at Corinth or any other New-Testament-Church may be so called and this I say is evident these three ways First 'T is evident from the Relation constituted between God and it as a collective Body as for Instance 1. He was a Father to it and it his Child Sometimes it is called his Son so Jer. 31.9 Hos 11.1 Sometimes his Daughter so in Psal 45.10 2. God was a Husband to that Church and it as collectively considered his Spouse Jer. 31.32 Hence the Entrance or Renovation of the Covenant between God and that Church is called her Espousals Now can it be supposed that God would take a mere Carnal Church that is a Company of ungodly and unholy Persons into such nigh Relation to himself 2dly What we affirm is evident from the special Love that God bare unto that Church She is called his Beloved Isa 5.1 Jer. 11.15 The dearly Beloved of his Soul Jer. 12.7 So how many Titles doth our Lord Christ give his Church in the Book of Canticles from which that Church cannot be excluded importing the specialty yea the strength of his Love to it 't is needless to mention them Now would an infinitely holy God bear such a Love to an unholy and ungodly Association of Men 3dly To add no more It is evident from the constant Design of all the Prophets to bring up that Church to the Power of Godliness in case of their Degeneracy therefrom But not to enlarge at present I shall only add that it seems to me to argue very low and carnal Conceptions of God and Jesus Christ to talk of his Church as being for many Generations a meer carnal Church As a Close of this we may remark how greatly Mr. C. is mistaken in his Historical Account of God's federal Transactions with Abraham In brief the History lies plainly thus When Abraham was in Vr of the Chaldees serving other Gods as Joshua speaks God of his own free Grace in a pursuance of his eternal Purposes concerning him appears to him and calls him out of his own Country to go into a Land that he would shew him and for his Encouragement so to do makes those Promises Gen. 12.2 3. whereby he prepares the Way to but doth not then enter his Covenant with him Hereupon Terah Abraham's Father takes Abraham and Lot his Grandchild by Haran and they with Abraham's Wife go into Canaan in order to their passing on unto that Land God had called Abraham unto Here they stay for some considerable Time how long we cannot determine But there Terah Abraham's Father dies after which Abraham and Lot whether upon a new Call or no is not certain come into Canaan and immediately upon their coming into that Land the Lord appears to Abraham and tells him expresly that was the Land he had promised to shew him Thus in Gen. 12.6 About nine or ten Years after this the Lord appears to him again and settles this Land upon his Posterity by Covenant yet not to be possessed by them till the fourth Generation so in Gen. 15. latter end Whether this Covenant was the same with that after established as some think I shall not determine But about fifteen Years after this when Abraham was ninety and nine Years old the Lord appears to him again and both constitutes him the Father of the Faithful and thereupon changes his Name from Abram to Abraham and now as the Father of the Faithful as well as of a natural Seed establisheth the Covenant of Grace with him and his Seed in their Generations and ordains an outward Token which he and his Seed were to keep in their Generations And then lastly about six and twenty Years after this the Lord appears to Abraham again and as before he had confirmed this Covenant in Christ more implicitely so now more expresly In thy Seed meaning principally Jesus Christ shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed Gen. 22.18 And this was the last time that we read of that God dealt with Abraham in a way of federal Transactions This being noted I return and come to the third Propsition Prop. 3. That under that Term Seed in the Promise Abraham's natural Seed namely those proceeding immediately from his own Loins were included and primarily intended This I need not insist upon having sufficiently proved it formerly See Infant Baptism from Heaven Book 1. pag. 19. to 32. Neither doth Mr. C. absolutely deny it in his 120 pag. saith he We exclude not the immediate Seed meaning of Abraham only he dissents from me in this which also some Paedo-Baptists do he thinks only Isaac was intended but that Ishmael and Abraham's other Children by Keturah were excluded Answ But be it so I see not how either the Cause of Anti paedo Baptism is much advantaged nor the Cause of Paedo-Baptism prejudiced thereby unless it could be proved therefrom that this Covenant was the old Covenant and not the Covenant of Grace which I shall not so much as suppose that Mr. C. designs Certainly to any considering Man it rather proves the quite contrary But saith Mr. C. We make a Believer's Interest in this Covenant of larger Extent than ever Abraham 's was seeing as he supposes only Isaac was a joint Confederate with Abraham but we make all the Seed of Believers Confederate with their Parents Thus p. 131. To which I answer Supposing it should be granted which yet I am far from doing that only Isaac was included with Abraham in this Covenant that would not at all weaken the claim we ground upon the Extent of this Covenant to the Covenant-Interest of all the Seed of Believers and the Reason is obvious viz. Because the Promise runs in indefinite Terms which are equivolent to universal I will be a God to thee and thy Seed in their Generations Now supposing we are to understand that Phrase in their Generations as extending the Covenant to and taking in the natural Seed of Abraham's Seed viz. Believers as I have elsewhere proved that we are to do and of which more immediately Hence tho God who knew his own Eternal Decrees should have for some special Reasons by express Revelation excluded all Abraham's immediate Children excepting Isaac from an Interest in the Promises and done the like also in respect of Isaac's Children yet after when no such exclusion was made by any immediate Revelation from God the Promise was and is to be understood in the full Latitude in which it is exprest and answerably it so was understood in all succeeding Generations God may exclude whom he will from his Promises by immediate Revelation but when no such Revelation is made we are to interpret the Promise and Practice thereupon according to the true and proper Sence of the Terms it is expressed in But. 2. I absolutely deny that God did then exclude either Ishmael or any other of Abraham's immediate Children and affirm on the other hand that they were all one as well as another included and intended in that
