Infant Baptism from Heaven and Not of Men, Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
A ſecond, third, and fourth Objection, againſt the foregoing Propoſition refelled.
Object. 2.
SOme object, That the Promiſe, wherein God ingaged to be a God to Abraham and his Seed, cannot in that latitude and extent be ſetled upon and confirmed to believing Gentiles, becauſe that Covenant Believers are now under, is a Covenant wholly divers from that eſtabliſhed with Abraham; and when the Covenants are divers, the good covenanted cannot be one and the ſame, at leaſt the Subjects of the one cannot lay claim to the good of the other, by vertue of that Covenant they are under: hence a Believer, as a Believer, that is, as Abraham's ſpiritual Seed, could not lay claim to the old Covenant-promiſes, if not deſcended from Abraham by Iſaac after the fleſh; ſo a Believers fleſhly ſeed, take it either of Abraham, or any other Believer, cannot lay claim to the New Covenant Promiſes, unleſs born again, and engraffed into Chriſt by Faith.
Now before I return a direct Anſwer to this Objection, I ſhall a little enquire what are the true Notions and Conceptions of the perſons framing it, about that Covenant entred by God with Abraham and his Seed in their generations, that ſo rightly underſtanding their ſence and apprehenſions of that Covenant, I may return a more full and direct anſwer to what is objected. And thus, for ought I can yet underſtand, etiher by the moſt ſerious peruſal of their Writings, or by what I can gather from their words, they expreſs and declare their Notions and Conceptions, we are now enquiring after; one of theſe two wayes.
Firſt, That God made a twofold Covenant with Abraham, the one a Covenant of Grace, the other a legal or temporal Covenant, and that the Covenant of Grace was made with him, and his ſpiritual Seed, viz. Believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, without any reſpect at all to a fleſhly deſcent, either from Abraham himſelf, or from any of his Seed.
Secondly, That the legal or temporal Covenant was made with Abraham and his fleſhly Seed, and only with them, and that as continued in the line of Iſaac and Jacob, and that this was the Covenant, the Jews, during the firſt Teſtament adminiſtration, were under, and the only Covenant they were under, as the fleſhly Seed of Abraham.
Secondly, Others declare their ſence and conception thus, That there was but one Covenant made with Abraham, and that was a mixt Covenant, conſiſting partly of ſpiritual, and partly of temporal Promiſes, and as this Covenant was a mixt Covenant, ſo anſwerably the Seed of Abraham muſt be diſtinguiſhed off. There was, ſay they, his natural Seed, and there was and is his ſpiritual Seed, Now theſe hold that the Covenant, as conſiſting of temporal, or as ſome expreſs it, domeſtick or politick bleſſings, was made with Abraham, and his natural or fleſhly Seed in their generations; but the Covenant, as conſiſting of ſpiritual bleſſings, was made with Abraham only, as a ſpiritual Father, and with his ſpiritual Seed, that is, Believers, whether Jews or Gentiles. Now though our Oppoſites do thus variouſly expreſs themſelves, yet they all agree in the general, that only temporal bleſſings did appertain to Abraham's natural Seed, as ſuch, and that ſpiritual bleſſings were wholly or alone promiſed to Abraham, in reference to his ſpiritual or myſtical Seed; and ſome add, that the Covenant, as conſiſting of temporal bleſſings, was a typical Covenant, viz. a Covenant typifying the Goſpel Covenant, under which Believers now are; though how to make ſence of that notion, eſpecially themſelves granting a Covenant of Grace was not eſtabliſhed with Abraham, with reference to himſelf and his ſpiritual Seed, will, I judge, be a matter of no little difficulty; but I ſhall leave it to the perſons concerned in it, if any ſuch yet there be. And thus I have given a brief, yet, I ſuppoſe, a full account of the Notions and Conceptions of our Objectors, about the Covenant now eſtabliſhed with Abraham and his Seed in their generations, and come now to anſwer the Objections propoſed: And for anſwer to it I ſhall do theſe two things.
Firſt, Prove that there is no ſuch real and ſpecificla difference between theſe two Covenants, as the Objectors ſuppoſe, and take for granted that there is.
