Infant Baptism Plainly Proved, Tract · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
Sundry Objections anſwered. The Concluſion.
Object. 1.
THE main and chief Objection againſt Infant-Baptiſm, and that which alone is of any conſiderable weight, is that raiſed from Mat. 28.19. compared with Mark 16.15, 16. where we have the Inſtitution of Baptiſm, as ſome (though groundleſly) would have it rather the Commiſſion, authorizing and enjoining the Adminiſtration of the Ordinance among the Gentiles recorded. And I find our Oppoſers grounding their Plea againſt Infant-Baptiſm upon this Commiſſion, two ways.
I.
Some argue from a threefold Suppoſition, which they conceive this Commiſſion lays a fair Ground for, as differently recorded by thoſe two Evangeliſts.
1. That that Relative Term [them] muſt refer to [Diſciples], ſuppoſed to be included in the word which we tranſlate, teach, or as others would have it, diſciple or make Diſciples, as its Antecedent, and not to that word [Nations].
2. That Infants not being capable of teaching, neither are, nor can in propriety of Speech be ſaid to be Diſciples.
3. That this Inſtitution or Commiſſion is to be underſtood as excluding all from Baptiſm, who are not comprehended in it; hence they argue, that the Subjects propoſed by our Lord Chriſt to be baptized being Diſciples, and Infants not being, nor in propriety of Speech can be called Diſciples; and all others beſides Diſciples being excluded by Chriſt, his propoſing them only to be baptized; hence Infants neither may nor ought to be baptized.
In Anſwer to this we ſay, That all theſe Suppoſitions are utterly groundleſs and falſe.
For the firſt, viz. That [them] muſt refer to Diſciples included in that word we tranſlate teach or make Diſciples, and not to Nations. This we utterly deny, and affirm on the contrary, that it muſt refer to Nations and not to Diſciples, and that for two Reaſons.
Reaſ. 1. Becauſe we ought to keep to the literal and plain Grammatical Conſtruction of Scriptures, where there is no neceſſary reaſon why we ſhould depart therefrom. Now according to the literal and plain Grammatical Conſtruction of this Scripture, [Them] muſt be referred to [Nations], whether we tranſlate that word to teach, or Nations, or make all Nations Diſciples, baptizing them; baptizing, who? why, according to the literal Conſtruction of the words, the Nations to be taught or made Diſciples; and here is no reaſon why we ſhould depart from the literal and plain Grammatical Conſtruction of the words. But,
2. It is altogether doubtful whether our Lord Chriſt in this Commiſſion had any reſpect to ſuch a Criticiſm as this, viz. That Diſciples are included in that word we tranſlate to teach. Now to depart from the literal and plain Grammatical Conſtruction, when there is no reaſon ſo to do, upon the Suppoſition of a Criticiſm; in a word, when it is utterly uncertain, whether our Lord Chriſt had any reſpect to any ſuch Criticiſm or no, is unreaſonable, and ſubjects all Scriptures to be framed into any form, according to the various Fancies of Men: So that undoubtedly they are the Nations that are to be baptized.
And as for what is ſaid to give Countenance to this Suppoſition, it ſignifies nothing at all. For,
1. Whereas it is ſaid, Thus to expound this Text agrees with what is recorded of Chriſt, viz. That he made Diſciples, and by his Diſciples baptized them; this is of no weight, for though he made Diſciples, and baptized them, viz. by his Diſciples; yet it is not ſaid, he only baptized them he made, or might make Diſciples, and order them to be baptized, and with them their Children or Houſholds.
2. Whereas it is yet further ſaid, that thus to expound this Scripture ſeems beſt to agree with the words of Mark, recording the ſame Commiſſion: And anſwerably, that that Clauſe in Mark, Go preach the Goſpel to every Creature, anſwers this Clauſe in Matthew, Go teach all Nations; and the next Clauſe in Mark, He that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved, anſwers this other Clauſe in Matthew, Baptizing them. And conſequently, that the Subjects of Baptiſm muſt be Diſciples, and thoſe Diſciples muſt be Believers. For anſwer to this, there is no neceſſity that we ſhould take theſe ſeveral Clauſes, as anſwering one another; we may conjoin both the words of Matthew and Mark together, and take the Commiſſion as given out by Chriſt in more words thus: Go, teach all Nations, baptizing them, I ſay, Go, preach the Goſpel to every Creature: he that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved; but he that believeth not, ſhall be damned. And then as in Matthew that Phraſe [all Nations] expounds that Clauſe in Mark, [every Creature]; ſo in that following Clauſe Mark only ſhews what ſhould be the Iſſue of their Adminiſtration of theſe two Ordinances of Preaching and Baptizing, not at all determining the Subjects of the one or the other: as for thoſe that did believe, and were baptized, they ſhould be ſaved; but as for others that believe not, they ſhould be damned, whether baptized or no.
