of those of Abrahams seed which degenerated and slighted the Covenant of the Gospel and these were properly the carnal seed Suitable to this is that distinction of Abraham being a natural and a spiritual Father For First He was a natural Father to these to whom he was a spiritual Father as to Isaac and Jacob and the godly of their posterity Secondly All to whom he was a natural Father were under the Covenant and had the seal until they rejected themselves the promise took in both relations as to outward administration Rom. 3.1 2 3 4. And if men truly state things you may argue as much against Abrahams natural seed from enjoying these priviledges as believers natural seed now and with as much evidence of truth But let us weigh these Scriptures which are brought by our Opposites First consider that of Rom. 9.6 7 8. They are not all Israel that are of Israel neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called that is they which are the Children of the flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of promise are accounted for the seed The Apostle in this Chapter doth with a bleeding heart begin the sad story of the Jews rejection from being a Church and speaks as one loth to mention it and therefore brings it in with a passionate and hearty Apology v. 1 2 3. he was in heaviness he could wish himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accursed from Christ for his brethren his Kinsmen according to the flesh that is for these that we call Jews according to the flesh Q. But what needed all this trouble to have a carnal generation of men cut of why doth Paul Paul take on so heavily Sol. In the 4 and 5 v. he tels you Who are Israelites to whom pertains the adoption of glory and the Covenant and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the promises whose are the Fathers of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came Here is a Catalogue of high priviledges which belonged to the Jews which they were to be cut off from which lay on Pauls heart and was like to sink him Ob. Well might some say v. 6. then the promise of God is in vain if they be rejected unto whom the adoption and the promises belong Sol. The Apostle anticipates that Objection Not as though the Word of God hath taken no effect no the promise is the same and immutable but they are not all Israel which are of Israel neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all Children c. This is the very natural coherence of these words let us now use our judgements to distinguish and review the place and we shall find it a weapon whose edge is turned against these that count it their own 1. The Apostle is sadly troubled for his kinsmen after the flesh for their rejection his reason is because of the Covenant and the promises made to them because they were the natural seed of Abraham which holds forth that the promises and the priviledges of the Covenant were made indefinitely to all the Israelites 2. That it 's a most sad thing to be excluded from the outward and general administration of the Covenant Why should Paul thus break out in his affections for the loss of outward priviledges if it were not such a mercy to be under them 3. The Apostle holds forth that persons may be under the outward administrations of the Covenant and yet not get the efficacy of it v. 6. They are not all Israel that are of Israel the Covenant was made with Abraham and his seed all that were of him and yet all were not Israel that is partakers of the inward life and efficacy of the Covenant the Apostle only in these verses endeavours to take off that Objection that God had broke his Covenant by casting away the Jews and so distinguisheth of these that were meerly of his flesh who had the outward administration but not the inward fruit and these which were elect in the promise In Isaac shall thy seed be called the rest he cals the Children of the flesh the former the Children of promise v. 8. and so though they were under the outward dispensation of the Covenant yet God was not mutable nor his promise though he rejected them because of their own degeneration so that the sum of this place is 1. That the Covenant was made in general with Abrahams seed to all that came from him 2. That in the administration of general and indefinite promises there is a secret distinction and a vein of election carried through the administration that takes hold of some not of others 3. That none are the Children of promise real Saints but those that have the true effects of the Covenant in their hearts 4. That all Children of Believers though the promise visibly belong to them as to Abraham and his seed yet may not follow their Parents faith and so not be Israel though of Israel But here is nothing at all to demonstrate that Infants because Children of the flesh are not under the promise but rather the contrary for in Isaac shall thy seed be called saith God now he was a Child of Abrahams flesh as well as these which were cast off and yet a Child of promise so God makes his Covenant indefinitely with believers and their seed and yet the efficacy of the Covenant may reach but some an Isaac or a Jacob an elect vessel and yet the other under the outward administration until they manifest the contrary But more of this from that Acts 2.38 39. I come now to that other place so much urged by them Gal. 3.16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made he saith not to seeds as of many but of one which is Christ Now by Christ here cannot be meant barely Christ personal for then no believer should be accounted for the seed but only Christ it must be meant of Christ mystically or Politically considered as the visible Head of the Church if to Christ mysticall then to all the Elect as in him and so to Infants as well as grown persons who make up that mystical body but thus the promise is conveyed under ground as it were none knows the veins of it thus in the Old Testament flesh and flesh came from Abraham the Covenant administred to them both by its seal yet one flesh enjoying the spiritual blessings the other rejected Take the promise to be made to Christ the seed as the Head of a visible Church then still it speaks for us for Infants of believers were never cast out of the visible Church they were once in and the promise is made now to them with their Parents as shall be hereafter proved at large but if we look no further back then the 14th v. of this Chapter we shall receive some light to this It 's said in the 13th v. Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us c. that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Christ Abrahams blessing what was it but the promises and the fruits and priviledges of the promise and Covenant made to him and his seed The same blessing is now come on the Gentiles but through Christ who took away all obstructions in the passage of the Covenant by his death Now 1. This blessing of Abraham was not personal but to him and his seed 2. This very blessing is come on Gentile believers as on Abraham therefore it must come on believers of the Gentiles and their seed also For 3. It cannot be called Abrahams blessing except it come on the Gentiles according to the substantial terms of Abrahams Covenant Now this was the absolute form of Abrahams blessing I will be a God of thee and thy seed and this very blessing is come on the Gentiles through Christ as it came on Abraham and therefore it must be to believing Gentiles and their seed else it will neither be Abrahams blessing in the form nor fatness of it Abrahams blessing will descend on the Gentiles clipt half off not like it self And it must needs be a very uncouth saying to all judicious ears to say that Abrahams blessing is come on the Gentiles by Christ as it was on the Jews by Abraham and exclude half the Subjects at once from any right to it for so you must if you cast out the seed of Gentile believers And to what end should the Apostle say The blessing of Abraham and not the promise or Covenant is come to the Gentiles but that he intended it to the Gentile believers and their seed as formerly it came to Abraham and his This shall be further cleared from Acts 2. and Rom. 11. in their order But in Gal. 3.29 the Apostle say they describes who are the seed If you be Christ's then you are Abrahams seed and heirs according to promise So that now no Children born of believing Parents can be the seed for they must be Christ's according to that in v. 26. We are all the Children of God through faith in Christ Iesus In general not to omit that which Beza saith on the place that Claromontanus Bible hath the words thus and as he thinks more right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you be one in Christ then are ye Abrahams seed This is suitable to the former verse where he saith There is neither Iew nor Greek neither bond nor free c. but ye are all one in Christ Iesus and if ye be all one then Abrahams seed From which 1. It 's clear the Apostle is endeavouring to take away all d fference between Jew and Gentile and to hold forth their unity in Christ where there is no distinction as formerly but now the Gentiles being one in Christ are Abrahams seed as well as the natural and believing Jews 2. The Apostle here hath no intent to shew the distinction of Abrahams seed as the subject of the outward priviledges and administrations of Ordinances but to shew that none are spiritually and really Abrahams seed and heirs of promise but such as are Christ's one in him with Abraham For if this should be the distinction of seed as the subject of outward Ordinances it would be as much against professing believers as Infants for there is a carnal profession as well as a fleshly generation the former more abominable The Proposition from this expression as they draw it is thus None but these who are Christ's are Abrahams seed and none are Christ's but reall believers and therefore none but they must be baptized Thus some say though weakly The spiritual seed are now the subject of Baptism the new Creature the man in Christ Baptism knows no flesh with many such like expressions from this and other places But let us weigh things 1. If none but such are Abrahams seed and so none but such the subject of Baptism then visible believers are not the subject of Baptism for they may not be Christs ' or new Creatures no more then Infants hardly one among twenty that are truly in Christ among the most glorious of them and so not Abrahams seed 2. None must be baptized at all upon this account for who knows who is Christ's according to election and saving faith If they say We have charitable grounds to believe so of visible Professors until we see the contrary I answer This is nothing to the Question as it is stated nor as it lies in the text the text saith If ye be Christ's then ye are Abrahams seed You say none are in Christ but real believers and you must baptize none but a spiritual seed and new Creatures which will require not only a judgement of charity but infallibility to determine 2. The Apostle is here describing what the real seed and spiritual seed are as having an inward right to Christ and not what the apparent seed of Abrahams was For 1. Mark whom he speaks unto to grown persons the Galatians who were visible Professors and Believers 2. He puts them to a trial of themselves whether they were Christ's or no after they had made a profession for they having legaliz'd and returned to look after Jewish Ordinances and works he tels them their Ordinances were nothing their priviledges nothing being Jew or Greek but as they were in Christ The same he follows on Chap. 6.15 In Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing but a new Creature So that the Apostle here puts an If to the professing Galatians If ye be Christ's then are ye Abrahams seed 3. If you have no more but the judgement of your charity to distinguish thus of men in Christ real believers and Abrahams seed then we have the same ground of charity to act on Infants of believers For 1. They may be Christs as well as grown persons 2. God would have us account them holy as we shall prove from that 1 Cor. 7.14 3. Seeing they have been taken into the same Covenant 4. Seeing Christ shewed so much respect to Infants when brought to him To judge a visible Professor to be Christ's and Abrahams seed I have nothing but the purblind eye of my probable judgement To judge a believers Infant Christ's I have a general Scripture assertion and the ground of an indefinite promise which is more then all my conjectures So that 1. Visible Professors are not the spiritual seed of Abraham for they may not be Christ's therefore there is no spiritual seed but these that have saving faith which all have not 2. Infants of believers are as much the spiritual seed of Abraham as visible professing believers and we have as much ground to judge of the one as the other until they manifest the contrary and our judgement on them may have less deceit in it then there is in that we pass on grown persons 3. If you will distinguish of Abrahams fleshly
against another rule about distribution which is That Partes divisionis ambulent aequali passu That the parts of a distribution should be equally set together Now here will be a mighty inequality as to the communication of the promise if the words should be taken in their sense the Jews will have a greater priviledge then the Gentiles if Children be not equally added to both the Jews had the promise made to them and their Children at present these afar off shall only have the promise to themselves but not their Children 3. Consider how comes this word your Children to be kept in for what end and use if it were not to shew some special priviledge they have with their Parents when God cals or converts the Parent what stands it for but a stone of offence to conscientious hearts OBIECTION All they answer to this is that the Apostle names their Children to comfort their Parents because they had wished Christs blood on their Children and so to give them hopes they might yet be saved if God should call them SOLUTION To see the sad shifts of errour is wonderful Can any man imagine that the Parents could doubt more or so much of their Childrens being accepted and saved when God should call them who were innocent and only under the sudden rash curse of their Parents when they saw that the promise was to themselves and Christ offered pardon to themselves who were the actual murtherers of the Lord Jesus 2. Such a consideration would rather sadden them then refresh them to mention the calling of their Children For they might more doubt of that then of any thing whether God would call them or no and be as far to seek as ever they were that they would have but cold comfort upon this account this was enough to break their hearts if that were in their eye