Seconly, Shew that notwithſtanding the Covenant made with Abraham, and that made with Believers, ſhould be really and ſpecifically divers the one from the other, yet upon ſuppoſal of the truth of what cannot be gainſaid by our Oppoſers, unleſs they ſhall in expreſs terms contradict the Apoſtle, the ſecond Propoſition may be true.
Firſt, For the firſt of theſe I ſhall do two things.
Firſt, Prove that this Covenant, that God entred with Abraham, and his Seed in their generations, was a Covenant of Grace, and in particular, that this Promiſe of that Covenant, wherein God engaged himſelf to be a God to him and his Seed, was a Promiſe of a ſpiritual bleſſing a good tranſcending any temporal good whatſoever.
Secondly, Prove that this Covenant, now eſtabliſhed with Abraham, is the ſelf ſame Covenant, for the ſubſtance of it, made with Believers under the New Teſtament.
For the firſt of theſe I need ſay but little, becauſe others have ſaid ſo much: See Dr. Winter in his Treatiſe of Infant-Baptiſm, as alſo Mr. Ball upon the Covenant, Mr. Warren and others; and therefore in brief take only theſe three or four Arguments.
The firſt Argument, If that Covenant, as eſtabliſhed with Abraham and his natural Seed, was … only a temporal or legal Covenant, or the Promiſes appertaining to his natural Seed, were only temporal Promiſes, then many thouſands, who were the actual Subjects of that Covenant, and the Promiſes thereof, might and did never enjoy and benefit by it, and that meerly through Gods not performing what himſelf had promiſed, without any default on their own or their Parents part: But none, who are the actual Subjects of the Covenant and Promiſes thereof, ever did or could fall ſhort of the good covenanted, meerly through Gods not performing what he had covenanted and promiſed without a default either of the partie themſelves, or of their Parents; Therefore this Covenant, as eſtabliſhed with Abraham and his natural Seed, could not be a meer temporal or legal Covenant, or a Covenant conſiſting only of temporal bleſſings, but muſt needs be a Covenant of Grace, or a Covenant conſiſting of ſaving benefits and bleſſings.
For the conſequence in the Major Propoſition, that cannot be denied, in as much as many thouſands, who were the actual Subjects of this Covenant and the Promiſes thereof, whether they were ſo, as they were Abraham's immediate natural Seed, or were ſo, as included with their Covenant-parents, in that phraſe, in their generations, might and did die in their infancy, before ever they came to reap and injoy any temporal benefit, by that Covenant or the Promiſes thereof. Now this could ariſe from no other head or ſpring, but only Gods not performing to them what he had promiſed: And if it ſhould be ſaid, Though God did deny to give them in that very temporal good contained in the Promiſes of that Covenant, yet they were infallibly ſaved, and ſo had only an exchange of a temporal good for a ſpiritual; though they had not that particular good covenanted, yet they had a better good, viz. the good of eternal life.
But to that I anſwer two things:
Firſt, Grant it be ſo; yet they never had any benefit by this Covenant, or the Promiſes of it, the actual Subjects of which yet they were, neither could they enjoy eternal life by vertue of that Covenant or any Promiſes of it, according to the judgment of our Oppoſers, in as much as it was, according to their judgment, only a temporal Covenant.
But ſome will ſay, Though they had not ſalvation by vertue of this Covenant, yet all Infants dying in their infancy, before they commit any actual ſin, are infallibly ſaved, and conſequently thoſe whoſe caſe falls under our preſent conſideration were ſaved.
I anſwer, Suppoſe it ſhould be ſo yet.
Secondly, I ſay, That many thouſands might live to commit actual ſin, and yet die before they come to enjoy any benefit by this Covenant and the Promiſes thereof, ſuppoſing it be only a legal or temporal Covenant, and conſequently might not only be deprived of any benefit by this Covenant, meerly through Gods not performing what he had promiſed to them, but might through their own ſin fall ſhort of any higher good, which may be ſuppoſed ſhould have been given in lieu of the good of this Covenant. But now for any to fall wholly ſhort of that good promiſed to them, eſpecially when nothing is given in lieu thereof, meerly through Gods not performing what he had promiſed to them, is inconſiſtent with the truth and faithfulneſs of God, who hath ſtiled himſelf, A God keeping Covenant and mercy for ever; and therefore this Covenant could not, as made to Abraham's natural Seed, be a meer temporal Covenant, promiſing only a temporal good, but muſt needs be a Covenant of Grace, conſiſting of ſpiritual Promiſes, as Juſtification, Adoption, the in-dwelling preſence of the Spirit, Life and Glory, &c.
