carefully observed that in case it had been disanull'd at any time before our Lord Christ came in the Flesh yea or by him when he was come and that it hath been disanull'd at any time since or by any other I suppose no Man will affirm it had been all one as to the Apostles design for if it had been disanull'd before Christ came or by him when he was come the Apostle could not have proved that the Blessing of Abraham was come upon the Gentiles through Christ as believed in as we see he doth from the tenour of that Covenant any more than if it had been disanull'd by the Law So that undoubtedly this Covenant is the very Covenant under which Believers still are 2. Let is be considered that it is by virtue of this very Promise contained in this Covenant that Believers are Heirs of the Blessing of Abraham thus vers 29. So that not only the Blessing of Abraham is come upon believing Gentiles but is come upon them through this very Promise and that as they are considered under the Notion of Abraham's Seed which puts the matter out of doubt When Believers are under this very Promise or Heirs to the Good or Blessing contained in it as they are Abraham's Seed who can doubt whether the Covenant the grand Promise of which they are under and that as they are become Abraham's Seed be that Covenant that they are now under So that that Covenant establish'd with Abraham is the very same Covenant of Grace that Believers are now under is too evident to be denied by any that are but indued with human Modesty And whereas some may yet say The Scripture seems evidently to distinguish between that Covenant the Jews were under during the Old-Testament-Administration and that Believers are under since the Gospel-Administration calling the one the Old Covenant the other the New The Answer is at hand viz. That it is readily granted that the Jews were under a Covenant that Believers now are not under but that was not that Covenant made with Abraham but the Covenant made at Mount Sinai Hence the Covenant the New-Testament calls the Old Covenant was that made at Mount Sinai and not this made with Abraham The words are plain Gal. 4. latter end Heb. 8.8 So that it is past all rational doubt it was the Covenant of Grace that very Covenant that Believers are now under that was establish'd with Abraham the Establishment of which is recorded Gen. 17.7 And here we might further confirm what hath been hitherto pleaded for namely that the grand Promise of the Covenant is continued to Believers under the New-Testament in the same extent and latitude viz. as including their Infant-Seed with them in which it was at first made to Abraham for if the Covenant be the same the Promises of it must needs be continued in the same tenour in which they were at first made unless God himself and made any alteration which it is certain in this respect he hath not done These things appear with so much evidence that it is to admiration how they should meet with any Contradiction from any that pretend to take the Scripture as the Rule of their Faith and Practice Object 3. It may be some will yet further say That suppose it be granted that the Covenant then establish'd with Abraham was not only a Covenant of Grace but the Covenant of Grace under which Believers always have been and still are ye the Infant-Seed of the People of God under the First-Testament might be only under the external Administration of it and not taken in as Parties in the Covenant it self and hereupon that Administration ceasing they are no ways concerned in the Covenant either in regard of the Administration or the Substance of it Answer 'T is true some seem to think so but their Discourses are cloathed with such Confusion and Obscurity that it is hard to find out what they mean But that Infants were not only under the external Administration of the Covenant but were taken in as Joint-Parties with their Parents in the Covenant it self is superabundantly evident from what hath been already said Those that were under the most essential Promise of the Covenant must surely be under or in the Covenant it self Now I have sufficiently proved that Infants of Govenant-Parents were from the first establishment of the Covenant under the Promise of God's being a God to them which is the most essential Promise of the Covenant yea a Promise that virtually comprehends the whole Good contained in the Covenant So that undoubtedly they were not only under the external Administration but in the Covenant it self Possibly some will yet say Grant them to have been under this Promise and answerably in Covenant yet might not this Promise at least as appertaining to Infants be an Appendix to the Covenant of Grace and not of the Essence or Substance of it as the Promise of the Land of Canaan was To that I answer No 't is a Promise that undoubtedly appertains to the Essence of the Covenant 't is that which as I have said virtually includes the whole Good of the Covenant And how absurd and unreasonable would it be to take the Promise as made to Parents as