at all of Abraham's Seed as such but of Isaac's and besides 't is not said to thy Seed but it is spoken of or concerning his Seed But now I say the Apostle must needs refer to and intend some promise wherein this very phrase to thy Seed is expresly used The strength of this Argument as I have said lying in the manner of expression there being a mystery in that phrase implying that the blessing of Abraham should not be enjoyed by all that might lay claim to this relation to Abraham as his Seed but by his Seed which were of the faith as the Apostle explains it Rom. 4.13 Secondly That the blessing said to be come come upon the Gentiles through Christ is that blessing contained in that promise of the Covenant is evident from verse 29 where saith the Apostle If ye be Christs then are ye Abraham 's Seed and heirs according to promise Heirs of what Why verse 14 tells us of the blessing of Abraham But heirs according to what promise Why verse 16. tells us that promise made to the Seed of Abraham Now how could they be heirs of that blessing according to or by vertue of that promise unless the blessing they were heirs unto were the blessing or good contained in that promise Can any be heirs to a blessing according to or by vertue of that promise in which that blessing is not contained Or can a promise convey a right to that good which is not contained in it who can imagine it Therefore doubtless the blessing must needs be the blessing contained in that promise made to Abraham and his Seed in their generations Thirdly That the blessing of Abraham said to be come upon believing Gentiles through Christ is the blessing contained in that promise is evident from verse 9 where it is said they that are of the faith are blessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with faithful Abraham that is blessed with the same blessing that Abraham was blessed with Now there is no blessing that Abraham was blessed with that can possibly come upon the Gentiles but only the blessing contained in this promise and therefore that must needs be the blessing here intended But three things will be objected against our taking this Scripture as an express settlement of Abraham's blessing as it consisted in that promise of God being a God to him and his Seed upon believing Gentiles First It will be objected That this blessing is not meant of that blessing with which Abraham himself was blessed but of that blessing promised to him with reference to his Seed which was that God would be a God to them as he was to Abraham himself To this I answer It is all one whether we understand it of the blessing promised to Abraham with reference to himself or with reference to his Seed in as much as the Promise made to Abraham himself and that made to him with reference to his Seed is one and the same What God promised to Abraham viz. That he would be a God to him and his natural Seed that he promised to his Seed viz. to be a God to them in their generations that is as before explained to them and their Seed and besides taking it so the promise to Abraham's natural Seed was to them in their generations And in like manner as the Apostle here affirms it runs to believing Gentiles viz. to them in their generations including Parents and Children But if we compare this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the blessing of Abraham with verse 9. it is evident it was the blessing wherewith Abraham himself was blessed the blessing of Abraham according to the propriety of the phrase properly signifies the blessing that Abraham himself injoy'd and to be blessed with Abraham to enjoy his blessing and to inherit the good promised to him with reference to his Seed intends in the language and disputation of the Apostle one and the same thing an undeniable evidence that the promise as made to Abraham with reference to his Seed contained the very same good it contained as made to Abraham himself the Father of that Seed Now to him it was to him and his Seed that is his natural Seed and therefore it is the same to his Seed to them and their natural Seed or which is all one to them in their generations Secondly It will be objected That this blessing is not meant of a relative good consisting in a Covenant-relation between God and Abraham and his Seed but is meant of these spiritual blessings of Reconciliation Justification Adoption and Eternal Life vouchsafed to Abraham as personally considered and 't is granted that Abraham's blessing consisting of these spiritual blessings is come upon believing Gentiles through Christ But what is this to that promise made to Abraham concerning Gods being a God to him and his Seed in their generations constituting an external Covenant-relation between God and them To this I answer This Objection will be obviated by the second thing proposed for the clearing up of the settlement made of Abraham's blessing upon believing Gentiles by the express letter of this Scripture and therefore I shall only say thus much at present that it is granted the spiritual benefits or blessings now mentioned were included in this blessing said here to be come upon the Gentiles through Christ yet not exclusive of that relative good of a Covenant state and relation between God and Abraham and his Seed but that is the first and primary good intended and that which is the foundation of all the rest and in which they are all vertually included Thirdly It will be further objected That the blessing here said to be come upon the Gentiles through Christ is not that blessing wherewith Abraham himself was blessed but that blessing promised to the Nations in him and consequently the Apostle intends not the blessing contained in that promise of the Covenant mentioned in that Gen. 17.7 but that blessing spoken of Gen. 12.3 where God Promises unto Abraham that in him all the Nations of the earth should be blessed and that the Apostle intends it of that blehng contained in that promise and not of that blessing contained in that Gen. 17. appears from verse the eighth of this third of Galatians To this I answer two things First That though I freely grant that this blessing said by our Apostle to be come upon the Gentiles be that blessing with which 't was promised to Abraham That the Nations should be blessed in him yet it will not follow that it is not the blessing or good contained in that grand promise of the Covenant yea that it is the blessing contained in that grand promise of the Covenant is abundantly proved from what hath been already spoken And therefore Secondly I answer That that blessing with which God promised so to bless the Nations in Abraham is the same blessing contained in that grand promise of the Covenant and therefore the Apostle might have and certainly
that all the individual and particular persons whether grown up or Infants that are included in that Promise as made to Abraham with reference to his Seed make up but one Seed which saith the Apostle is Christ Now that the Infant-seed of believing Gentiles under the Gospel administration as well as the Infant-seed of the Jews under the first Testament administration are included with their Parents in that phrase Thy Seed in their generations hath been abundantly proved alreadly so that I say I grant yea affirm that the Infant-seed of believing Gentiles are to be reckoned of and numbred among Abraham's mystical Seed Object 1. First That the Scripture still makes Faith the condition or medium of Gentiles becoming Abraham's mystical Seed Rom. 4.12 16. Whence it seems evident that Abraham is a mystical Father to none but Believrs and his Seed are only such as are of the Faith Answ I answer The Scripture is not contrary to it self Now we have seen that under that phrase Thy Seed in their generations the Infant-seed both of Jews and Gentiles are included and that this Seed in their generations is but Abraham's Seed after him Whence it is evident the Apostle in saying that Abraham is the Father of them that believe excludes not but on the other hand include the Infant-seed of such as do believe as to be accounted with their Parents as making up but one Seed he is the Father of them that do believe whether Jews or Gentiles in their generations Obejct 2. Secondly It is objected That then we make three parties in the Covenant First Abraham Secondly His Seed Thirdly Their Infant-seed Answ In answer We make but two parties Abraham and his Seed the Infant-seed of Believers makes not a third party but stands in the same capacity respective to Abraham that their Parents do and he is to be looked upon as a common Father to Parents and their Infant-seed the several individuals whether Parents or infants are all but the several members or parts of that one totum that one collective body Abraham's Seed from all it appears that this Objection in part concerns not me and so far as it doth eoncern me is no way opposite to what I have affirmed but is granted without the least prejudice to the truth pleaded for Object 3. It is objected by some That Infants cannot be under the Covenant of Grace because the Covenant of Grace promiseth divine teachings to all that are under it the issue of which is the saving knowledge of God which as Infants for the present are incapable of so it is certain that many of the infants of Believres are never made partakers of now if they are admitted into Covenant and are actually under the Promises of it they must needs be taught of God and that so as to know him at least they would as they grow up to a capacity be so taught of God see the Promise Isa 54.15 Jer. 31.34 Heb. 8.10 Answ I answer This Objection hath been removed already but yet for further satisfaction I shall lay down these two Propositions Fiast That some may be actually in the Covenant of Grace who yet are not so taught of God as savingly to know him this might be evidenced from that distinction formerly laid down concerning an exterual and internal being in Covenant It is possible persons may be yea it is certain many are externally in Covenant who are not internally in Covenant the necessity of this distinction hath been already shewed and the absurdities that would follow in ease it should be dined declared Now in respect of such who are only externaly in Covenant it is certain though they are in Covenant and under the promises of it according to its true tenour as so externally made yet are not so taught of God as savingly to know him for then they would be not only externally but internally in Covenant Secondly That this Promise made to the Covenant-people of God assuring them that they shall be all from the least to the greatest taught of God so as savingly to know him doth not infallibly secure the good promised to every individual person to whom the promise as externally promulgated and declared doth in common with others appertain And for the proof of this Position I would argue thus If it do infailliby secure the good promised to every individual person to whom it doth externally appertain it must be either by vertue of the universality of the terms or by vertue of the nature and kind of the promise it self or by vertue of the nature of quality of the good promised That it is by vertue of the nature or quality of the good promised none can pretend and that it is neither of the former wayes I shall prove distinctly First That it cannot be by vertue of the universality of the terms in which the promise is exprest is evident thus because indefinite promises may be and many times are exprest in universal terms and then though the terms be universal yet the promises may not be made good to every individual person to whom in common wtth others they do appertain If I be life up saith Christ I will draw all men to me John 12.32 The terms are universal yet the promise is an indefinite promise he would draw many unto him So again Acts 2.17 I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh where we see again the terms are universal yet the promise is verified only in some particular persons But here you will say In this place the promise is exprest with a peculiar emphasis They shall all know me from the least to the greatest and therefore it must needs be understood universally To that I answer Whether we understand this phrase From the least to the greatest of age or state or condition is not much to our present purpose we find the very same phrase used when yet the sence is only indefinite thus Jer. 6.13 From the least to the greatest every one is given to covetousness which yet was not universally true of every individual person among that people whether Infant or grown person nor of every individual grown person it only notes the mighty and almost universal corruption of that people in point of Covetousness So that every individual person externally in the Covenant of Grace and so in common with others having this promise appertaining to them shall be savingly taught of God so as truly to know him cannot be inferred or certainly concluded from the universality of the terms it is expressed in Secondly Nor from the nature of the pormise for if the nature of the promise do infallibly secure the good promised to every individual person in covenant as before exprest it must be either as it is a conditional or as it is an absolute promise as it is conditional it cannot be pretended in as much as no conditional promises as such do infallibly secure the good promised to any to whom they do appertain it is
