covenant 2. This will more fully appear if we compare Baptism with Circumcision the former Token of the Covenant Look what Ordinance under the New-Testament most exactly agrees with Circumcision and serves to those uses and ends for or with reference unto which a Token was annexed to the Covenant that must needs be the present Token and that is undeniably Baptism For let us but consider what were the Uses and Ends with reference whereunto Circumcision the first Token of the Covenant was appointed and we shall find that Baptism is appointed with reference to the very same Ends and Purposes As for Instance 1. Circumcision as the Token of the Covenant was that solemn Rite or Ordinance whereby Persons were admitted into and incorporated in the Church visible Now that Baptism is appointed for and serves to the same use and end is plain 1 Cor. 12.13 2. Circumcision was appointed for the sealing confirming and assuring to those that were the Subjects of the Covenant all that Good or all those Benefits and Blessings contained in it Hence it is said to be to Abraham a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith And of what use it was unto him with respect unto the Righteousness of Faith of the same use it was to him with respect to the whole Good of the Covenant And look of what use it was to Abraham of the same use it was to all that were the due and proper Subjects of it seeing he received it not only as a particular
Believer but as the Father of and answerably was in his receiving of it the Pattern to all that should be received into the same Covenant with himself and of the same use is Baptism as is evident 1 Pet. 3.21 with Acts 2.38 3. The use and end of Circumcision was to engage those to whom it was applied to keep exactly to the Articles of the Covenant Hence they are said to be circumcised to the Lord Jer. 4.4 And for the same end again Baptism is appointed hence the Baptized are said to be baptized into or unto the Name of the Father the Son and Holy-Ghost and into or unto Christ Mat. 28.19 with Gal. 3.27 4. Circumcision was appointed a visible Badge whereby the People of God were distinguished from the rest of the World And of the same use is Baptism Gal. 3.27 afore cited Now from the Uses and Ends that the Scriptures declare Circumcision was appointed for and did serve unto we may see what were the Uses and Ends in general for or with reference unto which a Token was annexed to the Covenant And from the agreement of Baptism with Circumcision in respect of the Ends and Uses the one or the other were appointed for it evidently appears that Baptism is the present Token of the Covenant and answerably is that Ordinance appointed and substituted in the room and stead of Circumcision And as a Close to this let it be observed that though it should be granted that there were some Uses and Ends for and with reference unto which Circumcision was instituted in respect of which Baptism agrees not with it yet that hinders not but that Baptism may be and is the present Token of the Covenant seeing it serves to and performs all those Uses and Ends that a Token of the Covenant under the New-Testament can be supposed to serve to and perform But 5. That this Command doth equally and alike concern Believers and their Seed as it did concern the People of God and their Seed under the first Testament As it obliged them to be circumcised themselves and to take care that their Infant-Seed were circumcised with them so it still obligeth Believers to be baptized themselves and to take care that their Infant-Seed be baptized with them And this is evident from the Consideration of two things in the Command 1. That the Command as firstly and more generally laid down did not determine what the Token of the Covenant should be and hence was applicable and did oblige to whatever Token God should institute The words are plain and express Thou shalt keep my Covenant thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations nor thou shalt be circumcised or be baptized but thou shalt keep my Covenant that is as afore the Token of the Covenant Hence as this Command as thus generally laid down no more obliged to Circumcision than to Baptism all that it obliged to was to keep the Covenant So when Circumcision was instituted it obliged to that but when Circumcision was laid aside and another Token instituted which is Baptism it now obligeth to that seeing the Command in the general is not revoked only the Token altered but the Command is still the same and obligeth to keep the Covenant still and answerably it obligeth Parents to have the Token applied to themselves and take care that it be applied to their Children 2. Consider the Extensiveness of the Command It is laid upon Abraham's Seed in their Generations without any limitation and hence reacheth to and lies upon Abraham's Seed under the New-Testament as well as it did upon his Natural Seed under the first Testament So that the Command not determining what the Token should be only enjoining the keeping of it whatever it should be and consequently being applicable to Baptism as well as to Circumcision and extending to and reaching all Abraham's Seed and consequently believing Gentiles as well as the Jews it is all one as if God had said Thou shalt keep my Covenant thou and thy Seed after thee their Generations Circumcision under the First-Testament and Baptism under