of the Essence of the Covenant when yet as made to their Infants as only an Appendix to it especially when it is but one Promise consisting of two Branches made to one and the same Person Neither doth the Scripture give the least Ground for such an Imagination Now these Objections being answered I shall proceed to the third Proposition only as previous thereto let it be observed That I have been hitherto only proving the Interest of the Infant-Seed of Believers in the Covenant and in special in that grand Promise of it concerning God's being a God to them And this was absolutely necessary to be proved before their Right to Baptism be proved seeing their Right to Baptism follows upon cheir Interest in the Covenant and is applied to them on that Ground CHAP. IV. The third subordinate Proposition laid down proved three ways further confirm'd from those Instances of whole Houses being baptized recorded in Scripture Prop. III. THe third Proposition then is this That all those that are under or are the actual Subjects of that grand Promise of the Covenant wherein God promiseth to be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their Generations are the due Subjects of Baptism and ought according to the revealed Will of our Lord Christ to be baptized That the Infant-Seed of Believers are the proper Subjects of that Promise hath been already proved I am now to prove that they being under or the proper Subjects of the Promise are the due Subjects of Baptism Now this may be evidenced past all rational Contradiction these three ways I. From the Command of God enjoining and expresly requiring all Abraham's Seed in their Generations to keep the Covenant The words are express Gen. 17.9 And God said to
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
all that truly fear God Christian Reader I thought meet to let thee know that I have had a cursory view of a late Apology for Anti-paedobaptism put forth by one Mr. Grantham wherein not finding my self at all concerned nor any thing added beyond what others have said I judged it needless to take any further notice of it I shall only add Labour to keep a due sence of the weight and importance of this Controversy as yet managed upon thine Hearts keep in mind the Account thou must shortly give to him that is ready to judg the Quick and the Dead impartially ponder what hath been and here again is offered for thy satisfaction Pray much and as thou mayest assure thy self of a share in his so let him have a share in thy Prayers who is sincerely thine in the Service of thy Soul to his power J. W. ERRATA PAg. 1. l. 20. for it read truth Pag. 2. l. 13. for curiosity read curiously Pag. 21. l. 16. for him read them P. 31. l. 17. for indifferent read indefinite P. 36. l. 22. for know read now and l. ult for Seed read House P. 38. l. 6. for nor read now P. 43. l. 10. and what P. 44. l. 14. blot out such he P. 54. l. ult for Covenant read Command P. 55. l. 27. for had read hath P. 71. l. 6. for personal read Parents l. 30. blot out move P. 77 l. 7. for because read besides P. 80. l. 18. for that read them Pag. 82. l. 19. for to read into In the Epistle P. 91. l. 19. blot out one P. 92. l. 29. for willingly read unwittingly CHAP. I. The Introduction The first subordinate Proposition proposed explained proved by a threefold Consideration SOlomon tells us The Scorner seeketh Wisdom but findeth it not but to him that understandeth Knowledge is easy Prov. 14.6 Or as some read the latter Branch To him that is prudent Knowledg is light In which Proverb we have a twofold Qualification necessary for Inquirers after Truth viz. Humility and Prudence the former to their Enjoyment of Divine Assistance and Teachings the latter to the right management of the Enquiries made through the concurrence of both which their Enquiries will become both easy and successful The Usefulness of the latter only to touch upon that the same wise Man sufficiently implies in another of his sacred Adagies where he tells us The Heart of the Prudent getteth or as some read possesseth Knowledg Prov. 18.15 Others may seek after it but it is the Prudent that is inriched with the Knowledg of it Not to insist upon the various Respects in which Prudence is necessary and ought to be exercised in Enquiries made after Truth so as that the Mind may come to be enriched with the Knowledg of it I shall only say That he that is furnished with and hath the Use and Exercise of so much Prudence as thereby to be directed in a right Entrance upon his search will find himself under no small advantage more regularly and delightfully to proceed in and at last arrive at the desired Success of the Search the makes and no where can the Entrance upon the Search after any Truth be made more rightfully or with more hope of Success than at the first at least more plain and express Revelations that God hath made thereof unto his Church The entrance of thy Word saith the Psalmist giveth Light Psal 119.30 Or the Door of thy Word So the Seventy usually translate that word Suppose