The Apoſtle gives us this diſtribution of Abraham's ſeed, Rom. 9.6. All are not Iſrael that are of Iſrael, &c. that is, all that are of the myſtical body of Chriſt as viſible, are not really and truly of his body myſtical as inviſible; the viſible body of Chriſt is of a larger extent than his inviſible; 'tis all one as if the Apoſtle had ſaid, ſome are viſible, and denominatively the ſeed of Abraham, who yet are not truly and internally his ſeed: That this is the meaning of the Apoſtle, is evident from the following verſes; of which place more hereafter. Hence this term ſeed is to be underſtood ſometimes of his ſeed as viſible and denominative, ſometime of his ſeed as inviſible and real: in the former ſence we are to underſtand it in the place forementioned, Galat. 3.16. By Chriſt we are to underſtand the myſtical body of Chriſt as viſible, as is evident, becauſe 'tis by Baptiſm that the ſeveral members are incorporated into, and united unto the body of Chriſt, as here ſpoken of.

Now Baptiſm doth not properly incorporate into the body of Chriſt as inviſible, but as viſible; in the latter ſence we are to underſtand it, Rom. 9.8. Seed here we are to underſtand of the elect, and the meaning is, that all they that are the children of the fleſh are not elected, and in that reſpect not the Children of God, nor accounted for the ſeed.

Some that are the children of the fleſh are the children of God, and are accounted for the ſeed, but all that are the children of the fleſh are not the children of God, nor accounted for the ſeed; that is in this ſtrict notion and conſideration of this term ſeed, as it ſignifieth the true internal and inviſible ſeed of Abraham.

Children of God and Seed here are, termini convertibiles, convertible terms: now as perſons are denominated the children of God, either in regard of their viſible and external appearing ſo to be, or in regard of their really and internally being ſuch; (ſaith Chriſt, 'Tis not meet to take the childrens bread and give it to dogs) it's meant of the things of the Goſpel, primarily appertaining to the Jews, as yet the Covenant-people of God: Now Chriſt calls them, indefinitely conſidered, children, that is children of God; when as it appears by their ſo general after-rejection, but few of them were really and internally the children of God.

So ſome are the ſeed of Abraham, and ſo to be accounted, in regard of their viſible and outward appearing ſo to be, who yet are not really and internally his ſeed.

Others are not only viſibly, and in regard of an external appearance the ſeed of Abraham, but are internally and really ſo: Of theſe latter, this term Seed, in this place, is to be underſtood; the children of the promiſe are accounted for the Seed, that is, they, and they only are internally the Seed of Abraham, I mean his ſpiritual and myſtical ſeed, for in that ſence this term Seed is here to be taken.

Secondly, There is Abraham's natural Seed, only for preventing miſtakes. Note,

That though I laſtinguiſh between Abraham's ſpiritual and natural Seed, yet the difference between them is only reſpective; the ſame perſons might be, and in reſpect of many were both his natural, and alſo his ſpiritual Seed, of which more after: This being noted, I ſay, there is Abraham's natural Seed; and this phraſe, Abraham's natural Seed; may be taken two wayes.

1. As ſignifying his Children deſcending immediately from his own loins; as it is ſaid of Iſhmael he was Abraham's ſeed, Gen. 21 13. He is thy ſeed, ſaith God to Abraham, ſpeaking of Iſhmael; and the like may be ſaid of all his other children, they were his natural ſeed.

2. This phraſe may be taken as ſignifying his whole race or poſterity, or all thoſe that did mediately deſcend from him in after ages: thus Gen. 15.18. Ʋnto thy ſeed, ſaith God, have I given this land; it is meant of his race or poſterity, or his ſeed mediately deſcending from him.

Secondly, Under what notion or in what capacity Abraham is to be conſidered, as receiving this promiſe from God.

I anſwer, That Abraham is to be conſidered both as a natural and alſo as a ſpiritual father, or both as a natural Father, and as the Father of the faithful. That God did look on Abraham as giving him this promiſe as the father of the faithful, is evident from Rom. 4.11, 12, 13. and ſome have thought that be was eyed and looked upon only under that notion and in that capacity; but that he was not only looked upon as the father of the faithful, but as a natural father, is evident by this Argument.

If Abraham's natural ſeed were intended as the immediate and next ſubjects of this promiſe, and that as ſuch, then Abraham as receiving this promiſe, or having this promiſe made to him with reference unto them, muſt needs be eyed and looked upon as a natural father; but the former is true, therefore the latter; the conſequence in the major propoſition, cannot be denied; for if God intended Abraham's natural ſeed as ſuch, that is, as his natural ſeed, then he muſt needs eye Abraham as a natural father, as making this promiſe to him: Now that he did intend Abraham's natural ſeed, will, I doubt not, be ſufficiently evident by the proof of this firſt propoſition; and that they were intended as his natural ſeed is evident, becauſe in reſpect of ſome of them, they could be looked upon under no other notion, they could not be looked upon as his ſpiritual ſeed, for ſuch they were not, whether we reſpect election or actual faith, take it of Iſhmael, he was neither elected, nor had actual faith; as for what ſome think concerning his future repentance 'tis wholly groundleſs, we having no intimation of it throughout the whole Scripture; but the contrary is intimated, or ratherr plainly implied in that Rom. 9. Now if he (and 'tis like the ſame was the caſe of ſome at leaſt of Abraham's Sons by Keturab) could not be looked upon as Abraham's ſpiritual ſeed, he muſt needs be looked upon, under that very notion and conſideration, as his natural ſeed, and as ſuch was intended as one ſubject of that promiſe: And whereas ſome think that the Apoſtle, Rom. 4. expounds this promiſe as made to Abraham only as the father of the faithful, 'tis a great miſtake.

That he was eyed as the father of the faithful is readily granted; but that he was eyed only as ſuch a father is denied, and is not in the leaſt intimated by the Apoſtle in that place: But not to ſtay on this, it is ſufficiently evident, that as Abraham ſuſtained that two-fold relation, viz. of a natural and of a ſpiritual father, ſo he was eyed under both notions, as receiving this promiſe, on the behalf or with reference to his ſeed.

Thirdly, What is the true intent of this promiſe, in regard of the extent and latitude on the one hand, and the limitation on the other.

Before I anſwer this Queſtion, let me only premiſe, that the true determination of this Queſtion conduceth not a little (if I miſtake not) to the clearing up and determining the truth pleaded for, as the not right underſtanding the true intent of this promiſe in the regards mentioned, hath been one conſiderable cauſe of ſo many rejecting the truth we plead for, and their too ready imbracing of the opinion we oppoſe: Therefore I deſire, that what I have to ſay in anſwer to the Queſtion, may be diligently attended to.

THat when God, at his firſt entring Covenant with Abraham, promiſed to be a God to him and his ſeed, intended his natural ſeed, as immediately deſcending from his own loins, as the immediate and next ſubjects of that promiſe, may be evinced two wayes: 1. More generally. 2. More particularly.