the second these being the Covenants successively the one after the other to be kept So that here is an express Command for the Baptism of Infants though not in the very Term Baptism yet under this general Notion as it is the Token of the Covenant That Baptism is the present Token of the Covenant is before proved That this Command requires all Abraham's Seed and that in their Generation including both Parents and Children to keep the Covenant that is the Token of it is according to the express Letter of the Command And that believing Gentiles as Abraham's Seed and that under that Phrase thy Seed in their Generations are included both Parents and Children hath been abundantly proved So that still to require a Command for Infant-Baptism is little less than to reject the Scriptures What though it be not commanded under that precise Term of Baptism seeing it is commanded under that Notion as the Token of the Covenant And what though Infants are not expresly mentioned so long as they are undeniably included in the Command in that Phrase thy Seed in their Generations Surely it is all one as if they had been expresly mentioned Now that this is the true sence of this Command might be further shewn from the Lords varying the Phrase when he institutes Circumcision the then Token of the Covenant and from the necessity of interpreting other Commands as the prohibiting the making of graven Images so the requiring the Observation of the Sabbath after the same manner But that 's for the first way how this last Proposition may be proved and so I say it may be proved from the Command lying upon all that are the Subjects of this Promise to keep the Token of the Covenant that is to receive and bear it which Token to be kept is at present Baptism II. That the Infant-Seed of Believers as under or as the Subjects of the Promise may and ought to be and answerably in Primitive Times and that from the very first Institution of Baptism were baptized may be proved thus viz. Because they as the Subjects of the Promise do appertain and were owned and looked upon both by our Lord Christ and his Apostles as appertaining to his visible Church Kingdom and Body Now all that do appertain and answerably were owned and look'd upon by Christ and his Apostles as appertaining to his visible Church Kingdom and Body may and ought to be and answerably were baptized cannot be rationally questioned because Baptism was instituted for this very end solemnly to admit and incorporate into the visible Church Kingdom or Body of Christ all that do appertain thereunto and there was no other way or means appointed for that end and purpose Hence all that do appertain or were owned and look'd upon either by Christ or his Apostles as appertaining to his visible Church Kingdom or Body may and ought to be and
Housholds may be rationally supposed to be considerably great These Phrases of Housholds all his and the like are a sufficient Ground for such a Supposition 3. That not only Infants new born but Children as arrived to a higher state of Childhood or Youth must be supposed to be baptized upon the account of their Fathers Faith supposing there were any such in those Housholds And the reason of this is evident because it cannot with any shew of reason be supposed that such Children though arrived to some use of Reason could yet attain to such a measure of Knowledg in the Mysteries of the Gospel as would have been necessary to qualify them for Baptism had they been to be baptized on their own account in so short a time as did intervene between the Conversion of Parents and the Application of Baptism Children though past meer Infancy yet while in their Youth or Childhood cannot be supposed to attain to the Knowledg of Gospel-Mysteries in the same space of time that Persons come up to their full maturity may do So that it must be either granted that some in or of these Housholds were baptized as the Children of believing Parents on the account of their Parents Faith or we must either deny not only that there were any pure Infants but any Children in their Childhood or Youth in these Houses or else we must contradict the express Letter of the Scriptures But now to deny the former is at least to say no more somewhat unusual that so many Houses and these considerably great should not only have no meer Infants but no Children yet in their Childhood or Youth is utterly improbable and to depart from the Letter of the Scriptures where there is no reason why we should so do is not only unreasonable but in a sence impious So that these Instances made it at least exceeding probable that some were baptized as the Children of believing Parents without consideration had to any personal Qualifications of their own Housholds were baptized and it can hardly be supposed that so many Families and these considerably great should have neither any new born Babes nor yet any as yet in their Childhood or Youth and if any such there were they must be baptized upon the account of their Parents Faith This will more clearly appear if we take a particular account of Lydia's House said to be baptized with her Acts 16.14 15. For 1. It is evident her Houshold was with her at that Assembly to whom the Apostle preached as appears from ver 15. 2dly It 's evident that this was an Assembly of Women vers 13. 