a large Fabrick or Building furnished with variety of Rooms and Appartments the whole Curiosity framed after the manner of a Labyrinth each Room having a Clew of Silk or Thread leading thereunto all meeting together at the Door now as the opening the Door lets in Light whereby a more general View and Prospect of the whole may be taken so the several Clews leading to their respective Rooms or Appartments discerned and let a Man take hold of the right Clew and keep his hold of that it leads him safely through all the Windings and Turnings to the Room he intends to take up his residence in otherwise he is bewildred and loseth himself To such a Fabrick or Building we may compare the whole Systeme of Divine Doctrine contained in the Scriptures and some such Allusion the Psalmist seems to have had in his Eye Thus as by the first supernatural Revelations of Divine Truth the Door to this glorious Fabrick was opened so they contain some though more dark and obscure Notice and Discoveries of all the main and fundamental Doctrines of or appertaining to the Covenant of Grace which if a Man's Understanding take hold of and he follow according as further Light is gradually vouchsafed they will be as a Clew whereby he shall be safely led to a clear Sight and Understanding of that Doctrine he is enquiring after so as comfortably to act his Faith and suit his Practice thereunto As for Instance Take it of that Divine Oracle given out to Adam concerning the Seed of the Woman breaking the Serpents Head and the Serpents bruising his Heel As by the giving out of this Divine Oracle the Door was first opened so there is in it a general Comprehension of the Sum and Substance of all the Doctrines contained in and communicated to us by the Scriptures appertaining to the Essence and Substance of the Covenant of Grace and answerably it would be of no small advantage unto Men in order to their clear understanding of and establishment in many if not most Doctrines appeartaining to the Covenant of Grace to make a thorow Enquiry into and get a clear Knowledg of the full Mind of God in that Divine Oracle This might easily be made to appear in sundry Instances but to wave all others let me only instance in that Doctrine I have been and still am pleading for viz. Concerning the Covenant-Interest and Baptism of the Infant-seed of Believers That God in this Oracle did not altogether obscurely intimate his Will concerning the Infant-Seed of his People hath been shewed by another Hand And should I have begun my Enquiries here it had neither been impertinent nor unprofitable but because the Light held forth in this first Oracle for the discovery of the Mind and Will of God about the Doctrine pleaded for is as must be granted but dim and obscure and consequently hardly discernable by ordinary Capacities I have rather chosen to enter upon my Enquiries at the Establishment of the Covenant with Abraham an Account whereof we have in Gen. 17.7 And I have the rather entred upon my Enquiries here because the Covenant was then entred with Abraham not only as personally considered but as the Father of all the Faithful that should succeed in all after Ages and that for an everlasting Covenant to endure invariable as to the Essence and Substance of it throughout all Generations so long as Abraham should have a Seed upon the Earth And entring upon our Enquiries here we shall
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
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
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
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
recorded That some of the Penmen did teach and practise every Duty appertaining thereunto that the grand Promises of the Covenant appertain to the Seed of Believers and that all to whom those Promises do appertain ought to have the Token of the Covenant applied to them is sufficiently evident throughout the Scriptures both in the Old and New Testament Hence though it be not recorded in express Terms that the Apostles did either teach or practise Infant-Baptism yet we may safely conclude they did both Object 4. Lastly It is farther Objected by some That Infant-Baptism cannot be according to the Mind and Will of Christ because of their Incapability of the Ends and Vses of Baptism Answer It is sufficient that they are capable of some at least the main and chief Ends and Uses of Baptism It is no way necessary that every one to whom either Circumcision of old was or Baptism now is to be applied should be capable of all the Ends and Uses of the one or the other Who dare deny yea or question but that our Lord Christ may appoint the Application of Baptism to Infants as capable of some of the Ends and Uses of it though uncapable of others and that they are capable of some yea the main and chief Ends and Uses of Baptism is and must be granted on all hands Hence their Incapability of some of the Ends and uses of it makes nothing at all against their Baptism Now then our three Propositions being as we see they are firmly