Neither need we call this a third seed of Abraham any more than of old and especially seeing that Church consisteth much of his Spiritual seed as sharers in highest priviledges in special and eternal blessings though it extendeth to others as sharers in inferiour blessings both are his seed as Ishmael and Isaac were though one had higher blessings then the other Gen. 17. 20. 21. And undeniably many hundreds of years even from Abraham till the coming of Christ an Infant seed of Jews and Proselites were of Abrahams Church-seed and must be so still unless any can shew a repeal and this will hardly be found seeing Jesus Christ hath declared that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19. 14. Mark 10. 13 14. Luk. 18. 15. And if Infants be of the Church then are they Christs for that is his Mat. 16. 18. Rom. 16. 16. 1 Cor. 12. 27. Joh. 15. 2 6. Neither do some Characters of the Church forbid their being members of it seeing they were undoubtedly such and these Elogiums are given to it in respect of its better part or what they may ought or hopefully will be afterward as it is the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 25. 1 2. yet some foolish Virgins there and those are golden Candlesticks Rev. 1. 12 13 20. yet some drossy and lukewarm not pure gold And further consider the visible Church was founded on the Covenant made with Abraham not only as consisting of Jews but Gentiles in the Nations Gen. 17. 4 5. behold my Covenant is with thee and thou shalt be a Father of many Nations and that Covenant extended to Infants v. 10 11 12 13. and is still continuing Rom. 4. 17 18. Gal. 3. 17. let any prove that Infants are cut out of it else they are of his Ecclesiastical seed still It is true Ceremonial observations of very antient date and Ordinances of of the Law are abrogated Heb. 9. and 10. but the Covenant with Abraham is another thing and from the date of it so long before the Law the Apostle proveth cannot be disanulled by it Gal. 3. 17. The ceasing of Circumcision doth no more abolish the Covenant with Abraham or Infants Interest therein then the abolishing of Sacrifices Passover and other Ceremonial observations doth null the Second Commandment which during their continuance commanded a worshipping God by them And also the Church before the Death of Christ and after are essentially the same Eph. 2. 14 15. Who hath made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us having abolished the Law of Commandments So then Jesus Christ by his Death did not pull down one Church and erect another but equalized Jews and Gentiles made both one that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same body Eph. 3. 6. Ordinances are altered in Worship but the Church is in Essence the same And once more the same Olive-tree the Covenant with Abraham and visible Church which the Jews were broken off from for unbelief Rom. 11. 20. the same the Gentiles were graffed into v. 17. and the Jews shall again be graffed into that as into their own Olive-tree v. 23 24. and there could be no such graffing into the same if the stock the Covenant or Church were not the same And hence Abraham hath an Ecclesiastical seed the visible Church for there is no breaking off from the invisible Church and Infants being of old members of it they are so still else it were not the same and so they are visibly Christs and of Abrahams seed 5. Some Infants are visibly of the faith and so are Abrahams seed I do not say that faith seminal and habitual or actual is in all Infants Baptized or others for then either all of them must be saved which they are not or else they might loose that special faith but they are visibly interested in the Covenant or promise which is the word of faith and may bear that name and the Lord being visibly their God Gen. 17. 7. 8. they are so under the promise of after faith and repentance otherwise then others are If they have not faith for the present yet visibly they are under a promise of it it is hopeful for the future they shall have it which promise Baptism may be a sign and seal of it may seal a doctrin of faith even where a principle of it is yet wanting and by Baptism they are obliged to seek it Also by the faith of the Parents they may be deemed of the faith with them as all Jews Infants and all were the Circumcision for there are many promises given for the faith of such Parents to act upon which no unbelieving Parents can claim for their seed as that he will Circumcise the heart of their seed Deut. 30. 6. pour his spirit on them Is 44. 3. that the word shall not depart out of their mouth If. 59. 21. see also Ps 25. 13. 112. 2. Prov. 11. 21. the contrary of the seed of the wicked Ps 37. 28. but especially that great and comprehensive promise is to believers that he will be the God of their seed Gen. 17. 7 8. and these are fulfilled absolutely to the Collective body the Church though not te every individual but under limitation And Parents by rejecting the Covenant and Unbelief may forfeit this priviledge for their seed as well as for themselves as the Infant seed of the Jews were broken off by their Parents unbelief Rom. 11. 20. Else it must be said that their seed remained in Covenant after in Gospel times and if Parents forfeit there may not be an uninterrupted Succession of the Church in some of the posterity of Believers yet if the rejected seed do after personally believe they obtain the promises for themselves and seed again Act. 2. 39. In short Abraham was equally a Father of the Jews called the Circumcision by faith as he was and is a Father of the Gentiles the circumcision by faith Rom. 4. v. 10 11 12. there is no difference of his common fatherhood to both it is by faith so that the Jews were as much Abrahams seed of faith even when they were the circumcision as the Gentiles are and so the Jews Infant seed were Abrahams seed of faith externally when circumcised of old and as well then may the Infant seed of believing Gentiles be Abrahams seed of faith now and the rather because he received circumcision as a Seal of the righteousness of that faith which he had being uncircumcised v. 11. that he might be a father to believing Gentiles And observe that the Covenant was made with him and he circumcised as a visible Believer circumcision was a Seal of the righteousness of faith which is common to all Believers among Jews and Gentiles not peculiar to him Also he received Circumcision not meerly by vertue of a command or institution but as a token of the Covenant Gen. 17. 9 10 11. So as the Covenant could not be kept after circumcision was