3dly There 's no mention made of the conversion of any excepting Lydia her self Now that Lydia should have an Houshold all of Women as so they must be in case she had no Children and these grown up and all converted at one and the same Sermon when not one in the whole Assembly besides was converted and yet that the Holy Ghost should take no notice of any of their Conversions but only of Lydia's her self seems utterly improbable That such a thing is possible cannot be denied but sure that it is improbable must be granted As for those Brethren mentioned vers 40. there is no rational ground to suppose that they were of Lydia's Houshold said to be baptized It is certain they were not for they were all at the Assembly with her which is expresly said to have been an Assembly of Women But 2. Let it be considered that it doth not appear from Scripture that my one in or of those Housholds said to be baptized were converted before their Baptism excepting only the Persons whose Housholds they were This is evident past all Contradiction in respect of Lydia's Houshold And as for the Jailor's though it be said that Paul and Silas spake to him to Words of the Lord and to all that were in his House yet 1. From this it cannot be concluded that any said to be baptized were converted before their Baptism Acts 16.33 seems to intimate that it was after and besides all things are not recorded in the Scriptures exactly in the order in which they were done 2. It doth not appear that those to whom the Word was spoken were the same individual Persons said to be his who were baptized they seem rather to be the Prisoners and those that appertained to the Prison as Under-keepers and such like 3. Though some of them might be the same Persons yet it doth not appear that they were converted by the Word So that from these Passages it cannot be proved that any of his said to be baptized with him were converted before their Baptism And as for what is said concerning his rejoicing be with his Houshold believing in God if the words were rightly translated they are so far from proving the Conversion of his Houshold before their Baptism that they rather intimate the contrary they should be translated He rejoiced with his Houshold he believing in God And the Apostle laying the Ground of his Housholds rejoicing in his personal Faith seems plainly to imply that the Good that was the matter of their Joy did arise from his Faith And as for Stephen's Houshold there is nothing evidencing that any of them were converted before their Baptism although it is said they addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints yet that they were the same Persons intended in that Term Houshold said to be baptized is uncertain or suppose some of them might be yet whether they were converted before their Baptism is uncertain how long this Epistle was written after he and his Houshold were baptized we cannot say some then in their Childhood might be grown up to a capability of ministring to the Saints when this Epistle was written 3. Let it be considered in the last place that though it should be granted that some in or of those Housholds might be converted before their Baptism yet from thence it cannot be concluded that all intended in these Terms Houses or Housholds were so Suppose some in the Jailor's House might be concerted before their Baptism yet it will not follow from thence that all were so and much less will it follow that there were none in Lydia's House baptized but such as did personally believe Now if there be but a probability that any one in or of these Housholds said to be baptized were baptized on the account of their personal Faith that gives as full an evidence to the Truth pleaded for as the probability of all in those Houses being baptized on the same account would do So that sure it cannot be denied but that all these Instances do at least make it probable that some were baptized in Primitive Times as the Children of believing Parents without Consideration had to any thing in themselves and a Probability added to those foregoing Arguments may greatly establish us in the Truth pleaded for But as a Close of all let these two things be considered 1.
of Believers unto Aaraham except only in the last nor any one word giving the least Ground to suppose that I ground my Plea for their Interests in the Covenant or Baptism upon that their Relation the whole Design of my Book is of another Import And even in that pag. 262 the last Page cited by him where I mentioned that their Relation I expresly say That in the application of Baptism to them we have a direct and primary respect to their State as Joint-Subjects with their Parents of the Promises of the Covenant It is true I add that Look what respect we have to the Mystical Relation of believing Parents to Abraham in the Application of Baptism to them the same respect we have to the Mystical Relation of their Infant-Seed to him in the Application of Baptism unto them But my meaning is plainly only this that it is both Parents and Childrens Interest in the Covenant and Promises that gives them Right to and is the Ground upon which we apply Baptism the present Token of the Covenant to them though we own and acknowledge both to stand alike related to Abraham as his Seed but it is not their Relation unto Abraham that we ground their Baptism upon that is their Covenant-Interest So that do they stand related to Abraham or no which is wholly another Question yet seeing they