Infant Baptism Plainly Proved, Tract · Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
The ſecond ſubordinate Propoſition further confirmed, and that both from the expreſs Words of the Apoſtle, Gal. 3.14. And from ſeveral New-Teſtament-Scriptures, as laid together, and compared one with another. Three Concluſions drawn from them. Two Inferences drawn from thoſe Concluſions. Three Objections anſwered.
THat this Promiſe is ſetled upon, and confirmed to believing Gentiles, in that extent and latitude mentioned, is evident,
III. From the expreſs Letter of the New-Teſtament.
Thus in Gal. 3.13, 14. the Apoſtle tells us expreſly, That Chriſt hath redeemed us from the Curſe of the Law, himſelf being made a Curſe for us, that the Bleſſing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles through him. So that it is according to the expreſs Letter of this Scripture, that the Bleſſing of Abraham is come upon the believing Gentiles through Chriſt. Hence the only Queſtion is, what this Bleſſing is? Now this the Apoſtle ſufficiently declares in the 9th verſe of this Chap. where he tells us, that they that are of the Faith, that is, true Believers, they are bleſſed with faithful Abraham, that is, they are bleſſed with the ſame Bleſſing that he was bleſſed with: Now this was the Bleſſing he was bleſſed with, viz. that God was his God, and the God of his Seed; that is, as before proved, his natural Seed. It is true, there were other Bleſſings conferred upon Abraham; but that the Bleſſing contained in that grand Promiſe of the Covenant is this very Bleſſing the Apoſtle hath reſpect unto, and doth intend, is undeniable, for theſe three Reaſons.
1. Becauſe the Apoſtle expreſſeth himſelf in an indifferent or univerſal Term, the Bleſſing, and conſequently the Bleſſing contained in this Promiſe, cannot be excluded, whatever other Bleſſings are included.
2. Becauſe all other Bleſſings conferred upon Abraham were ſuch, as each believing Gentiles is uncapable of enjoying, as to be the Father of the Faithful, to have the Meſſiah deſcend from their Loins. Theſe and the like Bleſſings are not compatible to every particular Believer; ſo that no other Bleſſing that Abraham was bleſſed with, can be intended.
3. Eſpecially becauſe the Apoſtle muſt neceſſarily have reſpect to this very Promiſe, and therefore the Bleſſing contained in it muſt needs be the Bleſſing ſaid by him to be come upon the believing Gentiles through Chriſt. This is evident from the 16th verſe of this Chap. where the Apoſtle cites this very Promiſe, to prove what he had affirmed this 14th verſe, concerning the Bleſſing of Abraham, its being come upon the Gentiles through Chriſt. Now unleſs he had intended the Bleſſing intended in that Promiſe, his Citation of it to prove what he affirms in this 14th verſe, had been impertinent. And beſides, the Apoſtle tells us, verſe 29. That if we be Chriſt's, then we are Heirs according to the Promiſe. He doth not, it's true, expreſs what we are Heirs unto, but this 14th verſe tells us, it is the Bleſſing of Abraham that is the Good we are Heirs of; Now, ſaith he, we are Heirs of this Bleſſing according to the Promiſe. According to what Promiſe? Why that Promiſe mentioned verſ. 16. For that is the Promiſe that evidently the Apoſtle intends. Hence this [Bleſſing of Abraham come upon the Gentiles] muſt neceſſarily be that very Bleſſing contained in that Promiſe, and that was, That as God would be a God to Abraham and his Seed, that is, primarily his natural Seed, ſo he would be a God to his Seed in their Generations, that is, to them and their natural Children, which is the ſame Bleſſing that Abraham himſelf was bleſſed with.
So that we ſee by the expreſs words of the Apoſtle, the Promiſe is granted unto, and ſetled upon believing Gentiles in the ſame extent and latitude in which it was made to Abraham.
IV. and laſtly, That this Promiſe is continued to all his Seed, and in particular to believing Gentils, in the ſame latitude and extent in which it was made to Abraham, may be infallibly concluded from ſeveral Paſſages in the New-Teſtament, as laid together and compared one with another.
The Paſſages amongſt others are theſe, Mark 10.10. Luk. 19.9. acts 2.38, 39. Acts 16.31. 1 Cor. 7.14. From theſe Paſſages, as laid together and compared one with another, we may infer theſe three Concluſions, from all which the Truth aſſerted will evidently appear.