3. Whereas it is yet further ſaid, That in caſe we refer [them] to the Nations to be taught, and not to Diſciples, without any limitation, then this Commiſſion would warrant the Baptiſm of all Nations, or all Perſons in every Nations, whether they are taught or no, which to affirm is abſurd.
But to this the Anſwer is at hand, That the Directions about the Adminiſtration of both theſe Ordinances, left in other Scriptures, ſufficiently prevent that Inconvenience.
Now this firſt Suppoſition being utterly groundleſs and falſe, the other Suppoſitions fall with it, and are of no uſe as to the end intended in them. For as for the 2d. Whether Infants are, or can in propriety of Speech be called Diſciples? It matters not, ſeeing they are not Diſciples, but the Nations, whoſe Baptiſm is warranted and required in this Commiſſion. And as for the 3d. That this Commiſſion is to be underſtood as excluding all from Baptiſm, that are not comprehended in it: Suppoſe it ſhould be granted, yet it makes not againſt Infants Baptiſm, ſeeing they are not excluded out of it, but rather included in it, as part of the Nations to be baptized. But becauſe the Suppoſition is falſe in it ſelf, for ſome may be baptized, and that by virtue of this Commiſſion, who are not in expreſs Terms comprehended in it, as will appear in the Anſwer to the Objection, as raiſed by others. And therefore,
II.
Others argue againſt Infant-Baptiſm,
1. From the plain Order (as they expreſs it) laid down by our Lord Chriſt in this Commiſſion, and according to this Order (as they ſuppoſe) theſe two Ordinances of Preaching and Baptizing, ought to be univerſally adminiſtred, and this Order is, that Men ſhould be taught the Doctrine of Faith.
2. That being ſo taught, they ſhould be baptized.
3. That they ſhould, in the School or Church whereof they are then made Members, be inſtructed in every thing elſe they ought to learn. Hence it is concluded, that none but ſuch as are taught, and by teaching made Diſciples, ought to be baptized, and conſequently no Infants.
In Anſwer unto which we lay down three Concluſions.
1. That notwithſtanding this Order in which the Commiſſion is laid down, yet it doth not (as taken abſolutely in its ſelf) neceſſarily exclude Infants from Baptiſm. This is proved two ways,
1. From the general Acknowledgment of our Oppoſers themſelves.
2. This is evident in it ſelf, becauſe as there is no mention of Infants, ſo no Word, Phraſe, or Expreſſion, that can rationally be interpreted as neceſſarily excluding them. All that can be ſaid to this is, That our Lord Chriſt not mentioning Infants together with the Order here laid down for the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm, is ſufficient Ground to conclude that they are excluded.
But to that I anſwer, That this is no ſufficicient Ground to conclude that they are excluded. This is undeniably evident from a twofold Conſideration.
1. It is poſſible that Chriſt may have given out this Commiſſion only with reference to grown Perſons, and hath revealed his Will concerning the Baptiſm of Infants in other parts of his Word. Yet let none ſay, as Mr. H. has done, that I grant that he has given out this Commiſſion only with reference to the Adult. I only ſay, it is poſſible he might have done it; and that is enough to prove, that the Commiſſion as abſolutely taken doth not exclude Infants.
2. That our Lord Chriſt might, as it is certain he did not, intend this Commiſſion as a full Directory for his Apoſtles and Miniſters in the Adminiſtration of theſe two ordinances. And that our Lord Chriſt did not intend that this Commiſſion of it ſelf ſhould be fully and abſolutely directive of the Apoſtles and Miniſters in the Adminiſtration of either of theſe Ordinances, is paſt all rational queſtioning, becauſe there are many Queſtions referring to the execution of it, which cannot be determined from the Commiſſion it ſelf, but muſt be determined from other Scriptures, as for Inſtance,
(1.) How the Nations ſhould be diſcipled? whether only by teaching them, or by baptizing them?