have an Interest in the Covenant they ought to have the Token of it applied to them So that I had just cause to charge Mr. Hutchinson with that Mistake and so far as he proceeds thereon his Book must needs be utterly useless and yet ex abundanti in that very place in my Postscript to Mr. Hutchinson I do expresly own that their Relation to Abraham and shew the Insufficiency of his Reasonings against that Ground Suppose we had pleaded for their Church-Membership and Baptism from it which we do not which Mr. D'Laun takes no notice of and yet has the Confidence as though we had indeed argued from it and I had said nothing for our Justification against Mr. Hutchinson in case we had run into an impertinent Discourse about Abraham's Seed and as impertinently talks of a Question worth my Resolution which had he read my Essay he might have seen already resolved So again in the last Instance in respect of which he attempts Mr. Hutchinson's Vindication pag. 20. Let Mr. D'Laun or any one else shew where I charge Mr. Hutchinson with any such Absurdity as he there saith I do and shall acquit him of Falshood in this matter So that Mr. Hutchinson's Book remains utterly unvindicated in respect of eight of those ten Instances I gave to shew the Uselessness and Insignificancy of it as to the End designed in it And as for those other two Instances with respect to which Mr. De-Laun may seem to have said something for his vindication yet if his Words be well look'd into they will be found of no use for that purpose For as for the one of them he plainly grants what I charge him with only attempts his Relief another way which is no Vindication at all of Mr. Hutchinson And as for the other which concerns the Absurdities and Confusion Mr. Hutchinson's Book labours under how has he vindicated him by falling into a double Absurdity himself 1. In saying the Covenant of Grace in respect of its Administration is a Covenant of Works 2. In implying that whatever administers to the Covenant of Grace for upon that Supposition he must go or his Vindication of Mr. Hutchinson signifies nothing may be called its Administration than which what can be more absurdly spoken is not easy to imagine but that is all Mr. D'Laun has to say for Mr. Hutchinson and whether he has not left his Book as he found it be your selves Judges Indeed had Mr. D'Laun said That as under the first Testament the Old Covenant did so under the New-Testament the New Covenant does subserve or administer to the Covenant of Grace properly so called he had possibly hit upon a Truth of no small Importance for the right understanding the various Covenants God has made with Men. But to have done As to what Mr. D'Laun saith concerning my denying that I call Mr. Danvers's Book all Forgery which he insinuates to proceed from weakness of Memory you shall be my Judges whether I had not reason so to do and whether my so doing argues any weakness of Memory or no surely had I called it all Forgery Mr. D'Laun would have produced my words which he cannot do It is true some have thought I was over-sharp in some Passages in that book to whom I have two things to say 1. That as Mr. Hutchinson apologizing for himself expresses it Error cannot be disputed against without giving it its Name and its Abetters cannot be reproved and admonished but in words accommodating to their Mistakes which inded is not railing but plain-dealing If this be a sufficient Apology for Mr. Hutchinson why not for me 2. The true Reason why I did express my self in more sharpness than is usual for me to do was that I might have engaged either Mr. Danvers or some other learned Antipaedo-baptists in a thorow examination of the Arguments I had both in my first Book and occasionally in that Answer offered for the establishment of the Practice of Infant-Baptism I knew the way of my Procedure was somewhat different from what others had gone before me in and I concluded that a thorow Examination of my Arguments might be greatly useful either for the detection of my Mistakes supposing I had lain under any or for the farther establishing of the Practice I pleaded for A rational Logical Discourse as I had expressed my self in the examination of the chief Grounds I had laid down would have been exceeding welcom unto me and I judged that such quickning Expressions might have engaged some body in that Service I have only thus much more to add That whereas Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. D'Laun again and again insinuate as though I had only dictated and not added any thing for proof of my Positions and Assertions I shall appeal to your Consciences whether it be so or no and challenge Mr. D'Laun yea or any other 1. To produce any one Position or Assertion wherein the Cause of Infant-Baptism is concerned that I have laid down without proof yea and that when it can rationally have been judged to be necessary by Arguments laid down and prosecuted syllogistically 2. To instance in any one Argument or Objection that is offered and raised against our Judgment and Practice by Mr. Tombs in the third Part of his Review or any where else or any other that I have not either expresly answered or at least may not receive a just and full Answer from what I have said in the one or the other of those Tracts I have made publick To instance in any one of all those Arguments I have laid down that either Mr. Hutchinson or Mr.