I. That upon any Parents believing in Chriſt, the Promiſe of Salvation belongs not only to themſelves, but to their reſpective Houſes; not only themſelves as perſonally conſidered, but their Houſes come under the Promiſe of Salvation. This is evident from Luk. 19.9. Acts 16.31. compared together. Our Lord Chriſt tells Zaccheus, Salvation, upon his believing, was come unto his Houſes that is, as the Apoſtle explains it, his Houſe was now under the Promiſe of Salvation. What Salvation he means is evident from the Apoſtles words, namely, Eternal Salvation, as begun in this Life; therefore ſaith he, Thou and thy Houſe ſhall be ſaved, which is all one as to ſay, Salvation ſhall come to thy Houſe; for Salvation to come to a Houſe, is all one as to ſay, that Houſe ſhall be ſaved, or is under the Promiſe of Salvation. Hence no Man can rationally interpret Salvation, in that Paſſage of Chriſt to Zaccheus, of Chriſt himſelf. Indeed Chriſt is no where in Scripture called Salvation ſimply and abſolutely, nor can Chriſt poſſibly intend himſelf, becauſe he lays the Ground of this Salvation's coming to Zaccheus's Houſe, in that new Relation he was received into unto Abraham; he was now become his Son, and upon that very Ground Chriſt tells him, Salvation was come to his Houſe. Now that cannot be ſuppoſed to be the Ground upon which Chriſt himſelf came to his Houſe; he came rather that he might become a Son of Abraham, than becauſe he was ſo; ſo that he muſt needs here intend Salvation in a proper ſence. So that we ſee expreſly, that upon Parents believing, the Promiſe of Salvation belongs to their Houſes.
II. That under this Term [Houſe] the Children of believing Parents are in a peculiar and an eſpecial manner included and intended. I do not deny, but the Term [Houſe] may take in more than their Children; but that they are included, cannot be rationally queſtioned. Hence for Salvation to come to the Houſes of believing Parents, is all one as to ſay, Salvation is come to their Children. For as our Lord Chriſt tells Zaccheus, Salvation was come to his Houſe; ſo the Apoſtle Paul aſſizes the Jaylor, that upon his believing his Houſe ſhould be ſaved; and the Apoſtle Peter tells the Jews, that upon their believing, the Promiſe would be to them and their Children; and our Lord Chriſt tells us, that of ſuch (ſpeaking of Children) is the Kingdom of Heaven, Now all theſe Paſſages, as in the general, and for the ſubſtance, intend one and the ſame thing, ſo they mutually explain and confirm each other.
Hence for any to underſtand [Salvation] of Chriſt himſelf, or [Houſe] of Zaccheus himſelf, is not only unreaſonable, (Salvation, when abſolutely put, never ſignifying Chriſt, nor a Man's ſelf ſaid to be his Houſe) but it is to ſhut their Eyes againſt that Light the Holy Ghoſt himſelf holds forth for the diſcovery of the Mind and Meaning of our Lord Chriſt in that Paſſage to Zaccheus.
III. That Salvation belongs to the Houſes, eſpecially to the Children of believing Parents, meerly as ſuch, that is, as they are the Children of ſuch Parents, without conſideration had to their perſonal Faith and Repentance. Now this, which it is true is moſt liable to exception, may be undeniably demonſtrated, not only from the Letter of the forementioned Paſſages, no mention being made of the Faith and Repentance of thoſe Children, of whom it is ſaid, Salvation was come to them, or the Promiſe is to them, but from a twofold Conſideration.