Covenant of Grace was not entred with him it may seem that Abraham was not constituted in that Relation till the Change of his Name Gen. 17.5 However this is certain he was not to be looked upon in that Relation till after those noble Acts of his Faith of which we have an account Gen. 15.6 seeing the Apostle expresly tells us he put forth those Acts of Faith That he might become the Father of many Nations Rom. 4.18 plainly implying he was not so before Indeed in that Gen. 12. God intimated to him that he should be for the future constituted in that Relation but doth not then actually constitute him in it but now I say the Covenant of Grace was made with him as the Father of the Faithful so that at this Transaction God neither did nor could enter the Covenant of Grace with him But let us see what Mr. Cox hath said in Confirmation of his Affirmation viz. That God in this Transaction with Abraham Gen. 12. did enter or make the Covenant of Grace with him and all that I can find is only this viz. That the Covenant of Grace was as the Apostle tells us Gal. 3.17 Confirmed of God in Christ 430 Years before the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai Now saith he from the giving of that first Promise to Abraham recorded Gen. 12.2 3. unto that very Night in which the Children of Israel were delivered out of their Egyptian Bondage is the Computation of those Years to be made which he thinks will be evident to any that shall diligently compare the Chronology of those times with the express Testimony of Moses Exod. 12.41 Now to this I shall say in the general that had Mr. C. given us an exact Computation of the Chronologies of those times it might have given some more light into this matter but that I suppose he knew would be a matter of no small difficulty to do I remember what Illyricus saith Ab hoc tempore meaning the time of Jacob's Death * Illyricus de Ratione Lib 4. p. 52. Seriem annorum non possumus pari facilitate deducere And he gives this reason for it Nam Geneologiae haud quaquam eadem ratione pertaxuntur in Aegypto qua hactenus factum est so that how evident soever Mr. Cox supposes it will be yet this learned Man was of another mind but more particularly I shall offer these few things to consideration 1. That it is very uncertain where to fix the Epocha of these four hundred and thirty Years mentioned by Moses and after him by the Apostle There needs no other Proof of this then the Disagreement and sharp Contests found amongst Interpreters and Chronologers about it vix duo hactenus inter se conveniunt saith Pareus I suppose Mr. C. is not ignorant of what he hath said to prove that these Years must necessarily be reckoned from the Establishment of that Covenant Gen. 15.18 which he takes to be the same with that Gen. 17. I shall not determine only this I shall say the uncertainty is so great as that no Argument can be taken therefrom to prove that the Promise or Covenant the Apostle hath reference unto is that mentioned Gen. 12. 2. That it is utterly improbable that these 430 Years do if not absolutely certain that they do not bear Date from the giving of those Promises Gen. 12. unto Abraham for let but these three things be considered 1. That there is a probability at least that those 400 Years mentioned Gen. 15.13 and those 430 Years mentioned by Moses and by the Apostle intend one and the same number of Years both Pareus and many other Interpreters conclude and answerably must begin end at the same times the thirty odd Years not being at first mentioned tho after when there is a more exact account of the time of the Israelites abode in Egypt including their Peregrination in Canaan is given they are exprest Now it is agreed on by many if not by most that those 400 Years bean either at the Birth of Isaac or at Ishmael's mocking of him and that they must begin at the one or the other of those times seems evident because the Predictions expresly concern Abraham's Seed and not Abraham himself the Words are Know of a Surety that thy Seed shall be a stranger in the Land that is not theirs So that supposing these distinct Numbers viz. 400 and 430. intend as to their beginning and ending one and the same Period of time they must at least publickly be dated either at Isaac's Birth or Ishmael's Persecuting as the Apostle interprets his mocking of him 2. Suppose the 430 Years must begin 30 Years before the 400 yet this 430 Years must be dated at if not after Abraham's coming into the Land of Canaan this is not only expresly affired by the 70 Translaters in their Version of that Exod. 12.40 but is necessarily implied in the Text for so the Words run And the sojourning of the Children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 Years It is not said indeed they did sojourn so long in Egypt but their sojourning was so long Now they cannot possibly be said to sojourn in Canaan before Abraham come into it and that of their sojourning in that Land and in Egypt the Text there speaks I conceive is agreed on by all