(2.) Who among the Nations, or who among thoſe to whom the Goſpel ſhould be preached, were to be accounted Diſciples, and anſwerably to be baptized?
(3.) Whether the Nations ſhould be baptized as Diſciples, or as Men.
(4.) After what manner Baptiſm ſhould be adminiſtred, whether by dipping, or by pouring water upon the Face, or the like? &c.
(5.) Whether Males, or both Males and Females, ought to be baptized?
And our Oppoſers themſelves are forc'd to betake themſelves to other Scriptures for the reſolution of theſe five Queſtions: And why we may not do the like for the reſolution of this Queſtion, Whether only grown Perſons, or they and their Infants, ought to be baptized? no rational account can be given.
Now this Commiſſion not being intended, as theſe Inſtances undeniably prove that it was not, as a full Direction to the Apoſtles or Miniſters of the Goſpel for the adminiſtration of this Ordinance; it will undeniably follow, that it doth not exclude, but on the other hand may include the Baptiſm of Infants. And if any ſhall ſay, Sure if it had been the Will of out Lord Chriſt that Infants ſhould been baptized, he would have expreſly declared it in this Commiſſion. In anſwer to ſuch I would ſay, it was far more neceſſary, that ſeeing it was his will that Females as well as Males ſhould be baptized, he ſhould have expreſly declared that; then though it be his will that Infants ſhould be baptized, he ſhould have declared that, yet we ſee he did not; it is enough that he has declared his Will both as to the one and the other in other parts of his Word. But for the further ſatisfaction of this Doubt, I ſhall lay down a ſecond Concluſion.
Concl. 2. That ſeeing our Lord Chriſt hath ſufficiently declared his Will in other parts of his Word, both as to the Covenant-Intereſt of the Infant-Seed of his People, and their Right to the Seal and Token thereof, it was no way neceſſary he ſhould particularly mention that in this Commiſſion; and the Commiſſion, though it mentions them not, yet doth ſufficiently warrant their Baptiſm. For the clearing up and illuſtration of this, let theſe two Suppoſitions be put, Firſt, that had God ſent his Prophets, or any of them, under the Firſt-Teſtament-Adminiſtration, to preach the Goſpel as then revealed to the Gentiles, or any Nation among them: Secondly, That he had continued Circumciſion under the Goſpel-Adminiſtration, as the Token of the Covenant; either of which he might have done, had it pleaſed him. Now I would ask any rational Man, Whether this very Commiſſion, only ſubſtituting Circumciſion in the room of Baptiſm, had not been ſufficient to have warranted the Circumciſion of Infants as well as of grown Perſons, though they had not been expreſly mentioned; yea, whether it would have been at all neceſſary that they ſhould have been mentioned? And why the bare Change of the Token of the Covenant ſhould make it neceſſary that Infants ſhould be mentioned in the Commiſſion, no Reaſon can be given.
To make this yet more plain, Suppoſe our Lord Chriſt ſhould have thus expreſt himſelf in this Commiſſion, Go teach or diſciple all Nations, baptizing them; for the Covenant with the Promiſes thereof ſhall be ſtill extended to, and eſtabliſh'd with both Jews and Gentiles, and their Children together with them, as it was of old with the Jews. I ſay, had he thus expreſt himſelf, he had not come much ſhort of mentioning Infants; why, let but the Scriptures formerly mentioned be compared together, 'tis all one as if he had ſo expreſt himſelf.
And if any ſhall yet ſay, That if Infants are baptized, then the Order in the Commiſſion is croſs'd. I anſwer, The Commiſſion is not croſs'd, while only the Rules, that our Lord Chriſt himſelf hath left for the guiding of his Miniſters in the execution of it, are obſerved. But for the full ſatisfaction of this Doubt, we lay down the laſt Concluſion; and therefore,
Conc. 3. That notwithſtanding it is the Will of our Lord Chriſt, that Infants ſhould be baptized, yet it was rational, yea neceſſary, that he ſhould have expreſſed himſelf in the Commiſſion in the order he hath done. For that,
(1.) Conſider what was the State or Condition of the Nations to whom the Apoſtles were now ſent, they were in a ſtate of Darkneſs and Ignorance: hence the preaching of the Goſpel antecedently to the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm, was abſolutely neceſſary.