1. That the Promiſe of Salvation belongs to the Houſes, that is, as before, the Children of believing parents, meerly by virtue or on the account of ſuch a Relation they ſtand in to Abraham, as is common to all Believers, this is that of Children. Thus ſaith Chriſt, This day is Salvation come to thy Houſe, foraſmuch as he alſo is the Son of Abraham. Mark what it is that our Lord Chriſt grounds his Aſſertion upon, it is evidently Zaccheus his Relation to Abraham, as his Seed. And the like muſt be underſtood as the Ground of that Promiſe of Paul to the Jailor; he and his Houſe upon believing would come under the Promiſe of Salvation, foraſmuch as he then would become a Son of Abraham, as God promiſed to Abraham, to be a God to him and his Seed, which is all one as to ſay, to him and his Houſe; ſo that he would be a God to his Seed in their Generations, which is all one as to ſay, to them, and their Houſes. So now Zaccheus, being through his Faith in Chriſt become one of Abraham's Seed, our Lord Chriſt tells him, Salvation was come to his Houſe; he, and his Houſe, eſpecicially his Children, were now under the Promiſe of Salvation, which is the ſame for ſubſtance with that of God's being a God to them. Neither can any with any ſhew of Reaſon plead the neceſſity of Faith, or the actual Calling or Converſion of his Houſe, to their Joint-Intereſt with him in this Promiſe; ſeeing not only there is no ſuch Qualification intimated to be neceſſary; but on the other hand, their Intereſt is evidently declared by our Lord Chriſt to be Zacheus's Relation to Abraham, as one of his Seed; our Lord Chriſt ſpeaks of the Time preſent, Salvation was then come to his Houſe, upon the very firſt Moment of his believing, and that upon this very account that he now was become a Son of Abraham. And this Good, viz. to have Salvation come to his Houſe, being vouchſafed to him upon that Ground, it muſt needs be a Good common to all ſtanding in the ſame Relation with him to Abraham. To ſay to a Man, when made free of a City or Town Corporate, this or that is now your Priviledge, as ſuppoſe to uſe any Trade, or the like, foraſmuch as you know your ſelf are made free, it evidently ſhews that ſuch a Priviledge is common to all that are free of ſuch a City. or Town Corporate. So now when our Lord Chriſt ſaith to Zaccheus, Salvation was come to his Houſe, upon that Ground, becauſe he was a Son of Abraham, it undeniably implies, that it is a Priviledge common to all believing Parents, as they are the Seed of Abraham, and conſequently Salvation muſt needs appertain to the Houſes of all Believers, as ſuch, without Conſideration had to any Qualification of thoſe intended in this Term [Seed].
2. That the Promiſe of Salvation belongs to the Houſes of believing Parents, upon their own perſonal believing, is evident from hence; becauſe the Miniſters of the Goſpel may be warrant from God apply the Promiſe of Salvation to their Houſes, upon the ſole account of their own perſonal believing. This is evident from the Promiſe of Paul to the Jaylor, he promiſed him, that upon his believing both he and his Houſe ſhould be ſaved. Now look as the Apoſtle doth propoſe this Promiſe to the Jaylor, as a Motive to him to believe, it might have been applied to him upon his actual believing; upon the firſt moment of his believing, it might have been ſaid, Now the Promiſe of Salvation belongs to thee and thy Houſe; or thou and thy Houſe ſhall be ſaved. Now what the Apoſtle did or might have done, every Miniſter of the Goſpel may do in the like caſe upon Parents believing; they may apply the Promiſe of Salvation not only to them as perſonally conſidered, but to them and their Houſes. And if it ſhould be ſaid, that as the Promiſe of Salvation was propoſed only conditionally to the Jaylor himſelf, ſo it muſt be underſtood as referring unto his Houſe, as the Apoſtle aſſures him, that if he ſhould believe he ſhould be ſaved, ſo he only aſſures him, that if his Houſe ſhould believe, they alſo ſhould be ſaved. But now for this, there can be no rational Pretence for ſuch a ſence of the Apoſtle's words, not only becauſe they are expreſt and poſitive without any intimation of any ſuch Condition in reſpect of his Houſe; but more eſpecially, becauſe in caſe the Apoſtle had not intended a peculiar Good accruing to his Houſe upon his own perſonal believing, which could be nothing elſe but their Intereſt in, and Right to the Promiſe of Salvation. There can be no Reaſon imagined why he ſhould add the latter Branch of the Promiſe, concerning his Houſe, ſeeing whether he had believed or no, his Houſe ſhould have been ſaved upon condition of their believing; nor to propoſe that as a Motive to induce him to believe, which he might have been aſſured of though he had not believed, had been impertinent, yea, abſurd. It muſt be ſomething accruing to his Houſe by his believing, that muſt rationally be an Inducement to him to believe. To tell him, that upon his believing, and that as a Motive to him to