Infant Baptism from Heaven and Not of Men, Chapter 2
CHAP. II.
The truth of the firſt Propoſition, as before explained, evidenced two wayes.
1. More generally, by ſuch Arguments as will evince, that all Abraham's immediate natural ſeed, one as well as another, were intended as the immediate and next ſubjects of this Promiſe.
2. More particularly, by inſtancing in ſuch of his natural ſeed, as upon a ſuppoſition, of whoſe being intended in the Promiſe, it will neceſſarily follow, that all his natural ſeed were in like manner intended, and proving that they were indeed intended by God in that Promiſe.
THat when God, at his firſt entring Covenant with Abraham, promiſed to be a God to him and his ſeed, intended his natural ſeed, as immediately deſcending from his own loins, as the immediate and next ſubjects of that promiſe, may be evinced two wayes:
1. More generally.
2. More particularly.
1. More generally: And thus I ſhall only offer a two-fold Argument.
The firſt ſhall be taken from the Promiſe it ſelf, as taken according to the literal and moſt proper ſence and ſignification of thoſe words it is expreſt in, and it is this:
What God ſpeaks unto men ought to be interpreted and underſtood according to the literal and moſt proper ſenſe and ſignification of thoſe words he expreſſeth himſelf in, unleſs there be ſome neceſſary Reaſon enforcing a receſſion from that literal and moſt proper ſence and ſignification of his words.
But according to the literal and moſt proper ſence and ſignification of the words of this Promiſe, now made to Abraham his natural ſeed, immediately deſcending from his own loins, and that univerſally one as well as the other muſt be intended, as the immediate and next ſubjects of it, and there is no Reaſon enforcing our receſſion from that literal and moſt proper ſence and ſignification of his words: Therefore we ought to interpret and underſtand them, as intending his immediate natural ſeed, as the immediate and next ſubjects of that Promiſe. When God ſaid to Abraham, He would be a God to him and to his ſeed in their generations, ſurely the literal and moſt proper ſence and ſignification of the words, wherein the Promiſe is expreſſed, muſt needs lead him to apply it as to himſelf, ſo to his immediate natural ſeed, and that univerſally.
It's true, God promiſed to Abraham, That he would make him the Father of many Nations; and doubtleſs Abraham did underſtand the Promiſe, as reaching and taking in all thoſe he ſhould ſuſtain the relation of a Father unto.
But no Reaſon could be drawn from the words of the Promiſe it ſelf, why either Abraham, or any other ſince, ſhould underſtand it, as intending his remote or adopted ſeed, to the excluding of his own natural ſeed, as immediately deſcending from him.
Now that what God ſpeaks ought to be interpreted, as before expreſt, cannot be doubted by any.
And therefore all that poſſibly can be objected, for the invalidating this argument, is, That there is a neceſſity of interpreting and underſtanding this Promiſe, as now made to Abraham, differently from what the literal and proper ſignification of the words ſeems to import: Whether there be any ſuch neceſſity ſhall be conſidered by and by.
In the mean time let it be obſerved, that we have the letter of the Promiſe on our ſide, as to the interpretation put upon it.
The ſecond Argument ſhall be taken from Abraham's applying of the ſeal or token of that Covenant, whereof the Promiſe, under conſideration, was a principal part, to his immediate and natural ſeed, and that univerſally to one as well as to another, and that under that very notion and conſideration, as the ſeal and token of the Covenant.
Hence I argue,
If Abraham, according to the will and appointment of God, did apply the ſeal or token of that Covenant (wherein the Promiſe, under conſideration, was one ſpecial Article on Gods part) to all his immediate natural ſeed, to one as well as to the other, and that under that very notion and conſideration, as the ſeal or token of the Covenant, then God in that Promiſe muſt needs intend all his immediate natural ſeed, as the Subjects of it: but the former is true, therefore the latter.
The Aſſumption ſure cannot once be queſtioned by any that have read over the Book of Geneſis: yet exabundanti.
Let me touch upon the proof of it in the ſeveral branches or clauſes of it: It contains three Branches.
1. That Abraham did apply the ſeal or token of that Covenant, wherein this Promiſe is contained, unto all his immediate natural ſeed: If that term Seal offend any, let them keep only to the other word token; it's all one as to my preſent purpoſe. That Circumciſion was the ſeal or token of the Covenant, that God now entred into with Abraham and his ſeed, is paſt all doubt; 'tis expreſly called, The Taken of the Covenant, Gen. 17.11. Ye ſhall circumciſe the foreskin of your fleſh, and it ſhall be a token of the Covenant between me and you. A token of the Covenant: Of what Covenant? Why, of that, no doubt, now eſtabliſhed with Abraham, and his ſeed in their generations: and that Abraham did apply this token of the Covenant to all his natural ſeed, is evident, partly from Gods Command, read that Gen. 17.9, 10, 11, 12, 13. partly from Abraham's practice; mention is expreſly made of his circumciſing of Iſhmael and Iſaac, verſe 23 with Gen 21.4.
But ſome will ſay, There's is no mention of his circumciſing his Sons by Keturah.
To that I anſwer, No more is there mention made of Jacob's circumciſion, nor of his twelve Sons circumciſion, and yet ſhall it be queſtioned, whether they were circumciſed or no? The command of God engaging it and the teſtimony that God gives of Abraham's faithfulneſs, and his circumciſing all his male ſervants, is ſuperabundant evidence that he did circumciſe them, though their circumciſion be not mentioned. So that it's undeniable, that Abraham did apply the ſeal or token of the Covenant to all his Seed, immediately deſcending from his own loins.