Secondly, If God ingaged himſelf to be a God to Abraham's natural Seed by this Covenant and the Promiſes thereof, and to have God engaged by Covenant to a people to be their God, be a greater and more excellent good, than it is to enjoy any meer temporal good whatever, then this Covenant was made with Abraham's natural Seed, as ſuch, was not a meer temporal Covenant, nor the Promiſes of it, Promiſes of meer temporal bleſſings: But the Covenant was a Covenant of Grace, and the Promiſes of it Promiſes of ſpiritual bleſſings. But the former is true, therefore the latter.
The Conſequence in the Major propoſition is undeniable, unleſs any ſhall affirm, that there may be a good, greater and more excellent, than any temporal good can poſſibly be, which yet is no ſpiritual good, or which may be given to men no way intereſſed in the Covenant of Grace; if any ſuch good can be found out, that excels any temporal good whatſoever, and yet is not a ſaving good, hath no reference and relation to the ſalvation of thoſe that enjoy it, they will do ſomething to the invalidating this Argument; till then I ſhall take it for granted, that no ſuch good is imaginable.
And for the Minor propoſition, that is ſufficiently evident from that, Gen. 17.7. compared with Pſalm 144. and the latter end: We ſee from this Gen. 17. that God did ingage himſelf, by the Promiſe of this Covenant, to be a God to Abraham's natural Seed, as ſuch, I will be a God to thee and thy Seed; which Promiſe, as hath been proved, reſpects his natural Seed, as ſuch, as the immediate and next Subjects of it; beſides, according to the judgment of our Oppoſers, the Land of Canaan was given to all Abraham's natural Seed, immediately deſcending from him by Iſaac and Jacob, ſetting aſide Eſau and his poſterity, as the proper and ſpecial good intended in this Covenant, as reſpecting them. Now we ſee plainly, as words can make any thing plain in the world, God ingages by promiſe, not only to give them that Land, but to be a God unto them, Gen. 17.8. And that to have God engaged by Covenant, to be a God to any people, is a greater and more excellent good, than any meer temporal good, is evident from that paſſage of the Pſalmiſt, where, we ſee, he plainly prefers this good above any temporal good whatſoever; for having ſpoken of their happineſs, who have the enjoyment of temporal mercies and bleſſings, he adds, as preferring this above all, Yea, happy is that people, whoſe God is Jehovah. Now how could the Pſalmiſt prefer an intereſt in God above the enjoyment of all worldly felicity, in caſe it was but a temporal good it ſelf, or a good that only referred to mans temporal happineſs and felicity, or had no reference to any higher happineſs than the things of the world have? Yea let me ſay, did this Promiſe import only a temporal good, their happineſs, who had God, as their God, by vertue of it, according to the terms upon which it was now given, their happineſs, I ſay, had been rather leſs than greater than the happineſs of thoſe, whoſe portion wholly lyes in the things of the world; ſo that the Pſalmiſt might better have prefixed this yea to the happineſs of others, than to their happineſs, whoſe God is the Lord, and might have ſaid, Happy is the people whoſe God is the Lord, yea, happy is the people who is in ſuch a caſe, in reſpect of worldly proſperity, as is before expreſſed.
Object. But it may be ſome will ſay, This having the Lord engaged to be a peoples God, of which the Pſalmiſt ſpeaks, is meant of their having him engaged as their God by the Covenant of Grace, and not of their having him engaged, as their God, by the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural Seed, and ſo it is granted, that to have a covenant-intereſt in God, is a good, vaſtly greater and more excellent, than any temporal good whatſoever.
But to that I anſwer, The Pſalmiſt ſpeaks of a covenant intereſt abſolutely, without diſtinguiſhing of the Covenant conveying that intereſt, and where the Scripture doth not diſtinguiſh, we ought not; and conſequently the Scripture preferring a covenant-intereſt in God above all outward and worldly felicity whatſoever, we may and ought to conclude, there is no covenant-intereſt, but what doth ſo vaſtly excel any temporal good whatſoever; and conſequently, that the intereſt the natural Seed of Abraham had in God, was a good tranſcending any temporal good, and anſwerably muſt needs be a ſpiritual good; whence it will undeniably follow, that this Covenant conveying this intereſt in God unto them, was a Covenant of Grace, and that this promiſe was a promiſe of a ſpiritual and ſaving good.