THus having ſeen ſomewhat (for much more might be produced) of that evidence the Scriptures give in, for the confirmation of this firſt Propoſition, I ſhall now conſider the Objections I have yet met with, or can poſſibly imagine may be made, that have any appearance of weight in them, againſt the truth hitherto aſſerted and pleaded for: That which I plead for is this, That God in that grand Promiſe of the Covenant, wherein he engaged himſelf to be a God to Abraham and his ſeed in their generations, intended his natural Seed, and that indefinitely one as well as another, immediately proceeding from his own loins, as the immediate and next Subjects of it. Now at leaſt ſome. (I ſuppoſe not all) of thoſe, whoſe judgment and practice vary from the truth pleaded for, will contend, that this term Seed is to be underſtood in a reſtrained ſenſe, as only intended of one or more of Abraham's immediate Children, to the excluding of the reſt, and that it is not to be extended to all indefinitely. But yet, I ſuppoſe, they are not agreed among themſelves, which to aſſign as the proper Subjects of this Promiſe; ſome have denied Iſaac to be the ſeed or part of the ſeed here intended; others, and I ſuppoſe the major part of our oppoſers, deny that Iſhmael was intended, or ought to be accounted as part of the ſeed here ſpoken of; As for thoſe that judge Iſaac was not intended in this Promiſe, the only ground they go upon, for ought I have yet met with, is this Suppoſition, viz. That God made a twofold Covenant with Abraham and his Seed, the one a legal or temporal Covenant, conſiſting only in temporal promiſes, and requiring only an external obedience; the other a Covenant of Grace, conſiſting of ſpiritual promiſes, and requiring internal and ſpiritual obedience; and they conceive, that this Covenant entred with Abraham and his Seed, mentioned Gen. 17.7. was only a legal or temporal Covenant; and that the Covenant of Grace is that formerly ſpoken of, Gen. 12.3. and again re-eſtabliſhed with Iſaac at the nineteenth verſe of this ſeventeenth Chapter: And then the Objection that the perſons of this perſwaſion raiſe againſt our Propoſition in the ſenſe given, is to this purpoſe: That this term Seed is not to be underſtood in that extenſive ſenſe given of it, in as much as this Covenant, mentioned in this ſeventh verſe, was only a temporal or legal Covenant eſtabliſhed with Abraham, as a natural Father, and his fleſhly ſeed, and not the Covenant of Grace, eſtabliſhed with him, as a ſpiritual Father, and with his ſpiritual ſeed, now Iſaac being a Child of promiſe, and conſequently to be accounted of Abraham's ſpiritual ſeed, could not be intended in that promiſe, which alone intended his fleſhly of natural ſeed.

Anſw. I anſwer, That Iſaac in particular was intended in this Promiſe, and that as a principal Subject of it, as it reſpected Abraham's natural ſeed, hath been already proved, and as for the Objection now made, it involves the framers of it in ſuch abſurdities and contradictions, and ſuppoſing it granted, would ſo little advantage the cauſe, the promotion of which is in the ultimate deſign of it aimed at, that it needs no reply at all, I ſhall therefore only in a direct oppoſition to that Suppoſition, this Objection is grounded upon, affirm, that there was but one Covenant eſtabliſhed between God and Abraham, and his ſeed, and that was a Covenant of Grace, and the very ſame for ſubſtance that believers are now under, and conſequently that that Promiſe in Gen. 12.3. was either a branch of this Covenant, or rather the very ſame promiſe with this, under conſideration, expreſſed in other terms. And that that Covenant mentioned verſe 19. is the ſame with this mentioned ver. 7. There are ſeveral branches of this general Aſſertion: As,

Firſt, That there was but one Covenant made and eſtabliſhed between God and Abraham, with reference to himſelf and his ſeed; I do not ſay, that there was but one Covenant made with the ſeed of Abraham, underſtanding that term Seed of his Race or Poſterity in following ages, but I ſay, there was but one eſtabliſhed with Abraham, wherein himſelf, in common with his Seed; was concerned; now this appears from the conſtant phraſe of Scripture alwayes, where ſpeaking of the Covenant made with Abraham, ſpeaking in the ſingular number, the Covenant, and not in the plural, Covenants.

Secondly, I ſay, this was a Covenant of Grace.

Thirdly, That it was the very ſame Covenant for ſubſtance that Believers are now under.

Fourthly, That that Promiſe, Gen. 12.3. is one branch of the Covenant now eſtabliſhed with Abraham and his Seed, or rather the ſame Promiſe with this mentioned, in our firſt Propoſition expreſſed in different terms; theſe things I ſhall ſpeak to hereafter, and the truth of them will, I doubt not, fully appear by the proof of the ſecond Propoſition, and therefore I ſhall ſay nothing to them at preſent.

Laſtly, That the Covenant mentioned verſe 19. is the very ſame mentioned verſe 7. this is ſufficiently evident to any that will but read the whole Chapter. In the former part of the Chapter, we read how God promiſeth to eſtabliſh his Covenant with Abraham and his Seed in their generations, for an everlaſting Covenant, that is, to endure while Abraham ſhould have a Seed upon earth: Now at verſe 19. the Lord ſhews Abraham, in which of his Seed, and his Line, or poſterity this Promiſe ſhould take place, and have its accompliſhment, and that was Iſaac. Therefore obſerve how the Text runs, And God ſaid, Sarah ſhall bear thee a Son, and I will eſtabliſh my Covenant with him. Mark, here is no intimation of any other Covenant, different from that before mentioned; he doth not ſay, I will alſo make, or I will eſtabliſh a Covenant, or another Covenant, but I will eſtabliſh my Covenant: What Covenant? Doubtleſs that before entred in with Abraham, with reference to his Seed in their generations; and this limitation of the Covenant, as afore made and eſtabliſhed, with Abraham, in reference to his Seed in their generations, unto Iſaac alone, doth plainly imply, that in the firſt eſtabliſhment of it, Abraham's whole Seed, as immediately proceeding from his own loms, were included and intended; for what need an explanatory limitation of it, in regard of the eſtabliſhment thereof, for an everlaſting Covenant to Iſaac and his Seed, had it not been more comprehenſive in the firſt promulgation of it; and it is as if the Lord ſhould ſay, Though I have entred Covenant with thee, and thy Seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlaſting-Covenant, and have received and taken in thy whole Seed, as proceeding immediately from thine own loins, univerſally and indefinitely one as well as another, into a Covenant relation, together with thee with my ſelf, yet my meaning is, not that this Covenant-relation between me and thy Seed, ſhall be continued in each of their reſpective lines, throughout their reſpective generations; but it is with Iſaac that I will eſtabliſh my Covenant, and with his Seed, as the perſon in whom, and in whoſe Seed, my Covenant ſhall take place, and be accompliſhed; though thy whole Seed be intended in the Promiſe, as the next and immediate Subjects of it, yet the Promiſe in the full latitude and extent of it, as it runs to Seed in their generations, for a Promiſe to continue ſucceſſively throughout all generations, ſhall only take place and receive its full accompliſhment in Iſaac and his Line: But not to ſpend time upon this, that Iſaac was intended in this Promiſe is evident beyond all rational contradiction, and that is all at preſent I contend for.