the old way of conveying the promise is cut off no promise but to called ones our poor Children are uncalled and God knows whether ever they may be called of God Thus might they reason But when he includes them in the same promise with Parents and exhorts the Parents to repent upon this ground that the promise is to them and their Children this savours like a Gospel-comforting-exhortation and could not be but of great efficacy upon their spirits 4. What strange mysterious tautologies would be in this one verse if that last sentence should refer to all the former expressions we must read it thus to make out their sense The promise is to you Parents of the Jews when God shall call you and they were then under the call and to your grown Children when God shall call them and to all which are afar off when God shall call them Can any man with his understanding about him think the Holy Ghost should faulter so much in common expression of his mind when there was no need of adding or calling to any part but to these that were afar off who were never yet under Gods Gospel call Lastly the word Children may and must be understood of Little Ones Infants not of adult and grown persons for these reasons 1. The word here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies an off-spring any thing brought forth though it be but of a day of a moment old Thus when a woman is said to be in pain and to bring forth this word is used John 16.21 Luke 1.31 Mat. 1.26 Luke 1.57 2. It 's an indefinite word and therefore may not be restrained to grown Children except God had exprest it in a peculiar phrase 3. It must needs be especially meant of Little Ones because they are distinguished from themselves who were men of years Now when we distinguish between Men and Children we suppose the one adult the other under age and not grown up and it is contrary to all ways of expression to think otherwise 4. It cannot be rationally conjectured otherwise because the Apostle doth joyn them with their Parents in the same promise and not leave them to stand by themselves as grown persons must So that all things weighed this Text of Scripture if there were no more holds forth the fameness of the promise to Believers of the Gospel both Jew and Gentile and their Children as ever it was to Abraham and his natural seed CHAP. VI. Their great Plea from Mat. 3.8 9. concerning John the Baptists Speech to the Pharisees and Sadduces made vain and that Text cleared from mistakes THAT we may still take off the main Objections let us view that place so much stood on Mat. 3.7 8 9. When John saw many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his Baptism he saith O generation of Vipers who hath forewarned you to flee from the wrath to come bring forth fruits meet for repentance And think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father for I say that God is able of these stones to raise up Children to Abraham From this Text they gather that the pretence of being Abrahams Children could not give them a right to Baptism and if John denied Abrahams natural seed on that account much more would he the adopted Children That this is no such ominous place against Infant-Baptism Consider 1. Who they were he speaks unto the Pharisees and Sadduces men at age and degenerated from Abrahams faith persons that lived on their own works and righteousness therefore he cals them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A generation of Vipers which was not as they were Abrahams Children but as they had not walked in Abrahams steps but were quite degenerated Thus he did not refuse them because Abraham was their Father or upon that account that Abrahams seed had not right to the promise but as only pretending Abraham to be their Father when they walkt contrary to the principles of Abrahams faith 2. This is the same now as to grown visible Professors who have related their faith to the Church and so are baptized upon that account of faith and repentance yet if afterwards they grow carnal and apostate and if such should come to receive the Lords Supper and challenge it because they are baptized we might say the same as Iohn to the Pharisees and Sadduces Do not think to say that you are baptized or that you have had godly Parents for you are a generation of Vipers you have cut off your own right by contrary actings in your own persons and yet it doth nothing at all impeach the truth of this position That Believers and their Infants are in Covenant and ought to be judged so until they manifest the contrary or that if they believed themselves afterwards the promise should not be unto them and their Children And that Text holds not no more then this That when persons are grown up to years and come to understanding they must then stand on their right and look to make out personal qualifications for new Ordinances 3. This was at the first institution of the Ordinance when Baptism
Covenant all the lump the whole body of the Jewish Nation were taken in to be a Church and were accounted holy 2. As a root it answers to him from whom all the Jews sprang up and from whom they drew all their Church priviledges as their breath Thus the Lord by the Prophet in Isa 51.1 2. bids the Jews to look to the rock out of which they were hewen and the pit out of which they were digged he means it of Abraham first as appears by the second verse Look to Abraham your Father and to Sarah that bare you for I called him alone and blessed and increased him c. Ob. But what kind of consequence is this and how doth the Apostle make use of this If the first fruits be holy so is the lump and if the root be holy so are the branches From what principle doth the Apostle argue Sol. The Apostle in the former verse speaks of a receiving in again of the Jewish Nation and brings in this as a ground to hope for it There is yet a holy root which hath an influence on the branches and argues that if the root be holy when the branches broken off shall be re ingraffed they shall be holy likewise The like phrase you have in v. 28. As touching the Gospel they are enemies for your sake but as touching the Election they are beloved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Fathers sake God having so cast his Election as to run in that vein most eminently And some do render it They are beloved through their Fathers But this is clear 1. That Abraham or as some say Abraham Isaac and Iacob were the root 2. That he argues from the holiness of the root to the holiness of the branches that is from them as Parents to their posterity as Branches 3. That this was an usual and common principle of arguing in Scripture from the Parent to the Posterity for else he had spoken in the dark and had proved notum per ignotius if they could not universally reason from it and if you observe he writes it as an Axiom of the greatest demonstration and never stands to prove it further 4. It had been an argument of no force for to prove the calling in of the Jews and their happy state upon re-ingraffing to tell them If the root be holy so are the branches and they are beloved for the Fathers sake if there were not a virtue still in the root to derive holiness to them when they should be received in and ingraffed to their own Olive he laies all the weight on the root being still holy and fresh though the branches be broken off And what can you make of this as to argumentation If the root be holy