believe, his Houſe ſhould be ſaved, when they were brought into no other Capacity in reference to Salvation than they were before, or would have been, ſuppoſing he ſhould not have believed, had been ridiculous. Hence, unleſs we will charge the Apoſtle with as great an Abſurdity as well Man could be guilty of, we muſt grant he intended as he ſpeaks, viz. That upon the Jailors believing, both himſelf and Houſe ſhould be ſaved, that is, they ſhould come actually under the Promiſe of Salvation, which in caſe they ſhould not forfeit by their after failing in performing their Duties indiſpenſibly required to their actual enjoying that Salvation which at preſent they were actually under the promiſe of, they ſhould infallibly enjoy it. For that muſt ſtill be remembred, that though upon Parents perſonal Faith, their Houſes, and eſpecially their Children, come under the Promiſe of Salvation; yet their future Enjoyment of it neceſſarily ſuppoſes their own performance of the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, as they grow up to years of maturity; and ſuppoſing there ſhould be any Children in ſuch Houſes, as are actually grown up, when their Parents do believe, though a Right to, and Intereſt in the Promiſe accrues to them as the Children of ſuch Parents; yet unleſs they conſent to, and take hold of the Covenant, they do ipſo facto forfeit their Right to and Intereſt in it: But this we ſee evidently, that upon Parents believing, their Children have a Right to and an Intereſt in the Promiſe of Salvation, without conſideration had to any Qualifications in them: which ſufficiently ſhews that the Promiſe, which was the thing to be proved, is continued to believing Gentiles, in the ſame extent and latitude in which it was made to Abraham at the firſt eſtabliſhment of the Covenant with him. The Promiſe was to him and his natural Children; ſo it is to Believers, and their natural Children, or (which is all one) to them n their Generations. From what hath been ſaid, two things may be inferred.
1. That it is all one as to the proof of Childrens Intereſt in the Promiſe, whether Zaccheus or the Jaylor had any Infants at that time. If they had any, the Promiſe did belong to them; if they had none, yet the Promiſe did belong to their Houſes. And the ſame is true of the Houſes of all Believers; if they have any Infants, the Promiſe belongs to them; if they have none, yet the Promiſe appertains unto ſuch as are included in the Term [Houſe].
2. We may infer, That the Scriptures ſometimes mentioning the Faith and Repentance of the Houſes, or of ſome in or of the Houſes of believing parents, do no way oppoſe, but on the other had ſtrongly confirm the Truth of this ſecond Propoſition. Their being ſavingly wrought upon together with or immediatly after their Parents Converſion, hinders not but that the Promiſe might belong to them, as the Houſes, or as of the Houſes of believing Parents; but on the other hand, rather proves that it did. Becauſe we read of the Faith and Repentance of ſome in or of the Houſes of Believers, ſhall we hence conclude, that the Promiſe did not belong unto them as the Houſes of ſuch Parents? how unreaſonable would that be! We may rather conclude the Promiſe did belong unto them.
But to haſten: By what hath beeen ſaid, our two firſt Propoſitions are abundantly, yea, ſuperabundantly eſtabliſhed; and the Truth is, the Truth of theſe two firſt Propoſitions appears with ſo much evidence throughout the whole Scriptures, that it is even a wonder how any of a competent underſtanding, that are able to compare one Scripture with another, can queſtion the one or the other: yea, I dare boldly ſay, there is hardly any one Truth in the whole Doctrine of Divinity hath a more full Suffrage from the Scriptures, than this concerning the Covenant-Intereſt of the Seed of Believers hath. How many plain and expreſs Scriptures have we for it? And the Evidence given in throughout the Scriptures to theſe two Propoſitions being ſo plain and expreſs, it may ſeem wholly ſuperfluous to take notice of any objections that may be made againſt them. To ſuppoſe that any thing may be juſtly objected from the Scriptures againſt the one or the other, is in effect to ſuppoſe that the Scriptures may contradict themſelves. And therefore I ſhall only take notice of three or four Objections, which our Oppoſers conceive to have the greateſt weight in them.
The firſt Objection that I ſhall take notice of, is raiſed from that Rom. 9.7, 8. whereunto is added, Mat. 3.7. and Job. 8.33. &c. Whereas the Apoſtle denies that the Children of the Fleſh are the Children of God; ſo he affirms, that the Children of the Promiſe are accounted for the Seed. So John Baptiſt, and our Lord Chriſt ſhew the Inſufficiency and Vanity of that Plea the Jews made for the continuance of their Covenant-ſtate, and Enjoiment of all their Priviledges, Benefits, and Bleſſings, whether preſent or future, annexed thereunto, grounded upon their Relation to Abraham, as their Father.
Object. 1.