whence it appears that those 430 Years must necessarily begin after Abraham's coming into Canaan Hence 3. That those Promises Gen. 12.2 3. were gien to Abraham sometime how long is hard to determine before he came into Canaan they were given him while in Vr of the Caldeans after which he dwelt sometime in Charran yea and a considerable time as appears Gen. 12.5 Now should we date these Years intervening between the giving of those Promises and the coming of the Children of Israel out of Egypt they would amount to many more than 430 seeing as all agree yea Mr. Cox himself affirms there past exactly so many Years from Abraham's coming into Canaan unto the Children of Israel's going out of Egypt From the whole it is if not absolutely certain yet exceeding probable That that cannot be the Promise or Covenant from the giving of which to the giving of the Law there are said to be 430 Years it may rather seem it was that Promise mentioned Gen 12. v. 6. But 4. Suppose which yet I grant not that the 430 Years are to be reckoned from God's giving those Promises 12. Gen. 2 3. Yet it cannot be from thence concluded that the Covenant of Grace was then or in them established with Abraham Mr. Cox himself grants that the Covenant of Circumcision as he callâ— â—t viz. that Covenant mentioned Gen. 17.7 which they take to be the old Covenant but we affirm to be the Covenant of Grace was not perfected at one Transaction nor all the Promises of it made to Ahraham at one time and this I shall readily grant that God in making those Promises Gen. 12. did begin to
have a being in his own Imagination and none in the Scriptures Hence the avoiding or not avoiding of Confusion or entanglements in our conceptions of them is of no concern as to the Controversy under debate but having thus exprest himself he immediately subjoins Neither can I see any reason for an assignment of Covenant-Interest in all Spiritual Blessings typified as well as in the Temporal that were the Types of them to the carnal Seed and yet not to admit the coveyance of the same Covenant to hold good in point of Temporal Blessings to the Spiritual Seed seeing as some conceive both are directly included in the same Covenant and the Promise of both was sealed with the same Seal Now tho Mr. C. express himself somewhat odly and obscurely yet as his Design is or at least seems to be to disprove our Assertion viz. That this Covenant is the Covenant of Grace and by Consequence to establish his own Supposition viz. That it was the old Covenant so he seems to reason thus Seeing we affirm that this is the Covenant of Grace and answerably that it did convey both the Temporal Blessings to Abraham's Natural Seed as Types and also the Spiritual Blessings typified by them so now under the New Testament it must convey Temporal Blessings as the Type as well as the Spiritual Blessings typified by them to his Spiritual Seed To which I answer How far the Covenant did extend to Abraham's Natural Seed and how far or to whom of them it did convey either Temporal or Spiritual Blessings meerly as such hath been elsewhere declared and is unnecessary here to be repeated at present as previous to the discovery of the frivolousness of this Reasoning I shall only say that it might have been of some use had our Author shewed us what Temporal Blessings he means which as Types of Spiritual Blessings were conveyed to Abraham's Natural Seed By this Covenant he seems to distinguish them from the Land of Canaan but now certainly he cannot but know that the only Temporal Blessing that we affirm was conveyed to Abraham's Natural Seed by this Covenant as a Type of any Spiritual Blessing was the Land of Canaan it self Whence the only scruple that can arise from what we affirm is this viz. How the Promise of the Land of Canaan could convey both a Temporal Blessing viz. that Land it self as a â—ype of a Spiritual Blessing and the Spiritual Blessing typified by it to Abraham's Natural Seed and yet only conveyed the Spiritual Blessing typified to his Spiritual Seed And the only Reason that Mr. C. assigns why this cannot be is this because he cannot see any Reason why under the first Testament both a Temporal Blessing as a Type and the Spiritual Blessing typified should be conveyed to Abraham's Natural Seed and yet only the Spiritual Blessing typified should be conveyed to his Spiritual Seed seeing both are directly included in the same Covenant and the Promise of both sealed with the same Seal To which I shall say three things First That it is no Reason to prove that such a thing cannot be because one Man cannot see any Reason why it should be Secondly That whether any Reasoncan be seen by him or any body else or no yet it is certain it hath been so and that from the very first establishment of the Covenant with Abraham to this very day this Promise hath coveyed to very many the Spiritual Blessings typified when yet it hath not conveyed to them any Interest in or Right to the temporal Blessing as the Type It did so to Abraham himself and it did so to many of his Children That it did convey the spiritual Blessing typified to Abraham himself is evident from that of the Apostle in Heb. 11.10 By virtue of what Promise did Abraham look for that City if not by virtue of this And yet it did not convey unto him the Land of Canaan it self no not so much of it as whereon to set his Feet as Stephen speaks And that it did alike convey the â—piritual Blessing to many of his spiritual Seed under the First Testament who had no Interest in that Land is alike evident Witness all those of Abraham's natural Seed that were also his spiritual Seed antecedent to their actual Possession of that Land So witness all the sincere Proselytes that joined themselves to the Lord during the standing of the Jewish Church they had a Right to the spiritual Blessing typified