Object. 2. Secondly, Others, and I ſuppoſe, vaſtly the major part of our oppoſers in the main truth pleaded for, conceive that it was Iſaac alone intended as the only Subject of that Promiſe, and conſequently that Iſhmael, and the other children of Abraham, were excluded from any right or title to it: And there are three Objections made againſt our extending that Promiſe, to the including and taking in Iſhmael, and the Sons of Abraham by Keturab, as the joynt Subjects with Iſaac of it.

SEcondly, The truth of this our ſecond Propoſition is further evident from the Promiſes and Propheſies of the old Teſtament; and thus the good contained in this Promiſe made to Abraham is, in the extent and latitude before expreſt, given and confirmed to, and ſetled upon believing Gentiles, by the Promiſes and Propheſies of the old Teſtament, referring and relating to new Teſtament times: And thus we argue, What good is by promiſe and propheſie given to, and ſetled upon ſome under the Covenant of Grace in new Teſtament times, is by the ſame promiſe and propheſie given to, and ſetled upon all under the ſame Covenant, unleſs it be reſtrained to that ſome either by the nature and quality of the good it ſelf, or by ſome expreſs revelation of the will of God; but this good, viz. To have God a God to them and their Infant-ſeed, is by promiſe and propheſie given to, and ſetled upon ſome under the Covenant of Grace in new Teſtament times, and is not reſtrained to that ſome, either by the nature of the good it ſelf, or by any expreſs revelation of the will of God; therefore that good muſt needs by the ſame Propheſies and Promiſes be given to, and ſetled upon all under the ſame Covenant.

The Major propoſition cannot be denied, without utterly razing the foundation of the faith and comfort of all believers. For what is the foundation of the faith and comfort of each particular Believer but this, That what good is promiſed to any particular Believers, and no wayes reſtrained to thoſe in particular to whom the Promiſe was firſt made, is promiſed to all that are under the ſame Covenant with them: and thus the Apoſtle directs us to apply Promiſes made to particular Believers, yea, when there might ſeem to be ſome ſhew of reaſon to reſtrain the good promiſed to thoſe in particular to whom it was immediately made; the Apoſtle applying that Promiſe made to Joſhua, concerning Gods never leaving nor forſaking him, to the Hebrews, is our ſufficient direction in this matter.

For the Minor propoſition, that only can be queſtioned; for the proof of which I ſhall, the Lord aſſiſting, do theſe three things.

Firſt, Inſtance in, and aſſign the perſons, who in new Teſtament times have by the Promiſes and Propheſies of the old Teſtament this good given to, and ſetled upon them.

Secondly, I ſhall prove, that 'tis one and the ſame Covenant of Grace that they are under, as having this good given unto them, and that believing Gentiles in general are under.

Thirdly, That this good is not reſtrained to them in particular, to whom it is by promiſe and propheſie given, either of theſe wayes before mentioned, and conſequently not at all.

For the firſt, And thus I need do no more, but produce ſuch old Teſtament Promiſes and Propheſies, as by which this good, of having God a God to them and their Infant-ſeed, is given to, and ſetled upon ſome under the Covenant of Grace in new Teſtament times: The perſons, or that ſort or ſpecies of perſons intended in them, is ſufficiently evident from theſe Promiſes and Propheſies themſelves. Look into theſe Scriptures, Iſai. 59.21. and 65.25. and 44 3, 4. Jer. 3.12. Ezek. 37.21. and 22. and compare all theſe places with Rom. 11.26. That all theſe Promiſes and Propheſies refer to the Jews, as yet to be called and brought home unto Chriſt, will not be denyed by any. And this good, viz. To have God to be a God to them, and their Infant-ſeed with them, is given to, and ſetled upon them by theſe Promiſes and Propheſies, is ſure paſt all rational doubt: If all theſe Promiſes and Propheſies, concerning Gods pouring his Spirit upon them and their Seed; concerning his continuing his Word and Spirit in their mouths, from one generation to another; concerning his being a God to all their families, not only of their perſons, but ſamilies; concerning their Children being as aforetime, and the like; eſpecially the Apoſtle expounding all theſe Promiſes and Propheſies by that univerſal phraſe, All Iſrael, do not ſufficiently aſſure the Jews, that when they are brought home unto Chriſt, they ſhall enjoy this good in the latitude and extent expreſt, I ſee not how we can poſſibly be ſure of any thing held forth by way of promiſe and propheſie, yea, or how we can be aſſur'd of any thing paſt, that is declar'd to us by Scripture-hiſtory. Certainly we muſt wholly deſpair of underſtanding any thing God ſpeaks to us in his Word; if we doubt whether the forementioned Promiſes and Propheſies do aſſure the Jews of that forementioned good. Therefore we may poſitively conclude, having ſuch an abundant, yea, ſuperabundant evidence from Scripture for it, that the Jews, when the veil is taken off from their hearts, and they that turned to to the Lord ſhall enjoy this good, in the ſame latitude and extent that their Father Abraham did.

Secondly, That it is one and the ſame Covenant into which the Jews (the perſons to whom this good is by theſe Promiſes and Propheſies given) ſhall be received, and believing Gentiles in generations are under; this is evident, paſt all rational contradiction, by comparing Jer. 31, 31. with Hebr. 8 8. We plainly ſee, that the Apoſtle takes it for granted, that the Covenant that God promiſes to make with the Jews at their future calling and converſion, is the Covenant now made with believing Gentiles; ſo that though ſome, though groundleſly, ſuppoſe, that Covenant made with Abraham was not the ſame with that believing Gentiles are now under: yet none can pretend, that the Covenant under which believing Gentiles are, and that to be made with the Jews, at the time forementioned, are different or diſtinct Covenants. Suppoſe the Apoſtle tell us, that God made another Covenant with Believers than that he made with Iſrael of old (then that he made with Abraham it is no where ſaid) yet they cannot ſay there is the leaſt intimation that God will make another Covenant with the Jews, different from that we are now under. Now then the Covenant being one and the ſame, the promiſes of that Covenant are indifferently to be applyed unto all under it: And for the further confirmation of this, let it be obſerved, that the Apoſtle doth frequently apply theſe promiſes, which are to have their full accompliſhment to the Jews, to the Goſpel Church under this preſent adminiſtration: compare Iſai. 54.1. with Gal. 4.27. That promiſe in in the letter directly reſpects the Jews, yet the Apoſtle applyes it, as fulfilled inchoatively, in the converſion of the Gentiles: So compare Hoſea 1, 11. and 2.23. with Rom. 9.25, 26. So once again, compare Amos 9.11. with Acts 15.26. So that it is evident, that the Covenant, then to be made with, or into which the Jews ſhall be received, is the very ſame with that now made with believing Gentiles, and anſwerably thoſe promiſes, that ſhall have their full accompliſhment to the Jews, are applicable to believing Gentiles.