Thus it is objected, That in caſe Abraham's own natural Seed could not have their Covenant-ſtate, with the Priviledges and Benefits thereunto annexed, continued to them under the Goſpel, upon the account of their Relation to Abraham, as his Seed; much leſs can the Infants of any believing Gentiles be received into ſuch a State, and enjoy the Priviledges and Benefits of it upon the account pf their Deſcent from, and Relation to ſuch Parents.
Anſwer.
This Objection hath its riſe from the very ſame Miſtake about the true Mind and meaning of God in this grand Promiſe of the covenant, wherein he promiſeth to be a God to Abraham's Seed in their Generations, which the Jews themſelves lay under; the rectifying of which was the Deſign both of John Baptiſt, our Lord Chriſt, and the Apoſtle Paul, in the places mentioned. And the Miſtake is this, the Jews thought, and the Framers of this Objection will needs take it for granted, that this Promiſe did ſo appertain to all the natural Seed of Abraham, whether immediate or mediate, as that they had univerſally a perſonal and particular Intereſt in it; and hence the Jews thought that they could not be caſt off, nor deprived of the Bleſſing and Benefits of the Covenant, without a failure on God's part in his Promiſe. Our Oppoſers ſeem to ſee no other way to vindicate the Faithfulneſs of God in their actual rejection, than by affirming this Covenant is diſanull'd, at leaſt the tenour thereof altered, ſo as not to take in the natural Seed, as it did (as they ſuppoſe) during the firſt-Teſtament-Adminiſtration; but the Miſtake, as to the tenour of the Promiſe or Covenant, is the ſame in both. Now the rectifying of this Miſtake was the Deſign both of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, John Baptiſt, and the Apoſtle Paul; where let three things be conſidered:
1. That neither John Baptiſt, nor our Lord Chriſt, nor the Apoſtle Paul, do deny that the Promiſe had reſpect to them; yea, the Apoſtle Paul doth ſuppoſe, and implicitly grant that it had, which could be no other than that more general Reſpect before mentioned.
2. That they all ſpeak to or of the Jews then in being.
3. That they ſpeak to or of them, as grown up to years of maturity; and hence their Deſign is only this, viz. to ſhew that the Promiſe, as made with ſuch a reſpect to them, did not infallibly ſecure their covenant-ſtate, nor their Enjoyment of the ſaving Benefits and Bleſſings of the Covenant, without Faith, Repentance, and Holineſs on their parts; the Apoſtle withal ſhewing, that there was an Election of Grace, as he after ſpeaks, which did and ſhould obtain the Good promiſed, which they did in reſpect of thoſe who were grown up to years of maturity through their Faith and Holineſs: but in reſpect of Infants, it was through the gracious Promiſe of God reaching and taking in them with their Parents; and hence neither the one or the other ſpeaks to or of the Jews in theſe places, carries the leaſt ſhew of Oppoſition to either of the foregoing Propoſitions; but on the other hand, as what the Apoſtle Paul ſpeaks of them, taken in conjunction with the Context, undeniably implies the Truth of our firſt Propoſition. So what they all ſpeak, adds no ſmall Confirmation to the ſecond, as might eaſily be made appear, were it neceſſary. Let us only ſee the Truth of what we now affirm, viz. That which the Apoſtle Paul ſpeaks of the Jews, is ſo far from carrying any Oppoſition to, that it evidently implies the Truth of that Propoſition.
For the making of this plain it may be obſerved, that the Queſtion the Apoſtle is there reſolving, as is granted on all hands, and is evident from the Context, is, How ſo great a part of the Jews could be rejected and yet the Faithfulneſs of God in that Promiſe made of no effect thereby.
Now for the Reſolution of this Queſtion, he firſt more generally aſſerts, that all the not Iſrael, that are of Iſrael. And then more particularly,
1. Denies, That all the Seed of Abraham, that is, his natural Seed, were Children, that is, the Children of God, as he expounds it, verſ. 8. He denies not but that ſome were the Children of God; all that he denies is, that they were all ſo. And,
2. On the other hand affirms, That in Iſaac the Seed were to be, and anſwerably were called; which he explains in verſ. 8. namely, That the Children of the Promiſe were counted for the Seed. Where let it be obſerved, he ſpeaks not of that grand Promiſe of the Covenant, but of thoſe two Promiſes, the one made to Abraham concerning the Birth of Iſaac, and the other to Rebecca, concerning the preheminence of Jacob above Eſau; and by the Children of the Promiſe he means the Elect.