the Gentiles have greater priviledge in Gospel times then they had before Isa 42. 6. Acts 10. 45. Rom. 11. 11 12. Gal. 3. 14. and who dare say that it is diminished let them prove it It s clear that not only the natural fleshly Seed of Abraham but those born in his house and bought with his money which were Gentiles were to be circumcised even Infants at Eight days old not of his Seed Gen. 17. v. 12 13 14. and this is an everlasting Covenant and if they were not circumcised the Covenant with Abraham was broken v. 14. and therefore those Sons of strangers Gentiles were within the Covenant made with Abraham how else could they be under circumcision the token of it and so as it was violated if it were neglected Yet these Gentiles had no right to the Land of Canaan which argueth that Abrahams Covenant was not meerly for the Land of Canaan or meerly typical as some would have it nor only for Abrahams fleshly Seed but extended to some Gentiles Indeed the Church was then Domestical in Abrahams family he would have none there but such as owned the true Religion such only were to be in his house and bought with his money as were then Church members for he commanded not only his Children but his Houshold after him Gen. 18. v. 19. and they shall keep the way of the Lord. And afterward such of the Strangers Gentiles who became Proselites and owned the Jewish religion were to be circumcised Ex. 12. v. 44 48. 49. when a stranger shall sojourn with thee and will keep the passover to the Lord let all his males be circumcised one Law shall be to him that is home-born and unto the stranger So then upon a profession of faith or true religion strangers Gentiles were in the Covenant with Abraham in that day and came under the token of it Circumcision and their Infant seed as well as upon a profession of the faith of the Gospel any are owned in Covenant now their Infant seed must be in it with them unless any can shew a repeal or that they are less priviledged then they were And methinks we have the contrary Act. 2. 39. the promise is to you your Children i. e. to the Jews to as many as the Lord our God shall call i. e. of the Gentiles answerable to the Proselites of old so Isa 56. v. 5 6. 2. The Blessings of Abraham in Gospel Times are come upon the Gentiles by Faith Gal. 3. 14. Therefore the Infant Seed of the Gentiles are in Gospel Times in the Covenant which God made with Abraham For Abraham had no other to communicate but Covenant Blessings and not the Land of Canaan for that is not given to the Gentiles and therefore the Blessings are Gen. 17. 7 8. I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee in their Generations And this for many Generations did extend to Parents and their Infant Seed v. 9 10 11. So as they passed under Token of the Covenant and were intended thereby all the time of the Old Testament He speaketh indefinitely and in general of the Blessings of Abraham not a parcel of them but in the Latitude and as amply as of Old And therefore by Faith God is visibly a God to the Gentiles and to their Infant Seed unless any can prove that God hath repealed that part of the Covenant which concerns the Infant Seed in Gospel Times 3. The Infant Seed of the Jews were in the Covenant made with Abraham in Gospel Times after the Death of Christ after all Legal Observations were abolished Therefore the Infant Seed of Believing Gentiles are in the Covenant made with Abraham in Gospel Times For there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in Gospel Times Rom. 10. 12. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek i. e. the Gentile for the same Lord over all is Rich unto all that call upon him So Rom. 3. 22. Act. 15. 9. Putting no difference Gal. 3. 8. The Jews and Gentiles then are equal in respect of Gospel Priviledge yea there is no difference in respect of External Priviledge and Covenant Intrest for the Partition Wall is broken down that was between us and both made one Eph. 2. 14. And the same Olive Tree which the Jews are broken off from that the Gentiles are grafted into Rom. 11. v. 17 19 23 24. So that the Jews are not Priviledges above the Gentiles Now that the Infant seed of the Jews were in the Covenant made with Abraham in Gospel Times I prove 1. From Act. 3. 25. Ye are the Children of the Prophets and of the Covenants which God made with our Fathers saying unto Abraham and in thy seed shall all the Kindreds of the Earth be blessed This was after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ after the abrogation of all Legal Sacrifices and Ceremonial Observations yet still these Jews were within the Covenant made with Abraham Children of it yea before their repentance for he saith v. 19. repent therefore c. and their being still in Covenant is used as an argument to it they were not yet cast out of that Covenant and that included not only the Parents but the Infant seed as I have proved already so Act. 2. 38 39. 2. The Jews and their Infant seed were in the Covenant made with Abraham the day before the Gospel came to them therefore they were in it in Gospel times after unless God repealed it or cast them out which let any prove who can I run it up to the Primitive times to determine this question thus In the Apostles days immediatly before their Preaching the Jews and their Infant Seed were unquestionably in the Covenant made with Abraham and under the token of it Circumcision therefore the Infant seed were in that Covenant after or else undeniably the coming of Christ and the Jews believing on him and being Baptized was exceedingly to their damage injury and disadvantage For this is to say that the day or moment before a Jew did believe and was Baptized his Infant seed were in Covenant with God the day or moment after the Infant seed was out of that Covenant Dare any say that to be out of Covenant with God or to be cast out is no damage no disadvantage is it not mentioned as a mystery to be strangers to the Covenants of promise Ephes 2. 12 it is the misery of the Jews to be broken off from being externally in Covenant and a mercy to the Gentiles to be graffed into the Olive Rom 11. v. 17 19 22 24. as promoting a partaking of the fatness of the Olive If it was a priviledge to be in that Covenant then it must needs be a loss and damage to be out of it When the question was Rom. 3. 1. What advantage then hath the Jew or what profit is there of Circumcision God by the Apostle answereth v. 2. much every way Is it not then great