Thirdly, That this good, of having God a God to Parents and their Infant-ſeed, is not reſtrained to the Jews, by either of the wayes before mentioned, and conſequently not at all: Who can imagine that believing Gentiles ſhould be leſs capable of injoying this good, than the Jews will be at their converſion? Why may not God be a God to Believers and their Seed now, as well as to Believers and their Seed hereafter? Why may not God be a God to a believing Gentile and his Seed, as well as to a believing Jew and his Seed? Can any prove, that believing Gentiles are abſolutely incapable of injoying this good, in the full latitude and extent of it? They will ſay ſomething to the invalidating of this Argument: Suppoſe it ſhould be granted (which yet I ſee no reaſon for) that the Seed of the Jews will be more capable of being the Subjects of the Covenant and promiſe thereof, than the Seed of Believers now are; yet unleſs they prove, that the Seed of Believers are abſolutely uncapable of being received into, as joynt Subjects with their parents of the Covenant, and promiſe thereof, they ſay nothing to the purpoſe; in as much as whatever difference, in point of capability or incapability, may be aſſigned between the Seed of Believers then, and the Seed of Believers now, in regard of the different manner of this and that adminiſtration, yet that is no reaſon why we may not apply theſe promiſes to believing Gentiles, to have their firſt accompliſhment in and among them, according to the manner of this preſent adminiſtration, as well as the Jews may apply them to themſelves, and injoy the accompliſhment of them in a way ſutable to that more excellent and glorious adminiſtration: and as for the other way of Gods reſtraining the good of promiſes to ſome particular perſons, viz. by the expreſs revelation of his will, let any ſuch revelation of the will of God, in the matter under conſideration, be produced, and I ſhall put an end to this controverſie; and unleſs this good, in the extent and latitude before expreſt, be ſome way reſtrained to the Jews, we may poſitively conclude, that the promiſe made to Abraham, with reference to his Seed, is by the forementioned promiſes and propheſies confirmed to, and ſetled upon believing Gentiles, in the full latitude and extent in which it was given unto Abraham, viz. That God will be a God to them in their generations, that is, to them and their Seed. We may lay down this general rule, That whatever Promiſes or Propheſies are given out by the Prophets in the old Teſtament, directly referring and relating to the Jews at their call and converſion, yet unleſs the good contained in them be ſome way reſtrained to them in particular, we may and ought to apply them to the new Teſtament Church, and the particular members of it, under this preſent adminiſtration. The application made by the Apoſtle of Promiſes and Propheſies directly referring unto them, to the new Teſtament Church, and the particular Members thereof is a ſufficient warrant for our ſo doing. As now for inſtance take that promiſe, Amos 9.11. concerning the building up the Tabernacle of David, in the letter of it, it hath a direct reference to the future converſion of the Jews, yet we ſee, Acts 15 16. the Apoſtle applyes it to the erecting and building up of the Goſpel Church among the Gentiles. Now the Prophet Jeremiah tells us, how God will build up this Tabernacle of David, of and among the Jews, he will do it, by taking in their reſpective families, which muſt needs take in Parents and Children into Covenant with himſelf, He will be a God to all the families of the houſe of Iſrael. Now let any rational account be given, why we may not apply that promiſe in Jeremiah, expreſſing the manner of Gods raiſing up this tabernacle, to his raiſing it up from among the Gentiles, as well as the Apoſtle applyes that promiſe it ſelf to the gathering the Church from among them; doubtleſs no reaſon, that hath ſo much as a probable ſhew of reaſon or truth in it, can be given.

And whereas it may be ſaid, there are ſome things ſpoken in Jeremiah 31. which cannot be applied to believing Gentiles.

To that I anſwer, 'Tis granted: But that hinders not at all, but that what is applicable to them, may and ought to be applied unto them, in that promiſe, concerning the building up of the Tabernacle of David; as it refers to the converſion of the Jews, there is ſomething which is not applicable to the Gentiles: yet that hinders not, but that the promiſe, ſo far as applicable to them, was intended of them, and accompliſhed in the beginning of it, in their converſion: So now God, as being the God of all the families of Iſrael, will, when the Jewiſh Church cometh up to the fulneſs of her glory, communicate himſelf in a more full, glorious, and univerſal manner, in reſpect of the individual Members of each family, than now he doth; yet that hinders not at all, but that that promiſe was intended of the families of Iſrael, as gathered from among the Gentiles, as the Apoſtle calls the Gentile Church, the Iſrael of God, and is begun to be accompliſhed, according to the true intent of it, under this preſent adminiſtration. But that's for the ſecond way of evidencing the truth of this our ſecond Propoſition.

Thirdly, The truth of what we affirm in this ſecond Propoſition may be evidenced from the expreſs letter of the new Teſtament, this promiſe made to Abraham, and that in the ſame extent and latitude in which it was made to him, is confirmed to, and ſetled upon believing Gentiles, by the expreſs letter of the new Teſtament. Thus in Galatians 3.13, 14. Chriſt, ſaith the Apoſtle, hath redeemed us from the curſe of the Law, being made a curſe for us, that the bleſſing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, through Jeſus Chriſt, that we might receive the Promiſe of the Spirit through faith. The Apoſtle we ſee here doth poſitively affirm, that the very end of Chriſt, redeeming the Gentiles from the curſe of the Law, was their poſſeſſing Abraham's bleſſing, and conſequently is the immediate iſſue and reſult of a Gentiles redemption or deliverance from the curſe of the Law, through Chriſt, as believed in. No ſooner is a believing Gentile freed from the curſe of the Law, by his faith in Chriſt, but he, as one of Abraham's Seed, hath Abraham's bleſſing come upon him: For the clearing up the evidence given in to the truth of our foregoing Propoſition, by this Scripture I ſhall do theſe two things,

Firſt, I ſhall prove, that this bleſſing of Abraham, ſaid to be come upon believing Gentiles, is that very good contained in that promiſe, wherein God ingaged himſelf to be a God to Abraham, and his Seed, and remove what Objections may be made to the contrary.

Secondly, I ſhall prove, that this bleſſing is come upon the Gentiles, through Chriſt, in the ſame latitude and extent that it was given to Abraham, at the firſt eſtabliſhment of the Covenant with him.

For the firſt, viz. That this bleſſing came upon the Gentiles through Chriſt, is the good contained in the aforementioned promiſe: This is evident from the Context.