(2.) Conſider the gradual Procedure the Goſpel ſhould, and anſwerably hath made in ſubduing the Nations unto Chriſt. There always have been, and ſtill are ſome Nations to be diſcipled, and brought home to Chriſt; and all Attempts to diſciple them, and bring them to Chriſt, muſt be by preaching the Goſpel to them, the Diſcipleſhip of Parents ſtill preparing the way to their own and their Childrens Baptiſm.
(3.) Conſider, that when Nations are diſcipled, yet the preaching of the Goſpel hath a precedency to the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm; the Seed of Believers baptized in their Infancy muſt be taught, and thereby brought to a ſincere embracement and performance of the Condition of the Covenant, to which as the Seed of ſuch Parents they were afore received, in order to their conveying unto their Children, Right to the Covenant, and to Baptiſm as the Seal and Token thereof.
Object. 2.
Some may further Object, The Inconſiſtency of ſuch things, as are in the Scriptures declared to have attended the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm, and are affirmed of, and required from ſuch as were baptized in Primitive Times, with the Doctrine and Practice of Infant-Baptiſm; and for this ſuch Scriptures as theſe, viz. 1 Cor. 12.13, 14. Epheſ. 4.16. Gal. 3.26, 27. are alledged.
Anſwer.
The Objection is eaſily removed by a threefold Conſideration.
1. That what is declared of, or required from thoſe that are Members of the viſible Church, of are to be incorporated thereinto by Baptiſm, in theſe and the like Scriptures, agrees to, and equally concerns the Church, and the ſeveral Members thereof in all Ages; hence it may as well be concluded from theſe Scriptures, that Infants never were, nor ever ſhall be admitted into the Church or viſible Body of Chriſt, the contrary whereunto is evident paſt all poſſible exception, as that in Primitive Times they were not, or now are not to be incorporated into that Body by Baptiſm.
2. Conſider, that it is a thing of frequent occurrence in Scripture, for things to be ſpoken of, or to whole Bodies or Societies, and that in the moſt univerſal and indefinite Terms, which yet are to be underſtood variouſly, with reſpect to the particulars according to their reſpective Capacities and Concernments therein. That Speech of Moſes to the Whole Congregation of Iſrael furniſhment us with ſufficient Inſtances for the proof of this, ſee Deut. 29th and 30th Chapters.
3. Conſider, That the Scriptures were written, not for the uſe of Infants in their pure Infant-ſtate, but for the uſe of grown Perſons, and that the Deſign of the Holy Ghoſt in the Scriptures mentioned, is to inſtruct and eſtabliſh them in ſome neceſſary Truth, or excite to ſome neceſſary Duty; and anſwerably what is ſpoken in thoſe forementioned places only, concerns ſuch Perſons as are capable of receiving ſuch Inſtructions, and practiſing ſuch Duties; but that proves not that Infants are not of, or to be admitted into the Church or viſible Body of Chriſt by Baptiſm.
Object. 3.
Others object, the Apoſtles Doctrine, taken in conjunction with the Primitive Practice. Say they, The Apoſtles in their Doctrine did teach, that Believers ſhould be baptized, and there is no mention of their teaching that Infants ſhould be baptized. So we read of many Believers baptized, but of no Inſtance of any one Infant that was baptized; and therefore ſure Infant-Baptiſm cannot be according to the mind and will of Jeſus Chriſt, but muſt be a Practice introduced into the Church by Men.
Anſwer.
To this four things may be ſaid,
1. That the Apoſtles did teach, that the Promiſe of Salvation doth belong, and conſequently the Covenant in which the Promiſe is contained, muſt needs extend to the Houſes of Believers, and that as ſuch, without conſideration had to the Faith and Repentance of any in or of their Houſes.
2. That they did exhort Perſons to be baptized upon the account of the Promiſes belonging unto them, and this is all one as if they had expreſly taught that Infants ſhould be baptized. It is undoubted, that the Infants of Believers are of their Houſes, and being ſo, muſt needs be under the Promiſe of Salvation. Now if one may be baptized upon the account of Intereſt in the Promiſe, any other may be ſo alſo; ſo that they did teach what amounts to as much as if they had in expreſs Terms taught that Infants ſhould be baptized.