and that by virtue of this very Promise and yet no Possession no not so much as whereon to set their Feet as it is said of Abraham in the Land of Canaan and why should any question how this can be under the New Testament which was so common under the Old is unaccountable as to me Thirdly The plain Reason of this Assignment of Covenant-Interest in Spiritual Blessings typified by the Land of Canaan as well as in that Temporal Blessing as a Type unto Abraham's Natural Seed and yet of Covenant-Interest only in the Spiritual Blessing typified to his Spiritual Seed so far as such an Assignment was to be made is because it was the Will and Pleasure of God that the Natural Seed should enjoy both the Temporal and the Spiritual Blessings but that his Spiritual Seed should only enjoy the Spiritual Blessings and not the Temporal God as I may so speak first gave the good of the Covenant in the Shell but after gives the Kernal without the Shell and no other Reason is to be assigned hereof but his meer Will and Pleasure But however this is enough for us to prove that in this Promise of Canaan there was included a Spiritual Good viz. Heaven as typified by that Land and that that Promise does still convey an Interest in that Spiritual Good to all Abraham's Spiritual Seed if any shall judg themselves to have sufficient ground still to lay claim to the Temporal Good as the Type they shall not be opposed by me Now that that Promise did imply or include a Spiritual Good is evident by Abraham's looking for a City that hath Foundations by virtue of it Mr. C. himself I suppose will readily grant this and that this Promise doth convey the same Spiritual Good to all his Spiritual Seed is evident from this Covenant its having received its confirmation in Christ and consequently its being not disannuled and the promise thereof unrevoked and consequently applicable to all the Spiritual Seed of Abraham only let this one thing be added that it is not unusual for the Prophets and holy Men of God to promise spiritual Things in terms that according to the letter only intend a temporal good when yet those to whom the Promise does appertain can only lay claim to the spiritual good typified and not to the temporal tipifying take only that one instance Isa 57.13 He that putteth his trust in me they are the words of the Lord by the Prophet shall possess the Land and shall inherit my holy
Term Seed And this I have as I conceive undeniably proved in the place before referred unto It is true Mr. C. hath seen meet to call those Arguments Conjectures To which I shall only say if he sees meet to engage any further in this Controversy will he but shew their invalidity let them then bear that Denomination till then I shall presume to call them irrfragable Arguments But let us see what ground Mr. C. has to suppose the Promises were limited to Isaac and it is this Their Extent saith he was restrained by the express Caution of God himself referring us to Gen. 17.19 20 21. with Gen. 21.12 To this I answer That the one or the other of these Scriptures are far from restraining the Promises at the first making of them to Isaac alone See Infant Baptism from Heaven Book 1. p. 37. The Lord doth not say that he had established his Covenant only with Isaac indeed Isaac was not then born nor doth he say that when he promised to be a God to Abraham and his Seed he only intended Isaac but he speaks with reference to the Time future I will establish my Covenant with him speaking of Isaac for an everlasting Covenant So In Isaac thy Seed shall be called The plain meaning is that this Covenant should be and we may add should only be continued in Isaac's Line who was made subordinately a Father of the Faithful with Abraham And as these Texts will bear this Sence Vid. Rivet Vitab Calv. in loc so the Arguments referred unto do evidently prove they must be so understood And therefore till those Arguments are better answered than by an insipid Insinuation that they are but Conjectures I shall surcease any further reply and conclude that altho the Covenant was continued only in isaac's Line yet at the first Establishment of it it did include all Abraham's natural Seed immediately proceeding from him And proceed to the last Proposition which is this Prop. 4. That this Covenant with the Promises of it considered definitely did extend to and include only Abraham's immediate Seed The meaning of this Proposition is this that as this Covenant did only constitute an actual Covenant-Relation between God and Abraham and his Children immediately descending from him with such others as were so incorporated into his Family as that they were properly his own and he had a full Right and Power to dispose of them as his own So the Promises of it did only appertain to them so as that they severally and particularly considered had a present actual Right to and could make for themselves a particular Claim to the Good promised I easily grant that the Promises of this Covenant had a more general respect to Abraham's natural Seed in after-Generations but I say it did not constitute an actual Covenant-Relation between God and any of them in particular beyond those immediately descended from him so as they merely as his Seed had a present actual Right to the Good contained in the Promises of it This I have proved by six Arguments See Infant Baptism plainly proved pag. 19. to the 26. But Mr. Cox over-looking all those Arguments and thereby leaving his Reader at an uncertainty whether they are demonstrative or no hath asserted the quite contrary so pag. 117. His Words are The immediate and remote Seed of that Line to which the Promises of the Covenant of Circumcision did belong were as fully included and interested in them as the immediate Seed Yet whether he do differ from me so much as his Words seem to import to me is utterly