Firſt, From verſe 16. where ſayes the Apoſtle, Now unto Abraham and his Seed were the Promiſes made; he ſaid not, unto Seeds, as of many, but to thy Seed, which is Chriſt: This verſe 16, is added for the confirmation of what the Apoſtle had aſſerted in verſe 14 For the clearing up of this we muſt obſerve, that by the promiſe of the Spirit, in the latter clauſe of that verſe 14. and the bleſſing of Abraham, in the former clauſe of this verſe, one and the ſame good is intended. 'Tis true, Beza conceives two diſtinct bleſſings are intended, and therefore he adds that Copulative, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and takes that phraſe, The promiſe of the Spirit, by an Hebraiſm, for the Spirit promiſed; but that cannot be, for then as Pareus obſerves, it ſhould not have been, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the promiſe of the Spirit, as it is, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Spirit of promiſe: and therefore by the promiſe of the Spirit we muſt underſtand, either that ſpiritual promiſe, ſo Pareus, or rather that promiſe which God by his Spirit gave unto Abraham, and which by the inſpiration of the Spirit is left upon record in the Scripture, and that is the promiſe containing the bleſſing before mentioned; or if any ſhould underſtand it of the Spirit himſelf, taking it of his in-dwellling preſence, they ſhall not be gain ſaid by me. And the meaning is this, Chriſt hath redeemed us from the curſe of the Law, that we, whether Jews or Gentiles, might receive the promiſe of the Spirit, (viz. that bleſſing promiſed to Abraham by the Spirit) through faith in Chriſt, that is, that being united by faith unto Chriſt, and incorporated into him, as members of his myſtical body, we might receive that bleſſing promiſed to Abraham, and now come upon the Gentiles through Chriſt: So that that which the Apoſtle aſſerts in this ver. 14. is this, that the bleſſing promiſed to Abraham is come upon the Gentiles, through their incorporation into Chriſt by faith; and this the Apoſtle proves in verſe 16. by the tenour of the promiſe wherein the bleſſing atorementioned is contained: The tenour of the promiſe is this, not, I will be a God to thee and thy Seeds, but to thee and thy Seed, as intending only one ſpecies or kind of Seed, which the Apoſtle expounds to be Chriſt, that is, Chriſt myſtical. Now obſerve it, the Apoſtles urging the tenour of the promiſe, to prove that the bleſſing of Abraham is come upon the Genriles, as he had afore affirmed it to be, in verſe 14 evidently declares, he muſt needs intend the bleſſing contained in that promiſe; if he had intended it of any other bleſſing than that good given to Abraham and his Seed by that promiſe, the tenour of that promiſe had not prov'd what he was to prove: ſo that it muſt needs be that bleſſing promiſed to Abraham, that the Apoſtle here affirms to be come upon believing Gentiles through Jeſus Chriſt. Now that this promiſe, by the tenour of which the Apoſtle prov'd what he had ſaid, verſe 14. is this very promiſe made to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. is evident paſt all doubt, in as much as the Apoſtle muſt needs refer to ſome promiſe made to Abraham and his Seed in that very phraſe, To thee and thy Seed; the ſtrength of the Apoſtles Argument lying in the manner of expreſſion, to thy Seed. Now we have no other promiſe containing a good competable to the Gentiles, expreſt in that phraſe but this only; ſo that it is evident, that this bleſſing, ſaid to be come upon the Gentiles through Chriſt, is that bleſſing contained in that very promiſe, wherein God ingaged to be a God to Abraham, and his Seed in their generations. As for that promiſe in Gen. 12.3. there is no mention at all of Abraham's Seed; and for that Gen. 17.19. unto which ſome ſeem to ſuppoſe the Apoſtle here hath reterence, there is no mention at all of Abraham's Seed, as ſuch, but of Iſaac's; and beſides, 'tis not ſaid to thy Seed, but it is ſpoken of or concerning his Seed: But now, I ſay, the Apoſtle muſt needs refer to, and intend ſome promiſe, wherein this very phraſe, to thy Seed, is expreſly uſed: The ſtrength of this Argument, as I have ſaid, lying in the manner of expreſſion, there being a myſtery in that phraſe, implying that the bleſſing of Abraham ſhould not be enjoyed by all that might lay claim to this relation to Abraham, as his Seed, but by his Seed which were of the faith, as the Apoſtle explains it, Rom. 4.13.

Secondly, That the bleſſing ſaid to be come come upon the Gentiles through Chriſt, is that bleſſing contained in that promiſe of the Covenant, is evident from verſe 29 where ſaith the Apoſtle, If ye be Chriſts, then are ye Abraham's Seed, and heirs according to promiſe: Heirs of what? Why verſe 14 tells us, of the bleſſing of Abraham: But heirs according to what promiſe? Why verſe 16. tells us, that promiſe made to the Seed of Abraham: Now how could they be heirs of that bleſſing, according to, or by vertue of that promiſe, unleſs the bleſſing they were heirs unto, were the bleſſing or good contained in that promiſe? Can any be heirs to a bleſſing, according to or by vertue of that promiſe, in which that bleſſing is not contained? Or can a promiſe convey a right to that good which is not contained in it? who can imagine it? Therefore doubtleſs the bleſſing muſt needs be the bleſſing, contained in that promiſe made to Abraham, and his Seed in their generations.

Thirdly, That the bleſſing of Abraham ſaid to be come upon believing Gentiles through Chriſt, is the bleſſing contained in that promiſe, is evident from verſe 9, where it is ſaid, they that are of the faith are bleſſed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with faithful Abraham, that is, bleſſed with the ſame bleſſing that Abraham was bleſſed with: Now there is no bleſſing that Abraham was bleſſed with, that can poſſibly come upon the Gentiles, but only the bleſſing contained in this promiſe, and therefore that muſt needs be the bleſſing here intended.

But three things will be objected againſt our taking this Scripture as an expreſs ſettlement of Abraham's bleſſing, as it conſiſted in that promiſe, of God being a God to him and his Seed, upon believing Gentiles.

Firſt, It will be objected, That this bleſſing is not meant of that bleſſing with which Abraham himſelf was bleſſed, but of that bleſſing promiſed to him, with reference to his Seed, which was, that God would be a God to them, as he was to Abraham himſelf.

FOurthly, The truth of what we affirm in this ſecond Propoſition may be further evidenced from ſeveral paſſages and expreſſions in the new Teſtament, plainly declaring, that the Infant-ſeed of Believers under the Goſpel adminiſtration, are included and taken in, as joynt Subjects with their Parents of the Covenant and Promiſe thereof, and that by vertue of their Parents relation to Abraham, as his Seed.

Object. 1.

'TIs conceived by ſome, and that not a few, that what hath been affirm'd in the foregoing Propoſitions, at leaſt the latter of them, lyes in a direct oppoſition to that Text of the Apoſtle, Rom. 9.7, 8. and therefore cannot be true. And thus 'tis objected: How can it be true, that God ſhould intend Abraham's natural Seed (take it of his natural Seed in the ſence of the firſt Poſition) and that as ſuch, in that promiſe, wherein he ingages himſelf to be a God to him and his Seed; or how can it be true, that this promiſe, in that latitude and extent ſhould be given to, and ſetled upon believers under the new Teſtament; when the Apoſtle, having a direct reference to this very promiſe, poſitively affirms, That the Children of the fleſh are not the Children of God, but the Children of the Promiſe are accounted for the Seed. Say our Oppoſers, Certainly it cannot be true that God ſhould intend Abraham's natural Seed, that is, the Children of his fleſh, and that meerly as ſuch, in that promiſe; or ſuppoſe that promiſe might have a literal reſpect to Abraham's natural Seed, as ſuch, yet ſure it cannot be true, that this promiſe is given to, or ſetled upon believers under the new Teſtament, ſo as that God ſhould ſtill ſtand obliged by that propromiſe, to be a God to them and their natural Seed; for the Apoſtle tells us in expreſs words, That the Children of the fleſh are not the Children of God, but the Children of the promiſe are accounted for the Seed.

For anſwer to this Objection I ſhall, as the Lord ſhall aſſiſt, do theſe two things,

Firſt, Shew that there is no contrariety or repugnancy, between what hath been affirmed in the foregoing Propoſitions, or either of them, and this Text of the Apoſtle.