Now theſe are ſuch he accounted for the Seed, that is, they are the Perſons deſigned to enjoy the Good promiſed. For the illuſtration and confirmation of which, he ſhews, That Perſons might be Subjects of this Promiſe of the Covenant, yet not be Children of God, nor accounted for the Seed, that is, not appertain to the Election of Grace, and conſequently might not enjoy the Good promiſed; and yet this no Impeachment of the Faithfulneſs of God in the Promiſe. And then ſhews it was ſo,
1. Among Abraham's Children, deſcended from his own loins.
2. It was ſo among Iſaac's Children, who were Subjects of this Promiſe, as included with Iſaac their Father, in that Phraſe, [thy Seed in their Generations] verſ. 8, 9, 10. Hence he argues a fortiori, If it might be thus in reſpect of Abraham's own Children, and in reſpect of his next Son's Children, who had the Promiſe appertaining to them as ſeverally and particularly conſidered; much more it might be ſo reſpect of thoſe, who were the Subjects of this Promiſe only, as it had a more general reſpect to them, as of Abraham's Poſterity. But hence it is evident, the Apoſtle is ſo far from denying, either that Abraham's own Children, or Iſaac's Children, were Subjects of this grand Promiſe of the Covenant, that he plainly grants and ſuppoſes that they were: for in caſe the Apoſtle did not ſuppoſe and take it for granted, that the reſt of Abraham's Children had been accounted the Subjects of this Promiſe with Iſaac, and the reſt of Iſaac's Children with Jacob, his inſtancing in them, as being the Children of God, and accounted for the Seed, had made nothing to his purpoſe, conſidering the Queſtion he was now reſolving, but would rather have made againſt the Reſolution he gives of that Queſtion, as will evidently appear to any that ſhall throughly weigh the whole Context. So that this Text of the Apoſtle is ſo far from oppoſing, that it doth greatly eſtabliſh the Truth of our firſt Propoſition; the Apoſtle evidently granting that Iſhmael and Abraham's Children by Keturah, were the Subjects of this Promiſe as well as Iſaac, and Eſau as well as Jacob.
Object. 2
It is ſaid by ſome, That this Covenant, the Eſtabliſhment of which with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations is recorded, Gen. 17.7. is not that Covenant of Grace under which Believers under the New-Teſtament are. Hence though this Covenant eſtabliſh'd with Abraham did run in that latitude and extent pleaded for, viz. as taking in Parents with their natural Seed under the Firſt-Teſtament; yet no Argument can be drawn from thence to prove that the Infant-Seed of Believers are ſtill taken into covenant with their Parents, ſeeing the Covenant under which Believers now are, is a Covenant quite different from this eſtabliſhed with Abraham, this being the Old, and that the New Covenant.
Anſwer.
This Objection will be ſufficiently removed by the Proof of theſe two Propoſitions,
1. That this Covenant then eſtabliſhed with Abraham, was a Covenant of Grace, that is, a Covenant aſſuring of Spiritual Bleſſings, the very ſame Bleſſings aſſured and conveyed to Believers by the Covenant they are now under; and a Covenant aſſuring of ſuch Bleſſings will doubtleſs be granted by all Men to be a Covenant of Grace. That this was ſuch a Covenant will appear by theſe four Conſiderations.
1. That in caſe this Covenant only aſſured Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations, of a temporal Good; then many thouſands that were the undoubted Subjects of it, and that as perſonally and particularly conſidered, might and did never enjoy and Good or Benefit by it; and this without any default on the part either of themſelves, or any others through whoſe default they could be ſuppoſed to be juſtly deprived thereof, and conſequently meerly through God's not performing his Promiſe. This is evident thus, Becauſe many thouſands, that were the undoubted Subjects of this Covenant, might and did die in their pure Infant-ſtate, and conſequently were utterly uncapable of enjoying any temporal Good. Hence in caſe this Covenant only aſſured of a temporal Good, all thoſe ſo dying muſt needs fall ſhort of the Good promiſed. And this could not be through any default of their own, ſeeing they were (as in their Infant-ſtate) uncapable of doing either Good or Evil. And this might be, and often was found true in reſpect of the Seed of Believers, and conſequently no forfeiture of the Promiſe was made by their Parents; hence their not enjoying the Good of the Covenant, ſuppoſing it to be only temporal, could be aſſigned to no other Cauſe, but meerly God's not performing his Promiſe. But now it is certain, none ever did or ſhall fall ſhort of any Good promiſed, meerly through a Failure on God's part in making good his Promiſe. Hence it muſt needs be a Spiritual Good, which might be enjoyed in another Life, that was the chief and principal Good intended in this Promiſe.