Third Argument, If that Promiſe of the Covenant entred with Abraham and his natural Seed, as ſuch, which according to the letter and outward face of the words, did intend and point to a meer temporal good, did yet, according to a more inward ſence and meaning of the Holy Ghoſt in it, intend a ſpiritual good, typified by that temporal good, then that Promiſe, which according to the letter and outward face of the words, did intend and point to a ſpiritual good, muſt needs be underſtood of that ſpiritual good, which, according to the letter and outward face of the words, it did intend and point to, and conſequently that Covenant muſt needs be a Covenant of ſpiritual bleſſings: but the former is true, therefore the latter. For the Conſequence in the Major Propoſition of the Proſyllogiſm, I ſuuppoſe, it will not be denied by any that are Maſters of their own Reaſon, if that promiſe of the Land of Canaan, which in the letter, and according to the outward face of the words, intended only a temporal good, (for Canaan, according to the letter, was but a temporal good.) Now if that Promiſe, according to a more inward ſence of the Holy Ghoſt, intended a ſpiritual good, ſurely that Promiſe, of Gods being a God, which in the letter, and according to the outward face of the word, intends a ſpiritual good, muſt needs be underſtood of that good it did in the letter and outward face of the words intend; and for the antecedent, that I ſuppoſe will be denied, viz. that that promiſe of Canaan did, according to a more inward ſence of the Holy Ghoſt, intend and point to a ſpiritual good; but this is ſo evident, that it doth indeed admit of no contradiction, from thoſe who will not profeſſedly ſet themſelves to oppoſe the Scriptures: See Heb. 11.9, 10. He looked for a City, whoſe Maker and Builder is God. By what warrant did he look for this City? Doubtleſs by the warrant of this Promiſe of the Land of Canaan; but for this ſee Mr. Carter, in his Abraham's Covenant opened, page 23, 43. See alſo Mr. Tombs his Exercitation, page 2. Now then both parts of the Proſyllogiſm being true, it will undeniably follow, that this Covenant, as made with Abraham and his natural ſeed, was a Covenant of Grace, or did conſiſt of ſpiritual Promiſes; and in particular, that that Promiſe, wherein God ingaged himſelf to be a God to Abraham and his Seed, was a Promiſe of ſaving Grace.
The fourth Argument, That this Promiſe of the Covenant in particular, wherein God ingaged himſelf to be a God to Abraham and his Seed, as it did reſpect his natural Seed, as ſuch, did intend and import a ſpiritual good, or was a Promiſe, as ſome ſpeak, of ſaving Grace, that is, did intend ſuch a ſpiritual bleſſing, as had a direct reference to future ſalvation: I prove thus, viz. Becauſe it did, as it doth reſpect, or was made to Abraham's myſtical Seed, intend, as is confeſſed by all, a ſpiritual good, whence we argue; If all Promiſes made in the ſame words, terms, and expreſſions to divers perſons ſeverally and particularly conſidered, do alwayes ſignifie and intend one and the ſame good, as made to one, that they do as made to another, unleſs God himſelf hath ſome where or ſome way declared his ſence and meaning in them to be divers, as made to one, from what it is as made to another, and this Promiſe in particular be made in the ſame words, terms and expreſſions to Abraham's natural Seed, that is is as made to his myſtical Seed, and God hath no where or no way declared his ſence and meaning in it, as made to his natural Seed, to be divers from what it is, as made to his myſtical Seed, then it muſt needs intend and ſignifie one and the ſame good, as made to the one; that it doth as made to the other, and conſequently it ſignifying and intending a ſpiritual good, as made to his myſtical Seed, muſt needs intend a ſpiritual good as made to his natural Seed: But the former is true, therefore the latter; That the Promiſe was made to Abraham's whole Seed, whether natural, taking that phraſe in the ſenſe before opened, or myſtical, hath been ſufficiently proved already; and that it did intend a ſpiritual good, or was a promiſe of ſaving Grace, as made to his myſtical Seed, is not denied by our Oppoſers. Now let it be either ſhewed where or by what way God hath declared his ſence and meaning in it, as it was made to Abraham's natural Seed, to be diverſe from what it is, as made to his myſtical Seed, or let it be proved, that the Promiſe made, as before expreſſed, may carry a ſence and ſignification, as made to one, different from what it doth as made to another: This latter, I judge, will not be attempted, the attempting of it will be but an attempt to raze the foundation of all the comfort of Chriſtians, and whether God hath any where or any way declared his ſence and meaning in it, as made to Abraham's natural Seed, to be diverſe from what it is, as made to his myſtical, ſhall be conſidered by and by; in the mean time we may evidently ſee, that this Covenant, as made with Abraham's natural Seed, and that as ſuch was a Covenant of Grace, or did conſiſt of Promiſes of ſpiritual and ſaving bleſſings; and from what hath been ſaid, it evidently appears, there is no ſuch real and ſpecifical difference between that Covenant made with Abraham, and that Believers are under, as this Objection doth ſuppoſe and take for granted; it evidently appears, they are not ſpecifically two Covenants, but quoad ſubſtantiam, one and the ſame: Now the foundation of this Objection being removed, the Objection falls to the ground, and hath no weight in it.