established by the unanimous Suffrage both of the Old and New-Testament and all Objections of weight that may be made against the one or the other of them being removed we are safely led by them to our main Conclusion viz. That it is the Will of our Lord Christ that the Infant Seed of Believers should be baptized They are under the Covenant as having the main Promises of it appertaining to them and answerably ought to have the Token thereof applied to them And as a Close of all what remains but that as Believers maintain and cheerfully proceed on in that Practice so both they and their Children as growing up to years of maturity do well improve these great Priviledges which God of his abundant Grace and Mercy hath granted unto them Which that they may do I have in a third Tract according to Divine Assistance given in endeavoured the resolution of four Questions viz. 1. What are the Reasons of God's appointed the Application of the Token of the Covenant to the Infant-Seed of his People 2. What are the Benefits and Advantages accruing to them thereby 3. What is the Duty of Parents towards their Children as bearing the Token of the Covenant 4. What Improvement Children may and ought to make of the Token of the Covenant as applied to them in their Infancy as they grow up to years of maturity In the resolution of all which Questions I have studied both brevity and plainness neither do I see how what hath been said could be well contracted into a narrower room without prejudice to the Ends aimed at the whole being but as it were an Epitomy of what may seem necessary to be spoken considering the weight and importance of those Questions nor do I know well how to express my self consideratis considerandis with more plainness than I have done nor am I as yet made sensible that any thing proposed or asserted in the resolution of the one or the other of them needs a further Confirmation than what it already hath received That which is most doubtful so far as I yet understand at least to Paedobaptists to whom as well as to Antipaedobaptists I had a respect in that Treatise is Whether all those Benefits and Priviledges that in the resolution of the second Question I have assigned to the Infant-Seed of Believers do really and truly appertain unto them or only in foro Ecclesiae or in visible appearance To whom I would only say That in case the Covenant is enter'd with and the Promises thereof made to them definitely that is with and to each of them in particular and consequently that all those Benefits and Priviledges are granted and do belong to them universally or to every one of them in particular as in case the Promises be made to them definitely they must needs do it will necessarily follow that they are granted and do appertain to them in reality and truth as well as in outward appearance Granting the former there is no more just reason to question the latter than there would be supposing a Man were known and granted to be a true Believer yet to question whether all this Good or all these Benefits and Priviledges do appertain to him in reality and truth or no seeing as they are the Seed of true Believers such as are Believers not only in the sight of Men but the sight of God that I speak of So the Covenant is entred with and the Promises of it made to them meerly as the Seed of such Parents without respect had to any Qualifications in or any Conditions to be performed by them Whence supposing we grant the Covenant is entred with and the Promises thereof made to them definitely or with and to each of them in particular in case we either question whether all that Good and all those Benefits and Priviledges are granted and do appertain to them universally or whether supposing we grant that yet question whether they are granted and do appertain to them in reality and truth it must be either because we question whether all that Good and all those Benefits and Priviledges are contained in these Promises of the Covenant appertaining to them or because we question whether God be faithful in his Promises that is do indeed and in truth grant unto or confer upon those to whom the Promises do appertain what Good is really and truly contained in them Either of which things why we should rather question in respect of Infants than grown Persons no rational account can be given And to question much more to deny the one or the other has a direct tendency to overthrow the Faith and Comfort of all Believers and render the Covenant of Grace with the various Promises of it utterly insignificant and of no use unto Men. Indeed that which seems to cause some to haesitate about and keeps them from a ready Compliance with what I have affirmed is a Supposition that the Case of Infants is the same with at least like unto the Case of grown Persons because grown Persons may visibly appear to be in Covenant and have the Promises thereof appertaining unto them and consequently to have all that Good or all those Benefits and Priviledges granted to and conferred upon them when yet neither the Covenant nor the Promises of it do indeed appertain to them in the sight of God and consequently none of that Good or of those Benefits and Priviledges do appertain to them in reality and