Ergo the branches and apply it to Persons and Parents but in a moral and imputative consideration Ob. But holiness is not propagated by nature from the Parent to his Child and we all derive sin by nature from our Parents and are as the Apostle saith Eph. 2.2 by nature the Children of wrath c. and as David saith Conceived in sin Sol. 1. It 's true we are so and there is no holiness propagated by nature take it for internal habits as a wise man doth not convey his wisedome or a vertuous man his vertues to his Child neither can a Believer convey his faith and other graces to his Child and in this sense Abraham is not a root he begets no Believer and under this consideration the argument cannot hold Abraham in this sense is only a root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplary only Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 effectually to convey similar graces But 2. There is a holiness by gratious estimation or imputation which flows from Gods Covenant or some special priviledge given to such a stock or kindred or Nation God taking such a family such a stock and separates it to himself for some holy use and so blesseth them And thus it was with Abraham and is most common in the Scriptures and according to the nature of priviledges among men where the son of a Freeman is free and the son of a Nobleman a Nobleman and by way of allusion though it doth not hold in all particulars as in justification Christs righteousness is imputed and we accounted holy by it So as to some special priviledges the root the Parent being holy and in the Covenant his Child hath the advantage of it not meritoriously from the Parents faith but virtually through Gods gracious promise to the Believer and his seed But 3. This is not by natural generation for then it should be to all Children but by grace and proportion it 's Gods good pleasure thus to derive the priviledge and out of special respect to the Parents and to encourage them in their own faith and strengthen them in their hopes concerning their seed thus did God choose out Abraham and his family from all the world and blessed him yet it was not from nature his seed were more blessed then all the world besides But as Dr. Willet saith well on this place The branches are holy because of this holy root not by an actual and inherent holiness but by a prerogative of grace grounded on the promise of God made to believing Fathers and their seed which is the same in the New Testament as in the Old and in this sense the argument is strong and enforcing the scope of the Apostle So that though the generation be natural the derivation of a Title to Church priviledges and the characteristical note of holiness is given them by grace in the Covenant which takes in the branches with the root In no sense besides can this argument be true without you make the root Christ which you see cannot be meant in this place without great absurdities The third and special term to be opened is what this ingraffing is of the Gentiles into the root and how they are ingraffed v. 17 19. For the understanding of this Mr. Marshal hath laid down a sure position which neither Mr. Tombes who is the most learned Adversary of this Truth nor any other hath or can shake and that is That the ingraffing in of the Gentiles must be sutable to the breaking off the Jews as they were broken off so are we ingraffed This the Apostle clearly proves in every verse In v. 17. Thou being a wild Olive speaking of the Gentiles collectively considered wert ingraffed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in amongst them so Grotius translates it Positus es inter ramos illius arboris Thou art set among the branches of that tree and so referring to the first words of the verse which is implyed that some remained still for but some of the branches were broken off and the Gentile-believers were inoculated among them and by a special adoption were partakers of the same priviledges according to that of the Poet Ovid Venerit insitio fac ramum ramus adoptet But the best reference is to the
together will differ in signification 3. We may as well say these promises in the New Testament make up a mixt Covenant and so of a different nature when God saith in Mat. 6.33 Seek first the Kingdome of God and all things else shall be added and 1 Tim. 4.8 Godliness hath the promise of this life and that which is to come which are as much mixt as ever the Covenant made with Abraham was whereas all know these are but accidental appendixes of the promise of grace and dispensed according to the use he hath for and the conditions of his Saints thus Canaan was added to the Covenant as all other things to the Kingdome of God 4. If this be a mixt Covenant because Canaan is added and the like then how comes it to be the same in the N. T. and to be of force now when no notice is taken of Canaan and the temporal promises Sure in this mixture the promise of free grace was primary and like oyl at top for Abrahams Covenant the very same for substance is clear and without mixture in the Gospel though it is administred externally as it was then and the blessings of Abraham come on the Gentiles though not of an external Canaan If they say that Canaan was added only for the dispensation of the Covenant to the Jews it 's granted but that it should make a mixture in the Covenant is most false which is the same for ever though the outward administration be different things may be added yet not mixt as a mans cloaths to his body and yet there is no mixture between a mans flesh and his cloaths But let us come to Circumcision the seal of this Covenant it sealed it say they as a mixt Covenant Then 1. It sealed the one part as well as the other take it in their own sense that is it sealed God to be their God as Canaan and so it was not a seal meerly to a temporal promise 2. If the Covenant was so mixt in the nature of it then Circumcision sealed unequally though it was added to a mixt Covenant for it sealed the promise of Canaan to those that never went into Canaan as many that died before that time and afterwards many that were circumcised died in the Wilderness and under Gods wrath and so sealed nothing at all neither part of the Covenant visibly and that is hard that to so many there should be neither the fulfilling of spiritual nor temporal part of the promise 3. Grant them this Covenant was mixt then it was either in the substance or circumstances if in the substance then Abrahams Covenant was not Gospel and believers must seek for another Father as to the example of faith and that were to make it rather like Nebuchadnezzars Image of Iron and Clay then made up of Gospel materials If in circumstances of administration and additaments of external types it 's granted and we have the same promise now with new outward administrations if this mixture were in the nature and substance of the Covenant then it must remain as long as the Covenant lasted and so unto this day for no man is so bold though many are bold enough as to say that Abrahams Covenant is abrogated if it be under any other consideration it 's easily waved and the truth the same So that Circumcision sealed the Covenant primarily in its nature as a Covenant of grace and God being a God to circumcise their hearts c. and Canaan and other things consequently and accidentally as God made a promise of them for the better visible administration of the Covenant