controversie as to neglect thy growth in Grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ but I say a little Christian prudence will direct in this and obviate the inconvenience suggested But secondly It will be said The appearing thus in publick may occasion the revival of these Controversies which seem now almost laid aside and forgotten among the People of God and consequently may renew heighten and increase those divisions which heretofore have been of such sad consequence as to their unanimous and concordant practice of the main things of Religion To this I shall answer I am not altogether without hope of the quite contrary viz. That it may be of some use for the obtaining and promoting union among them There is a double union that the People of God are to labour after First An union of judgment and practice that they may think speak and do the same things Secondly An union in heart and affection that wherein they do differ in judgment and practice they may bear with and forbear one another in love Now what means can have a more direct tendency or be more effectual will the Lord please to concur with his blessing for the obtaining and promoting either of these kinds of union than the holding forth with a Spirit of meekness what light is received from the Scriptures about the things wherein the difference and disagreement is As for the former 't is utterly impossible ever to be attained among those who dare not as we use to say pin their faith upon other mens sleeves or practice hand over head whatever is proposed to them by any means exclusive of this and with what confidence soever any attempts may be made to effect this union any other way they will be found utterly unavailable and probably issue in the quite contrary event to what is aimed at But suppose this first and most excellent kind of union which we ought ultimately to aim at and endeavour should not be attained the same differences in judgment and practice should yet remain yet methinks I may yea I cannot but rationally expect that the latter viz. of heart and affection will be so far from being impeded and obstructed that it will be considerably advanced and promoted though dissenters may not come over to my judgment and practise by what is here offered yet sure I may promise my self without concurring the censure of being over confident of the Truth asserted or the strength and validity of the Arguments produced for its confirmation that it will be granted that in case I do err it is cunt ratione and that I have so much ground from Scripture to bottom my judgment and practice upon as may acquit me in the judgment of Charity without stretching it beyond the bounds allowed in Scripture and warranted by Reason from a wilful persisting in error and I hardly know any thing more effectual for the maintaining love and friendship among dissenting Christians then for them to be mutually satisfied in each other that they do not dissent upon any other account then their respective conscientiousness of their duty towards God which satisfaction can hardly be given in a more effectual manner than by holding forth and declaring each to other the light they have received from the Scriptures of truth captivating their judgments to the imbracement and practice of what they do differently imbrace and practice so that I cannot but hope the sending abroad the ensuing Discourse will be so far from reviving a Controversie almost laid asleep and forgotten to the disuniting of Christians and heightening their differences and divisions that it may be of some good use for the promoting the quite contrary end viz their uniting if not in judgment that they may be as the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 1.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perfectly joyned together in one mind and judgment yet they may live together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 4.2 Forbearing one another in love And yet further let me add one thing more which having its due consideration may if not wholly remove yet much allay what prejudices of this nature may arise in the minds of men and it is this Times of afflictions whether coming immediately from the hand of God or mediately from the hand of man are special times for every one to take a more through and impartial review of their respective wayes and practises the Rod hath a voice which all are commanded to here Hear the Rod and who hath appointed it Micah 6 9. What its voice is or what it calls for at our hands may be gathered partly from what the God of Wisdom or the only wise God declares to be his expectation from those either over whom it is lift up in the threatning or upon whom it is laid in the execution and partly from what the men of wisdom as the Prophet there speaks have done in answer to this voice what are Gods expectations he tells us Jer. 8.6 I saith the Lord hearkened and heard but no man spake aright and wherein they failed in speaking aright he tells us no man said what have I done or which is of the same importance what have I not done what have I omitted and neglected that I ought to have done the Rod calls to us to call our selves to an impartial account wherein we have either come short of or exceeded that Rule we ought to walk by what men of wisdom have done in answer to this voice of the Rod see in that Lam. 3.40 Let us search our wayes and turn unto the Lord when God is searching after our sins especially when the search is made by afflictions when God hath us upon the rack â—s Job seems to allude Job 10.6 sure it is our concernment to make a through and impartial search too God threatens to search Jerusalem with Candles Zeph. 1.12 it is meant of his searching by afflictions now God seems to have his Candle in his hand he is searching England with Candles he is in special searching the professing party in England with Candles now it is an excellent observation of that worthy Expositor upon Job saith he Troubles are as so many Candles that God setteth up to search us by and they will be as so many fires inkindled to consume us with in case we search not our selves but yet let me say it is not the bare light of afflictions without the concurring light of the Word and Spirit that can discover to any their sin hence when God holds out the light of his Candle it must needs be a very seasonable time to hold forth the light of the Word which being attended with the internal illumination of the Spirit may discover that to be a sin which would not be owned so to be at another time from what hath been said I cannot but hope that what is here presented to publick view will by considerate persons be so far from being accounted unseasonable that it will be accounted
evils inconveniencies and disadvantages supposed by them to follow upon the granting unto them such a Covenant-interest and application of Baptism upon the ground thereof But now all that I shall say to this is as for the good benefit and advantage arising to the Infant-seed of believing Parents from both their Covenant-state and Baptism as applyed unto them thereupon 't is exceeding great as will I hope through Divine assistance be made to appear if Providence disappoint not my present purpose At present let this be considered as for their Covenant-interest and state a double benefit ariseth to them thereby First They are as distributively taken under a Promise of God being their God in the sence declared in the insuing Discourse Secondly They are as collectively taken as Members of the visible Church under an indefinite Promise supposing them grown to years of maturity of being to taught of God as savingly to know him How far the certainty of their future Salvavation supposing them to dye in their infancy may be concluded from their interest in these Promises I shall leave to the judgment of the judicious Reader This I doubt not will be found true at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ when these Secrets shall be made manifest that vastly the Major part of the Seed of Believers and that by vertue of these very Promises made unto them will be found the heirs of that Inheritance prepared for the Saints in light mistake me not I do not say the major part of the Seed of each particular Believer but the major part of the Seed of Believers generally taken or as taken one with another But however methinks it should not be accounted a small matter to be brought in any sense though it be never so little nigher the Promises of Salvation and into a nigher capacity and probability of injoying the good promised than the rest of mankind are in and that they must sure be acknowledged to be by that their Covenant-state and interest in the Promises And as for Baptism the good and benefit of that is hinted in the close of the insuing Discourse and is more fully to be declared if the Lord will As for the evils and mischiefs supposed to follow upon our Doctrine and practice they are really none at all whatever evils may be observed at any time to follow they are only accidental and will be found to have some other Original and not be the natural and necessary fruits and consequences of either the Doctrine or practice of Infant-Baptism Fifthly That which is of a like importance with what hath been hitherto mentioned is peoples placing at least too much of their Religion in an external way mode or form attended with an easiness and facility to be drawn into this or that way by unsound and groundless motives and inducements too many think that if they are but of such a way they are good Christians and secured as to their eternal states hence through the subtlety of Satan and deceit of their own hearts they overlook and neglect the main things wherein the power of Religion doth indeed consist and betake themselves to and fall in with this or that way as supposing themselves thereby insured for Salvation and wanting judgment to discern between Truth and Error fall in with the Judgment and practice under consideration as led thereunto meerly by some unsound and groundless motive and inducement and though it is true truly conscientious Christians cannot satisfie themselves in a bare way or form neither will they be led by any motives or inducements without any regard at all had to the Word of God yet even in respect of many of them especially such who are of weaker Judgments some unsound and groundless motive and inducement hath no little interest in their imbracing this or that way rather than any other and thus the motives and iuducements leading Professors into a complyance with the way or judgment and practice lying opposite to what we have here pleaded for are exceeding various all which to enumerate would under me over tedious all that I shall say therefore is If we would come to a right understanding of the mind and will of our Lord Christ place Religion where it ought to be placed and then setting all such motives and inducements aside weigh impartially the Scriptures and Arguments grounded thereupon readily giving up our Judgments and practices to the guidance of the light and evidence of those Scriptures and Arguments Sixthly and lastly The perswasion and practice here opposed have prevailed so far among Christians in a great measure through their preposterous enquiries after the will of Christ relating to the practice here pleaded for taken in conjunction with the products of those inquiries in and upon their own minds and the preposterousness of their inquiries lyes more especially in these two things First In their inquiring after the will of Christ as to the Baptism of Infants before they have sought after or found out the proper uses and ends of Baptism in the general and the true notion under which it was instituted and commanded by Christ Secondly In their inquiring after the will of Christ relating to this practice without any precedent consideration had to his will relating to the interest of the Infants of believing Parents in the Covenant and Promises thereof by these preposterous inquiries men put themselves under a threefold disadvantage as to their finding out that will of Christ they are inquiring after First They terminate and limit their inquiries to the Scriptures of the new Testament as supposing the whole will of Christ relating unto Baptism it being a new Testament Ordinance must needs be contained in them Secondly Which follows hereupon They search not after nor attend unto the Tenour of the Covenant as at first established with Abraham the Father of the Faithful nor attend to the various Scriptures contained in the old Testament opening and confirming that Tenour of the Covenant as so established with him Thirdly Which follows from both They loose the benefit of those several Inferences that may rationally and according to Scripture warrant be drawn from interest in the Covenant for the determining and concluding what is the mind and will of Christ concerning the application of Baptism But now would people begin their inquiries where they ought to do and proceed regularly therein they would find the mind and will of Christ to appear with much more clearness of evidence on the side of the practice we plead for would they make their first inquiries after the proper uses and ends of Baptism and the true notion under which it is instituted and then proceed in an impartial search after the Tenour of the Covenant and here again begin where they ought to do viz. at the first establishment of it with Abraham the Father of the Faithful and so proceed regularly as the Covenant hath been continued from one Generation to another to Abraham's Seed whether Natural