uncertain His Words seem plainly to assert That the Promises of the Covenant did equally and alike appertain to all Abraham's natural Posterity descended in the Line of Isaac and Jacob and that when adult as well as while in their Infancy as they did to his Seed immediately descended from his own Loins And yeet elsewhere he seemeth to hold that this Covenant was a conditional Covenant which if so it is impossible the Promises of it should appertain to any of Abraham's natural Posterity beyond their pure Infant-State merely as his Seed So that how far Mr. C. agrees and how far he differs from me I cannot positively determine and therefore shall only say in the general in case he thinks all the mediate and remote Seed of Abraham and that when grown up as well as during their Infant-State where as fully included and interested in the Promises of this Covenant as his immediate Seed were I shall refer him to the Arguments already offered to prove the contrary judging it utterly unnecessary to add any more till those are satisfactorily answered But if he thinks it was only during their Infant-state that they were as fully included and interested in the Promises as Isacc was I would over and above those Arguments desire him seriously to consider to what end or purpose that Covenant suppose it were as he fancies it was the Old Covenant should be extended so as to include all yea or any of Abraham's remote Posterity Alas What was the Good or Benefit they enjoyed thereby especially such as died in their Infancy or were born in any Forreign Land I judg he will not be able to assign any such Good or Benefit as that himself will think God would lay in all his Divine Perfections as Pledges that the Promises of it should not fail on his part But however let us see what he hath faid in Confirmation of this his Assertion And thus 1. He thinks the Truth of it sufficiently appears in the express Terms of the Promises so in the Page last cited Yea he thinks and is bold to say that in special this Phrase Thy Seed in their Generations will admit no other Sense To which I shall say He knows there is another Sense given of that Phrase which he hath not made any Attempt to disprove nor shew why it may not be admitted as well as this himself gives yea he knows that it is by several Arguments proved that it cannot possibly admit of the Sense now given of it by him And therefore instead of any other Answer to this I shall only say That such Confidence without any Ground as far as yet appears to me is unaccountable But 2. He attempts to prove his Assertion by this Reason viz. Because the immediate Seed of those Israelites that fell in the Wilderness under the Displeasure of God were made to inherit the Land of Canaan by virtue of this Covenant with Abraham who otherwise could never have enjoyed it by virtue of the Stedfastness of their immediate Parents in the Covenant To which I say three things 1. Should I deny that there were any such Infants whose Parents at least both of them fell in the Wilderness who were made to inherit the Land of Canaan He would I judg find it a hard Task to prove that there were any such and then this Reason immediately falls to the Ground 2. Suppose there
embrace it Hence Mens proneness to Errour so fully appearing in that Instance of the Galatians I may and answerably shall with more brevity pass over the other Instances designed more especially to illustrate and set forth the strangeness of Mens tenaciousness of Errour when taken up and embraced by them It is not unworthy our Observation that the Holy Ghost speaks of Men as holding Errour or Deceit in their right Hand Isa 44.20 Truth is too often held as in the left Hand but a Lye in the Right which implies Mens tenaciousness of it What we would do most surely and effectually we do it with our right Hand therefore Deborah commands Jael that She put her Hand to the Nails her right Hand to the Workmens Hammer Judg. 5.26 implying her purpose to make sure work of it So it is one of the Royal Titles of God that He saves with his right Hand them that trust in him Psal 17.7 He is the Saviour of all Men yea he saves Man and Beast as the Psalmist speaks but he saves others so to speak with his left Hand but he saves those that Trust in him with his right Hand i. e. he saves them effectually So when the Holy Ghost speaks of Men as having Errour Deceit or a Lye in their right Hand it strongly implies their tenaciousness of it But to come to our Instance and to pass by the various Errours held by the Jews as concerning the Person Office and Works of the Messiaeh c. which how tenaciously they have hitherto held and yet do hold is obvious unto all that know any thing of them I shall only single out this Errour viz. That they being the seed of Abraham could not be cast off from being the People of God nor disinherited of the Promises made to Abraham with reference to his Seed without a failure on Gods part in keeping Covenant and making good his Promises This was the Errour they had taken up and how strangely tenacious they hitherto have and still do hold it When this Errour was first taken up and entertained by them is hard to determine but it seems plainly to have prevailed in Ezekiel's time hence say they Ezek. 33.24 Abraham was one and he inherited the Land but we are many the Land is given us for Inheritance Whether they say this as reflecting upon the Faithfulness of God in suffering so many of them to be carried away Captive into Babylon as then there were or as promising to themselves who yet were in the Land a Continuance therein with the speedy return of those that were carried away I shall not determine however they seem to have reference to that Promise Gen. 17.8 made unto Abraham and his Seed The Gift made by that Promise with others of the same Import they seem plainly to have an