3. That the Apoſtles did baptize whole Houſholds, and ſometimes ſuch as in which we read not of the Converſion of any, excepting the chief Heads and Governours only, and in which there is the greateſt probability that there were ſome Infants, at leaſt ſome in their Youth or Childhood, who cannot rationally be ſuppoſed to be baptized on the account of their own perſonal Faith and Repentance. Which taken in conjunction with the two foregoing Particulars, makes it vaſtly more probable that they did baptize ſome Infants, than the Scriptures not expreſly recording their Baptiſm, makes it probable that they did not baptize any.
4. That the Scriptures not expreſly recording that the Apoſtles did either teach or practiſe Infant-Baptiſm, is no proof that they did not do both. Many things that the Apoſtles taught and practiſed, are not recorded in Scripture, as it is ſaid of Chriſt, He taught in his Doctrine, and did many things which are not written; the like may be ſaid of the Apoſtles. It is ſufficient that the Scriptures in general declare the whole Mind and Will of God concerning the Faith and Practice of his Church and People, though it be not recorded. That ſome of the Penmen did teach and practiſe every Duty appertaining thereunto, that the grand Promiſes of the Covenant appertain to the Seed of Believers, and that all to whom thoſe Promiſes do appertain ought to have the Token of the Covenant applied to them, is ſufficiently evident throughout the Scriptures, both in the Old and New Teſtament. Hence, though it be not recorded in expreſs Terms, that the Apoſtles did either teach or practiſe Infant-Baptiſm, yet we may ſafely conclude they did both.
Object. 4.
Laſtly, It is farther Objected by ſome, That Infant-Baptiſm cannot be according to the Mind and Will of Chriſt, becauſe of their Incapability of the Ends and Ʋſes of Baptiſm.
Anſwer.
It is ſufficient that they are capable of ſome, at leaſt the main and chief Ends and Uſes of Baptiſm. It is no way neceſſary, that every one to whom either Circumciſion of old was, or Baptiſm now is to be applied, ſhould be capable of all the Ends and Uſes of the one or the other. Who dare deny, yea, or queſtion, but that our Lord Chriſt may appoint the Application of Baptiſm to Infants, as capable of ſome of the Ends and Uſes of it, though uncapable of others; and that they are capable of ſome, yea, the main and chief Ends and Uſes of Baptiſm, is and muſt be granted on all hands. Hence their Incapability of ſome of the Ends and uſes of it, makes nothing at all againſt their Baptiſm.
Now then our three Propoſitions being (as we ſee they are) firmly eſtabliſhed, by the unanimous Suffrage both of the Old and New-Teſtament, and all Objections of weight that may be made againſt the one or the other of them being removed, we are ſafely led by them to our main Concluſion, viz. That it is the Will of our Lord Chriſt, that the Infant Seed of Believers ſhould be baptized. They are under the Covenant, as having the main Promiſes of it appertaining to them, and anſwerably ought to have the Token thereof applied to them.
And as a Cloſe of all, what remains, but that as Believers maintain, and cheerfully proceed on in that Practice; ſo both they, and their Children, as growing up to years of maturity, do well improve theſe great Priviledges, which God of his abundant Grace and Mercy hath granted unto them. Which that they may do, I have in a third Tract, according to Divine Aſſiſtance given in, endeavoured the reſolution of four Queſtions, viz.
1. What are the Reaſons of God's appointed the Application of the Token of the Covenant to the Infant-Seed of his People?
2. What are the Benefits and Advantages accruing to them thereby.
3. What is the Duty of Parents towards their Children, as bearing the Token of the Covenant.
4. What Improvement Children may and ought to make of the Token of the Covenant, as applied to them in their Infancy, as they grow up to years of maturity.