wholly groundless we having no intimation of it throughout the whole Scripture but the contrary is intimated or ratherr plainly implied in that Rom. 9. Now if he and 't is like the same was the case of some at least of Abraham's Sons by Keturab could not be looked upon as Abraham's spiritual seed he must needs be looked upon under that very notion and consideration as his natural seed and as such was intended as one subject of that promise And whereas some think that the Apostle Rom. 4. expounds this promise as made to Abraham only as the father of the faithful 't is a great mistake That he was eyed as the father of the faithful is readily granted but that he was eyed only as such a father is denied and is not in the least intimated by the Apostle in that place But not to stay on this it is sufficiently evident that as Abraham sustained that two-fold relation viz. of a natural and of a spiritual father so he was eyed under both notions as receiving this promise on the behalf or with reference to his seed Thirdly What is the true intent of this promise in regard of the extent and latitude on the one hand and the limitation on the other Before I answer this Question let me only premise that the true determination of this Question conduceth not a little if I mistake not to the clearing up and determining the truth pleaded for as the not right understanding the true intent of this promise in the regards mentioned hath been one considerable cause of so many rejecting the truth we plead for and their too ready imbracing of the opinion we oppose Therefore I desire that what I have to say in answer to the Question may be diligently attended to First then for the intent of this promise in regard of the extent and latitude of it take it in these two particulars 1. That under this term Seed in this promise the whole seed of Abraham whether natural or mystical are comprehended hence though I say his natural seed as afore expressed were firstly and immediately intended as the first and next subjects of this promise yet not excluding any other who according to Scripture account were to be reckoned unto Abraham as his seed As we are not to interpret this term Seed of Christ personally so as to exclude his mystical body nor of his mystical body invisibly and internally considered so as to exclude any that are of his mystical body as externally and visibly considered nor of his mystical body whether visible or invisible to the excluding of his natural seed whether immediate or mediate So on the other hand we must not limit it to his immediate seed to the excluding of his mediate nor to either so as to exclude his mystical seed but we are to understand it in its full latitude and extent as comprchending and including his whole seed That Abrahams natural seed as immediately proceeding from his own loins were intended will appear by the proof of this first proposition and is the only thing there to be proved that his whole race and posterity as mediately descending from him were intended shall be granted That Abrahams spiritual or mystical feed were intended is sufficiently evident as from the denomination they bear of Abrahams seed so by their inheriting all the good of the Covenant of Grace as Abraham's seed by vertue of this very promise as will more fully appear by the proof of the second proposition so that I say this term Seed is to be understood in such an extent and latitude as to take in and comprehend Abraham's whole seed but this I say that his natural seed were firstly and immediately intended as the first and next subjects of that promise 2. Which I desire with the like care may be attended to This promise as made to Abraham's whole seed was made to them in their respective generations under which phrase their generations we must understand Parents and their Children immediately descending from their own loins so that the promise runs to Abraham's seed in their generations that is to all his seed and to their respective natural seed in conjunction with themselves Secondly We may consider the intent of this promise in regard of the limitations of it and thus this promise had a two fold limitation 1. It had a limitation in regard of the persons actually interested in it 2. In regard of the continuance of that their interest in and their actual possession and injoyment of the good of the promise they were before interested in 1. Then I say this promise was given to Abraham under a limitation in regard of the persons actually interessed in it and thus it was limited to Abraham's seed in their respective generations including as before parents and their immediate children my meaning is that this promise taken as a definite promise made to Abraham with reference to his seed distributively taken that is as they were severally and each in particular intended in it so it did reach to and take in only Abraham's seed in their respective generations they and their immediate children It 's true as it was an indefinite promise made to Abraham's natural seed collectively or generally taken so it had respect vnto his whole race and posterity whether mediately or immediately descending from him but I say take it as a definite promise made to Abraham's seed distributively or particularly taken so it was made only to each of them respectively in their generations that is to them and their immediate children To explain my meaning take for instance any parent that was related to Abraham as one of his seed let Isaac be the instance Isaac was one of Abraham's seed and as so related to Abraham was under this promise That God would be a God to him in his generations Now as in this phrase his generations Isaac and his children immediately descending from him in after ages were personally included or particularly intended in it it was to Isaac as Abraham's seed in his generations to him and to his immediate children As this promise is to be understood in the extent mentioned as including parents and children sort is not to be inlarged beyond what was the true intendment of God in it Now though God made it to each of Abraham's seed whether immediately descending from his own loins or otherwise standing related to him as his seed in their generations yet his intendment was not that all that should successively in following ages descend from them respectively should be included as joynt subjects with them of this promise so as to claim by vertue of their relation unto them a joynt right and title to the promise with them his intendment only was that his seed in their generations that is parents and immediate children should be accounted as joynt subjects of this promise and in this regard this promise was one and the same or ran in one and the same tenour to
Abraham and to his seed only allowing to Abraham something of preheminence hereafter to be explained above any of his seed but otherwise the promise for the substance of it was one and the same or ran in one and the same tenour to both for the promise was to Abraham and his seed which promise as a definite promise made to him with reference to his natural seed distributively taken extended no further than to his natural seed immediately descending from his own loins and was not to his whole race and postcrity no not by Isaac and Jacob as many seem to have very much mistaken to the no little obscuring the truth we now plead for I still grant that the promise as an indefinite promise had respect to his whole race and posterity and that not only by Isaac and Jacob but Ishmael and his Sons by Keturab but yet as a definite promise as before exprest it extended no further than to his own immediate children even Jacob himself had not an actual interest in this promise in his infancy as he was one of Abraham's natural posterity but as he was included in the promise as made to Isaac one of Abraham's seed in his generations and in the very same tenour the promise runs to Abraham's seed That as God was a God to Abraham and his natural seed so he would be a God to them and their natural seed that is to them in their generations But that 's the first limitation of this promise made to Abraham with reference to his seed 2. This promise was given unto Abraham under a limitation in regard of the continuance of his seeds interest in and their actual possession and injoyment of the good promised that they had afore an interest in and thus it was limitted both to the seed and their respective generations as they should become and continue to be Abraham's mystical or spiritual seed through their personal entring into and walking in the steps of the faith and obedience of their father Abraham Take Isaac he was one of Abraham's natural seed and as such was intended in this promise That God would be a God to him in his generations that is as before expressed to him and to his immediate children but now the continuance of his interest in and actual enjoyment of the good of the promise as grown up to years of maturity did depend upon and necessarily require his personal acceptation and performance of the conditions of the Covenant into which he had as one of Abraham's natural seed admission in his infancy hence his childrens actual interest in and right unto the promise which was in part the good of the promise as made to him depended upon his mystical relation to Abraham and not meerly upon his natural relation to Abraham For if so be he had not accepted of and performed the conditions of the Covenant his children had wholly lost that their right to and interest in the promise which was granted unto them with himself as included in his generations And hence it will undeniably follow that all Abraham's natural race and posterity by Isaac and Jacob held their interest in and right to the promise and enjoyed the good promised either as Abraham's mystical seed or as included in the generations of those that were his mystical seed for their bare natural relation to Abraham was not enough to preserve their own interest nor convey a right to and interest in the promise to their children And from all it will follow which I desire may be diligently observed that the case of believing Gentiles supposing the promise to run in the same extent and latitude to them that it did run in to the natural posterity of Abraham as I doubt not through divine assistance shall be made evident that it doth And the case of the Jews or natural posterity of Abraham is one and the same in regard of their own and their childrens right to and interest in the promise the natural posterity of Abraham or the Jews when once grown up held their interest in and right to the promise not barely as his natural posterity but as accepting of and performing the conditions of the Covenant so far as not absolutely to difanul that their interest in it and consequently as Abrahams mystical seed and as such they conveyed a right to and interest in the same Covenant and Promise themselves were under to their children And the same is the case of believing Gentiles they have a right to und interest in the promise as accepting of and performing the conditions of the Covenant and as so doing convey an interest in and right to the same Covenant and Promise they themselves are under to their children by vertue of this promise as made unto Abraham with reference to his seed in their generations The truth of what is now asserted concerning the extent and limitations of this premise will I doubt not sufficiently appear when I come to the proof of the second Proposition The sum of what hath been hitherto said take in brief in these five Conclusions First That when God entred Covenant with Abraham and promised to be a God to him and his seed in their generations he intended according to the full latitude and extent of that promise his whole seed whether Jews or Gentiles grown persons or infants all those who according to the Scripture account should bear the denomination of Abraham's seed how or by what means soever that denomination was applicable unto them were comprehended under this term Seed Secondly Although the promise extend to and ought to be interpreted of Abraham's whole seed as now expressed yet God in it had a peculiar and special regard to his natural seed whether immediately or mediately descending from him Thirdly That the natural seed race or posterity of Abraham injoyed an interest in and right to this promise and together therewith a Covenant-state and relation God-ward successively for so long time nor barely as his natural seed but as his mystical seed that is through parents so far performing the conditions of the Covenant as to preserve their own Covenant state and relation themselves conveying to their children the same interest in and right to the Covenant and Promises thereof that themselves had Fourthly That in and among the seed of Abraham as considered these various wayes aforementioned there is a certain number afore chosen and elected of God to whom in a peculiar and special manner this term Seed is applicable and that in regard of their eternal designment to enjoy the good promised the whole number of those whom visibly and denominatively were to be accounted for Abraham's seed were intended in this promise yet the promise was not intended by God infullibly to secure the good promised to every individual person who in regard of an external and visible denomination were to be accounted for his seed but there is a certain number chosen of God from eternity actually to inherit the