Secondly, That this Covenant now made with Abraham and his Seed, is one and the ſame for ſubſtance that Believers, under the Goſpel adminiſtration are under: This I evidence by theſe two Arguments.
Firſt, If this Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed was not diſanulled, either by the Law, or by or together with any change or alteration God hath made in his adminiſtrations, with reference to his Church in after times, then it was never diſanulled, but is ſtill in being, and conſequently the ſame in ſubſtance with that Covenant, according unto which God doth diſpence and give out his ſaving mercies and bleſſings to believing Gentiles in the times of the Goſpel: but the former is true, therefore the latter. Certainly it cannot be denied, but that this Covenant is ſtill in being and in force, yea, is that very Convenant, according to which God doth diſpence his bleſſings and mercies to believing Gentiles in the times of the Goſpel, in caſe it was never diſanulled, unleſſs any ſhall ſay, there is a twofold Covenant of Grace ſtill in being, one a temporal Covenant, another a ſpiritual Covenant, which is not affirmed by any that I have yet heard of, or met with, and therefore the conſequence in the Major propoſition will not, I judge, be queſtioned by any: For the Minor propoſition, viz. That this Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed, was yet never diſan…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 Abraham, with reference to his Seed, as they are conſidered under that potion and conſideration as his Seed.
Secondly, Which follows from this, that they are Heirs to that Promiſe, or the bleſſing contained in that Promiſe made to Abraham, with reference to his Seed, which bleſſing, as I have proved before, was the ſame with that which Abraham himſelf was bleſſed with: theſe two things cannot be gainſaid, but muſt be granted by all that will not in expreſs terms contradict the Apoſtle.
Now then let me a little argue with our Oppoſers thus; either that Covenant entred with Abraham, and entred with believeing Gentiles, is one and the ſame, or they are two Covenants, ſpecifically diverſe the one from the other: The firſt they deny the latter they affairm. Well them, the Promiſe contained in it was either a Promiſe of a meer temporal good, or a ſpiritual good. Yes, ſay our Oppoſers, it was a temporal good, as the Promiſe was made to Abraham, with reference to his natural Seed. Well then the bleſſing or good contained in this very Promiſe, as it was made to Abraham, with reference to his ſpiritual or myſtical Seed, is either a temporal or a ſpiritual good; the latter here muſt, and I ſuppoſe will, be granted by our Oppoſers themſelves: It is evident then, according to the Judgment of our Oppoſers, that the ſame Promiſe made to Abraham, with reference to his natural Seed, and as made to him with reference to them, only importing a temporal good, may be given to, and ſet led upon believing Gentiles, and that by the Covenant of Grace, and that as given to, and ſetled upon them, may import and ſignifie a ſpiritual good; but it is the Covenant of Grace, that is made with believing Gentiles, is agreed on all hands; that believing Gentiles are Heirs to that Promiſe made to Abraham, with reference to his Seed, is expreſly affirmed by the Apoſtle, whence it will undeniably follow, that either the Covenant muſt be one and the ſame, and the Promiſes thereof intend one and the ſame good, as made both with reference to Abraham's natural, and