suppose it might have a further respect yet that not ways prejudices the Use and Improvement we make of the Text for the establishment of our Practice So that I cannot but greatly wonder that you should put such a Remark upon that Interpretation of that Scripture which seems evidently inconsistent with the Apostle's scope is utterly improbable in it self and yet is of no use to the furthering of your Cause nor makes any head of Opposition against ours And truly Brethren I now begin to less wonder that you acquiesce not in what is offered by us for your satisfaction it cannot be thought strange that you should continue your Practice different from ours when you either only suppose that our Practice is established by such Arguments as we make no use of or if any haply have made use of them yet they are confessed by others of us to be invalid and in the mean time overlook those Arguments which we conceive to be cogent and demonstrative and withal take a Conceit of one single Man however Learned and in other matters Judicious that indeed hath no probability of Truth in it nor really of any use to you to carry such evidence of Truth as though sufficient to counter-ballance the Judgments of all others though at least some of them not inferiour unto him either in Learning or Judgment that are otherwise minded though it is to me matter of no small Admiration that you who can with great Judgment examine other controverted Doctrines and hold fast that which is good should so do And when I find you thus partial towards this Cause you have espoused wherein I am enforced to appear in opposition to you I have some Ground to suspect that what is written by any other in opposition to what has been offered for your satisfaction or in fayour of your Cause may find that entertainment with you which otherwise should any considering what is written suppose that it would find you probably would return some such Answer as Hazael returned to Elisha 2 Kin. 8.13 And therefore I have judged it not altogether in vain herewith to present you with some brief Reflections upon a Sheet of Paper not long since published by one Mr. D'Laune making a shew of a Confutation of my Books Indeed had I not some Intimations whether my Information fail me or no I cannot certainly say as though one of no small note among you should say That Mr. D Laune bad performed his Vndertaking with a great deal of Reason or words to that effect though himself had been told and that by one of no small Judgment in this Controversy that Mr. D'Laun's Book as to me signified not two Straws I could hardly have imagined what power soever Anticipations and Prejudices may have upon the minds of Men it could have signified any more to any of you Whether it do at least deserve to signify any thing more I shall now refer to the determination of God's Vice-gerent I mean Conscience in you The Title Mr. D'Laun gives his Papers is A brief Survey and Confutation of Mr. Whiston's Books but he hath seen meet to assault only the first with the Postscript of the last and that at such a vast distance that I can hardly think setting aside what he saith to the Preface wherein the Controversy is not directly concerned and that brief Account that he gives of my Books had he not mentioned my Name that any Reader could ever imagine he had any respect to my Book yea or had ever seen or read it so far is he from a Confutation of it The whole of what he faith hardly makes fourteen Pages five and a great part of the sixth of which contains a Confutation according to his Title of my Preface and a brief Account of some part of my Book As to what he saith to my Preface of how little signification it is I shall wholly leave to your Judgments I say not that the Causes there assigned of the prevailing of your Judgments and Practice are the Causes of all their rejecting the Practice we contend for and embracing yours who do reject the one and embrace the other nor will he as I suppose engage for all of your Perswasion that the Cause of their embracing of that Perswasion is not the one or the other o the things there mentioned or if he should doubtless there are not many will believe him to have such acquaintance with the Hearts of Men as to put any value upon that engagement but suppose he could how is the Cause contended for by me prejudiced thereby And as for the Digression concerning Consequences he falls into upon occasion of the third Cause assigned by me I dare boldly say you know and cannot but acknowledg he perfectly trifles neither can I imagine any other Reason of that Digression for I suppose we are fully agreed about Consequences except it be to usher in that Argument he lays down in his third Page which he would have his Reader believe unanswerably proves that there is indeed no Birth-Holiness under the Gospel-Administration