under that notion and consideration is evident because in the Command concerning the application of it he calls it the Covenant My Covenant shall be in your flesh that is the token of my Covenant and that as the token of it 3. That what Abraham did was according to the will and appointment of God this is past doubt by what is already said Abraham acted in circumcising his Children according to the express command he had received from God so that the Assumption is in every branch and clause of it undeniable Secondly For the Consequence in the Major Proposition viz. That in as much as Abraham did apply the seal or token of the Covenant as now expressed it must needs follow that God in this Promise did intend his immediate natural seed as the first subjects of it The validity of this Consequence if any shall question it will appear these three wayes First From the sameness of the word used in the Promise and in the Command concerning the application of the seal The Promise is To thee and to thy Seed the Command is Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant thou and thy Seed Now who can once imagine that this term Seed should be used restrictively in the Promise as intending only one or more of Abraham's Children exclusive of the rest and universally in the Command as intending all his Children That it is to be understood universally in the Command is past all doubt God explains himself in the very next words Every Man child amongst you shall be circumcised Now those that should take this term Seed restrictively in the Promise had need for their acquitment in the sight of God for their so doing have as clear a warrant from God as Abraham had to take it in an unlimited sence in the Command whether they have so or no concerns them to look to it Secondly It appears from hence because otherwise the seal or token of the Covenant should and that according to the appointment of God be apylyed to some unto whom it signified and betokened nothing at all it should be applyed and that as the seal or token of the Covenant to some wholly uninteressed and unconcerned in the Covenant of which it was the seal or token Now how remote is it from a rational probability that God should appoint the token of the Covenant and that under that notion and consideration as the token of it to be applyed to persons neither externally nor internally interessed or concerned in the Covenant of which it was the token let but any sober person exercise his reason and see whether there be so much as the remotest probability of it It 's true God might have commanded the same thing to have been acted upon persons under another notion or consideration for some special end appointed by himself but that he should appoint the same action with reference unto all and that to be performed under one and the same notion and consideration and yet that some of these should be in Covenant and others not at all concerned in it is a thing not to be supposed by any man that hath the free use of his own reason Thirdly It appears because in case the seal or token of the Covenant had been applyed to any in the sence afore expressed no way interessed or concerned in the Covenant nor the Promise thereof then God had spoken that which had been absolutely false which far be it from any man that pretends to Christianity once to imagine yet the denying the same persons to be intended in the Promise that were intended in the Command concerning the application of the seal doth necessarily it for it For pray observe it Saith the Lord of Circumcision It shall be the token of the Covenant between me and you Gen. 17.11 Now had any of these male-children whose circumcision is commanded in the foregoing verses been wholly unconcerned in the Covenant then it could not have been a token of the Covenant between God and them and consequently it had been false to say it should be a token of the Covenant between him and them for according to the opinions in this first Proposition opposed it was not the token of the Covenant between God and them in as much as the male-children now intended were not in the Covenant or there was no Covenant between God and them Now for God to command that every Male-child amongst them should be circumcised and then to say of Circumcision as so applyed that it should be a token of the Covenant between him and them whereas there was some of those Male-children wholly uninteressed in this Covenant or betwixt God and whom there was no such Covenant had been absolutely false for it was not it could not possibly be a token of the Covenant between God and them between him and whom there was no Covenant there can be no token of a Covenant between whom there is no Covenant made But now saith God It shall be a token of the Covenant between me and them So that to grant that Abraham according to the will and appointment of God did apply the seal or token of the Covenant to all his immediate natural Seed and that as the seal or token of the Covenant and yet to affirm that some of his natural Seed were not in Covenant or not intended in the Promises thereof is to ascribe falshood unto God or to charge him with speaking what was absolutely false And therefore undoubtedly Abraham's whole natural Seed were intended in the Promise as the immediate and next subjects of it Secondly Let us instance in such of Abraham's immediate Children as upon supposition of their being intended in the Promise under consideration it will undoubtedly follow that all his immediate Children were in it and thus I shall instance in these two of his Children that the Scripture makes more frequent mention of viz. Ishmael and Isaac and I shall begin with the latter first First That Isaac was intended in this Promise as one of the Subjects of it is fully evident from that one passage of God to Abraham Gen. 21.12 cited and expounded by the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. In Isaac shall thy seed be called We read in the tenth verse Sarahs request to Abraham to cast out Hagar and her Son Ishmael Now this was grievous to Abraham God had promised to be a God to him and to his seed Ishmael is one of his Seed hence to cast him out and thereby disinherit him of the blessing promised was very grievous to Abraham Now God to allay Abraham's grief tells him Though he should answer Sarahs request yet in Isaac should his Seed be called that is in Isaac and his line the Promise should have its accomplishment Though Ishmael was cast out and thereby disinherited of the good promised yet the Promise should stand firm and receive its full accomplishment in Isaac and his line which could not have been had he not been intended in the Promise had
the rest and that it is not to be extended to all indefinitely But yet I suppose they are not agreed among themselves which to assign as the proper Subjects of this Promise some have denied Isaac to be the seed or part of the seed here intended others and I suppose the major part of our opposers deny that Ishmael was intended or ought to be accounted as part of the seed here spoken of As for those that judge Isaac was not intended in this Promise the only ground they go upon for ought I have yet met with is this Supposition viz. That God made a twofold Covenant with Abraham and his Seed the one a legal or temporal Covenant consisting only in temporal promises and requiring only an external obedience the other a Covenant of Grace consisting of spiritual promises and requiring internal and spiritual obedience and they conceive that this Covenant entred with Abraham and his Seed mentioned Gen. 17.7 was only a legal or temporal Covenant and that the Covenant of Grace is that formerly spoken of Gen. 12.3 and again re-established with Isaac at the nineteenth verse of this seventeenth Chapter And then the Objection that the persons of this perswasion raise against our Proposition in the sense given is to this purpose That this term Seed is not to be understood in that extensive sense given of it in as much as this Covenant mentioned in this seventh verse was only a temporal or legal Covenant established with Abraham as a natural Father and his fleshly seed and not the Covenant of Grace established with him as a spiritual Father and with his spiritual seed now Isaac being a Child of promise and consequently to be accounted of Abraham's spiritual seed could not be intended in that promise which alone intended his fleshly of natural seed Answ I answer That Isaac in particular was intended in this Promise and that as a principal Subject of it as it respected Abraham's natural seed hath been already proved and as for the Objection now made it involves the framers of it in such absurdities and contradictions and supposing it granted would so little advantage the cause the promotion of which is in the ultimate design of it aimed at that it needs no reply at all I shall therefore only in a direct opposition to that Supposition this Objection is grounded upon affirm that there was but one Covenant established between God and Abraham and his seed and that was a Covenant of Grace and the very same for substance that believers are now under and consequently that that Promise in Gen. 12.3 was either a branch of this Covenant or rather the very same promise with this under consideration expressed in other terms And that that Covenant mentioned verse 19. is the same with this mentioned ver 7. There are several branches of this general Assertion As First That there was but one Covenant made and established between God and Abraham with reference to himself and his seed I do not say that there was but one Covenant made with the seed of Abraham understanding that term Seed of his Race or Posterity in following ages but I say there was but one established with Abraham wherein himself in common with his Seed was concerned now this appears from the constant phrase of Scripture alwayes where speaking of the Covenant made with Abraham speaking in the singular number the Covenant and not in the plural Covenants Secondly I say this was a Covenant of Grace Thirdly That it was the very same Covenant for substance that Believers are now under Fourthly That that Promise Gen. 12.3 is one branch of the Covenant now established with Abraham and his Seed or rather the same Promise with this mentioned in our first Proposition expressed in different terms these things I shall speak to hereafter and the truth of them will I doubt not fully appear by the proof of the second Proposition and therefore I shall say nothing to them at present Lastly That the Covenant mentioned verse 19. is the very same mentioned verse 7. this is sufficiently evident to any that will but read the whole Chapter In the former part of the Chapter we read how God promiseth to establish his Covenant with Abraham and his Seed in their generations for an everlasting Covenant that is to endure while Abraham should have a Seed upon earth Now at verse 19. the Lord shews Abraham in which of his Seed and his Line or posterity this Promise should take place and have its accomplishment and that was Isaac Therefore observe how the Text runs And God said Sarah shall bear thee a Son and I will establish my Covenant with him Mark here is no intimation of any other Covenant different from that before mentioned he doth not say I will also make or I will establish a Covenant or another Covenant but I will establish my Covenant What Covenant Doubtless that before entred in with Abraham with reference to his Seed in their generations and this limitation of the Covenant as afore made and established with Abraham in reference to his Seed in their generations unto Isaac alone doth plainly imply that in the first establishment of it Abraham's whole Seed as immediately proceeding from his own loms were included and intended for what need an explanatory limitation of it in regard of the establishment thereof for an everlasting Covenant to Isaac and his Seed had it not been more comprehensive in the first promulgation of it and it is as if the Lord should say Though I have entred Covenant with thee and thy Seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting-Covenant and have received and taken in thy whole Seed as proceeding immediately from thine own loins universally and indefinitely one as well as another into a Covenant relation together with thee with my self yet my meaning is not that this Covenant-relation between me and thy Seed shall be continued in each of their respective lines throughout their respective generations but it is with Isaac that I will establish my Covenant and with his Seed as the person in whom and in whose Seed my Covenant shall take place and be accomplished though thy whole Seed be intended in the Promise as the next and immediate Subjects of it yet the Promise in the full latitude and extent of it as it runs to Seed in their generations for a Promise to continue successively throughout all generations shall only take place and receive its full accomplishment in Isaac and his Line But not to spend time upon this that Isaac was intended in this Promise is evident beyond all rational contradiction and that is all at present I contend for Object 2. Secondly Others and I suppose vastly the major part of our opposers in the main truth pleaded for conceive that it was Isaac alone intended as the only Subject of that Promise and consequently that Ishmael and the other children of Abraham were excluded from any right or title to it And there