boldness for any Man to contradict God and say it is a mercy rather than a misery to be broken off from it If any abuse the Covenant made with Abraham and Circumcision to the denying that Christ is come and to the seeking Justification by their own works or righteousness on such a false legal ground as Christ profiteth nothing and so as they oblige themselves or are bound to keep the whole Law and hinder their being justified what is all this to the proving that it is no damage or disadvantage for any to be cast out of the Covenant with Abraham even as to external Interest in it If after the Jews believing and being Baptized their Infant seed remained in that Covenant then consequently the Infant seed of believing Gentiles are in it also for now there is no difference 4. The Seed of Abraham are the same for species or kind in all generations and therefore the Infant seed of believing Gentiles are in the Covenant made with Abraham It s true there is a numerical difference Abraham hath a greater number than he had for his seed in the Nations of the Gentiles Mat. 28. 19. Galat. 3. 14. and in Gospel times there are great alterations in the outward state and condition of the Church and in the outward administration of the Covenant but as the Covenant it self so the seed in it are for substance the same in all ages of it The Seed internally in that Covenant so as to obtain justification and Salvation they were and are the same He saith to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made even one seed 430 years before the Law and so the Covenant cannot be disanulled Gal. 3. v. 15 16 17. the stress of the Apostles argument is laid upon the sameness of the seed admit one of another kind and his proof would fail Also as to external Interest in the Covenant the seed is for kind the same It is true Abraham was so far priviledged as to have a promise that of his natural seed concerning the flesh Christ should come Rom. 9. 5. yet after Gen. 17. 7. when persons rejected the Covenant though they were of the fleshly seed of Abraham yet they were cast out and also some strangers Gentiles becoming Proselites and owning the Covenant with Abraham though not of his fleshly seed yet were admitted to the external priviledges of his Covenant v. 12 13. Ex. 12 48 49. and their Infant seed came under the token of it and so were Covenanters If any rase out the Subjects of any Covenant without their forfeiting their priviledge it is presently null and void If the Infant seed were rased out of the Covenant with Abraham who undoubtedly for many hundreds of years were Subjects of it then the Covenant with Abraham were disanulled which the Apostle saith it cannot be Gal. 3. 17. but cometh upon the Gentiles v. 14. so as they injoy what the Jews were broken off from Rom. 12. v. 17 19. and seeing the promise of being a God to Abraham and his Seed by Divine Warrant intended the Infant Seed with the Parents in all the time from Abraham to the coming of Christ hence that must be the meaning of it still if Jesus Christ hath not repealed it and consequently the Gentiles being now in that Covenant the Infant seed of the believing Gentiles must be visibly and externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham I omit other Arguments insisted upon by others least I should actum agere As to the antiquity of the practice of Infant Baptism besides what Justin Martyr and Irendus say Cyprian who flourished about Ann. 250. or 255. in his Epistle to Fidus who questioned whether Infants might be Baptized before the 8th day Cyprian with Sixty six Bishops in a Council unanimously declared to Fidus that they might be Baptized before the Eighth day which very question presupposeth that the Baptizing of Infants was then a thing granted and unquestionable only the particular day doubted of by some Neither may any conclude Cyprians testimony to be spurious seeing he is cited and approved not only by August but by Hierom. Contr. Pelag. lib. 3. and Christ saith out of the Law Joh. 8. 17. the testimony of two Men is true i. e. is to be received as true Neither doth the unsoundness of Cyprians judgment about Baptism otherways invalidate this for I do not alledge him to make his opinion an Argument for Infant Baptism but only to prove matter of fact that it was then a common practice in the Church when they might as easily know what was practised in the Apostles days as we may know what was a Custom a 100 or a 150 years ago And seeing the doubt of Fidus was grounded on the antient Law of Circumcision on the Eighth day hence the Antients then made the Covenant with Abraham an Argument for Infant Baptism and also thought Baptism came in the room and place of Circumcision It cannot be denyed that Origen Augustin Theodoret and others were for Infant Baptism § 2. Objections against Infants Covenant Interest and Baptism answered That the Covenant which God made with Abraham was of grace and in the Substance of it continuing in Gospel times is evident for the Apostle establisheth Justification even of the Gentiles the Romans by faith in a way of grace by the example of Abraham Rom. 4. 1 2 3 4 11 12 16 17. and by his being the Father of many Nations now if the Covenant with Abraham had been expired his arguments had been easily evaded by saying that Abraham was justified in one way we in another and that Abrahams Covenant was at an end its true some appendixes relating to its administration as Circumcision are abolished but the Apostle from the date of it 430 years before the Law concludeth peremptorily that it cannot be disanulled Gal. 3 16 17. and carefully observe that when the Scripture speaketh of an old Covenant which is disanulled it always is the Law at mount Sinai Jer. 31. v. 32. Heb. 8. v. 9. it never saith that the Covenant made with Abraham is abolished but the contrary declaring that the Law coming 430 years after could not disanull it Also in Gospel times they are said to be Children of the Covenant Act 3. 25. And hence all those notions that the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of works a legal temporal one or mixt his natural seed having but temporal promises by it in the land of Canaan or a typical Covenant I say these as not true vanish and come to nothing And it is very considerable that in that Covenant with Abraham the Lord promiseth to be a God to him and his Seed after him Gen. 17. 7. and then a Second time with that temporal promise of the Land of Canaan to his Seed he twisteth this v. 8. and I will be their God. So that visibly he is a God to the same Seed which he promiseth the Land of Canaan too and for him to