but whether it be of any more weight than if he had said There is none because there is none is left to your Judgments How absurd is it to jumble together the Covenant-Interest or Foederal Holiness of the Seed of Believers with things purely Ceremonial That all Ceremonial Differences between Meats Birds Beasts and so forth are taken away we readily grant but that the Birth-Priviledg of the Seed of Believers was ever founded in that Law we utterly deny and affirm on the other hand that it is founded in the Covenant of Grace which is one and the same in all Ages nor doth Mr. D'Laun offer the least Proof that it is otherwise So that I shall appeal unto Mr. Delaun's own Conscience whether in this Argument he did not knowingly and desinedly parasyllogize or put a Fallacy on his unwary Reader Brethren I must tell you plainly and sure you cannot but know it that such Dealings greatly reflect upon your Party they will do Men what they can beget Prejudices in their Minds they savouring so much of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostle speaks of whereby Men not only of unsound Judgments but corrupt Minds lie in wait to deceive Now then be you your selves Judges to how little purpose Mr. D'Laun has spent above one third part of his pretended Confutatio of this first Books But to come to his Confutation And thus after the afore-mentioned account he gives of my Book he thus begins pag. 6 As to Mr. Whiston's first subordinate Proposition being before rejected I say c. Mr. D'Laun here tells us he hath rejected my first Proposition but refers us not to the place where that we might see whether he hath done it upon any rational Grounds or no nor do I find where he had afore rejected it much less any Reason of his so doing As for his following Discourse that which he drives at in it
I suppose is this viz. to shew That the Covenant of Grace is such as that neither the natural Seed of Abraham or of any other believing Parents as such can have an Interest in it or Right to the Promises of it And hence he would have his Reader conclude that this my first proposition cannot be true unless supposing by Covenant I mean the Covenant of Circumcision nor can I rationally make that use of that Promise for the establishing the Practice of Infants Baptism that I do Now let us see how he hath performed his Undertaking in order whereunto I shall first pare off what is impertinent as to his present purpose seeing he is now in pretence confuting my Book and thus his whole Discourse which takes tip upward of two more of his fourteen Pages about the manner of the Covenant's Administration must be laid aside as that wherein my Book is no way concerned seeing I sufficiently declare and certainly Mr. D'Laun could not but know it that when I affirm the Infant-Seed of Abraham and of all other Believers are taken with their Parents into the Covenant I still mean the Covenant it self and not its outward Administration and then to what end and purpose he should enlarge so much upon the manner of the Covenants Administration remains with himself nothing I have said is at all concerned therein Now then take the Covenant as considered in regard of its Essence and Substance and let us see First How far Mr. De-Laun and I are agreed and we evidently agree in two things 1. That God in that Promise Gen. 17.7 intended Abraham's natural Seed That Mr. D'Laun agrees with me in this is evident for in his 12th pag. he expresly grants that if I mean the Covenant of Circumcision as it is called Acts 7.8 neither himself nor any Body else denies this my first Proposition Now I have sufficiently declared that that is the Covenant that I mean and by the Covenant of Circumcision I mean the Covenant the Sign or Token of which was Circumcision and so for ought I know doth Mr. D'Laun too I confess there is a Passage or two in his Papers that seem to intimate that by the Covenant of Circumcision he intends Circumcision it self or the Command enjoining Circumcision but his granting that if when I say that Promise of God's being a God to Abraham and his Seed respected his natural Seed I mean the Covenant of Circumcision neither he nor any Body else denies it plainly shews that he cannot so understand the Covenant of Circumcision here seeing that is a Command laid upon Abraham and his Seed and not a Promise and he cannot possibly imagine that I should have respect to that Command because I not only speak of a Promise but expresly shew that it is that very Promise v. 7. that I have reference unto so that Mr. D'Laun and I are plainly agreed in this 2. We are agreeed in this viz. Either that there are two Covenants each of which may bear the denomination of the Covenant of Grace the one absolute the other conditional or else that one and the same Covenant usually called the Covenant of Grace may be distinguished of as absolute or conditional And that we are agreed in this is evident because Mr. D'Laun having spoken of the absolute Covenant of Grace and having affirmed that this Covenant belongeth