truth and faithfulness of God in performing it will be evident by shewing the inconsistency of any other sence and meaning possibly to be put upon it with the truth and faithfulness of God in performing it And for this let us a little inquire what other sence and meaning can possibly be put upon this Promise and I suppose the only sence and meaning that will be attempted to be put upon it will be this viz. That when God promised to Abraham with reference to his Seed to be a God unto them in their generations his meaning was only this That he would be a God to each of them in their respective ages or generations wherein they should live and so by this phrase In their generations we are to understand only each particular or individual person of Abraham's Seed as subsisting in their respective ages or generations and not as including Parents and Children Now let us a little pursue this sence and meaning and see whether it be consistent with the truth and faithfulness of God in his Promises And here let it be remembred that Abraham's natural Seed must necessarily be primarily intended in this Promise as the first and immediate Subjects of it this hath been already proved and therefore I shall take it for granted at present And it must further be considered that though Abraham's natural Seed as immediately descending from his own loins were firstly intended as the primary Subjects of this Promise yet it had a further respect viz. to his whole natural Race and Posterity as mediately descending from him in succeeding ages this is evident as from other Scriptures so from this very phrase their generations and besides the whole Context evidently declares it In Gen. 15.16 it evidently appears that God intended not that Abraham's Seed should possess the Land of Canaan till the fourth generation yet it is promised to the Seed intended in this Promise that they should have the Land of Canaan and that for an everlasting possession So that when God promised to be a God to Abraham and his Seed though he intended his own immediate Children yet he had a further respect to his natural Race and Posterity as mediately descending from him Now let it be considered how it was consistent with the truth and faithfulness of God in his Promises to promise to Abraham to be a God to him and his Seed both immediately and mediately descending from him seeing it is certain he was not a God to all his Seed no not so much as in an external and outward way for when Ishmael was cast out of Abraham's Family and together therewith or thereby out of the Covenant God ceased to be a God to any of his Race or Posterity unless by their personal acceptation of the Covenant they became again incorporated into the Church of the Jews as any other Heathen might be and the like is true of Esau's Race and Posterity so for the whole body of the Jewish Nation at this day there is a cessation of any actual Covenant-relation between God and them Now how could God cast off so great a part of Abraham's Seed from being his people and how could he cease to be a God to them and yet remain faithful to his Promise in case this be the sence and meaning of it Yes it may be some will say the truth and faithfulness of God may be vindicated two wayes First It may be vindicated by the consideration of the nature of this Promise It was as you your selves grant an indefinite Promise made to Abraham's Seed collectively taken and so was verified in the performance of it to some of his Seed though it was not performed universally to every individual person of his Seed But to this I reply two things First That this Promise according to the sence and meaning contended for by my Opposers cannot be an indefinite Promise to Abraham's Seed collectively taken but must needs be a definite Promise to his Seed distributively taken for that is the sense and meaning contended for That God promised to be a God to Abraham and each of his Seed in their respective ages or generations Now according to this sence this term Seed must needs be taken distributively as meant of every one of Abraham's Seed So that whenever in any generation Abraham had one born unto him as one of his Seed the Promise did reach and take in him or her as so born unto him as one of the Subjects intended in it If it had been only said to Abraham to thee and to thy Seed it might have been an indefinite Promise to his Seed collectively taken but when 't is added in their generations according to this sence it must needs be a definite Promise made to his Seed distributively or singularly taken and consequently Gods not being a God unto any of his Seed had been a breach of this Promise as made unto Abraham with reference to his Seed Secondly I answer Though the Promise were an indefinite Promise made to Abraham's Seed collectively taken yet none ever did or ever should fail of enjoying the good promised supposing there had been no failure in performing the condition of it either by the parties themselves or by their next or remote Progenitors Secondly It may be it will be said The Promise was made conditionally and Abraham's Seed failing in the performance of the conditions disobliged God from making good the Promise to them To that I reply That it is readily granted that this Covenant and the Promises thereof was made to Abraham and his Seed conditionally But observe it according to the sence and meaning pleaded for by our Opposers every Child of any Jew or of any of Abraham's Posterity must be in the eye of this Promise accounted as one of Abraham's Seed and as so related unto him be intended in it as one of the Subjects of it And how can a Child forfeit its right to a Promise before it is born So that suppose that the immediate Father had failed in the condition of the Promise and thereby deprived himself of an interest in it yet he could not forseit the Childs right in as much as if this sence were true the Child received not its right from the next Parent but from Abraham himself one of whose Seed this Child is and hence it will unavoidably follow that either the whole Race and Posterity of Abraham at least in their infancy before an actual sorfeiture made by themselves must be under this Promise and consequently in a Covenant-relation with God or else God hath failed in making good his Promise neither of which those that contend for this sence will affirm therefore this sence and meaning must unavoidably be relinquished and there being no other sence and meaning imaginable we must necessarily adhere to that afore-given And indeed should we not understand this Promise in the extent and latitude and with those limitations before expressed one of those absurdities will necessarily
in Jeremiah 31. which cannot be applied to believing Gentiles To that I answer 'T is granted But that hinders not at all but that what is applicable to them may and ought to be applied unto them in that promise concerning the building up of the Tabernacle of David as it refers to the conversion of the Jews there is something which is not applicable to the Gentiles yet that hinders not but that the promise so far as applicable to them was intended of them and accomplished in the beginning of it in their conversion So now God as being the God of all the families of Israel will when the Jewish Church cometh up to the fulness of her glory communicate himself in a more full glorious and universal manner in respect of the individual Members of each family than now he doth yet that hinders not at all but that that promise was intended of the families of Israel as gathered from among the Gentiles as the Apostle calls the Gentile Church the Israel of God and is begun to be accomplished according to the true intent of it under this present administration But that 's for the second way of evidencing the truth of this our second Proposition Thirdly The truth of what we affirm in this second Proposition may be evidenced from the express letter of the new Testament this promise made to Abraham and that in the same extent and latitude in which it was made to him is confirmed to and setled upon believing Gentiles by the express letter of the new Testament Thus in Galatians 3.13 14. Christ saith the Apostle hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ that we might receive the Promise of the Spirit through faith The Apostle we see here doth positively affirm that the very end of Christ redeeming the Gentiles from the curse of the Law was their possessing Abraham's blessing and consequently is the immediate issue and result of a Gentiles redemption or deliverance from the curse of the Law through Christ as believed in No sooner is a believing Gentile freed from the curse of the Law by his faith in Christ but he as one of Abraham's Seed hath Abraham's blessing come upon him For the clearing up the evidence given in to the truth of our foregoing Proposition by this Scripture I shall do these two things First I shall prove that this blessing of Abraham said to be come upon believing Gentiles is that very good contained in that promise wherein God ingaged himself to be a God to Abraham and his Seed and remove what Objections may be made to the contrary Secondly I shall prove that this blessing is come upon the Gentiles through Christ in the same latitude and extent that it was given to Abraham at the first establishment of the Covenant with him For the first viz. That this blessing came upon the Gentiles through Christ is the good contained in the aforementioned promise This is evident from the Context First From verse 16. where sayes the Apostle Now unto Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made he said not unto Seeds as of many but to thy Seed which is Christ This verse 16 is added for the confirmation of what the Apostle had asserted in verse 14 For the clearing up of this we must observe that by the promise of the Spirit in the latter clause of that verse 14. and the blessing of Abraham in the former clause of this verse one and the same good is intended 'T is true Beza conceives two distinct blessings are intended and therefore he adds that Copulative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and takes that phrase The promise of the Spirit by an Hebraism for the Spirit promised but that cannot be for then as Pareus observes it should not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the promise of the Spirit as it is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Spirit of promise and therefore by the promise of the Spirit we must understand either that spiritual promise so Pareus or rather that promise which God by his Spirit gave unto Abraham and which by the inspiration of the Spirit is left upon record in the Scripture and that is the promise containing the blessing before mentioned or if any should understand it of the Spirit himself taking it of his in-dwellling presence they shall not be gain said by me And the meaning is this Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law that we whether Jews or Gentiles might receive the promise of the Spirit viz. that blessing promised to Abraham by the Spirit through faith in Christ that is that being united by faith unto Christ and incorporated into him as members of his mystical body we might receive that blessing promised to Abraham and now come upon the Gentiles through Christ So that that which the Apostle asserts in this ver 14. is this that the blessing promised to Abraham is come upon the Gentiles through their incorporation into Christ by faith and this the Apostle proves in verse 16. by the tenour of the promise wherein the blessing atorementioned is contained The tenour of the promise is this not I will be a God to thee and thy Seeds but to thee and thy Seed as intending only one species or kind of Seed which the Apostle expounds to be Christ that is Christ mystical Now observe it the Apostles urging the tenour of the promise to prove that the blessing of Abraham is come upon the Genriles as he had afore affirmed it to be in verse 14 evidently declares he must needs intend the blessing contained in that promise if he had intended it of any other blessing than that good given to Abraham and his Seed by that promise the tenour of that promise had not prov'd what he was to prove so that it must needs be that blessing promised to Abraham that the Apostle here affirms to be come upon believing Gentiles through Jesus Christ Now that this promise by the tenour of which the Apostle prov'd what he had said verse 14. is this very promise made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 is evident past all doubt in as much as the Apostle must needs refer to some promise made to Abraham and his Seed in that very phrase To thee and thy Seed the strength of the Apostles Argument lying in the manner of expression to thy Seed Now we have no other promise containing a good competable to the Gentiles exprest in that phrase but this only so that it is evident that this blessing said to be come upon the Gentiles through Christ is that blessing contained in that very promise wherein God ingaged to be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their generations As for that promise in Gen. 12.3 there is no mention at all of Abraham's Seed and for that Gen. 17.19 unto which some seem to suppose the Apostle here hath reterence there is no mention