Eye unto and having the Land given them by that Promise they suppose they could not be disinherited of it without a failure on God's part But whenever this Errour was taken up by them it sufficiently appears by the variety of Endeavours successfully used for their Conviction they were ever after most strangely tenacious of it Which that we may the more plainly see let us consider both the Persons endeavouring their Conviction as also the Way and Manner how they did endeavour it 1. For the Persons endeavouring their Conviction and these were more especially these four 1. The Prophet Ezekiel 2. John Baptist 3. Our Lord Christ 4. The Apostle Paul Now both Ezekiel and John Baptist the former by all of them universally the latter by the major part of them were acknowledged to be Prophets sent from God Hence Ezekiel's Prophecy was put and always hath been and still is by the Jews as well as Christians in the Reckoning among those Books or Writings that are of Divine Inspiration And as for John Baptist when our Lord Christ demands of the Chief Priests and Elders Whether his Baptism was from Heaven or of Men they durst not deny it to be from Heaven and that for this very Reason as themselves declare Because all Men held John as a Prophet Mat. 21.25 26. and probably themselves were convinced that he was so And as for both our Lord Christ and the Apostle Paul tho they denied the former to be the Messiah and the latter to have received his Doctrine from Heaven yet what Evidence they had of the Truth of both the History of the New Testament fully declares Indeed it may seem that one main reason of their denying Jesus Christ to be the Messiah and the Apostle to have received his Doctrine from Heaven was their opposing and endeavouring to convince them of that Errour as appears from that John 8. from ver 33. to 46. compared with Acts 13.38 39 40 and ver 50. Rather than they would let go this Errour they would reject both our Lord Christ and his Apostles how plain and convincing soever the Evidence given of the ones being the true Messiah and the others being inspired of God himself was But 2. For the Way and Manner of their respective endeavouring the Jews Conviction of this Errour They did not indeed all proceed in the same Way and after the same Manner but take what was said by them all in pursuance of this Design and it was sufficient for their Conviction had they been only Teachers among them and not either extraordinary Prophets or immediately sent from God and inspired by him as they were 1. For Ezekiel As he only endeavoured to convince them of the Vanity and Unreasonableness of expecting the good of Promises in particular that of Canaan upon the meer account of their Relation to Abraham as his Seed while themselves were Apostatized from God so far as then they were so he onlyappeals to their own Reason and Consciences thus Ezek. 33.25 26. If you saith he do thus and thus sin thus and thus against God shall ye possess the Land as if he should say be you your selves your own Judges can you imagine that while you are Apostatized from God and live in Ways of Sin against him that you should have the Promises made good unto you your own Reason and Consciences may they be but attended unto will convince you of the vanity and unreasonableness of such expectations and by thus appealing to their own Reasons and Consciences as to the vanity and unreasonableness of this their expectation he doth implicitely assert the like vanity and unreasonableness of their expecting that God should continue to be their God and owning them to be his People in case of their total and absolute Apostacy from him Seeing tho it 's possible that the Condition of some particular Promise may not be performed as consequently the good promised forfeited when yet the Covenant in the general is not broken yet if Men by failing in the Condition of a particular Promise do forfeit the Good promised then by failing in the Condition of the Covenant in an absolute Sense they would
forfeit their Covenant-Interest So that the Prophet evincing the unreasonableness of their expecting their continued Possession of the Land of Canaan while they were Apostatized from God notwithstanding their Relation unto Abraham doth implicitely evince the unreasonableness of their expecting that God should continue to be a God unto them and own them for his People and by consequence the justness and reasonableness of their total rejection by God notwithstanding their natural descent from Abraham in case of an absolute and total Apostacy from him So that would but the Jews have acted according to the principles of Reason which Nature hath furnished them withal and would they but have attended to the Light of their own Consciences this Errour would have been nipped in the very first budding of it forth but notwithstanding all the Prophet can say yet they hold it fast Hence 2. No sooner doth John Baptist enter upon his Ministry but he finds it necessary again to endeavour their conviction of the same Errour and both John Baptist our Lord Christ and the Apostle Paul arise higher and endeavour to convince them of the unreasonableness of their expecting that God should continue to be their God and to own them as his People and consequently the justness of their rejection by God in case of their total Apostacy from and rejection of him as they would do and did by their rejecting of Jesus Christ And as for John Baptist as he only implicitely asserts that in case of their rejection of Jesus Christ the true Messiah then ready to be revealed and continuing in their Impenitency God would cast them off from being his People yea would consume them with the Fire of his Judgments and at last cast them into everlasting Burnings and answers an Objection he foresaw they would make against God's so dealing with them thus