2. Conſider the Subject Matter of this Promiſe, or the Good promiſed, and that was, that God would be a God to Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations. Now the Pſalmiſt expreſly prefers this above any temporal Good whatſoever, Pſal. 144. laſt verſe. And conſequently it muſt needs be a Spiritual Good, ſeeing it is impoſſible that there ſhould be any Good that is greater than any temporal Good, and yet it ſelf is no ſpiritual Good.
3. Conſider, that the Promiſe of the Land of Canaan, which according to the Letter of the Promiſe only intended a temporal Good, yet according to a more inward and Spiritual Sence did intend a Spiritual Good, viz. Heaven, as is evident from Heb. 11.9, 10. and is acknowledged (at leaſt) by ſome of our chief Oppoſers. And how unreaſonable and abſurd is it to imagine, that the Promiſe, which according to the Letter intends only a temporal Good, ſhould yet according to a more inward and Spiritual ſence intend a Spiritual Good; and yet that this Promiſe of God's being a God to them, which according to the very Letter intends a Spiritual Good, ſhould only intend a temporal Good.
4. Conſider that this Promiſe, as is granted on all hands, intends a Spiritual Good, as made to Abraham's Spiritual or Myſtical Seed, and anſwerably muſt needs intend the like Good as made to his natural Seed; ſeeing God hath no where in his Word given us a Warrant to interpret it of one kind of Good as made to his Myſtical Seed, and of another kind of Good as made to his Natural Seed. So that this Covenant muſt neceſſarily be a Covenant of Grace, the Good contained in it was a ſpiritual and Eternal Good; and ſuch a Good can be granted to, or enjoyed by Man as now fallen, by no Covenant but what is a Covenant of Grace. But,
II. That this covenant mentioned Gen. 17.7. was the very ſame for the Subſtance of it, that Believers under the New-Teſtament are under. It is not only a Covenant of Grace, but the very Covenant of Grace that Believers are ſtill under. Now this is undeniably evident from the Apoſtle's Diſcourſe in Gal. 3. Let only two things be conſidered.
1. The Apoſtle poſitively affirms that this Covenant was never diſanull'd or abrogated. Thus verſ. 17. This I ſay, That the Covenant which was before confirmed of God in Chriſt, the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot diſanull, that it ſhould make the Promiſe of none effect. That the Apoſtle ſpeaks of this very Covenant made and eſtabliſh'd with Abraham, is ſufficiently evident from the whole Context. 'Tis that Covenant, the grand Promiſe whereof ran in that tenour, To thee, and to thy Seed; ſee verſ. 16. Which muſt needs be this Covenant, no other Covenant made with Abraham containing any Promiſe to his Seed, running in that tenour. Now ſaith the Apoſtle, The Law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, could not diſanul this Covenant; ſo that this Covenant was not diſanull'd by the Law. And let it be carefully obſerved, that in caſe it had been diſanull'd at any time before our Lord Chriſt came in the Fleſh, yea, or by him when he was come, (and that it hath been diſanull'd at any time ſince, or by any other, I ſuppoſe no Man will affirm) it had been all one as to the Apoſtles deſign; for if it had been diſanull'd before Chriſt came, or by him when he was come, the Apoſtle could not have proved, that the Bleſſing of Abraham was come upon the Gentiles through Chriſt, as believed in, (as we ſee he doth from the tenour of that Covenant) any more than if it had been diſanull'd by the Law. So that undoubtedly, this Covenant is the very Covenant under which Believers ſtill are.
2. Let is be conſidered, that it is by virtue of this very Promiſe contained in this Covenant that Believers are Heirs of the Bleſſing of Abraham, thus verſ. 29. So that not only the Bleſſing of Abraham is come upon believing Gentiles, but is come upon them through this very Promiſe, and that as they are conſidered under the Notion of Abraham's Seed, which puts the matter out of doubt. When Believers are under this very Promiſe, or Heirs to the Good or Bleſſing contained in it, as they are Abraham's Seed, who can doubt whether the Covenant, the grand Promiſe of which they are under, and that as they are become Abraham's Seed, be that Covenant that they are now under? So that that Covenant eſtabliſh'd with Abraham, is the very ſame Covenant of Grace that Believers are now under, is too evident to be denied by any that are but indued with human Modeſty.