is not temporary but by an everlasting Covenant and faileth not Infants Covenant Interest is no branch of those priviledges which he saith are expired but on the contrary Dr. O. mentioneth this as one promise to the Church that God will be a God to them and their seed for ever Exercit. 6. on Heb. Neither doth this make three parties in the Covenant Abraham and his seed and their Infant seed any more than it did before the coming of Christ when Parents and their Infants made one joynt Subject all along as Isaac and his Children and Jacob and his and those Circumcised Josh 5. and theirs The Jews ungroundedly claimed all promises by their being the fleshly seed of Abraham but the spiritual seed may duly claim that promise for their Children there being nothing for the nulling of it Besides Dr. O. once and again there declareth that the Church is one and the same not one Church taken away and another set up in the room the Olive-tree is the same only some branches are broken off c. Infants were of the Church shew when they were all cast out the same that the Jews were broken off from the Gentiles were graffed into Rom. 11. Let any prove that the Church-state in the Substance of it was any part of that which was abolished by the death of Christ They were added to the Church Act. 2. 47. i. e. to the Church under its new administration By breaking down the partition wall the former confinement of the Church to the Natural seed of Abraham was taken off and it hath enlargement by the access of the Gentiles but is not straitned by excluding so vast a number as all the Infant seed The degenerate obstinate unbelieving Jews were broken off for the reformation of the Church but it was not dismembred by cutting off all the Infant seed who had actually done neither good nor evil nor had their Parents rejected the Covenant Some ordinances of worship expired and new were appointed as D. O. well observeth but I cannot find that God cast out any who formerly were members of it as Infants were without a forfeiture of their privilege Obj. 5. Infants are not capable of entring Covenant with God and if they were absolutely in it then God did not perform his promise because many prove wicked and if only conditionally then it is no more to them then others and what advantage by it A. 1. Infants were of old in Covenant and so are capable Gen. 17. v. 10 11 12. Deut. 29. v. 10 11 12. ye stand this day all of you your little ones that thou shouldst enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God So then little ones are in a capacity to be engaged by Covenant for the Lord. I may ask were they absolutely in it or conditionally 2. Some answer the Infant seed of Believers are in Covenant absolutely in the Species conditionally in the individuals Cobbet Many promises run to a Collective body as the Church and are accomplished there and yet may not be made good to every member particularly as it is promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church Mat. 16. 18. and yet Satan may prevail against particular Members or Churches So the Covenant of not drowning the World doth not secure every particular Man from drowning 3. As to advantages there are many as a Covenant-state is a state of greater nearness unto God then others are in is declared to be a priviledge Rom. 3. 1 2. and 9 4. and it is a misery to be strangers from the Covenants of promise Eph. 2. 12. many advantages I could discover of being externally in Covenant and thus Men may be in it and may so miscarry as to be rejected as Ishmael Esau the Jews Rom. 11. and yet God not break Covenant against Infants Baptism it is objected thus Obj. 6. Faith and Repentance are required before Baptism Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Act. 2. 38. Repent and be baptized If the Jews the natural seed of Abraham might not be baptized without Faith and Repentance much less others And such affirmative Precepts have their negative and so Infants not believing or repenting may not be baptized Ans 1. I freely grant that those which believe and repent are to be baptized but I deny the consequence that therefore Infants may not be baptized Such Texts conclude affirmatively that such may they do not conclude negatively that none else may as for example it is said Act. 8. 37. If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest i. e. be baptized This doth not conclude negatively that none else may if any will say hence none may be baptized who do not believe with all their heart then they can baptize none for they cannot know that another doth believe with all his heart and Simon Magus who did not so yet was duely baptized Act. 8. 13. If it could be proved that it is intended exclusively then 2. It importeth that none but those who believe and repent of adult ones may be baptized it is not to be understood in opposition to Infants often affirmative Commands intend only capable Subjects and the negative part extendeth no further Thus as believing and repenting are commanded before Baptism so confession with the mouth is commanded before Salvation Rom. 10. v. 9. 10. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus thou shalt be saved and with the mouth Confession is made unto Salvation Will any hence deny that any Infants can be saved because they do not confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus It is meant of adult ones only who are capable subjects So labour by a general term is commanded before eating 2 Thes 3. 10. We command you that if any would not work neither should he eat Will any conclude thence that Infants shall not eat because they will not labour So some commands about eating the Passover as with sower herbs are intended only for capable subjects not sick Persons or Infants That of preaching the Gospel to every creature Mark. 16. 15 16. is meant not to Infants but others So as to Baptism the command to believe and repent before it concerneth capable subjects only and the negative part only saith that adult Believers and impenitent ones may not be baptized it concludeth nothing against Infant Baptism That new Institution of Baptism was firstly to be received by the adult being given to a Church where many such are found and so it was proper to preach to them believe repent and be baptized and thus we going to Turks Indians or others where Baptism hath not come we may preach in the same language believe repent and be baptized without excluding Infants from it Yea of old the Proselites and Strangers must own the Jewish Religion make a profession of Faith and Love as Isa 56. v. 3. to 8. Exod. 12. and then had Circumcision for themselves and their Infant seed 3. Faith and