Secondly, Shew that this place of the Apoſtle rightly underſtood, contributes not a little to the eſtabliſhment and confirmation of what hath been ſaid in the foregoing Propoſitions.

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.

I Come now to the third and laſt ſubordinate Propoſition, viz.

That all thoſe that are under, or are the actual Subjects of that Promiſe, wherein God ingaged himſelf to be a God to Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations, ought, according to the will of Chriſt, to be baptized: all that are the Subjects of that Promiſe are the due and proper Subjects of Baptiſm: There may be, its true, a tender of the Promiſe to ſuch who ought not to be baptized, they may refeſe that tender, but to whom the Promiſe doth actually belong, the Ordinance of Baptiſme ought, according to the will of Chriſt, to be applyed.

The ſecond Argument.

IF the Infant-ſeed of believing Parents were in primitive times baptized, either by the Apoſtles themſelves, or by any others by their allowance, direction, or approbation, then it was or ſtill is according to the will of Chriſt, that they ſhould be baptized: But the former is true, therefore the latter. The conſequence in the Major propoſition will be readily granted on all hands. That which alone needs proof is this, viz. That the Infant-ſeed of believing Parents were in primitive times, either by the Apoſtles themſelves, or by others, by their allowance, direction or approbation baptized. For the confirmation of which this one Argument may ſuffice.

If the Infant-ſeed of believing Parents were by the Apoſtles owned and looked upon, as appertaining to, or as Members of the myſtical Body of Chriſt, as viſible, then they were, either by themſelves, or by others, by their allowance, direction and approbation, admitted and implanted into that Body by Baptiſm: But the Infant-ſeed of believing Parents were owned and looked upon by the Apoſtles, as before expreſſed: Ergo, &c.

Here again the Conſequence in the Major propoſition will be, I ſuppoſe, readily granted by our Oppoſers, and 'tis ſufficiently evident by this Argument.

If Baptiſm was appointed by Chriſt, for the ſolemn admiſſion of ſuch into his myſtical Body, as viſible, as did appertain thereunto, or were Members thereof, and there was no other way or means appointed for the ſame end and purpoſe, then all that the Apoſtles did own and look upon, as appertaining to, or as Members of that Body, were, either by the Apoſtles themſelves, or by others, by their allowance, direction and approbation, admitted and implanted into it by Baptiſm: But the former is true, therefore the latter; the Minor here alone needs proof, and that conſiſts of theſe two branches.

Firſt, For the firſt, ſee 1 Cor. 12.13. For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. What may be objected from this Scripture againſt the baptiſm of Infants, ſhall be taken notice of by and by. All that I cite it at preſent for is, to prove, that Baptiſm was appointed by Chriſt, for the ſolemn admiſſion of perſons into his Body, as viſible, which is ſufficiently evident.

Secondly, That there is no other way or means appointed by Chriſt, for the ſolemn admiſſion of any into his viſible myſtical Body: If any ſhall ſay there is, let them ſhew it and prove from Scripture what they affirm, and I ſhall readily grant the invalidity of this Argument; but that doubtleſs none will attempt to do, ſo that the truth of the Major propoſition is unqueſtionable,

For the Minor, viz. That the Infant-feed of believing Parents were owned and looked upon by the Apoſtles, as appertaining to, or as Members of the myſtical Body of Chriſt, as viſible, This will be denyed, and therefore muſt be proved, and I ſhall prove it by theſe two Arguments, both which being grounded upon expreſs and poſitive Scriptures, will render the addition of more wholly needleſs.

Firſt, All thoſe who were by the Apoſtle owned and looked upon, and that as perſonally or particularly conſidered, as the actual Subjects of the Promiſe of Salvation, were owned and looked upon by them, as appertaining to, or as Members of the myſtical Body of Chriſt, as viſible: But the Infant-ſeed of believing Parents were owned and looked upon by the Apoſtles, and that as perſonally and particularly conſidered, as the actual Subjects of the Promiſe of Salvation, therefore they were owned and looked upon by them, as appertaining to, or as Members of the myſtical Body of Chriſt, as viſible.

The Minor propoſition hath been already proved; and as for the Major, that is evident thus, Chriſt is the Saviour of his body, Epheſ. 5.23. Now to be under a Promiſe of Salvation, is to be under a Promiſe of being ſaved by Chriſt: hence all that are under a Promiſe of being ſaved by Chriſt, muſt needs appertain to, or be of his myſtical body, for 'tis of his Body that he is the Saviour.

But two things will be objected.

Object. 1. Firſt, That Chriſt is ſaid to be the Saviour of all men, 1 Tim. 4.10. To be the Saviour of the world, John 4.42. and therefore though it ſhould be granted, that the Infant-ſeed of believing Parents are under the Promiſe of being ſaved by Chriſt, it will not follow, that they were looked upon as appertaining to, or as Members of his myſtical Body.

Anſw. To that I anſwer, that though Chriſt in a large ſence may be, and is in Scripture ſaid to be the Saviour of all men, and the Saviour of the world, yet no particular or individual perſon is actually, and that for the preſent, as perſonally conſidered under any Promiſe of being ſaved by him, (eſpecially taking Salvation of ſpiritual and eternal Salvation) but ſuch who are of, or do appertain to his myſtical Body: therefore it is ſaid of theſe Epheſians, before their imbracement of Chriſt, They were ſtrangers to the Covenants of promiſe, Epheſ. 2.12, They had nothing to do with the Promiſes of ſpiritual and ſaving Mercies; and as they were ſtrangers to the Covenants of promiſe, ſo they were without hope, without any grounded hope, intereſt in the Promiſes being the alone true ground of all hope of ſpiritual and eternal Salvation: ſo that intereſt in the Promiſe of Salvation, declares the perſons ſo intereſſed, to appertain to, or to be of the myſtical Body of Chriſt, all others being ſtrangers to the Promiſes, and therefore without hope.

Object. 2, Secondly, It is objected, That when it is ſaid, Chriſt is the Saviour of his Body, it is only meant of his myſtical body as inviſible, and conſequently, in caſe this Scripture will prove, that the Infant-ſeed of believing Parents, as having the Promiſe of Salvation appertaining to them, do appertain to the myſtical Body of Chriſt, it will prove, that they do univerſally appertain to his Myſtical Body, as inviſible, which it will be ſaid we our ſelves deny, and therefore this Scripture is impertinently brought to prove their relation to the myſtical Body of Chriſt, as viſible, which only ſpeaks of his myſtical Body, as inviſible.