And whereas ſome may yet ſay, The Scripture ſeems evidently to diſtinguiſh between that Covenant the Jews were under during the Old-Teſtament-Adminiſtration, and that Believers are under ſince the Goſpel-Adminiſtration, calling the one the Old Covenant, the other the New. The Anſwer is at hand, viz. That it is readily granted, that the Jews were under a Covenant that Believers now are not under; but that was not that Covenant made with Abraham, but the Covenant made at Mount Sinai. Hence the Covenant, the New-Teſtament calls the Old Covenant, was that made at Mount Sinai, and not this made with Abraham. The words are plain, Gal. 4. latter end. Heb. 8.8.
So that it is paſt all rational doubt, it was the Covenant of Grace, that very Covenant that Believers are now under, that was eſtabliſh'd with Abraham, the Eſtabliſhment of which is recorded Gen. 17.7. And here we might further confirm what hath been hitherto pleaded for, namely, that the grand Promiſe of the Covenant is continued to Believers under the New-Teſtament in the ſame extent and latitude, viz. as including their Infant-Seed with them, in which it was at firſt made to Abraham; for if the Covenant be the ſame, the Promiſes of it muſt needs be continued in the ſame tenour in which they were at firſt made, unleſs God himſelf and made any alteration, which it is certain in this reſpect he hath not done. Theſe things appear with ſo much evidence, that it is to admiration how they ſhould meet with any Contradiction from any that pretend to take the Scripture as the Rule of their Faith and Practice.
Object. 3.
It may be ſome will yet further ſay, That ſuppoſe it be granted, that the Covenant then eſtabliſh'd with Abraham was not only a Covenant of Grace, but the Covenant of Grace under which Believers always have been, and ſtill are; ye the Infant-Seed of the People of God under the Firſt-Teſtament might be only under the external Adminiſtration of it, and not taken in as Parties in the Covenant it ſelf; and hereupon that Adminiſtration ceaſing, they are no ways concerned in the Covenant, either in regard of the Adminiſtration, or the Subſtance of it.
Anſwer.
'Tis true, ſome ſeem to think ſo, but their Diſcourſes are cloathed with ſuch Confuſion and Obſcurity, that it is hard to find out what they mean. But that Infants were not only under the external Adminiſtration of the Covenant, but were taken in as Joint-Parties with their Parents in the Covenant it ſelf, is ſuperabundantly evident from what hath been already ſaid. Thoſe that were under the moſt eſſential Promiſe of the Covenant, muſt ſurely be under or in the Covenant it ſelf. Now I have ſufficiently proved, that Infants of Govenant-Parents were from the firſt eſtabliſhment of the Covenant under the Promiſe of God's being a God to them, which is the moſt eſſential Promiſe of the Covenant, yea, a Promiſe that virtually comprehends the whole Good contained in the Covenant. So that undoubtedly they were not only under the external Adminiſtration, but in the Covenant it ſelf.
Poſſibly ſome will yet ſay, Grant them to have been under this Promiſe, and anſwerably in Covenant, yet might not this Promiſe, at leaſt as appertaining to Infants, be an Appendix to the Covenant of Grace, and not of the Eſſence or Subſtance of it, as the Promiſe of the Land of Canaan was.
To that I anſwer; No, 'tis a Promiſe that undoubtedly appertains to the Eſſence of the Covenant; 'tis that which (as I have ſaid) virtually includes the whole Good of the Covenant. And how abſurd and unreaſonable would it be to take the Promiſe as made to Parents as of the Eſſence of the Covenant, when yet as made to their Infants, as only an Appendix to it, eſpecially when it is but one Promiſe, conſiſting of two Branches, made to one and the ſame Perſon? Neither doth the Scripture give the leaſt Ground for ſuch an Imagination.
Now theſe Objections being anſwered, I ſhall proceed to the third Propoſition; only as previous thereto, let it be obſerved, That I have been hitherto only proving the Intereſt of the Infant-Seed of Believers in the Covenant, and in ſpecial in that grand Promiſe of it, concerning God's being a God to them. And this was abſolutely neceſſary to be proved before their Right to Baptiſm be proved, ſeeing their Right to Baptiſm follows upon cheir Intereſt in the Covenant, and is applied to them on that Ground.