during the First-Testament-Administrations Both which things we absolutely deny And that excessive Wrong done to several worthy Antipaedobaptists in wresting and perverting their Writings in favour of your Practice is an effect of the same Cause Brethren these things ought not to be so neither could the Asserters of your Practice give any rational Reply to our Arguments without the help of such Artifices would they be so Can you answer our Arguments spare us not but do not feign us to argue from such Topicks and after such a manner as we do not If any Antipaedo-baptists have written any thing that really countenances your Cause let their words be candidly produced but wrest not their words whose Owners abhorred Vnion with your Assemblies to such a sence as they never intended nor will their words justly bear But Brethren did the Supportation of your Judgment and Practice only enforce those that engage therein thus to deal with us it might be more easily passed over But alas how do they injure even the Holy Ghost himself partly by openly contradicting the express letter of his holy Oracles Thus to deny that God in that Promise Gen. 17.7 intended Abraham's natural Childen and in particular those that immediatly proceded from his own Loins as some do or to affirm that that Covenant was the Covenant of Works which Believers are now dead unto or to deny the Continuation of that Promise to believing Gentiles and that in the same extent in which it was given to Abraham as a believing Parent of natural Children What is it but to say to the Holy Ghost as they to the Prophet thou speakest falsly Let that Gen. 17.7 be compared with Gal. 3.14 17 29. Partly by imposing upon his words such a sence as which himself hath no-where else used them in and that in a direct opposition to that sence he usually and frequently hath used them in so in respect of that Luk 19.9 and 1 Cor. 7.14 Partly by charging him with such impertinent Probations of his Assertions and Enforcements of his Exhortations as Men of common Capacities are not ordinarily incident unto thus in respect of that Acts 16.31 1 Cor. 7.14 Neither can the Covenant-Interest of the Infant-Seed of Believers be rejected without at least a seeming Reflection upon the grace and Love of God that he should utterly conceal from his People what becomes of their Infant-Seed who are cropt off in the Bud before they have arrived to a Capacity of refusing the Evil and chusing the Good as in ease the Covenant secures not their suture state which in case it reaches them not it cannot do he has undoubtedly done As to that Supposition that the Covenant is made with the Elect it is a meer Mistake as I conceive may be undeniably demonstrated from those Reasons among others that Mr. D'Laun offers to prove that Infants cannot be concerned in it And if you shall say As for our own parts we deny not their Covenant-Interest it is their Baptism we deny Let me say brethren It would be the Joy of our Hearts to understand that it were so indeed But pray deal plainly let not your Auditors and Followers lowers be kept in the dark either expresly own and assert it or expresly deny it And if you do indeed own it let these Arguments offered to prove the Rightfulness of their Baptism upon that Supposition be throughly weighed the Addition of more till the Insufficiency of those he shewed is unnecessary Frustra fit per plura And there is yet one thing more that I would remind you of though thereby I am forced renovare dolorem for I am perswaded you do observe it and the observation of it is a vexation to your righteous Souls I mean the variety of Errours yea and Heresy found I fear it may be said without and Hyperbole with the Generality of those who as to this Practice walk in the same steps with you yet I shall rather refer you to your own observation and such as you can credit and in part clear Mr. F. than become your Informant my self But sure you can conclude no less than that either too many of your Perswasion are if not Men of corrupt Minds yet but Children and subject to be tossed to and fro by every wind of Doctrine or else that Divine Displeasure antedates the Judgment of the great Day invisibly recompensing Deceit with Vanity Either of which especially the latter supposing they must as to speak plainly I am much perswaded they ought to be ascribed thereunto calls aloud as to all Men not to enter into your Paths seeing what befalls others may befall them without great Deliberation Prayer and utmost Search of the Scriptures and yet at last supposing them to be satisfied that that is the way they should walk in to do it with a holy fear and trembling so that you do reveiw your Grounds again and again and be sure you can satisfy your Consciences in your persistency therein before him who will judge without respect of Persons Seeing then they are in part chargeable upon you your owning and defending that Opinion and Practice thus visibly pursued with Divine Punishments and Judgments having no small Interest in the prevailing thereof among Men and Causa Causae c. Brethren There are several other things I could willingly have said to you but these things I judg necessary to set before you partly as matter of Lamentation and partly as Motives yet once again with all seriousness to review this Controversy so long depending between us And remember that not only your selves but God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ his Church and People with the Souls of not a few Infants especially of such whose Months are limited to Immaturity of Age are neerly concerned in the Review you make and the Resolutions you thereupon fix in As for our Judgment and Practice this Quietes vivit adhuc Christus manet insuperabile verum As for you in reviewing this Controversy and fixing your Resolutions thereupon let me beseech you to keep in mind what your selves perfectly know vsz That Conscience is Res delicata it cannot lie with ease as Job's Leviathan can when sharp-pointed things are strewed under it and besides it may and often does record such things as at present it does not sensibly discover any offence at I shall add no more save only to beg your Pardon for my plainness and commend you to God and the Word of his Grace in special that good Word uttered by our Lord Christ himself in that John 16.13 and assure you I am sincerely yours to serve you in all Offices of Christian Love to my power JOSEPH WHISTON FINIS READER THe Author hath treated more largly on this Subject in three Books entituled I. Infant-Baptism from Heaven and not of Men. The first Part. II. Infant-Baptism from Heaven and not of Men the second Part being an Answer to Mr. Danver's Treatise of Baptism III. An Essay to revive the Primitive Doctrine of Infant-Baptism in the Resolution of four Questions 1. What are the reasons of God's appointing the Token of the Covenant to be applied to the Infant-Seed of his People 2. What is the Good or Benefit they receive thereby 3. What is the Duty of parents towards their Children as bearing the Token of the Covenant 4. What is the Improvement that Children as grown up to years of maturity may and ought to make of their Baptism All three sold by Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's Church-Yard