be a God to any is far greater than any temporal good whatsoever I shall now consider what is objected to prove a repeal of the Infant seeds Interest in the Covenant with Abraham and also against their Baptism Ob. 1. Mat. 3. 9. Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father Joh. 8. 33. we be Abrahams Seed None be the Children of Abraham but those that do the works of Abraham v. 39. if ye were Abrahams Children ye would do the works of Abraham and so Infants are not the Seed of Abraham A. 1. These are severe reproofs to a degenerate adult seed who trusted in their priviledge in having Abraham to their Father but speak nothing of cutting off all Infants from a Govenant Interest which they formerly had All this might be said to such as were wicked and rested in birth priviledges in any times of the Old Testament when yet Infants were undoubtedly in the Covenant both before and after and so it is nothing to the purpose Jer. 7. 4. Trust ye not in lying words saying the Temple of the Lord are these Yet all this may be said to such persons in Gospel times of whatever perswasion Baptists Congregational Men or any other that own Infants in Covenant think not to say you are Church members or Baptized whilst you do not the works of Abraham and yet we may own Infants Covenant interest where the Parents are Believers 2. It is certain that when that was said Mat. 3. 9. and Joh. 8. 39. the Covenant Interest of the Infand seed was not repealed nor they cut off from it For this was some time before the Death of Christ till which there was no abrogation or disanulling of any legal observations much less of priviledge by Abraham Eph. 2. v. 14 15 16. Col. 2. 14. the Jews were not broken off till afterwards and so Infants yet were of the seed of Abraham Ob. 2. None but those that are Christ's visibly and that are of the Faith are Abraham's seed Gal. 3. v. 16 26 29. Infants then are not the seed of Abraham An. 1. Here is not a syllable for a repeal of any priviledge which Infants of old undoubtedly had by the Covenant with Abraham or as his seed here is nothing for cutting off any that were of the seed as Infants once were Gen. 17. Deut. 29. v. 10. to 14. rather he asserteth the sameness of the Covenant in respect of its seed and that it could not be disanulled see Gal. 3. 16 17. and as God claimed Israel as his Exod. 4. 22. Lev. 20. 26. So if Infants be still in Covenant why may they not visibly be Christ's 2. The Apostle here speaketh of a seed of Abraham as to Justification and Life and it is they which are of Faith v. 8 9 10. And this not in opposition to an Infant seed but to an adult seed which sought Justification by works of the Law as those verses witness and v. 24 26 29. And thus it was in all Ages since Abraham when Infants were certainly in Covenant yet then the seed of Abraham as to Justification were they of the Faith and not of Works and only real Believers are this seed What is this against Infants being a seed as to Ordinances as well as unsound Professors This is confirmed to be the meaning in the next Chapter Gal. 4. v. 24. to the end where they that were born from Mount Sinai from the Law and Works are said to be born after the Flesh they are in the Apostles sence the fleshly seed which with Ishmael are to be cast out and they by Promise are those of the Faith. What is all this against Infants being of Abraham's seed as of old and the less because they are of the Faith as their Covenant Interest followeth Faith viz. of the Parent to whom the Promise is given for the seed as that Promise was directed to Abraham Gen. 17. 7. for him to act Faith upon the Lord in it for his seed as well as for himself and other Believers are to do the like Hence see the true meaning of Gal. 3. 16. To Abraham and his seed were the Promises made he saith not unto seeds as of many but as of one and to thy seed which is Christ i. e. Always Abraham had but one seed Christ and those that are Christ's and are of the Faith as to Justification he never had two seeds for that end in the times of the Old Testament there was but one seed not two seeds one by the Law and another by Promise but only one in Christ by Promise and that this is the intendment is evident seeing he addeth v. 18. For if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise So that the one seed excludeth only a pretended seed seeking Justification by the works of the Law such God never owned for the seed And so it is not in the least mentioned to exclude Infants as a fleshly seed from an ecclesiastical seed nor to repeal any priviledge or limit to cut them off from what they had before the coming of Christ this is not in the least the meaning for all the time wherein Infants enjoyed such priviledges yet there was but one seed in the Apostles sence and which further cleareth it observe this Gal. 3. 16 17. intendeth that Promise to Abraham which was 430 years before the Law which can be only that Gen. 12. 3. as any may find by computing the time this was when Abraham was seventy five years old v. 4. and so they greatly mistake who would have it expounded Gen. 17. 7 8. where Infants Covenant Interest is asserted it is no repeal no restriction or limitation thereof no cutting them off from any priviledges granted or confirmed to them there for that was not four hundred and thirty years before the Law but when Abraham was ninety and nine years old v. 1. which was twenty four years less 4. Some Infants are visibly Christ's and so are Abraham ' s seed as Abraham had a natural fleshly seed and a spiritual seed consisting only of real Believers which are justified and shall certainly be saved Gal. 3. 8 9 11. Mark 16. 16. So also Abraham had and hath an ecclesiastical seed he was and is a Father of the visible Church and all in it are his seed in this sence where are many foolish Virgins Mat. 25. 1 2. unsound Professors of Faith which yet are duely baptized as Simon Magus was Act. 8. 13. Such as may be in Christ and be taken away and cast forth Joh. 15. 2. 6. and be broken off Rom. 11. 20. which none of his spiritual seed of real believers can be Either then such Hypocrites are the seed of Abraham or not If they be then he hath a seed which are not his Spiritual seed If they be not then we may Baptize some who are not the seed of Abraham and then why not Infants