not to Infants as I am far from saying that it doth he immediatly adds The conditional Covenant of Grace if they will so call it c. It may seem he would rather have it called a mutual Covenant but we see that he plainly distinguisheth between the single or absolute Covenant which he saith was made with the Elect and the mutual or conditional Covenant which is offered to all and actually made with Believers as such So that in these two things Mr. D'L and I are agreed And if it be said wherein then lies the Differences between us I answer I conceive it lies here That whereas I affirm that this Covenant mentioned Gen. 17.7 was not only a Covenant of Grace but is the conditional Covenant of Grace under which Believers always have been and still are Mr. D'Laun either holds that it was the old Covenant which he supposeth to have been a Covenant of Works and which is said by the Apostle to be vanished away or else that it was a complicated Covenant both the Covenant of Grace and also the Covenant of Works as he calls it or the old Covenant Which Conceit supposing either Mr. D'Laun or any others have embraced it may claim the Primogeniture among all the Absurdities that have ever dropt from the Pen of any that ever communicated any thing to publick view That one and the same Promise should constitute both the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works as he must hold it of one and the same Promise viz. that mentioned in Gen. 17.7 or he speaks nothing to the purpose is so extravagantly absurd that it seems very harsh to charge any Man with it unless he had in express words affirmed it yet I much suspect it is Mr. D'Laun's Conceit as well as it was Mr. Hutchinson's before him but I shall leave Mr. D'Laun to explain his own Notions Surely he could not but know I having so expresly declared my self in that matter see Book 1. pag. 51. that both in my first Proposition and the whole use I make of that Covenant established with Abraham for the establishing the Practice of Infant-Baptism I still look upon it as the conditional Covenant of Grace or the Covenant as conditionally made Now then having seen wherein we agree let us see how substantially either this my first Proposition or the use I make of that Gen. 17.7 for the Ends mentioned is by all that Mr. D'Laun hath said confuted And in Confultationem the Sum of all he hath said amounts but to this That he himself and some others both Paedobaptists and Antipaedo-baptists have such a sence and understanding of the absolute or single Covenant of Grace as that it admits not any Infants as such to have an Interest in it But how either my Proposition or any Use I make of that Scripture should be concerned in any Man's sence or understanding of a Covenant I neither intend nor have any respect unto or at least of the Covenant of Grace as falling under another Notion than that I consider'd it under I shall leave to you and all other Men to judg and determine as you and they see meet But suppose Mr. D'Laun and those others he mentions should speak of one and the same Covenant or of the Covenant under one and the same Notion that I do what a slender Confutation of my Proposition is it to tell us that he and some others have a different understanding of that Covenant from what I have And yet this it seems must go for a Confutatio yea a rational Confutation of my Book But who knew not that
those who deny Infant-Baptism have a different sence and understanding of the Covenant of Grace than what I have before Mr. D'Laun's Papers saw the Light And if any shall say Though it is true what Mr. D'Laun here saith is no sufficient Confutation either of my first Proposition or of the Use I make of this Covenant seeing what he saith concerns a distinct Covenant or the Covenant as considered under a different Notion from that Covenant that I make use of for the establishing the Practice of Infant-Baptism or the Notion under which I consider it yet take the Covenant in that sence that I do and Mr. D'Laun when he comes to vindicate Mr. Hutchinson hath proved that it concerns not Infants So in his 18th Page and he seems to have proved it by two Reasons First Because he can find that Covenant to be no other than this that he that believes shall be saved 2dly Because the Covenant of Grace he speaks of the conditional Covenant gives what it requires and enables the Covenanters to perform the Condition required which cannot be affirmed that it doth to Infants while such In reference whereunto I shall only say that neither of these Reasons is a sufficient Proof For as for the first 1. The Fault is in Mr. D'Laune would he search the Scriptures and open his Eyes to the Light held forth from them he may easily see the Covenant as thus consider'd may yea doth take in Infants with their Parents 2. As to his other Reason It amounts to neither more nor less than if he had said The Covenant as conditional concerns not Infants because it is an absolute Covenant To say the conditional Covenant gives what it requires is of a like