In the reſolution of all which Queſtions, I have ſtudied both brevity and plainneſs; neither do I ſee how what hath been ſaid, could be well contracted into a narrower room, without prejudice to the Ends aimed at, the whole being but as it were an Epitomy of what may ſeem neceſſary to be ſpoken, conſidering the weight and importance of thoſe Queſtions; nor do I know well how to expreſs my ſelf, conſideratis conſiderandis, with more plainneſs than I have done, nor am I as yet made ſenſible, that any thing propoſed or aſſerted in the reſolution of the one or the other of them, needs a further Confirmation than what it already hath received. That which is moſt doubtful, ſo far as I yet underſtand, at leaſt to Paedobaptiſts, to whom (as well as to Antipaedobaptiſts) I had a reſpect in that Treatiſe, is, Whether all thoſe Benefits and Priviledges, that in the reſolution of the ſecond Queſtion I have aſſigned to the Infant-Seed of Believers, do really and truly appertain unto them, or only in foro Eccleſiae, or in viſible appearance? To whom I would only ſay, That in caſe the Covenant is enter'd with, and the Promiſes thereof made to them definitely, that is, with and to each of them in particular; and conſequently, that all thoſe Benefits and Priviledges are granted, and do belong to them univerſally, or to every one of them in particular, as in caſe the Promiſes be made to them definitely, they muſt needs do; it will neceſſarily follow, that they are granted, and do appertain to them in reality and truth, as well as in outward appearance. Granting the former, there is no more juſt reaſon to queſtion the latter, than there would be, ſuppoſing a Man were known and granted to be a true Believer, yet to queſtion whether all this Good, or all theſe Benefits and Priviledges do appertain to him in reality and truth or no, ſeeing as they are the Seed of true Believers, ſuch as are Believers not only in the ſight of Men, but the ſight of God, that I ſpeak of.
So the Covenant is entred with, and the Promiſes of it, made to them meerly as the Seed of ſuch Parents, without reſpect had to any Qualifications in, or any Conditions to be performed by them. Whence, ſuppoſing we grant the Covenant is entred with, and the Promiſes thereof made to them definitely, or with and to each of them in particular, in caſe we either queſtion, whether all that Good, and all thoſe Benefits and Priviledges are granted, and do appertain to them univerſally; or whether ſuppoſing we grant that, yet queſtion whether they are granted and do appertain to them in reality and truth; it muſt be either becauſe we queſtion whether all that Good, and all thoſe Benefits and Priviledges are contained in theſe Promiſes of the Covenant appertaining to them; or becauſe we queſtion whether God be faithful in his Promiſes, that is, do indeed and in truth grant unto, or confer upon thoſe to whom the Promiſes do appertain, what Good is really and truly contained in them. Either of which things why we ſhould rather queſtion in reſpect of Infants, than grown Perſons, no rational account can be given. And to queſtion, much more to deny the one or the other, has a direct tendency to overthrow the Faith and Comfort of all Believers, and render the Covenant of Grace with the various Promiſes of it utterly inſignificant, and of no uſe unto Men. Indeed that which ſeems to cauſe ſome to haeſitate about, and keeps them from a ready Compliance with what I have affirmed, is a Suppoſition, that the Caſe of Infants is the ſame with, at leaſt like unto the Caſe of grown Perſons; becauſe grown Perſons may viſibly appear to be in Covenant, and have the Promiſes thereof appertaining unto them, and conſequently to have all that Good, or all thoſe Benefits and Priviledges granted to and conferred upon them, when yet neither the Covenant, nor the Promiſes of it, do indeed appertain to them in the ſight of God, and conſequently none of that Good, or of thoſe Benefits and Priviledges do appertain to them in reality and truth. They are ready to think it may be ſo with Infants. But now the Caſe of grown Perſons and of Infants in this matter is wholly different; the Intereſt of grown Perſons in the Covenant and Promiſes of it, depends upon their own Performance of the Conditions of the Covenant; but it is otherwiſe with the Infant-Seed of Believers, they have their Intereſt in the Covenant purely from the Promiſe, as made to them as the Seed of believing Parents. Hence, ſuppoſe that Parents are true Believers, their Seed muſt needs have a like Intereſt in the Covenant that they themſelves have, and the ſame Good, or the ſame Benefits and Priviledges muſt needs be granted to, and conferred upon their Seed, that are given unto and conferred upon themſelves. Now that the Covenant is indeed entred with, and the Promiſes thereof made to the Infant-ſeed of Believers definitely, I have (as I conceive) ſufficiently proved. And I had intended to have ſomewhat further enlarged and ſtrengthned theſe Reaſons already offered; and alſo to have added ſomewhat more for the Confirmation of that their definite and particular Intereſt in the Covenant, and Promiſes of it; But not having as yet met with any Objections againſt thoſe Reaſons already offered, I ſhall for brevity ſake forbear, and only ſay to the ſincere Enquirer after the Mind of God in theſe things, Conſider what hath been ſaid, and the Lord give thee Ʋnderſtanding in all things.