Strong doth well distinguish Abraham as a Father he is 1. a natural Father to the Jews only 2. a spiritual Father to all true Believers 3. an ecclesiastical or church Father Rom. 11. 16 17. answerably he hath a natural fleshly seed a spiritual seed and an ecclesiastical seed Paul ardently desired that Israel might be saved Rom. 10. 1. and Rom. 9. v. 3. mentioneth Election calling Salvation v. 11 24 27. and in these respects it might be said in all ages of the Old Testament the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God as to Vocation and Salvation when yet Infants were unquestionably externally in Covenant and so then they may be still and all this that is said is not against it They may be a seed as to Ordinances though all of them be not so as to Life and Salvation The same may be said of Gospel Churches all are not Israel that are of Israel there being foolish Virgins there as well as wise Mat. 25. 1 2. how then can this prove an alteration of the Covenant or that the Infant seed is now excluded seeing the same might have been truly said in all times 4. That many of the fleshly seed of Abraham might be rejected and yet the word or promise of God not be made void the Apostle here and Rom. 11. is asserting the rejection of the Jews and now obviateth their objection Rom. 9. v. 6. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect i. e. Not that God doth violate his promise of being a God to Abraham and his seed for all are not true Israelites nor of the seed of Abraham who are his fleshly seed v. 6 7. only that did not render them the Children of God and entitle them to the promises v. 8. this he proveth because Ishmael who was of Abrahams fleshly seed of old was cast our and where there was no disparity or unlikeness in birth or works yet Jacob was loved and Esau hated v. 8. to 14. neither doth this preferring one before the other where there was equality in themselves speak any unrighteousness with God v. 14. for his own will is the determining rule of his shewing mercy v. 15. to v. 24. This is the clear and true meaning of this Scripture these instances shew that being the Children of the flesh of old did not make them the Children of God as to his love when yet undeniably the Infant seed were externally within the Covenant how then can this speak now for the excluding of them when the same might be said in all ages since Abraham viz. that the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God so as to obtain spiritual Blessings but may be rejected when they bear upon that plea of fleshly descent and yet highly degenerate as the Jews did It proveth no alteration of the Covenant in respect of its antient extent as to the seed What is said is intended against an adult corrupt seed making a carnal plea or claim not against an Infant seed The same might be said now to a Church under a like degeneracy and making such a carnal plea even where there is an owning Infants Covenant Interest and Baptism The Question here was not whither an Infant seed were still in Covenant as they were of old but whither the promise was void and of none effect v. 6. if a corrupt adult fleshly seed were rejected 5. The fleshly Children of Abraham were not the Children of God exclusively or in opposition to a Spiritual seed even of Gentiles by faith the Jews often cryed out we are the seed of Abraham claiming Interest in the Covenant and ingrossing all promises and special blessings only by being his fleshly seed hereby excluding the Gentiles unless joyned with them turning to the Jewish Religion on the contrary the Apostle declareth that there is a spiritual seed even of the Gentiles by faith and that hereby they obtain spiritual blessings before the Jews Rom. 9 8 30 31 32 who are denyed to be that spiritual seed though they were the fleâ—â—â—y seed of 〈◊〉 being without faith and not doing the works of 〈◊〉 Rom. â— â— 10. 11. Gal. 3. What is this against those who pretend not to be Abrahams carnal fleshly seed nor to be actually interested in special blessings by fleshly descent nor trust in carnal priviledges What is this for the excluding Infants out of a Covenant state an the result of that promise to Abraham â— I will he the God of thy seed â— Gen. 17. 7 8. for many 100 years an Infant seed had a Covenant Interest joyntly with their Parents and this was no Typical promise let any prove that Infants are cut off from their share in it else their Covenant Interest must hold still whither Baptism may be applyed or not without an express Command of which before Abraham had a spiritual seed all along by faith whose Infants were in Covenant with their Parents for many generations and why should not their priviledge continue still to the spiritual seed though the carnal fleshly seed were cast out and their priviledge expired with it Infants Covenant Interest was not the peculiar priviledge of the fleshly seed of Abraham for the Infant seed of Proselites and those strangers Gen. 17. 12 13. Ex. 12. 48. were in the Covenant made with Abraham and under the token of it so as that Covenant was broken if that was omitted yet they were not of the fleshly seed of Abraham and so these may be in still though his fleshly seed be cast out And once more if all the Jews at the first dawning of the Gospel day had become the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith as many of them did none of them then had been rejected for it was for unbelief that they were broken off Rom. 11. 20. and what syllable is there to prove that there would have been an exclusion of their Infant seed from that Covenant Interest weh they had the day before their Parents believing And hence it followeth 6. That the expiring and ceasing of some carnal priviledges of old afforded to the fleshly seed of Abraham hindreth not the Covenant Interest of the Infants of the spiritual seed by faith if the separation of the fleshly seed of Abraham to the bringing forth of the Messiah ceased and expired at his coming that was but one priviledge of the Jews that of them as concerning the flesh Christ came Rom. 9. 5. and yet Covenant Interest continued still to them pertaineth the Covenant and the promises v. 4. Act. 3. 25. If the aforesaid separation and the priviledge thereby as Dr. O. saith was temporary having a limited season time and end and upon his actual exhibition in the flesh it was to cease and if some carnal ordinances failed and be at an end being abundantly supplyed by his being come yet what is all this to prove that God no longer is visibly a God to the Infant seed of the Spiritual seed of Abraham that