to the personal faith and repentance of any in or of their respective houses But the promise of Salvation belongs to the houses of believing Parents by vertue of something universally predicable of all such Parents and therefore the promise of Salvation must needs belong to all their respective houses as the houses of such Parents without consideration had to the personal faith and repentance of any in or of this house The Major proposition cannot be denyed for if the promise of Salvation belong to the houses of believing Parents meerly by vertue of something universally predicable of all such Parents certainly then none can question but that the promise belongs to those houses as the houses of such Parents without consideration had to any thing in or done by the houses themselves or any in or of them If freedom in such a Town or Corporation shall belong to the Children of Free-men meerly by vertue of their Parents freedom sure none could question but that freedom did belong to them as the Children of such Parents without consideration had to any thing in respect of the Children themselves For the Minor proposition and thus I have three things to do First To shew what is that thing predicable of believing Parents by vertue of which the promise of Salvation belongs to their respective houses Secondly To prove that the promise of Salvation doth indeed belong to the houses of such Parents meerly by vertue of that thing predicable of them Thirdly To prove that that thing whatever it be is universally predicable or is universally true of all such Parents For the first And thus in brief That thing predicable of believing Parents by vertue of which the promise of Salvation belongs to their respective houses is their relation unto Abraham as his Seed Therefore shaith Christ of Zacheus his house This day is Salvation come to this house for as much as he is the Son of Abraham 'T is his Sonship to Abraham or his relation to Abraham as one of his Seed that interested his house in the promise of Salvation Secondly Which is the main thing to be proved That the promise of Salvation doth belong to the houses of believing Parents meerly by vertue of their Parents relation unto Abraham as his Seed Now this is evident from that passage of Christ concerning Zacheus his house Salvation is come to this house for as much as he also is a Son of Abraham that by house is not meant Zacheus himself is before proved it must needs be meant of his Houshold or Family peculiarly intending his Children Now sayes Christ Salvation is come to this house that is to this Houshold or Family for as much as he is a Son of Abraham Whether Zacheus was a Jew or a Roman is all one as to my purpose seeing he is considered here not as a natural but as a mystical Son of Abraham and as such a one Christ affirms Salvation was come to his house plainly grounding his houses right to and interest in Salvation upon his own relation to Abraham as one of his Seed Salvation was not only to himself but to his houshold by vertue of his relation to Abraham as one of his Seed and that the promise of Salvation belongs to the houses of such Parents meerly by vertue of that their relation to Abraham is evident because the Scripture assigns nothing else as necessarily to concur with that their Parents relation unto Abraham for the effecting or producing their houses right to and interest in the promise Christ tells us here That Salvation was come to this mans house by vertue of his relation unto Abraham and let it be shewed where any thing else is required for the effecting or producing that their interest in and right to the promise It may be some will say 'T is easily done the Apostle Peter makes effectual calling a necessary prerequisite to the Seed of believing Parents interest in and right to the promises for saith he The Promise is to you and your Children and to all that are afar off even to as many as the Lord our God shall call Whence it seems to be evident that notwithstanding Parents relation to Abraham as his Seed yet the promise of Salvation appertains not to their Children but upon supposition of their being effectually called To that I answer two things not to stay upon a vindication of that Text of the Apostle from the unsound sence supposed in this Objection First That Christ doth not say Salvation shall come to this house but he speaks in the time past Salvation is come 't is true if it had been only a promise referring to the time to come there had been some shew of colour for the supposing such a condition to be implyed in it but Christ saith Salvation was then come and that upon that ground and for that reason because he also was a Son of Abraham Now should we interpret this affirmation of Christ by that of the Apostle according to the sence given by our Opposers his words would run thus Salvation is come to this house that is to as many of them as the Lord our God shall call which would be contradictory for if it were come already the coming of it could not depend upon a future condition If the coming of Salvation did depend upon the performance of a future condition it could not be said to be come already and therefore we must not interpret this passage of Christ by that of Peter but that passage of Peter by that of Christ Secondly I answer That this was a good vouchsafed to Zacheus upon the account of his relation to Abraham as one of his Seed and answerably was a good common to all standing alike related to Abraham and proper and peculiar unto them but now to have the promise of Salvation upon condition of being effectually called is a good conmon to all men universally and therefore the promise is said to be to all whom the Lord our God shall call but Salvation was cme to Zacheus his house as he was a Son of Abraham so that we see it was meerly by vertue of his relation unto Abraham that the promise of Salvation belongs to his house Christ affirming that Sakvatuib was come by vertue of that his relation and the Scripture being silent as to the necessary concurrence of any thing else for the interesting his house in the promise of Salvation we may positively conclude the promise of Salvation doth belong to the houses of all believing Parents meerly by vertue of that their relation to Abraham as his Seed especially if we consider Thirdly That this relation to Abraham is universally predicable of all believing Parents All believing Parents are the Children of Abraham and consequently this could be no priviledge peculiar to Zacheus to have Salvation come to his house as he was a Son of Abraham But is a priviledge common to all believing Parents they standing alike related to Abraham as he
thee and thy house that is eminently thy Children which is all one as to the sence and importance of that promise Salvation shall come to thee and thy house or The promise will be to thee and thy Children all these phrases are of one and the same importance and signification So that from all the truth of this our third Conclusion evidently appears and from it before I proceed to the other we may infer these two things First That it is not at all necessary to affirm or prove that there were any Infants in the Jaylor house at this time in order to the proving from the Apostles making this conditional promise to him and his house that the promises of the Covenant are given to and setled upon believing Gentiles in the same latitude and extent that they were given to Abraham at the first establishment of the Covenant with him if he had any Infants the promise had belonged to them as part of his house the promise was to him with reference to his house as a Believer without consideration had to the personal faith and repentance of any in or of his house hence whoever was to be included in this term house had the promise appertaining to them whether capable of believing or repenting or no and consequently had appertained to his Infants in case he had had any they being necessarily to be included in this term house and suppose there was no Infants in his house at that time yet in that this was a promise not peculiar and proper to him but common to all Believers the promise belongs to the Infants in their respective houses The promise appertains to the house by vertue of the Parents believing as thereby they are ingrafted into Abraham's Family and become one of his Seed and hence all that are included in that term house have the promise appertaining unto them and consequently Infants as well as others And if it should be said There might be some Children grown up who might refuse to accept of the promise as made upon the terms of the Gospel and how could the promise appertain to them I answer Their case would have been the very same with the case of the Jews at the first preaching of the Gospel The promise appertain'd to them as of the houses of believing Parents but their actual refusal would have ipso facto disanulled that their right and title to the promise and so they by their own sin had deprived themselves of the good promised Secondly We may infer that the Scripture frequently mentioning the personal faith and repentance of the houses or of any in the houses of believing Parents no way opposes but on the other hand strongly confirms the truth of what we affirm in this second Proposition concerning the settlement of Abraham's promise in the full latitude and extend of it upon believing Gentiles in that the houses or any in the houses of believing Parents were savingly wrought upon either at the same time or immediately after their Parents believing and accepting the terms of the Covenant it cannot be with the least shew of reason inferred or concluded from thence that they had not the promise of Salvation appertaining to them meerly as the houses or as of the houses of such Parents without consideration had to their own personal faith and repentance but on the other hand it doth strongly prove they were under the promise as the houses of such Parents in their believing and repenting the Promise was verified their believing and repenting was a visible demonstration that the promise in the extent and latitude before exprest viz. as reaching and taking in the houses with the Parents themselves was duly and rightfully applyed to such Parents by the Apostle when we find the Apostle applyes the promises of the Covenant to the Gentiles in the same latitude and extent that they were given to Abraham viz. as taking in their Children with them and them read of the faith and repentance of their Children immediately following upon their own believing it may more fully assure us that the promise runs still in the same latitude and extent that it formerly run in why we have not only the Apostles application of the promise for our assurance but we have God himself confirming that application made by the Apostle in his giving in the good promised in that extent and latitude in which the Apostle did apply the promise The Apostle applyes the promise in this extent Thou and thy house shall be saved God by actually giving in the good promised assures us that the Apostles application was according to his mind and will that he was and would be still a God not only to believing Gentiles personally considered but a God also to their respective houses So that whether there were any Infant-children or any Children in their Infant capacity in these houses the baptism of which is recorded in Scripture or no is all one as to what I contend for The promise of Salvation which is equivolently the same with that of Gods being a God to them appertains to the houses of believing Parents as such without consideration had to the personal faith of those houses or any in them If there were no Infant-children yet the promise appertains to the house if there were the promise appertained to them as part of such a house and the mention made in Scripture of the personal faith and repentance of such houses or any in them no way opposes but confirms their interest in and right to that promise of Salvation and consequently they ought to be baptized as will appear from the proof of our third Proposition But let that suffice for the second Conclusion which is that I principally aimed at and therefore have especially insisted upon it I shall but mention the other two And therefore Fourthly That the interest that the houses of beliving Parents have in the promise of Salvation denominates them holy and constitutes them of the Kingdom Church or Mystical Body of Christ this I gather from Mark 10. and 1 Cor. 7.14 taken in conjunction with those other new Testament Scriptures aforementioned Lastly That this interest in the promise of Salvation accrews to the houses of believing Parents by vertue of such Parents relation to Abraham as his Seed This is evident from that of Christ concerning Zacheus Salvation is come to his house for as much as he is a Son of Abraham And from all it appears that the very same promise made to Abraham and his natural Seed is still continued to and setled upon believing Gentiles which is our second Proposition Let us now hear what is objected against what is asserted in it CHAP. VII Objections against the second subordinate Proposition considered and answered Object 1. 'T Is conceived by some and that not a few that what hath been affirm'd in the foregoing Propositions at least the latter of them lyes in a direct opposition to that Text of the Apostle Rom. 9.7