import as if it should be said the absolute Covenant requires Conditions But would Mr. D'Laune have attended to what I suppose he hath read he might have seen how Infants may be in the conditional Covenant and yet never be enabled to perform the Conditions of it and yet that not from any failure on God's part in his Promises See my first Book pag. 49 c. 208 c. See also my Essay pag. 88. Now then Brethren whether Mr. D'Laune hath rationally rejected my first Proposition or confuted that or the Use I make of the Covenant entred with Abraham I shall freely leave to your as well as all other Mens Judgments and proceed to his Confutation of my other two Propositions As to his pretended Confutation of my second subordinate Proposition I shall freely leave it at the Bar of your yea of all Mens Consciences to determine whether what he hath said carries the least real appearance of such a Confutation as he pretends unto Nay I dare appeal to any Man of a competent understanding whether what I have said for the proof of this second Proposition may not be much more justly accounted an Answer to and Confutation of his Suggestions than what he hath said accounted a Confutation of my Proposition Alas what hath he said for whereas I had proved this second Proposition four ways he only takes notice of the last And whereas I had quoted several Texts of Scripture from all which as compared together and mutually explaining each other I had drawn five Conclusions the three first of which I had insisted more especially upon by way of Proof as making more directly to the proof of this Proposition he wholly waves those Arguments and the Reasons by which I had confirmed them and only cites the Scriptures themselves and that without the least notice of their mutual Aspect one upon another and glosses upon them severally as he sees meet and that in a direct opposition to what I had evidenced to be the Mind of the Holy Ghost in them Indeed he sets down one of my Conclusions but how wretchedly he wrests my sence and meaning in it will appear to any that will read what be faith and turn to my first Book pag. 124. and to my Answer to Mr. Danvers pag. 113. Alas Brethren can you think your Cause can be long upheld by such shufling yea and I may say dishonest dealing But to hasten As to what Mr. D'Laun hath said either for the Confutation of this second or my third subordinate Proposition I have only this further to say My Books as well as what he hath said either in this Sheet or in his Reply to Mr. Baxter are extant and may be compared together which in case any shall neglect to do their Opposition to this part of the Counsel of God that concerns the Baptism of Infants supposing them drawn thereinto or establish'd therein by any thing Mr. D'Laun hath said will be justly charged upon themselves But to proceed and touch upon Mr. D'Laun's Vindication of Mr. Hutchinson and at the very entrance he thus expresses himself Where I shall have occasion to inlarge where it is meet by way of Vindication of Mr. Hutchinson 's Animadversions upon this I suppose it should be his second Book meaning my Answer to Mr. Danvers but the truth is he is so far from inlarging that he offers not one word or syllable by way of Vindication of his Animadversions upon that Book save only that in the Close he reflects upon not without some severity some as he judges harsh Passages used by me with respect to Mr. Danvers of which more anon and consequently has left Mr. Danvers utterly destitute of any Relief by these Animadversions What he saith to my Postscript is meerly to vindicate Mr. Hutchinson's Treatise of the Covenant from those Reasons I gave therein why I judged it utterly useless as to the Design carried on in it And how meanly he has done it too will soon appear For whereas I gave three Reasons why I judged it so as 1. Because he proceeds upon such gross Mistakes about the Ground we lay for the Covenant-Interest Church-Membership and Baptism of Infants 2. Because he assumes and takes for granted without any shew of Proof several things which he knew or might have known were denied by us 3. Because his Treatise labours under such sad Confusion and that attended with several Absurdities and Contradictions And I gave ten Instances to make good what I affirm of and charge his Treatise with in those Reasons He only singles out four of them and consequently leaves his Book justly chargeable with all those things that I assign of its Uselesness though supposing Mr. D'Laun had fully vindicated him in respect of those four Instances he takes notice of it would not be so in respect of so many as I gave And in respect of those Instances he takes notice of as for two of them he has no other way to vindicate Mr. Hutchinson but by meer falshood thus in his first and last Let what he saith pag. 15. ten first lines be compared with my Book and it will be found that in none of those Pages cited by him there is any mention of the Relation of the Infant-Seed
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.