Repentance were then necessary even for the Jews the natural seed of Abraham that they who were Parents may have right themselves unto Bapism and other Gospel Priviledges and so their Infant seed may have right also For as in other ages of the Church when the Lord gave forth new Revelations and Ordinances for the Tabernacle and Temple he required the receiving of them by Faith and Obedience else they were to be cut off Lev. 7 v. 20 21 25 27. and 17. 4 9. and 19. 8 and 23. v. 27 29. And after great Apostacies and Backslidings they were severely threatned if they repented not So at the dawning of the Gospel day Jesus Christ the promised Seed being actually come this made a great addition to that important Article of Faith now all were obliged under the highest penalty to the Faith of this that the Messiah was come that Jesus Christ was the Son of God Joh. 8. 24. If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins This was the Test in those times and for Unbelief the Jews the natural seed of Abraham were broken off Rom. 11. 20. On this account was the command in that day to them Believe and be baptized for by persisting in positive obstinate unbelief as to his being come there was a rejection of the Covenant and losing their own right and so their Childrens right which resulted from theirs must needs be lost also If Parents be cast out of Covenant then I plead not for their or their Infants Baptism That faith then was indispensibly necessary to the continuing their Covenant Interest as well as to their Baptism yea if circumcision on the 8th day had continued to this day yet this faith of his being come would have been necessary thenceforth in the Parents in order to their Childrens sharing in it But where the natural seed of Abraham by such faith laid hold on the Covenant and continued their Interest in it here is nothing to prove any alteration or curtailing of the Covenant so as to cut off their Infant seed from it or to exclude them from Baptism Also the natural seed of Abraham had then exceedingly corrupted themselves and hainously sinned even so as to Crucifie Christ the Prince of Life on which account he commandeth to Repent and be Baptized Act. 2. v. 36. 38. When they were under such transgressions well might they be exhorted to repentance in order to Baptism and to prevent their forfeiting all and utter rejection and the Lords saying to them Loami ye are none of my People Certainly a Church which owneth Infant Baptism having members under such a horrid offence may require a manifestation of repentance from the Parents before they do Baptize their Infants In short I have discovered that Infant Baptism followeth Parents Faith and Repentance is pre-required to Baptism of a degenerate adult seed but this is nothing against Baptizing Infants of a spiritual seed by faith § 3. Of the validity of Baptism in Infancy Some speak contemptuously of the Baptizing of Infants and undertake to Rebaptize but Pos Baptism administred in Infancy is valid is no nullity I have proved there is Scripture warrant for Infant Baptism some Infants are the proper Subjects of it and so it s no nullity Arg. 1. Our Baptism in Infancy hath all the Essentials of Gospel water Baptism therefore it is valid is no nullity For if a sin in Circumstantials and accidentals of an ordinance did null it then none were valid no person is so Baptized but some sin in it would render it a nullity seeing there is not a just man upon Earth that doth good and sinneth not Eccles 7. 20. 1 Joh. 1. 8. and the contrary is clear Zippora circumcised when Moses should have done it Ex. 4. 25. and yet it was valid for the Angel of the Lord was pacified v. 26. So the high priests were not of the right line but yearly yet Christ owneth them Joh. 11. 51. and 18 13. and I ask if a person erreth in his profession of faith and yet they Baptize him if he after be profane will they say it is a nullity will they if he repent Baptize him again Now our Baptism in Infancy hath all Essentials of water Baptism for it hath right matter and form here is right matter ex qua constat viz. Water without undue mixture here is the sign and the thing signified by it is evangelical also the right matter circaquam capable Subjects rational creatures none else can be in Covenant nor in a capacity to have the things signified the graces and benefits of the Covenant That Infants have right to it I have evidenced that they are capable is undeniable as they were of circumcision which had a spiritual signification as well as Baptism what hinders their receptivity Infants are capable of a principle of faith and repentance antecedently and of actual believing and repenting consequently and one end which Baptism obligeth to is after repentance Mat. 3. 11. Act. 19. 34. Also it hath the right form an application of water in a solemn significative way in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit Mat. 28. 19. we use washing tho not submersion it is such an applying of water that is the substance of the external form of Baptism and if there were a sinful defect which I think there is not in the want of sub mersion yet it can be but an accidental one and so it can never be proved that it renders it a nullity In Infant Baptism there is the Internal form consisting in the relation of the sign and thing signified and the External form the applying water in a solemn way with the words of Institution in the name of the Father which must needs be more of the substance of the ordinance then submersion can be and it is a principal part the face which is is applyed to for the noting profession as the fathers nâ—me in the forehead Rev. 14. v. 1 and so it is valid Arg. 2. Our Baptism in Infancy answereth to the Scripture signification of the word and to what is signified by that Ordinance therefore it is valid and is no nullity The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred mergo lavo it noteth a small use of water as Luk. 16. 24. that he may dip it is not the whole finger but only the tip of it Also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mergo lavo it signifieth not necessarily to dip or plunge but as well to wash and this both in common and in sacred use it cannot be confined to submersion or overwhelming in the water and so such dipping cannot be essential to Baptism so as the not using it should render it a nullity see Mar. 7. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except they wash they eat not Will any say except they plunged their whole bodies under water they eat not surely no but only washed their hands as v. 3. yet they the persons by that small application