Mat. 3.9 10. Think not to say says John Baptist within your selves we have Abraham to be our Father c. As if he should say your natural Relation unto Abraham as his Seed will not avail in case of your Unbelief and Impenitency notwithstanding that Relation you may yea continuing in your Impenitency you will be rejected of God and consumed by his Wrath. Now the Objection that John foresaw they would make was this viz. That in case any were Rejected then the Promise made to Abraham would fail God had promised to be a God to him and his Seed in their Generations and the Covenant wherein this Promise is contained is an everlasting Covenant which supposes that Abraham should have a Seed throughout all Generations now they say within themselves in case we are cast off and thus dealt withal where shall Abraham have a Seed And if his Seed fail the Promise must also necessarily-fail Now to this John answers That God was able of those very Stones to raise up a Seed unto Abraham Abraham should have a Seed to whom the Promises should be made good though themselves were rejected and destroyed but notwithstanding what John can say yet they still hold fast their Deceit Hence 3. Our Lord Christ himself further pursues this Design of their Conviction Now our Lord Christ speaks more home and full to their Conviction and he not only implies their Rejection by God so as no longer to be accounted either his Servants or Children but proves the Dueness and justness of that their Rejection and that by a double Argument The 1. Is taken from the State they had put themselves into viz. a State of Servitude They were but Servants to another Master viz. Sin So he tells them John 8.34 that Whosoever committeth Sin is a Servant of Sin and then tells them in v. 35. The Servant abideth not in the House for ever but the Son abideth for ever that is only proper to the Son plainly implying that they however naturally descended from Abraham yet being now become the Servants of Sin should as justly they might be rejected or cast out of the House that is the Church of God and consequently be rejected of him from being his People They having cast off God from being their Master and subjected themselves unto another Master it was but just and equal that God should as now he would cast them out of his House and consequently from being his Servants or People 2. He argues it from the Relation they put themselves into to the Devil by doing his Works and hereby had cut off their Spiritual Relation unto Abraham as his Seed according to the true import and intendment of that term Seed in the Covenant Hence he tells them ver 39. That if they were Abraham's Seed that is his Spiritual Seed they would do the Works of Abraham but that they not doing they ceased to be his Seed or Children Thus our Lord Christ tells them ver 44. Ye are the Children of the Devil And how just and equal was it that they having cut off their Relation to Abraham as his Seed and become the Children of the Devil they should be cast off by God from being any longer his People So that our Lord Christ evinces according to the Principles of Reason the justness of their Rejection from being the People Servants or Children of God notwithstanding the continuance of their natural Relation to Abraham but yet they hold fast their former Deceit Hence Lastly The Apostle Paul further endeavours their Conviction and he doth it by implicitely asserting not only a possibility that they might be but that de facto some yea many of them were actually rejected of God from being his People and by vindicating the Faithfulness of God in his Covenant and Promises notwithstanding that their Rejection He vindicates the Faithfulness of God by distinguishing of Abraham's Seed and shewing they were either Natural or Spiritual now he shews that all tho some of Abraham's Natural Seed viz. those that descended immediately from his Loins and that in their pure infant State were under the Covenant and Promises of it as his Seed yet neither they when grown up nor any others in after-Ages could either for themselves or theirs lay any just claim thereunto meerly on the account of their natural descent from Abraham without a personal Acceptation of the Covenant and performing the Conditions of it and thereby becoming his Spiritual Seed And hence he infers That God might be and was faithful to his Covenant and Promises though they were rejected by him And yet there is one thing more in respect of those that have survived their dispersion by the Romans and that is God's actual Rejection of them his actual Rejection of them is an undeniable Evidence of the falsity of that Notion which they had entertained and embraced but yet notwithstanding all they still hold fast that their Deceit and will needs suppose themselves the only People of God to this very day Now from the whole of what hath been said we may see how strangely tenacious the Jews have been and still are of this
were any such Infants as he speaks of yet it 's unimaginable that they should be left to the wide World and should not be taken up and incorporated into some other Family But 3. Suppose we should grant they were not incorporared into any other Family but were carried into Canaan by some body whose Children either as descended from or adopted by them they could not be accounted to be yet they might have a Right to the Land of Canaan by virtue of their own immediate Parents Interests though not Stedfastness in the Covenant I suppose Mr. Cox will not imagin that all that fell in the Wilderness under the Displeasure of God did forfeit their Covenant-state So that it must be said that this is a very feeble yea reasonless Reason to prove that Abraham's Covenant did extend to and include his remote as well as his immediate Seed 3. Mr. Cox hath one Reason more viz. Because when the Israelites