alſo his ſpiritual Seed, which is undoubtedly the truth; or elſe that the ſame Promiſe made to Abraham, with reference to his natural Seed, according to that Covenant then entred with him; and that as ſo made, with reſpect to them, may import only a temporal good, may yet be given to, and ſetled upon believing Gentiles, by another Covenant, and that as given to, and ſetled upon them, may import a ſpiritual good; and conſequently that the Promiſe may run in the ſame extent and latitude, in which it was made to Abraham, as now it is made to believing Gentiles, though the Covenant, in which that Promiſe was contained, as made to Abraham, was really and ſpecifically diverſe from that that Covenant, in which that Promiſe is contained, as made to believing Gentiles; for if ſo be the ſame Promiſe, as ſimply and abſolutely conſidered, may be given unto and ſetled upon believing Gentiles, by a Covenant diverſe from that, according to which it was firſt given to Abraham, why may not that Promiſe be given unto, and ſetled upon believing Gentiles, in the ſame latitude and extent in which it was firſt given to Abraham; It the Promiſe be given to believing Gentiles, why may it not be given in the full extent and latitude of it? Certainly no rational account can be given. And here let it be carefully obſerved, that both we and our Oppoſers are agreed, That Abraham's bleſſing, or the good contained in that Promiſe, wherein God ingaged tob e a God to him and his Seed, is granted to believing Gentiles; all the Queſtion is, whether it be given to them in the ſame latitude and extent, in which it: was given to Abraham and his natural Seed; whence it lyes upon our Objectors to ſhew ſome Reaſon why, ſuppoſing there ſhould be ſuch a difference between theſe two ſuppoſed covenants, the Promiſe may not be continued in the ſame latitude and extent, in which it was at firſt given; as well as the Promiſe it ſelf, abſolutely taken, may be given or continued to believing Gentiles, notwithſtanding that difference they imagtne between theſe ſuppoſed diſtinct Covenants, ſo that the granting the Covenants to be really and ſpecifically diverſe one from the other, no more oppoſeth the truth of this our ſecond Propoſition, than it doth oppoſe what the Objectors themſelves do hold, at leaſt which they muſt hold, unleſs they will expreſly contradict the Apoſtle in what he expreſly affirms: and therefore I ſay, upon the ſuppoſal of what the Objectors themſelves muſt grant, the affirming and maintaining the Promiſe to run in the ſame latitude and extent to believing Gentiles, in which it ran in unto Abraham, doth not neceſſarily require the affirming or maintaining, that the Covenant is one and the ſame: our Oppoſers muſt grant, that the Promiſe made to Abraham, either with reference to himſelf, or with reference to his Seed, and it is all one, whether we take it the one way or the other, is given to, and fetled upon believing Gentiles, we ſay it is given to, and ſetled upon them, in the ſame latitude and extent in which it was given to Abraham, both in reference to himſelf and his natural Seed: and now ſuppoſing the Covenant believing Gentiles are under, ſhould be really diverſe from that entred with Abraham, how that ſhould contradict what we affirm, more than it ſhould contradict what the Objectors themſelves muſt grant, is impoſſible to imagine. So that, I ſay, the Covenant is one and the ſame for ſubſtance; but ſuppoſing it were not, yet our Propoſition might and would hold true.