Anſw. To that I anſwer, This Objection will receive a more full anſwer by and by, where I ſhall meet with it again: at preſent I ſhall only ſay, 'tis evident the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the myſtical Body of Chriſt, as viſible, and not meerly as inviſible; for let it be obſerved, that Body and Church, in this diſcourſe of the Apoſtle, are Synonimies, or words exactly anſwering one another in ſence and ſignification: whom he intends by Body he intends by Church, and ſo on the other hand, whom he intends by Church he intends by Body: Now this Church or Body of Chriſt, of which he is ſaid here to be the Saviour, was that Church or Body, of which the Epheſians were an homogeneal Part, that is, a part of the ſame kind with the whole; hence the Apoſtle ſpeaks of them, as joynt Members with himſelf of this Body, verſe 20. for we are Members of his Body, of his fleſh, and of his bones. Mark, he takes in the Epheſians univerſally and indefinitely, one as well as another, as joynt Members with him of this Body: So Epheſ. 2.19. Now therefore ye are no longer Strangers and Forreigners, but fellow-Citizens with the Saints, and of the Houſhold of God. To be fellow-Citizens with the Saints, and of the Houſhold of God, is all one with being of this Church or Body. Now it is evident, the Apoſtle did not ſuppoſe, that every indivipual perſon of this Church were Members of the inviſible Body of Chriſt; what he ſaith, Acts 20 30. plainly declares the contrary. Now then this Church or Body, of which the Apoſtle ſaith, Chriſt was the Head and Saviour, being that Church or Body, of which the Epheſians were an homogeneal part, and they not being ſuppoſed by the Apoſtle univerſally to appertain to the Church or Body of Chriſt, as inviſible; It will undoubtedly follow, that he doth not ſpeak of the Church or Body of Chriſt meerly as inviſible, but as viſible. Chriſt is in Scripture ſaid to be the Saviour of his Church or Body, as viſibly conſidered, and the Infant-ſeed of believing Parents being under a Promiſe of Salvation by him, or of being ſaved by him, they muſt needs by the Apoſtles be owned and looked upon, as Members of that Body of which he is the Saviour, none, as I have ſaid, being under a Promiſe of being ſaved by him, but ſuch as do appertain to that Body, of which he is the Saviour.

Secondly, All thoſe who under the Goſpel adminiſtration, and that as perſonally conſidered, are the actual Subjects of that Promiſe, wherein God ingaged himſelf to be a God to Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations, were owned and looked upon by the Apoſtles, as appertaining to, or as Members of the myſtical Body of Chriſt, as viſible: But the Infant ſeed of believing Parents under the Goſpel adminiſtration, and that as perſonally conſidered, are the actual Subjects of that Promiſe; therefore, &c.

The Major is undeniably proved, by that poſitive Aſſertion of the Apoſtle, Galatians 3.16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promiſes made; he ſaith not, to is Seeds, as of many, but to thy Seed, which is Chriſt; that is, Chriſt myſtical. Now if that Promiſe were made to Chriſt, and to Chriſt only, as we ſee the Apoſtle denyes it to be made to any other, it was not made to Seeds, but to Seed, to thy Seed, which, ſaith the Apoſtle, is Chriſt. I ſay, if this Promiſe was made only to Chriſt, it will undeniably follow, that whoſoever that Promiſe was made unto, or to whom that Promiſe may by Scripture-warrant be applyed, as the Actual Subjects of it, and that as perſonally conſidered, they muſt needs by the Apoſtles be looked upon and owned, as appertaining to, or as Members of the myſtical Body of Chriſt, and therefore let none evade this plain evidence, to the deceiving themſelves or others, by ſaying, that there are Promiſes made to others, that are not Members of the myſtical Body of Chriſt. Let it be remembred, the Argument ſpeaks not of Promiſes in the general, nor of any kind of Promiſes, but of this Promiſe in ſpecial; nor doth it ſpeak of this Promiſe, as an indefinite Promiſe made to any ſort or ſpecies of perſons, collectively taken, where 〈◊〉 ſingle or individual perſon can be ſaid to be an actual Subject of it, as perſonally conſidered; and therefore ſo produce any ſuch Inſtances is wholly impertinent: as to the Argument in hand, let it be ſhewed, that any perſon, whether old or young, might according to Scripture be accounted an actual Subject of this Promiſe, and that as perſonally conſidered, who yet was not by the Apoſtles owned or looked upon, as appertaining to, or as a Member of the myſtical Body of Chriſt, till which be done, which I ſhall not doubt to affirm is impoſſible to be done) we may undoubtedly conclude, that all thoſe that are the actual Subjects of that Promiſe, as perſonally conſidered, were owned and looked upon by the Apoſtles, as appertaining to, or as Members of the myſtical Body of Chriſt, which is the thing affirmed in our Major propoſition. For the Minor propoſition, viz. That the Infant-ſeed of believing Parents are, under the Goſpel adminiſtration, ſuch Subjects of that Promiſe; this hath been already fully proved; whence our Concluſion is undeniable, That they were owned and looked upon by the Apoſtles, as appertaining to, or as Members of the myſtical Body of Chriſt.

Object. But it will be ſaid, That by Chriſt here we are to underſtand Chriſt myſtical, as inviſible, and not as viſible. The Promiſes are made to Chriſt, that is, to the real and internal Members of his myſtical Body.

Anſw. To that I ſhall anſwer theſe two things.

Firſt. Ʋbi Lex non diſtinguit, non diſtinguendum eſt, Where the Law diſtinguiſheth not we are not to diſtinguiſh. Now the Apoſtle tells us, the Promiſes are made to Chriſt; not to Chriſt, either under this or that notion or conſideration; here is no diſtinction between Chriſt, as viſible or inviſible, but ſimply and abſolutely, the Promiſe is to thy Seed, which is Chriſt.

But you will ſay, Though the Apoſtle doth nor here diſtinguiſh, yet the Scripture elſewhere warrants that diſtinction; and it is certain, the Promiſes do not really appertain to any, but ſuch as have a real union with, and intereſt in Chriſt, of whom his Body, as inviſible is conſtituted and made up, therefore we are to underſtand the Apoſtle, as intending only the inviſible Body of Chriſt.

To that I anſwer, It is granted, that in order to a due application of this or any other Promiſe to our ſelves, and in order to our enjoyment of the good promiſed, we muſt not only look to a viſible profeſſion of Chriſt, which conſtitutes us of his Body, as viſible, but we are to look to the reallity of our union with, and intereſt in him. But yet let it be carefully obſerved, that the Scripture preſumes and takes it for granted, that as to particular perſons, thoſe who do viſibly belong to Chriſt, are of his Body, as inviſibly, as well as viſibly conſidered: Hence in all that it ſpeaks to, or of the Body of Chriſt, it ſpeaks to or of it, ſimply or abſolutely, as his Body, without diſtinguiſhing of it as viſible or inviſible. And let it be further carefully obſerved, that that diſtinction of Seeds intimated by the Apoſtle, whereof ſome have the Promiſes made to them, and others not, doth not reſpect the Members of the Body of Chriſt, as viſible, as though ſome of them had the Promiſes made to them, in a contradiction from others, viſibly of the ſame Body, who have not the Promiſes made unto them, but the diſtinction is either between ſuch, who might plead an intereſt in the Promiſes as related to Abraham, as his natural Children, who yet cleaved to the Law for Righteouſneſs and Life: Or between ſuch, who though in word they did profeſs Faith in Chriſt, yet did indeed fall in with, and imbrace ſuch doctrines and practices as did, ipſo facto, forfeit and diſanul their right of memberſhip in the myſtical body of Chriſt, as viſible, and ſuch who did viſibly adhere and cleave to Chriſt in faith and obedience, in oppoſition to the imbracement or falling in with any ſuch doctrines or practices. Now the Apoſtle affirms, that to theſe, and not to thoſe, the Promiſe was made. Indeed this I ſhall readily grant, that the holy Ghoſt would have all to know, that if any, while they keep up a viſible profeſſion of Chriſt, and of adhearing alone to him in faith and obedience, ſhould yet act ſhort of, or contrary to that their profeſſion, it was not their meer profeſſion that would give them the actual poſſeſſion of the good promiſed, they muſt act according to their profeſſion, otherwiſe though the Promiſes, as externally promulgated and declared, are made to them, and they in foro Eccleſiae had a right to them, yet it was none of the intendment of God, that upon the terms of a bare profeſſion they ſhould enjoy the good promiſed; but this I ſay, that the Promiſes, in reſpect of the external promulgation and declaration of them, are made to Chriſt myſtical, without conſideration had to that diſtinction of viſible and inviſible; the Holy Ghoſt ſpeaking to or of then, by men ſpeaks according to what viſibly appear of them.