fell into gross Idolatry yet God claims an Interest in their Children which he supposes must needs be by virtue of this Covenant made with Abraham because he thinks it will not be denied but gross Idolatry was a manifest Breach of the Covenant so pag. 118 To which I answer That tho it be not denied that gross Idolatry is a manifest Breach of the Covenant yet all gross Idolatry doth not immediately dissolve the Covenant-Relation between God and his People Adultery and Murder are as manifest Breaches of the Covenant as Idolatry and yet David's Sins of that nature did not dissolve the Covenant-Relation between God and him God always doth but in those times more especially did bear with his People for a while in their Sins tho very gross using the means to bring them to Repentance and that was the Case of the People of Israel at the time referred unto by Mr. Cox God was then dealing with them by his Prophets to bring them to Repentance and designed to try another Means viz. by delivering them into the hands of the Babylonians which did effectually reduce them from that Sin so that notwithstanding their Idolatry God did yet own them for his Covenant-People and answerably might and did claim an Interest in their Children not by virtue of their Relation to Abraham but as the Children of the Covenant tho greatly degenerate Parents But now after when through Unbelief their Covenant-Relation was dissolved God cast off both Parents and Children As for what is added out of the Apochrypha in Confirmation of this Reason its Insignificancy excuses from any Consideration of it He needed not to have shewn us the Sense of the Jews concerning the Covenant-Interest of Parents or Children out of the Apochrypha the Holy Scriptures fully declare and confute their gross Mistakes about it But the Frivolousness of our Author's Reasons being detected I shall at least till the Invalidity of the Arguments I have urged be shown which I expect ad Graecas Calendas conclude that whatever the Sense of the Jews or any others that espouse their Defence was or is yet indeed that Covenant established with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations did as the Pomises of it are to be understood definitely only reach to and include Abraham's immediate Seed and shall add that in the same Latitude and with the some Limitations it hath always been and still is continued to his Spiritual Seed 't is entered with them and their Natural Seed immediately proceeding from their own Loins yet not as tho they were coordinate Parents of the Faithful with Abraham but as Abraham's Seed have Abraham's Blessing come upon them through Jesus Christ I have only one more Paragraph in Mr. Cox's Discourse to reflect upon and that is in his pag. 85. Where he deduces this Corollary from what he said concerning that Transaction of God with Abraham recorded Gen. 12.2 3. wherein he fancies the Covenant of Grace was entered with him Now tho having before proved that no Covenant and consequently not the Covenant of Grace was then entred with him his Corollaries can be look'd upon but as meer Impertinencies yet because what I have elsewhere affirmed is concerned in what he there saith I shall briefly reflect upon that Paragraph And he thus expresses himself That the proper Heirs of this Blessing of Abraham have a Right not only in some but in all the Promises of the New-Covenant and that not in a limited Sense and as suspended on uncertain Conditions but in a full Sense c. Now to this I shall only say that as the Inference is impertinent so the things inferred seem to be very unsound and of a dangerous Consequence to the Souls of Men. I say they seem to be so because I know not how he will interpret those two Expressions A Right in all the Promises of the New Covenant and suspended on uncertain Conditions And therefore shall only desire Mr. Cox to review and seriously consider whether what he here says be consistent with Truth or with what himself hath elsewhere affirmed in particular in his 5th so 142 143 144 Pages and shall go on And Mr. C. having added somewhat in Confirmation of this Inference he adds the Limitation therefore of a New Covenant-Interest to the Grant of an external and temporary Priviledg only I conceive it to be utterly inconsistent with the Promises of the Covenant it self citing Isa 54.13 and 29.21 Jer. 31.33 34. Ezek. 36.26 27. with Heb. 8. In this Mr. Cox and I differ not as to the thing it self tho I conceive such a Limitation of a New-Covenant-Interest as he speaks of is no way inconsistent with those Promises But to come to that wherein I am peculiarly concerned and thus he adds Neither will these Texts admit of another Notion of late insisted on for the Commendation of Paedo-Baptism Here I suppose Mr. Cox hath a direct respect unto me and therefore it 's necessary that I should briefly take notice of what he hath said And this I would in passage remark how far Mr. C. will extend that Expression of late I know not but if he thinks this is a new Notion started by me it argues him to be but little acquainted with this â—ontroversy But for the Notion it self and that is That the Infant-seed of Believers have all of them a certain and definite Interest in the Covenant of Grace by virtue of which they are compleatly justified before God from the Guilt of Original Sin both Origans Originatum and yet not having their Natures renewed they may after fall away This Mr. Cox thinks inconsistent with those Texts before mentioned but whether it be so or no I shall refer him with all others to what I have written once and again to shew its consistency with them Only let it be observed that I say not they are compleatly justified before God only I say they are discharged or freed from the Guilt of Original Sin and that as the necessary result of the change of their States See