to them in that external polity And surely it 's beyond an ordinary reach to believe that God should make a Covenant with Abraham and for his faith in it should create him the Father of the faithful in all ages and this Covenant should be brought in the N. T. and renewed and the tenure of it freshly held forth to believers there and yet at the first making of it God should mix temporal promises with the spiritual substance of it and annex a seal that should only or specially seal the temporal part of it and so poorly confirm the main and essential nature of it especially when God speaking of Abrahams faith stiles Circumcision the seal of the righteousness of it Rom. 4. But of this more in another Chapter CHAP. III. The distinction of Abrahams seed into fleshly and spiritual into natural and believing considered whether the Infants of believers may not be called in the New Testament the seed of Abraham THE next thing which must have its place of consideration is that question of Abrahams seed with whom the promise was made and upon this hinge hangs all the main weight on both sides and if we make out Infants of believers in the N. T. to be in Covenant as Abrahams seed the controversy would be at end To make out this the most of the following Chapters are designed only in this we shall fall more directly on the question it self Those that differ from us make many distinctions of a fleshly carnal seed of Abraham and of a spiritual seed a believing and a natural seed which distinctions are taken out of Rom. 9.7 8. Gal. 4.23 and Chap. 3.16 and most true if well applyed but before I come to open the Scriptures I would premise these considerations concerning Abraham and his seed 1. That Abrahams spiritual seed were as much his fleshly seed also Isaac as Ishmael except Proselytes and Servants 2. The Covenant was administred to all Abrahams natural and fleshly Children as if they had been spirituall and before they knew what faith was or could actually profess Abrahams faith 3. It 's no contradiction in d fferent respects to be a seed of the flesh by natural generation and a Child under the same promise made with the Parent for they both agreed in Abrahams case none was a Child of promise but as he came of Abrahams flesh and as he came from Abrahams flesh so every one had the seal of Gods Covenant on his flesh Thus a spiritual promise was made with Abraham and his carnal seed 4. There was no distinction of Abrahams fleshly seed and his spiritual seed in the O. T. but all comprehended under the same Covenant until they degenerated from Abrahams faith and proved themselves to be meer carnal and rejected the promise 5. There is a carnal and spiritual seed of Abraham even under the N. T. as our Opposites must acknowledge as well as Infants so are the most visible Professors which they baptize which may have no grace and many prove carnal indeed through the predominancy of their lusts and corruptions 6. When there is mention of Abrahams carnal seed in opposition to spiritual seed it cannot be meant primarily or solely of those that descended from Abrahams flesh for then Isaac and Jacob were the carnall seed yea Christ himself who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham it must be therefore
of Abraham But 2. If they take the promise of the Spirit in a limited and restrictive sense for the external gifts as the most do for the gifts of tongues and miracles and prophesy they both clip the promise and make the argument and comfort from it invalid and of no efficacy 1. It 's a mighty wrong to that famous promise of the Spirit to circumscribe it in these accidental gifts which were especially necessary and almost only for that season when it 's a promise that reacheth all the latter daies and is still accomplishing though all these extraordinary gifts are ceased 2. This straitned sense is expunged by the manner of the expressions of that Prophesy both in Joel and this in the Acts I will pour out of my spirit on all flesh and on your servants and handmaids will I pour out of my spirit Which shews the universality and variety of the subjects and blessings in this promise that it shall be so large and full a mercy as if there were to be no limitation of its measure 3. If it were meant meerly of these gifts why then there is no more benefit of that promise after the Apostles daies but that Christ was out of date and did expire with that age whereas it is a promise made for all the time of the New Testament which is exprest by the latter daies and the last daies up and down the Scripture A parallel promise to this you have in Isa 44.3 I will pour water on him that is thirsty and floods on the dry ground I will pour my spirit on thy seed and my blessing on thy off-spring Now the promise of the spirit is alwaies appropriated to the New Testament daies And secondly This cannot be the meaning of this phrase if we consider to whom the Apostle speaks to persons pricked in their hearts wounded for their sins in crucifying of Iesus Christ crying out v. 37. Men and Brethren what shall we do to be saved Now what comfort could this be to tell them they should have extraordinary gifts their hearts were bleeding under sin their eye was on salvation they saw no hopes of it nor knew the way to obtain it the Apostle bids them repent and be baptized they might have said What shall we be the better why saith the Apostle You shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost for the promise is unto you What promise of gifts of tongues and miracles What is this to our souls how will this save us might they well object It would be but a poor comfort to a wounded soul for to tell him of a promise of gifts not of spiritual grace and the holy Ghost is a better Physician then to apply such a raw improper plaister to a wounded heart which would hardly heal the skin this promise is brought in as a cordial to keep them from fainting and to give them spirits to believe and lay hold on Jesus Christ And truly no other promise but that of free grace in order to salvation can be imagined to give them comfort in that condition But to put all out of question That the promise prophesied of in Joel and quoted here was the promise of salvation and the same with the Covenant of Grace Consult the Original in Joel and the parallel in this of the Acts in Joel 2.27 the Prophet founds all the promises that went before and all that come after on this That he is the Lord their God and none else which was the very express words in that Covenant made with Abraham And then afterwards viz. in the New Testament to make out this fully He will pour out his spirit on all flesh c. v. 32. which is a part of that prophesy and is quoted again in v. 21. Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved one grace put for all and salvation being put at the end of the promise must needs be the aim of it The same expression you have again repeated Rom. 10.13 And in the former v. 38. he exhorts them to repent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the remission of sin the exhortation is to a Gospel duty the effect and profit of it was to be remission of sins and receiving the gift of the holy Ghost and the promise must needs be answerable by which all is enforced and it must needs have been a mighty low and disproportionable way of perswasion to put them upon such high things in the former verse and to encourage them only by the narration of a promise of some temporary gifts in the following when their eye and heart was set on remission of sins and salvation by Jesus Christ and nothing but a promise holding forth these mercies could have been considerable to them And it 's very observable in that verse he joyns remission of sins with the gift of the holy Ghost and then adds the promise to both as the ground of one and the other and comprehending both And for that expression of Receiving the gift of the holy Ghost it may well be noted that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free gift not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gifts of the holy spirit noting the very sending of the spirit as a free gift to bestow all mercies on them and so respecting rather the free and bounteous manner of bestowing the holy Ghost on them then any limited effects of his reception By all which it is demonstrated that this is no ordinary common no temporal promise or of meer gifts though never so extraordinary but a promise of free grace I only adde this to all the rest as undeniable by the principles of these that differ it 's a promise made not only to these Jews but it 's universally to the Gentiles and to all the called of God but all that are called have not received such gifts of the holy Ghost which then were given but every one that is effectually called doth receive the promise of remission of sins and the free favour of God and therefore this promise must be taken mainly in that sense But the great difficulty is in the following part of the verse and about the interest of their Children in this promise and therefore the next work must be to make out this that the Children as well as the Parents are included in this promise as they were in the promise made with Abraham 1. Let us consider to whom the Apostle speaks to the Jews who were prickt in their hearts The promise is to you and your Children He speaks to them after the wonted manner of expression in the Old Testament when ever the promise is mentioned and useth their own language in which they were trained up in from their Fathers I will be the God of thee and thy seed Gen. 17. The promise is to you and your Children If the Apostle had intended to exclude their Children from the same priviledges they had formerly by the Covenant he would never have spoken
seed and spiritual under the Gospel you cannot apply it to Infants but to professing believers for the Children of believers are not the fleshly seed of Abraham but if there be any such distinction it must be between visible grown Professors of whom some are spiritual and Christ's and others carnal and born under Mount Sinai and not Christ's 4. It 's a true rule in Logick that in every good division Partes debent inter se opponi The Parts ought to be opposite Now to be born from Abraham both as a natural and spiritual Father was both common through the promise in the Old Testament and not universally opposite and so it may be now an Infant is born of the flesh of a believer yet the Covenant makes the believer a spiritual Father in some respects as well as a natural 5. The seed takes its denomination from the Covenant and its tenure and if the Covenant be made to Abraham and his seed and these were at first Infants of his body and renewed with believers in the N. T. as we shall prove in the following Discourse then Infants of believers are the seed now as well as formerly Abraham only being the first root and Father 6. Visibility of profession doth no more make a man of the spiritual seed and so Christ's now under the New Testament then the Covenant in its outward administration in the Old made all the Jews and their Children really new Creatures and a spiritual seed for under the one and the other persons may be carnal All these considerations are to shew that these places of Scripture are mistaken and doe not shew who is the seed as to Ordinances but who are the seed as to election and salvation and that Infants may be as well the seed notwithstanding all these places as well as visible Professors Q. If any say But we have no warrant to judge of any but by visible profession Sol. 1. Let us judge as God would have us and we shall find as much ground to pass such a judgement on Infants as them if God call them holy we may do so and it will be dangerous then to call them unclean 2. The promise is the surer way of judging seeing at best we can but judge externally and with hopes and it 's better to rely on God and to expect what he will do through his promise at least on some then to trust my own judgement 3. The Word owns Infants of believers visibly as we own visible Professors as the Scriptures following will demonstrate For the present seriously view all these places together Gen. 17.7 Acts 2.38 39. Deut. 30.6.11 12 13 14. Rom. 10.1 6 7 8. with Heb. 8.10 11. Jer. 31.22 Esay 65.23 with many such places that hold forth the seed to Infants as well in the New Testament as in the Old I end this Chapter with this consideration that if you exclude Infants of believers to be Abrahams seed upon this ground because they are not the spiritual seed then dash out the name as well of grown Professors to be Abrahams seed who are no more so really because of that then these Infants and we shall quit the one with the other and then there shall be found no visible subjects of Baptism either of Infants or grown persons for they are both as to election and inward grace unknown to us to be Abrahams seed they were both formerly accounted Abrahams seed grown persons and Infants especially by the Covenant and now the one is to be accounted Abrahams seed viz. grown persons professing though they may have no right to the inward grace of the Covenant and Infants who had first right next to Abraham must be excluded though they have never so real an interest because they are Infants and cannot speak for themselves But so much of this the next Chapter will second this CHAP. IV. How any person may be said to be in the Covenant the divers considerations about it TO the former let this be added because it seems strange how any can be in Covenant and yet not partake of salvation In opening of this the common distinctions of all Divines must be repeated that according as there is an internal and external administration of the Covenant so there is a two-fold being in the Covenant 1. Secundum propositum electionis According to the purpose of election in Gods heart and his eternal decree so only the elect and these which have saving faith are in Covenant this some call and not improperly to be intentionally in Covenant God principally intending the Covenant to them others call it spiritually and savingly from the effect 2. There is a being in Covenant In facie visibilis Ecclesiae In the face or according to the judgement of a visible Church where judgement and charity are mixt together Rom. 9.4 Deut. 29.10 12 13 14. Iohn 15.2 Iohn 1.11 Psal 50.5 with variety of Scripture And of such there are two sorts 1. Such as stand by their own visible profession as all first Covenanters doe so all visible Saints now and so many Proselytes in the Old Testament Exod. 12.44 45. Deut. 29.10 11. Gen. 12.5 Or else 2. As in a Political Moral consideration as in the right of another through a free promise as if a Prince give a title of honour or a piece of land to one and his heirs they are all interested it yet some prove