Object. 1.

NOtwithſtanding all that hath been ſaid for the confirmation of the three foregoing Propoſitions, yet ſome may ſay, That it is not the will of Chriſt, that the Infant-ſeed of believing Parents ſhould ordinarily be baptized (may be at leaſt very probably concluded) from thoſe various paſſages that do occur in the new Teſtament, wherein ſuch things are declared to have attended the adminiſtration of Baptiſm, and ſuch things are affirmed of, and required from the baptized in the primitive times, which cannot attend Baptiſm, as adminiſtred unto Infants, nor can be truly affirmed of, or rationally required from them. See 1 Cor. 12.13, 21, 25. Epheſ. 4.16. Gal. 3.26, 27.

Anſw. This Objection will ſoon vaniſh, and appear to have no ſtrength at all in it, if we conſider theſe three things, which becauſe they are ſo obvious to every one of a competent underſtanding, and at all acquainted with the Scriptures, I ſhall need do little more than mention.

Firſt, Conſider that what in theſe or the like Scriptures is declared of, or required from the Body of Chriſt, or the ſeveral Members of that Body, as united and incorporated, by the means (whether internal or external) appointed for that end and purpoſe, agrees to, and equally concerns the whole Body of Chriſt, and the ſeveral Members thereof, ſimply and abſolutely, in all times and ages; the Body of Chriſt is but one, ſucceſſively continued throughout all ages; and hence it may as well be concluded from theſe Scriptures, that Infants never were, nor ever ſhall be admitted into this Body, (the contrary whereunto is moſt evident) as that in the primitive times they were not by Baptiſm admitted into it, as then exiſtent in the world.

Secondly, Conſider that it is a thing of frequent occurrence in Scripture, for things to be declared and ſpoken of, or to whole Bodies or Societies, and that in the moſt univerſal and indefinite terms, which yet are to be underſtood and applyed variouſly, with reſpect to the particulars, according to their reſpective capacities and concernments, in what is ſo declared or ſpoken: See this abundantly verified in that Speech of Moſes to the whole Congregation of Iſrael, recorded in the twenty nine and thirty Chapters of Deuteronomy, there are ſome things ſpoken as univerſally true of them all: So their ſtanding before the Lord, in order to their renewal of their Covenant with him, thus, Dout. 29.10, 11, 12, there are other things ſpoken, which were alone true of the grown perſons among them, and that but in part true of ſome of them, in whole true of others: Thus their ſeeing what God had done for them in Egypt, and in the Wilderneſs, ſome had ſeen both the temptations they had been tried with, and the Signs wrought before them in the Wilderneſs, but had ſeen nothing, in reſpect of a perſonal ſight, of what God had done for them in Egypt: Others had ſeen what God had done both in the Wilderneſs and in Egypt, and yet the ſame things are univerſally declared of them all, verſe 2. So again, there are other things afirmed and declared of them all in one and the ſame expreſſion, which yet were to be underſtood in a different manner, as applyed to particulars: Thus of their entring into Covenant, it is ſaid of them univerſally, They ſtood before the Lord to enter into Covenant, and yet they could not enter into it after one and the ſame manner, the grown perſons were to do it perſonally, the Infants and Children, incapable of a perſonal covenanting with God, were entred by their Parents. Yet take one more Inſtance, that Command, to keep the words of that Covenant they were not entring into, is impoſed upon them all univerſally, verſe 9. Keep therefore the words of this Covenant, and do them, that ye may proſper in all that you do: Yet who will ſay, either that there were no Infants, or that Infants are capable to keep the words of that Covenant? So that we may ſee how variouſly, what is indefinitely, and in the moſt general and univerſal terms ſpoken to or of an Aſſembly, or united Body of people, as collectively or generally taken, is yet to be underſtood and applyed to the particulars of that Aſſembly, or Body of people. And ſeveral other Inſtances, of a like nature with this, might be given: See 1 Cor 10. begin. but I am willing to contract as much as may be: Thus in reſpect of the paſſages the Objection is grounded upon, what is declared to have attended the adminiſtration of Baptiſm, or what is ſpoken of or to the perſons baptized, is to be underſtood and applied to particulars, according to their reſpective capacities and concernments in what is ſo declared and ſpoken.

Thirdly, Let it be conſidered, to whom, or for whoſe uſe the Scriptures were written, as alſo what is the ſpecial deſign of the Holy Ghoſt in thoſe paſſages the Objection is grounded upon: And thus let it be conſidered, that the Scriptures were written to and for the uſe not of Infants, while in their infant capacity, but grown perſons; and the deſign of the Holy Ghoſt, in the places mentioned, is either to inſtruct and eſtabliſh in ſome neceſſary truth, or preſs to ſome neceſſary duty; and hence what in the forementioned paſſages is ſpoken to or of the Body of Chriſt, and the ſeveral Members of that Body, only concerns ſuch perſons, and is of ſpecial uſe to the promotion of the deſign aimed at in them, but that is no Argument, that Infants, to whom theſe things agree not, and who are not concerned as ſuch in them, nor are capable of improving them to the end intended, were not of that Body, and conſequently not admitted into it by Baptiſm, eſpecially when the mind of Chriſt is fully revealed in other places as to that matter.

Object. 2 But the main and principal Objection, and indeed which hath any conſiderable appearance of weight in it, is that raiſed from Mat. 28.19. compared with Mark 16.15, 16. where the inſtitution of Baptiſm, as is ſuppoſed by many, a Commiſſion authorizing and requiring the adminiſtration of it among the Gentiles, as is granted by all is recorded. Now ſay our Oppoſers, Infant baptiſm cannot be according to the will of Chriſt, in as much as it agree not with the inſtitution of Baptiſm: the inſtitution warrants the teaching and baptizing the Nations, that is, ſay the Objectors, ſuch of the Nations as are taught, and by teaching made Diſciples, but here is not a word concerning the Baptiſm of Infants. Now ſay they, certainly had it been the will of Chriſt that Infants ſhould have been baptized, he would have ſo expreſſed the inſtitution, as that his mind ſhould have been plainly and clearly held forth therein, touching this matter; but here not being the leaſt intimation that it is his will that they ſhould be baptized, therefore their Baptiſm cannot rationally be judged to be according to his will.