Instituted without it v. 14. whilst it continued nor without Baptism now a token of the same Covenant and connected with the promise Act. 2. 38 39. in like manner and so Infants being in Covenant as Abrahams seed of faith are to be Baptized Obj. 3. There is no kind of Covenant holiness in the natural seed of Believers more than in the seed of Unbelievers now under the Gospel for no person is to be accounted common or unclean by nature more than others and so no person to be accounted clean or holy by nature more than others Act. 10. 28. God is no respecter of persons Typical Ceremonial holiness is abolished of the seed as well as of Beasts Birds Garments Temple c. A. The Typical ceremonial holiness abolished is not said to be by Nature Act. 10. 28. it was by the Law such as of Birds Beasts Garments Temple c. and this is at an end nothing now unclean or holy in that sense but that is nothing against the relative federal holiness of persons long before the Law by the Covenant with Abraham visibly having God their God and being his People Gen. 17. 7 8. otherwise then other People being separated to the Service of God and not afar off but nigh to him Ezek. 16. 8 9. Eph. 2 3 14 19. and this is not meerly by nature but as in the force of Gods Covenant Galat. 2. 15. As to Act. 10. 28. It declares that no person is common or unclean so as to bar him from the Preaching of the Gospel the Gentiles are as clean and holy now as the Jews in that respect Peter might go in to Cornelius no difference of Nation or outward state or condition to hinder it Col. 2. 11. all on equal terms and alike the means of grace may be extended to the Gentiles the offer is larger then it was not straiter here is no excluding or casting out of Infants from any priviledge Indeed the Jews of old were forbidden Marriage and Covenants with the Gentiles Deut. 7. 3. but not keeping company with them as Calvin saith we find no clear prohibition of the Jews going in to the Gentiles from the Law but from the observation of the Fathers However there can be no pretence for such uncleanness of Persons as Peter meaneth till the Law and the abolishing this by the Gospel is nothing against the federal holiness of Infants or others long before the Law by the Covenant with Abraham As to Act. 10. 34 35. it importeth that God is no respecter of persons as to acceptance with him be he Jew or Gentile of what Nation soever he may be accepted of God if he be a fearer of God and a worker of righteousness else not whatever privilege he enjoyeth Church-membership Baptism Lords Supper c. what is this against the federal holiness of their seed who are fearers of God and externally in Covenant with him 2. In Gospel times there is a relative federal holiness whereby some are differenced from other by a Separation from the world for God Rom. 11. 16. 1 Pet. 2. 9. ye are a holy Nation yea this reacheth Infants 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unholy but now are they holy It cannot be meant of legitimation for if both the Parents be unbelievers yet the Children are legitimate Heb. 13. 4. the marriage bed is undefiled in all It is not barely a being sanctified to use for so are the unbelieving Husband or Wife to the Believer v. 14. yet are not holy Tit. 1. 15. It is not qualitative holiness if it were to be sure they may be Baptized it must then be relative or federal holiness Obj. 4. If the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God Rom. 9. 8. then Infants are not the seed of Abraham they may be by Election not by Calling Abraham hath two seeds a fleshly seed who had promises of the Land of Canaan and a spiritual seed Heirs of eternal Life the Heavenly Inheritance this was never given to the fleshly seed Ans Children of the flesh by degeneracy and a legal Birth are not the Children of God Of these he speaketh Rom. 9. v. 8 31 32. Gal. 4. v. 29 30. This is nothing against Infants Priviledge Also Children of the flesh Infants or adult are not internally and savingly the Children of God so as to inherit the Heavenly Inheritance only by fleshly descent but Infants of Believers are externally and visibly the Children of God as well as others Gen. 17. 7 10 11. Exod. 4. 22. Rom. 9. 4. To them pertaineth the Adoption and so they are externally and visibly Children if not by regeneration yet by dedication and separation for God from others This rendreth it probable and hopeful they shall afterwards share in the spiritual and eternal Blessings until they evidence the contrary by rejecting the Covenant as Ishmael and Esau did Thus the Infant seed of Believers are not the spiritual seed of Abraham only by fleshly descent but they are ecclesiastically and externally the seed of Abraham with their Parents by vertue of the Covenant But to clear this Text and Matter I shall add these things 1. Here is no repeal of any Covenant Interest which Infants undoubtedly had before the coming of Jesus Christ without which all said is nothing to the purpose it is not said those that of old were the seed of Abraham now are not so any longer but rather the contrary for till actually cast out he concludeth them highly priviledged Rom. 9. 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the Adoption and the Glory of the Covenants and the Promises So that still in Gospel times till cast out for positive Unbelief externally they had an Intrest in the Covenants and Promises as in former days and so their Infants shared with them 2. The Children of the Flesh which here are denyed to be the Children of God are an adult corrupt degenerate seed seeking Justification by a Legal Righteousness Rom. 9. v. 8 31 32. Israel which followed after Righteousness hath not attained to the Law of Righteousness Wherefore because they sought it not by Faith but as it were by the Works of the Law. Such are a fleshly seed Gal. 4. 29. and obstinately erring in such a Fundamental in matter of Faith in any Age were not the Children of God they are adult ones that thus advance their own Righteousness Infants do not so and therefore are not the Children of the flesh here intended Indeed the Parents may so forfeit their Covenant Interest and consequently their Infant seed may loose it also because their Right was by their Parents 3. The Children of the Flesh whether adult or Infants are not the Children of God spiritually or are not the spiritual seed of Abraham only by a fleshly descent so as to be Heirs of Salvation Eternal Life the Heavenly Inheritance but yet may be the seed of Abraham ecclesiastically and externally as of old and nothing is here against it Mr.