be questioned by any For the Minor proposition viz. That this Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed was yet never disanâ—â—â—ed 〈◊〉 abrogated is expresly declared by the Applist Gal. 3.17 This I say Brethren that the Covenant which was confirmed of God in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disanul that it should make the Promise of none effect What Covenant the Apostle here intends is sufficiently evident as from the foregoing verse so from the whole context viz. That Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed in their generations as hath been before proved Now saith the Apostle of this Covenant the Law which was given four hundred and thirty years after the establishment of it could not disanual it and let it be diligently observed that in case this Covenant had been disanulled either at or any time before the coming of faith as the Apostle speaks that is at the laying aside the Mosaical Pedagogy and the setting up the Gospel administration in the room thereof and from that time since sure none will pretend it hath been disanulled it had been all one as to the design of the Apostle as if it had been disanulled by the Law had it been disanulled at the setting up yea or were to have been disanulled during the dispensation of the Gospel under which we are The Apostle could no more have proved that the blessing of Abraham was come upon the Gentiles through Christ as believed in from the tenour of that Covenant as we see he doth then if it had been disanulled by the Law for if it had not been disanulled by the Law yet if it had been disanulled at or consequent to the setting up of the Gospel administration the tenour of that Covenant had no way proved what the Apostle designed the proof of To what purpose should the Apostle have produced the tenour of that Covenant to prove the necessity of the Gentiles incorporation into Christ in order to their enjoying the blessing of Abraham had it been now disanulled in case it had not been disanulled by the Law so that it is past all doubt that that Covenant was not disanulled when the Apostle wrote to the Galatians nor was to be disanulled during the Gospel administration we are now under and consequently there being but one Covenant according to which the benefits and blessings of the Gospel are dispensed unto Gentile Believers it must needs be this very Covenant afore made with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations which is the thing to be proved Secondly If believing Gentiles enjoy the saving blessings and benefits of the Gospel as the Seed of Abraham by vertue of that very Promise of the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed in their generations then the Covenant made with him and his Seed is one and the same for substance with that Covenant believers are still under but the former is true therefore the latter It is marvellous how it can enter into the heart of any man that is master of his own understanding to imagine that there should be a real and specifical difference between that Covenant made with Abraham and the Covenant Believers are now under when it is by vertue of the fundamental promise of that Covenant made with Abraham that they enjoy all the good of the Gospel or all the saving good they are by Christ made partakers of Can they be under one Covenant and yet enjoy all the good they do enjoy by Christ by vertue of another Covenant really and specifically divers from that they are under and which is long since disanulled and abrogated To affirm it it would be an absolute contradiction And that they do enjoy all the good they have by Christ as they are Abraham's Seed by vertue of this very Promise of that Covenant made with Abraham is so evident throughout this whole discourse of the Apostle that it needs no other proof than the bare reciting of his words see Gal. 3.29 If ye are Christs then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise But it may be some will yet object Certainly not withstanding all that hath been said there must needs be a real and specifical difference between the Covenant that the Jews were under during the first Testament administration and the Covenant that Believers are under during the new TesTament administration for doth not the Scripture expresly call them two Covenants doth not the new Testament frequently speak of a new Covenant that Believers are now under in a contradistinction from the old To that I answer That when the Scripture speaks of two Covenants or speaks of a new Covenant established with Believers under the new Testament it alwayes hath reference to that Covenant made with the people of Israel at Mount Sinai and never hath reference to this Covenant made with Abraham the words are as plain as words can be expressed see Gal. 4. latter end Heb. 8.8 Yea the Scripture is express that the new Covenant is the same that was first entred with Abraham So that I say the Covenant of Grace we are now under is not another Covenant specifically different from this made with Abraham but they are for the substance one and the same and hence this Objection not only vanisheth but we have an additional confirmation of the truth of what is affirmed in our second Proposition and we might add 5. A fifth Argument thus If the Covenant be one and the same then the Promises of it must unless limited by God himself run in one and the same extent and latitude but the Covenant is one and the same and the Promises are not limited by God himself therefore they must run in one and the same extent and latitude But the truth asserted is sufficiently evident therefore I need not inlarge upon it In shall come to the second thing proposed in answer to this Objection Secondly NotwithsTanding the Covenant made with Abraham and that made with Believers should be really and specifically diverse the one from the other yet upon the supposal of the truth of what cannot be gainsaid by our Opposers unless they shall in express terms contradict the Apostle himself this second Proposition may be true and consequently the asserting and maintaining that the Promise made to Abraham in that latitude and extent as to take in his natural Seed as joynt Subjects with him of the same Promise is given to and setled upon believing Gentiles in the same extent and latitude doth not necessarily require the asserting and maintaining the Covenant entred with him and the Covenant entred with Believers to be one and the same Covenant for the clearing up and evidencing of this let it be observed that the Apostle doth in express words affirm That if the Gentiles are Christs they are Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3.29 Whence it is undeniably evident that believing Gentiles are heirs to Abraham's blessing or to the Promise made to
doth not suppose their personal salling I say though this might admit of a debate taking this Scripture abstractly in it self yet comparing this Scripture with the evidence before given that the Promise runsin that extent and latitude as to take in Parents and Children surely it is past all rational doubt that Children here are to be taken as the Children of such Parnts the promise is to you and to your Children as they are your Children But having so fully proved this I shall add no more at present Fourthly To add strength to the foregoing Arguments let us take in those several Instances recorded in the new Testament of whole Housholds being baptized upon the faith or conversion of one or both Parents That together with the Parents upon their faith their respective Housholds were frequently baptized is in the new Testament fully declared See Acts 16.14.15 so also verse 33. of the same Chapter 1 Cor. 16.16 touching all which Instances let these three things be observed First That it is very probable if not fully certain that at least some in or of some of these Houses said to be baptized were haptized not upon the account of their own personal profession of Faith and Repentance but upon the account of their Parents Faith For the clearing up of this I shall premise three things First That under this term House or Houshold we must comprehend and take in all the natural Children that were at least then present of these Parents whose Houses are recorded to be baptized we must take the Holy Ghost according to the literal and proper sense of his words where there is no necessary Reason as here there is not otherwise to understand him Secondly That these Houses or Housholds may be rationally supposed to be considerably great these phrases Housholds all his and the like note only a bare plurality of persons but that they were in some measure numerous Thirdly That not only Infants as new born or in their infant-state but such Children who had arrived to a higher state of childhood or were grown to some years of maturity must yet be rationally supposed to be baptized not upon the account of their own personal profession of Faith and Repentance but upon the account of their Parents and the Reason is evident because such Children cannot be rationally supposed to be capable of attaining to in an ordinary way a competent measure of knowledge in the Mysteries of the Gospel in so short a time as did intervene between the Parents imbracement of the Gospel and their own and their Houses Baptism And the Spirit of God in his ordinary way of working works according to the capacity of the Subjects he works in and upon Vnum quodque recipitue secundum modum recipientis Hence our Opposers must either say that in their Houses there were not only no Infants but none in their childhood or else they must say that when the Holy Ghost speaks of Houses he intended only some particular persons in those Houses But for the first It is altogether improbable that there should be so many Families and yet no young Children in them there is a probability there might be Infants but much more that there were Children who though past their infancy in a strict sense yet improbably baptized upon the account of their own personal profession and as for the latter that would be to recede from the letter of the Text which ought not to be without evident necessity whereas here is none at all And for the further clearing up of this first Observation let us take a more particular account of that one Instance of Lydia's house said to be baptized with her the story you have Acts 16.14 15. And here let three things be attended to First That it is evident her Houshold was with her at that Assembly of Women to whom the Apostle preached for after her own and her Housholds baptism she beseecheth Paul to go home with her verse 15. Secondly It is evident this was an Assembly of Women verse 13. Thirdly Here is no mention made of the conversion of any but of Lydia her self Now let things have their due consideration Lydia's Houshold was baptized that is all her Houshold or all that appertained to her that might be properly said to be her Houshold it seems she carried her whole Houshold to that Assembly this Houshold probably numerous or consisting of several persons otherwise the prrticulars would in reason have beeen mentioned here were no Males grown up for it was an Assembly of Women It is true there might be Males in their infancy or childhood it being no way unbeseeming to carry such to such an Assembly and notwithstanding them the Assembly might be said to be an Assembly of Women Now how improbable is it that there should be a Family a numerous Family and not one Male among them if there were any they must rationally be supposed to be in their childhood a great Family and not one Infant or Child in it but every one capable of a ready understanding what was taught so as in a few hours to attain to a competent knowledge in the Mysteries of the Gospel and these all wrought upon by one Sermon when none else in the whole Assembly for ought is recorded were wrought upon yet that the Holy Ghost should only take notice of the conversion of Lydia her her self and not in the least intimate the conversion of any in or of her Houshold I will not say but that it is simply possible that there might be the concurrence of all these things but it is to me altogether improbable that it should be so it is vastly more probable that some if not all that were baptized of her Houshold were indeed baptized upon the account of her Faith and not upon the account of a personal profession of Faith and Repentance that themselves did mrke But here it is said That this Houshold of Lydia had some Men in it as appears from verse 40. and it is probable some Women also who were converted with Lydia and they are the Houshold said to be baptized But to that I answer That it doth no way appear that these Brethren whom the Apostle verse 40. is said to have seen were of Lydia's Houshold they might be Neighbours converted after Paul's comming to her House who now came in to see Paul or whom Paul before his departure went to visit 'T is evident by what hath been already said they were none of her Houshold said before to be baptized with her so that this one Instance all things considered makes it exceeding probable if not evidently certain that some in the Houses whose baptism is recorded in Scripture were baptized upon the meer account of the Parents Faith without consideration had to their own personal Faith and repentance Secondly Let it be observed that it doth not appear that any in or of these Housholds were converted antecedent to their baptism as for Lydia's