fools or traitors and are afterwards incapable It 's so in this and was with Abraham and his seed Now that this distinction holds in the New Testament I shall thus discover to you 1. If men deny an external as well as internal being in Covenant none can administer an external Ordinance an outward sign to any for we must go by external rules in these actings 2. Visible Professors will have the worst of it for we must administer no Ordinance to these which are not internally in Covenant and we have no proof but their own expressions and our good hopes and present probable judgement to warrant us and many visible miscarriages to contradict our judgements and hopes at special times 3. We set a seal to a blank to all grown persons who are baptized or receive the Lords Supper without we know them certainly in the Covenant and that who knows for our judgement will no more hinder the seal from being a blank to grown Professors then to Infants without they prove real at last 4. The best evidence you can have from any of their being in Covenant is but visible expressions suppositions and hopes and probabilities all which you must help out by your own charity and fallible observation for God hath promised no seal on my spirit for another mans condition it 's a blessed mercy if I get the seal on my own heart for my self So that the great Question will be answered from this which Mr. Tombes and they all urge That if God made the Covenant with believers and their seed they must all be
remnant at this present time according to the election of grace whereof Paul was one therefore it must be from the visible Church they were broken off But here the Arminians and Pelagians agree with these that are against Infant-baptism as they do in many other opinions Mr. Tombes hath nothing to say in his Examen of Mr. Marshals Sermon to avoid this absurdity but only this pag. 64. The meaning is not saith he of some of the branches in the invisible Church but as when our Saviour Christ using the same similitude saies Joh. 15.2 Every branch in me not bearing fruit he taketh away The meaning is not that any branch in him could be fruitless or taken away but he calleth that a branch in him which was so in appearance so the Apostle speaking of branches broken off means it not of such as were truly so but so in appearance Thus far he Which is a granting of what he denies for to be a branch in appearance is only to be a visible branch and no branch that is meerly in appearance so and not really is one of the invisible Church nor can ever be said to be broken from it but only from his visible state which he hath but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15 16. as a branch in outward priviledges and seeming graces 2. The breaking off c. it was of the Jewish Nation of the collective body though not of every individual and therefore it must needs be from the visible Church for as a Nation they were a Church and the whole Nation was cast away and rejected now as a Nation they were not all members of the invisible Church ver 7 8. with ver 17. 3. It 's a visible breaking off therefore cannot be from the invisible Church ver 3 4 5. 17 18 19. For as Mr. Baxter well observes There can be no visible removing from an invisible term 4. It 's a breaking off the naturall branches so he cals the Jews Now the body of the Jewish Church were not naturall branches in a spiritual sense for they believed not as Abraham did but only called so as they were naturally descended from his loyns and were members of the visible Church and first partakers of the outward priviledges of the Covenant made with him Thus the Apostle distinguisheth of the body of the Jewish Nation Rom. 9. where after he had reckoned up all the priviledges of the Israelites in general ver 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertains the adoption and the glory and the Covenants c. making way by this to shew the sadness of their rejection in ver the 6. to prevent the same Objection the Apostle in this Chapter saith They are not all Israel which are of Israel that is not all spiritual though all natural brances and these priviledges did visibly belong to all As for that distinction of Abrahams being a natural and a spiritual Father it may go for currant until they come to apply it and then it is most vain for all that came from Abraham as a natural Father had a title to all these priviledges forementioned which belonged to the visible Church until they did degenerate and cast themselves out as Ishmael and Esau c. But of this formerly Lastly If they were broken off from the invisible Church it must be either from union with Christ or communion with Christ and his Spirit for this is the true definition of the invisible Church that in it souls have real union and communion with God in Christ through the Spirit but none of the Jews that were broken off had such a union or communion and therefore could not be broken off from it But so far they may be said to be broken off from the invisible Church as by remote consequence as they were excluded from all the means of grace and the Ordinances which are the usual waies and methods of God to bring souls into communion with himself 2. Let us consider what is meant by the first fruits and the lump and the root and the branches There be many opinions concerning this especially two must be debated some think it Christ as these that follow Origen and the allegorical Fathers Ego aliam sanctam radicem nescio nisi Dominum nostrum Origen But that firstly and primarily by the first fruits and the lump and the root and the branches cannot be meant Christ neither personally nor mystically is most clear if we consider 1. Jesus Christ was not the first fruits in regard of the whole lump of the Jewish Nation and so cannot answer to the first similitude 2. Jesus Christ cannot be said to be root unto these which were cast away no branches really in him are cut off but so were they for that place of the 15th of John v. 2. which seemeth to speak of some branches which are in Christ and yet are taken away for not bearing fruit it may be better read and according to the Syriack thus Every branch that brings not forth fruit in me he takes away that is that do bring forth some seeming fruit but not as in Christ as root and principle 3. In ver 24. the Jews when they shall be called it 's said They shall be graffed into their own Olive Now Christ is not properly their own Olive but so is Abraham c. 4. The Jews are said as formerly to be natural branches of this root but so they were not of Christ but Christ was a natural branch from that stock Rom. 9.5 Whose are the Fathers of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came Mr. Tombes himself ingenuously confesseth this pag. 67. of his Examen That by the root cannot be meant Christ and gives us the hint of another argument from those expressions v. 24. of some branches wild 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to nature and of ingraffing in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary to nature into this Olive he concludes the root cannot be Christ for Christ hath no natural or preternatural branches in him all are wild ere they be ingraffed into him as a living root And the other expression v. 18. of our not bearing the root but the root us if we boast against the Jews doth evidently demonstrate that the root here is not properly meant of Christ though he be the eternal root of all spiritual happiness set forth gloriously in many other places of Scripture Others by the root mean the Covenant But the best and most genuine sense is to interpret it of Abraham with whom and with his seed as so many branches the Covenant was made and by which both the root and the branches were made holy And this answers fully to both the similitudes For 1. It 's an allusion to the Legal rights about the first fruits which were to be offered up to God and by that all the whole mass all the fruits that came after were accounted holy Thus Abraham was the first fruits of the Jews he believing first and being in