Object. It is objected by ſome, That the Infant-ſeed of believing Gentiles cannot, with any ſhew of reaſon, be ſuppoſed to be taken in as joynt Subjects of the Covenant of Grace; and the Promiſes thereof, with their Parents, meerly upon the account of their Parents faith, in as much as we ſee plainly, that the Jews themſelves, though they were the natural Seed of Abraham (whoſe Seed in reaſon ſhould have enjoyed as great priviledges as the natural Seed of any believing Gentile) could not upon the meer account of their fleſhly deſcent from Abraham, be admitted into the Goſpel-covenant, but for their unbelief were rejected, notwithſtanding their relation unto Abraham, as his natural. Now ſay our Oppoſers, if ſo be, either the natural Seed of Abraham, or the natural Seed of Believers, had been or were to be received into the Goſpel-covenant, together with their parents, meerly upon the account of their Parents faith, and had had, or have, as the Seed of ſuch Parents, a right to the Ordinances and Priviledges of that Covenant, then the Jews, they being the natural Seed of Abraham, had had a right to the Goſpel-covenant, and might, yea, ought to have been admitted into the Goſpel-church by Baptiſm, by vertue of that their Relation to Abraham, as his natural Seed, and could not juſtly have been refuſed for the want of a perſonal faith and repentance of their own, they being, notwithſtanding their want of a perſonal faith and repentance, yet Abraham's natural Seed, and therefore certainly the Jews had either wrong done them by the Apoſtles, in not admitting them by Baptiſm into the Goſpel-church, or elſe we muſt relinquiſh our plea for Infant-right to Baptiſm, upon the account of their joynt intereſt in the Covenant, together with their Parents; for can we think the Apoſtles would ſo highly wrong the Jews, as to deny them that priviledge which, as Abraham's Seed, they had a right unto? or can it be imagined, that they, though the natural Seed of Abraham, who was ſuch an eminent believer, and the Father of the faithful, ſhould have no right to be admitted into the Goſpel church, and yet the fleſhly Seed of believing Gentiles ſhould have a right to ſuch an admiſſion: And that which makes this Objection ſeem more weighty to ſome is, that they ſuppoſe we hole, that the Inſant-ſeed of believing Parents do ſtand related to Abraham as his Seed, and do baptize them upon that account: And how the Infant-ſeed of believing Gentiles ſhould be ſuppoſed to ſtand related to Abraham as his Seed, and upon that account be baptized, when his own natural Seed could no longer bear the denomination of his Seed, with reference to the Promiſes of the Covenant of Grace, cannot be imagined, but ſeems to be matter of great wonder, yea, and amazement unto ſome.
Anſw. I anſwer, What hath been already ſaid, both for the explication of this term Seed, and for the removal of ſome Objections raiſed up againſt the truth, aſſerted in the foregoing Propoſitions, hath ſo far obviated and prevented this Objection, as that little more need be added for the removing of it out of our way: The Objection, as we may eaſily ſee, is grounded upon, and receives what ſtrength it hath from a twofold Suppoſition.
Firſt, A Suppoſition that we affirm, at leaſt that it will unavoidably follow from what we do affirm, that Abraham's natural Seed, both immediately and mediately proceeding from his loms, had a right to the Covenant of Grace, and the promiſes, benefits and priviledges thereof, meerly by vertue of their relation to Abraham, as his natural Seed.
Secondly, A Suppoſition that we hold, that the natural Seed of believing Gentiles are, by vertue of that their relation to ſuch believing Parents, accounted for the Seed of Abraham, and on that account to be baptiſed.
Now as to the former of theſe Suppoſitions, it will ſoon appear, to all that attend to what hath been ſaid, that I am no way concerned in it, having affirmed, and I hope ſufficiently proved, the quite contrary, viz. That the Covenant, as at fixſt eſtabliſhed with Abraham, did not conſtitute a Covenant-relation between God and any of his natural Seed, meerly as ſuch, beyond thoſe that did immediately proceed from his own loins, but that the right and intereſt that any individual or particular perſon of his natural Seed, during their Infant-capacity, beyond his immediate Children, had in the Covenant and Promiſes of it, aroſe from their relation to their immediate Parents, included with them in that phraſe, their Generations, and that the compleating and continuance of that Covenantrelation did neceſſarily and indiſpenſably require their own faith and repentance, ſo ſoon as grown up to a capacity inabling them thereunto, whence, as ſuch; who in their Infancy had a right to, and intereſt in the Covenant, and Promiſes thereof, either by vertue of their relation to Abraham, as his natural Seed, thus, in reſpect of his own immediate Children, or by vertue of the relation to Covenant parents, thus, in reſpect of the Jews mediately deſcended from Abraham, during the firſt Teſtament adminiſtration, I ſay, as ſuch, might, when grown up to years of maturity, fail in the performing the conditions of the Covenant, and thereupon be rejected of