2. That Abraham did apply this ſeal or token of the Covenant to his ſeed, under that very notion and conſideration as the ſeal or token of it, this is evident thus:
Look under what notion God commanded it to be applyed, under that notion and conſideration Abraham did apply it: That Abraham did apply it under that notion as the ſeal or token of the Covenant, as he was commanded, is unqueſtronable, from the forementioned teſtimony that God gave of him.
Now that God did command it to be applyed 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 not Iſaac been intended, not excluſive of others, but incluſive of himſelf, the Promiſe could not have received its accompliſhment in him, but had failed in the ejection of Iſhmael: and hence the Apoſtle tells us, That Abraham ſojourned in Canaan, as a Stranger in a ſtrange Land, with Iſaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the ſame Promiſe: Of what Promiſe? Surely of that, wherein God engaged himſelf to be a God to him, and to his Seed, and to give him and them the Land of Canaan for an everlaſting poſſeſſion: both theſe Promiſes are joyned together as one Promiſe, Gen. 17.6. Now of this Promiſe Iſaac was an heir with Abraham, and therefore muſt needs be included in it as one of the Subjects of it.
Secondly, That Iſhmael was intended as part of Abraham's Seed in this Promiſe, is evident by this one Conſideration.
Not to multiply, where truth is ſufficiently evident, viz. His ejection out of Abraham's Family, and his being diſinherited of the Covenant and Promiſe thereby.
It's true, his bare ejection out of Abraham's Family would not demonſtrate his being in Abraham's Covenant, and under the Promiſe thereof, while in his Family he had Servants in his houſe, who yet might be after caſt out, but that would not conclude them to have had an intereſt in his Covenant: but now as by that his ejection out of Abraham's Family, he was diſinherited of, or diſintereſſed in the Promiſe, or was diveſted of his right and title to it, doth undeniably evidence his right and title to it antecedent to that his ejection; for he could not be diveſted or diſinherited of that he never had, or was never an heir unto.
Now that Iſhmael, with and by means of his rejection out of Abraham's Family, was diveſted of a right and title he afore had to the Covenant, and to the promiſes thereof, is evident by theſe two Reaſons.
Firſt, Becauſe his ejection was typical of their ejection out of the Goſpel Church, and rejection from the benefits and bleſſings of the Covenant of Grace, who under a Profeſſion of Chriſtianity, or of being the Covenant-people of God, do adhere to the Law for Righteouſneſs and Life. That Iſhmael's caſting out of Abraham's Family was thus typical, is expreſly affirmed by the Apoſtle, Gal 4.30. compared with the foregoing Context.
Now his bare ejection out of Abraham's Family, could not have made him a proper type of the perſons beforementioned, in as much as then there had been no direct Analogy or proportion between the type and antitype. How his meer caſting out of Abraham's Family ſhould repreſent, or foreſhew, and predict the ejection of the perſons forementioned out of the Goſpel Church, and diveſtment of all title to the benefits and bleſſings of the Covenant of Grace cannot be imagined; for as much as others might be caſt out of Abraham's Family, whoſe ejection was not of any ſuch typical ſignification.
Secondly, That Iſhmael, together with and by means of his ejection out of Abraham's Family, was diveſted of a right and title, which, while in his houſe, he had to the Covenant and promiſes thereof, is evident, becauſe Sarah, in her requeſt to Abraham to caſt him out, propoſed that as her end, viz. That he might not iuherit with Iſaac her Son; Gen. 21.10. Caſt out this bond woman and her ſon, for the ſon of the bond-woman ſhall not be heir with my ſon, even with Iſaac: And that it was the good promiſed in this Covenant, that ſhe deſires his diſinheriting of, is evident by Abraham's griefs; had it been only the temporal poſſeſſions of Abraham, his not inheriting of which ſhe propoſeth as her end, in deſiring his ejection, there had been no reaſon of Abraham's grief, in as much as he was under the promiſe of outward bleſſings, notwithſtanding that his ejection: Now there had been no reaſon for Sarah, to propoſe that end in her requeſt, to have him caſt out, unleſs he had, and would continue to have had, during his abode in the houſe, a like viſible right and title to the Promiſe that Iſaac had, ſhe might have deſired his ejection for ſome other reaſon, but for that, that he might not inherit with Iſaac, ſhe could not rationally do, it would have been an impertinent reaſon, for her to have deſired his ejection, that he might not inherit with her own Son, in caſe he had no right nor title to the promiſed Inheritance, whilſt in the houſe.
For a woman to deſire her Husband to caſt out a Servant out of the family for that reaſon, that he might not inherit with her own Children, when as whether he ſhould continue or be caſt out of the family, he could lay no claim to to the Inheritance, would be ridiculous: Hence Sarahs pleading that reaſon, or propounding that end of her requeſt, plainly implyes, that Iſhmael, during his abode in Abraham's Family, had at reaſt a viſible right and title to the inheritance promiſed, which would be diſanulled by that his ejection: Hence it is evident, Iſhamel, as well as Iſaac, was intended in that Promiſe, and that both were joynt Heirs to, or Subjects of that Promiſe, as externally made to Abraham, with reference to his Seed.
Now then ſeeing theſe two, viz. Iſhmael and Iſaac, were intended, there can be no reaſon imagined, why we ſhould ſuppoſe Abraham's other Children to be excluded; for they were either elected or not elected; if they were, their caſe was the ſame with Iſaac's, if not, their caſe was the ſame with Iſhmael's; and therefore both Iſhmael and Iſaac being intended, there is no ſhew of reaſon to ſuppoſe the other excluded; but we may partly from the parity of their caſes, with the caſe of the one or the other of theſe two, and partly from the evidence of the foregoing Arguments, poſitively conclude, that all Abraham's natural Seed, according to the intendment of this firſt propoſition, were intended in this promiſe, as the firſt and next ſubjects of it: but let that ſuffice for the proof of the firſt propoſition.