a visible Church 3. All that can be gathered is this That the fulness of salvation and the virtues of the promises shall more fully and universally take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them and so the invisible and visible Church be more pure and as one in the earth but this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church and on the earth Arg. 7. If the re-ingraffing be by virtue of Gods election and love then it is to the invisible Church but the former is true v. 28. Ergo. Sol. 1. It 's said That as touching election the Jews are beloved for their Fathers sake hence it follows God hath a love of election to Believers and their natural seed for so the Jews were the natural seed of Abraham But 2. It 's granted that the calling of the Jews shall be according to Gods election and first love and that Gods election shall more fully take hold of the Jews at their re-calling then of any Nation but yet still the Argument is of no force to prove that their re-ingraffing and so ours is only or firstly into the invisible Church for they are elected as well to be a visible Church as to be partakers of inward graces and their re-ingraffing must be specially and firstly into the visible Church from which they were broken off or else there will be no correspondence between their rejection and re-ingraffing The last and weakest Argument is this If the ingraffing of Jews and Gentiles be the fruit of Gods mercy the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief then it is into the invisible Church by election c. but so it is Ergo. Sol. You see he hath spent his stock and strength to be so low at last This Argument needs no Answer but by shewing you the unsoundness of this universal proposition on which the Argument is built Whatever is a fruit of Gods mercy is from election and ingraffing into the invisible Church Which proposition is most false universally considered Are not health meat and drink preservation all outward priviledges fruits of Gods mercy Is not long-suffering to these that perish and the affording the means of grace and salvation the institution of Ordinances fruits of Gods mercy and yet must they be given only to elect ones and do they ingraff to the invisible Church but satis est repetere you have seen the utmost strength of the greatest Antagonist to the Truth we hold out Chap. X. The Harmonie of Mat. 19.13 14. with Mar. 10.13 and Luk. 18.15 16 17. concerning the bringing of Infants to Christ his acts to them how far it contributes to prove Infant-baptism YOU have seen how the Scriptures agree in holding out some special priviledges in the New Testament as in the Old to Believers and their seed Let us now come to view Christs own carriage and actions to Infants which shews both the special respect he had to them and would have his Ministers and Churches to have likewise For this compare Mat. 19.13 14. Mar. 10.13 14 15 16. with Luk. 18.15 16 17. Where when little Children were brought to Christ and his Disciples did forbid them Christ was angry and charged them not to hinder them for theirs was the Kingdome of Heaven and he took them up in his arms laid his hands upon them and blessed them For the opening this place more clearly Consider 1. Who they were which were brought to Christ 2. Who brought them 3. Why the Disciples did forbid them to be brought 4. Christs reason why he would have them not hindred 5. Christs actions to and on them what they amount unto For the first who they were which were brought to Christ in Mark they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and well translated little Children or Infants the word is a diminutive word and is specially to be applied to Infants Luk. 1.76 Zacharias useth the same word of John when he was newly born And thou Child 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest c. Videtur esse aliqua emphasis diminutivi hoc saltem loco minime negligenda saith Beza The same word is given to Christ when he was in the manger Mat. 2.11 The Wise men found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the young Child or Infant with Mary c. Heb. 11.23 Moses is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he was hid among the Flags 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teste Hippocrate de primo vitae septennio dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 autem de secundo Gurtl This word saith Hippocrates is given to these which are under the age of seven years and it 's mostly used among the Evangelists for to express the tenderest age of man which is Infancy So Spanhem dub Evang. But in Luke the holy Ghost useth another word of full signification for Infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word is used for a Babe in the womb an Embryo Luk. 1.41 When Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary the Babe leaped in her womb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 's the same word but more properly it is used for a Child newly born a sucking Babe that we carry in our arms Thus 2 Tim. 3.15 Timothy is said to know the Scriptures from a Child 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his Infancy not when he was an Infant but from his Infancy that is as soon as ever he was past a Babe and came to understand any thing he was learnt the Scriptures The same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is given also to Christ when the Wise men found him in swadling clouts Luk. 2.12 So that this is most clear that they were Infants tender young ones Babes which were brought to Christ And if the two words did not properly signifie Infants yet in that it 's said they were brought to Christ would prove it for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to carry as it 's used mostly in Scripture for But 2. Who those were that brought them it 's most probable that their Parents brought them and these had believed themselves or made some profession of faith for they bring them to Christ to be under his blessing for some special favour to be shewn by Christ to them it was for a spiritual end they brought them to be touched by Christ c. to have some virtue from him and who could have such bowels to bring Infants to Christ but their own Parents and to abide the frowns of the Disciples and their checks but Parents who love their Children next themselves and would have them blessed together with them so that it 's more probable it was their Parents which brought them then any others and that they were believers who had such a sense of their Infants conditions and of Christs respects And besides they were then in the Coasts of Judea where many had profest their faith and were baptized by John and longed to have their Infants confirmed by Jesus Christ especially