speaks not at all of the Subjects of Baptism but of the issue of the Apostles discharging their whole Commission both in respect of preaching and baptizing in respect of those towards whom they should discharge it in case they should receive the Gospel preached or through the preaching of the Gospel should believe and were baptized then they should be saved but though they had the Gospel never so faithfully preached to them yea though they might so far imbrace it as to submit to Baptism yet unless they believe they should notwithstanding that be damned Thirdly It is yet further urged that in case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them did refer unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nations without any limitation then this Commission would warrant the baptism of any Person or Nation in the world whether taught or no which it is rightly said we our selves acknowledge ought not to be To this the answer is at hand 'T is true it would do so in case there were no other directions in any other part of the Scriptures for the Ministers of the Gospel to regulate themselves by in the discharge of this Commission but this supposed evil consequence is sufficiently obviated in other places of Scripture where the right Subjects of Baptism are sufficiently declared viz. grown persons in case they were not afore baptized upon their faith and repentance and with them their Infant-seed and this I conceive is the very design of Christ in this Commission to authorize yea enjoyn the preaching of the Gospel and administration of Baptism to the whole world by persons duly called to administer Gospel Ordinances unto men yet so as to regulate themselves in respect of both the one and the other by such directions and limitations as himself had or should give in relation to a due administration of both Ordinances and that the Disciples and Ministers of the Gospel were and are to regulate themselves in the dispensing the Gospel unto men as well in the administration of Baptism by other Rules afore or after given by Christ is sufficiently evident throughout the new Testament so that notwithstaning what it urged to the contrary I conceive it is fully evident that them in this Commission specifying the Subjects of Baptism refers to Nations not to Disciples as its Antecedent Now having discovered the uncertainty yea falsity of this first Principle asserted and laid as a foundation to the Objection proposed the Objection is so far enervated as that little need be added to the other two things from which in conjunction with this it receives the whole of what strength it hath And therefore secondly as to what is asserted in the second place viz. That Infants neither are nor can in propriety of speech be called Disciples it concerns not me it is enough as to my present purpose that they may be comprehended under that phrase All Nations I shall therefore only say that I cannot but conceive that will men judge impartially suppose we should grant that them in this Commission of Christ doth refer to Disciples and not to Nations and consequently that Disciples are the proper Subjects of Baptism yet they must acknowledge that what hath been said by others to prove that Infants may and ought according to Scripture account be numbred among the Disciples of Christ renders this Objection wholly insufficient to counterballance the evidence produced from other Scriptures for the establishment of the practice now pleaded for which is all at present I contend for And therefore thirdly As for that Assertion That this Institution or Commission is to be understood exclusively and consequently that none are to be baptized but such whose baptism is in express terms warranted by it I shall only say it is true we ought so to understand it in case we had no other Scriptures for our direction in the administration of Baptism but take this Commission or Institution absolutely in it self and the not including Infants in it is not an excluding of them out of it We see here Christ speaks immediately and directly to his Disciples Go ye therefore c. none besides them are expresly included in it and shall we say therefore that this Gommission only concerned them Surely no it is a Commission for all that at that time or in after Ages should be called forth by Christ to minister in the Gospel so it will not follow suppose Disciples be the Antecedent to them that therefore none else are to be baptized As for what Instances are brought of Commands exprest only positively yet interpreted by all Interpreters exclusively as 1 Cor. 11.28 and the like the Reason is because no other Scriptures allow any others but such there spoken of to partake of that Ordinance there spoken of otherwise the bare commanding persons to examine themselves in order to their due receiving of that Ordinance doth not of it self exclude all others from it that do not or cannot examine themselves so that I say the Institution or Commission as abstractedly taken doth not exclude all from the participation of this Ordinance of Baptism who are not in express terms comprehended in it which is all that I contend for and as I have said I suppose will be granted on all hands so that should we grant that them is to be referred to Disciples included in that Verb and that Infants are not Scripture Disciples neither of which notwithstanding all that is said by our Opposers is granted our Proposition may stand firm for though Infants are not expresly included in the Commission yet they are not excluded out of it therefore their Baptism must stand or fall by the evidence of other Scriptures and we having sufficient evidence from other Scriptures that it is the will of Christ that they should be baptized their not being expresly mentioned in the Commission ought to be no Remora in the way of our thankful imbracement of what light he hath elsewhere given of his mind and will in this matter Object 3. There is an Objection or Argument which some seem to conceive to have a very great strength in it yea to be unanswerable which is carried on gradually to this issue say the Framers of it Seeing there is no express Command requiring the Baptism of Infants the practice must needs be deduced only in a consequential way from the Scriptures Now to prove that it cannot be rightly and duly deduced from any Scripture in a consequential way so as that the omission of it should be a sin in the Parents and their sin it must be if it be a sin at all against any Law of Christ it is thus argued If the omission or neglect of the Baptism of Infants were a sin chargeable upon their Parents as being a transgression of some Divine Law then some one or other at one time or other would in Scripture have been commended for the practice of it or blamed for the neglect of it But no one at any time whatsoever is in
or Mystical still regulating their judgments about the additions alterations and variations of the Covenant together with the Sign and Token thereof by what the Scriptures declare of Gods proceeding therein from time to time they would come to a more clear understanding what the will of Christ relating to the practice under consideration is But when people shall look upon Baptism as abstracted from its uses and ends and the notion under which it is commanded and then limit and terminate their inquiries after the Subjects it is to be applyed unto to the Scriptures of the new Testament overlooking the whole of what God hath declared of his mind and will touching a right to and interest in the Covenant throughout the old Testament having no regard to the ground that interest in and right to the Covenant gives to the Sign and Token of it 't is no wonder though they fall under so great mistakes especially if we consider in the second place the usual issue and products of these inquiries as thus preposterously managed in and upon the minds of men and that is a strong conceit that because they find not in so many express words mention made of the Baptism of Infants in the new Testament therefore undoubtedly it is not according to the mind and will of Christ that they should be baptized and people having their minds strongly possessed with this conceit are easily perswaded that they have no interest in or right to the Covenant or Promises thereof whereas would they but before their minds are possessed with such a prejudicate conceit search after the interest of the Seed of Belivers in the Covenant throughout the whole Scriptures I doubt not but as they would plainly discern that their interest so they would more easily be perswaded of their right to Baptism the present Token of the Covenant therefore if ever we would come to a clear understanding of the mind and will of Christ relating to the Baptism of Infants let our inquiries after it be regular These things I could willingly have spoken more fully to but the Book swelling to a bigger bulk than I had hoped it would have done and having staid something long in the Press these brief hints shall suffice And therefore Thirdly That the Reader especially that is less able to pass a Judgment upon an Argument may reap the full benefit designed him by the insuing Treatise I shall here give him a brief Summary of what is more largely discoursed herein What I have adventured thus publickly to appear in the defence of as the Reader will see in the main Proposition laid as a foundation to the insuing Discourse is the Affirmative of that so long and so much agitated Question concerning the Baptism of Infants and all that I have at present ingaged in the defence of is the Affirmative of that Question as it respects the Infant seed of Believers whether both the Parents or only one be so and that as immediately proceeding from their own loins The method I have proceeded in the Reader will find in the second page the necessity of proceeding in that method I have already intimated which I desire the Reader to take notice of that when he finds himself led into a large discourse for the confirmation of the two former subordinate Propositions there laid down he may not suppose himself led out of his way as to the proof of the main Proposition those that will find out the mind and will of our Lord Christ concerning the Baptism of Infants must first know his will concerning their interest in the Covenant and the Promises thereof And those that will know the will of Christ concerning the Infant seed of Believers interest in the Covenant and Promises thereof must begin at the first establishment of it with Abraham the common Father of all Believers And that I might proceed with more clearness and with greater advantage to the Reader I have indeavoured fully to explain at least so far as my present design did require that grand Promise of the Covenant unto which the three subordinate Propositions do refer where the Reader will find that though God in that term Seed did intend Abraham's whole Seed or all those he should sustain the relation of a Father unto yet according to the letter of that Promise he had a direct and immediate respect to his natural Seed yet after a different manner according to a twofold consideration they fall under First As his natural Children as immediately proceeding from his own loins Secondly As his natural Race and Posterity mediately descending from him in after Ages Hence the Promise is to be considered of either as a definite Promise made to his Seed distributively taken and so it did teach to all his Children immediately proceeding from his own loins and as it did respect his natural Seed only to them or as an indefinite Promise made to his Seed collectively taken and so it did extend to his whole natural Race and Posterity my meaning more plainly is this That this Promise was either so made to Abraham's natural Seed as that each of them as severally and particularly taken had as his Seed an actual interest in it Thus it was only made to his Children as immediately proceeding from his own loins or was so made to his Seed as though none in particular had meerly as his natural Seed an actual interest in it yet God did thereby signifie and declare his will and purpose to vouchsafe unto them more generally considered and that as the Seed of Abraham that priviledge of a Covenant-relation with himself in definite Promises God speaks to particular persons in indefinite Promises he speaks to none in particular only declares his will and purpose concerning such a sort or species of men to whom he makes good his Promises according to the good pleasure of his own will in a complyance with his eternal purposes and decrees Now in my first subordinate Proposition where I say that God intended Abraham's natural Seed as the immediate and next Subjects of that Promise I mean his Children as immediately proceeding from his own loins and take the Promise as a definite Promise This I have proved at large Chap. 2. and answered what Objections I could imagine might be made against it Chap. 3. whether I must refer the Reader for full satisfaction And this first Proposition being clear the way lyes plain to the Second it being a very rational Supposal that what Priviledge or Blessing the Father injoyed should supposing it alike competable to them as to him descend to his Seed as his Heirs and that believing Gentiles Abraham's mystical Seed have this Promise of the Covenant given to and settled upon them and that in the same latitude and extent in which it was given to Abraham himself as a natural Father of natural Children only allowing to him aâ— Father that preheminence mentioned page 65. is evident First From the very Tenour of the Promise