God; ſo they having loſt their own Covenant-ſtate and relation, could not convey a right to, or intereſt in the Covenant and Promiſes thereof to their Children, their Childrens Govenant ſtate and relation ſtanding or falling with their own; whence it is evident, that as neither the Jews themſelves, as grown up, and as Parents, had any right to the Covenant, as adminiſtred under the firſt Teſtament, but what depended upon their perſonal exceptance and performance of the conditions of the Covenant, as then propoſed to, and adminiſtred among them, nor their Infant-ſeed any right of admiſſion into a praticipation of the benefits and bleſſings of the Covenant, as then adminitred, but upon a ſuppoſition of their immediate Parents abiding in Covenant; ſo now the continuance of their right (conſidered as grown up and as Parents) to the Covenant and bleſſings thereof, as now varied and altered in its adminiſtration, depended upon their acceptation and performance of the conditions of the Covenant, as now propoſed under this preſent adminiſtration, and as the continuance of their own right to the Covenant, and the priviledges thereof, depended upon their own acceptation and performance of the Covenant, as now adminiſtred, ſo their Childrens right to, and intereſt in the Covenant, and privildeges thereof, ſtood or fell with their own; and hence the Jews, as grown up to years of maturity, or as Parents, refuſing to accept of and perform the Conditions of the Covenant, as now differently adminiſtred under the New Teſtament, from what it was under the Old, were perſonally rejected, ſuppoſing them ſingle perſons, and were both themſelves and their Children (ſuppoſing their Children were in their Infancy) rejected from their ſtanding any longer in their former Covenant-ſtate and relation God ward: So that this Suppoſition having no footing in any thing I have hitherto ſaid, the Objection it felf, ſo far as grounded upon it, no way concerns the truth aſſerted in the one or the other foregoing Propoſitions, and conſequently I am not at all concerned to reply unto it.
Now for the other Propoſtition this Objecton is grounded upon, I acknowledge my ſelf concerned in it, and do freely grant, yea, poſitivelv affirm, That the Infant-ſeed of believing Gentiles are to be accounted of, and numbred among Abraham's myſtical Seed: what reſpect we have to that their myſtical relation to Abraham, as his Seed, in the application of Baptiſm to them, will be more fitly conſidered under the laſt Propoſition: But that they are to be accounted of, and numbred among Abrabam's myſtical Seed, I affirm, and it ſufficiently appears from hence, viz. That Abraham's Seed in their generations make up but one myſtical Seed; This is evident from Gen. 17.7. where ſaith the Lord, I eſtabliſh my Covenant between me and thee, and thy Seed after thee in their generarations, to be a God to thee, and thy Seed after thee: So that Seed in their geuerations is expounded by God himſelf to be, Seed after thee; Seed in their generations makes up that one Seed: and to the ſame purpoſe is that of the Apoſtle, in Gal. 3.16. He ſaith not, To Seeds, as of many, but, To thy Seed, which is Chriſt. Whence it appears, 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 Infantſeed 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 poſſibly the condition may not be performed, and then God is diſobliged from making good the promiſes.
It is true, you will ſay, ſuppoſing it were a conditional promiſe, it would not infallibly ſecure the good promiſed to all univerſally, to whom it doth appertain; but it is an abſolute promiſe, and the abſoluteneſs of the promiſe, taken in conjunction with the univerſality of the terms, doth ſure infallibly ſecure the good promiſed to all univerſally to whom it doth appertain.
I anſwer, That the promiſe, though there expreſt abſolutely, yet is not abſolutely abſolute, as before proved, ſo though expreſt in univerſal terms, yet may be and is an indefinite promiſe, indefinite promiſes being often expreſt in univerſal terms; yea, let me ſay, that abſolute promiſes, how univerſally ſoever their terms are, are yet to be alwayes underſtood in an indefinite notion, and the good promiſed is not infallibly ſecured to any individual or particular perſon, meerly by the promiſes themſelves, but only upon ſuppoſition of the eternal purpoſes and decrees of the God, to give the good ſo promiſed to this or that particular perſon: in reſpect of abſolute promiſes, God hath reſerved a libery, to himſelf, to give or withhold the good promiſed, ina commenſurableneſs to his eternal decrees and purpoſes, and according as particular perſons are elected and appointed to the enjoyment of the good promiſed, or not elected or paſſed by.
From all it evidently appears, that perſons may have a viſible and external actual right and thle to this promiſe, and yet never have the good promiſed in preſent poſſeſſion, nor yet ever have it made good to them, and conſequently it cannot be concluded from the abſoluteneſs or univerſality of this promiſe, that the Infant-ſeed of believing Parents are not in the Covenant of Grace, nor under the promiſes of it.
But let that ſuffice for our ſecond ſubordinate Propoſition.