A Discourse on Covenant Theology and Infant Baptism (English Edition)_B00AZQ1GUC

A Discourse on Covenant Theology and Infant Baptism

A Discourse on Covenant Theology and Infant BaptismBy Cuthbert Sydenham

Copyright Information A Discourse on Covenant Theology and Infant BaptismBy Cuthbert Sydenham Edited and updated by C. Matthew McMahon and Therese B. McMahonTranscribed by Josh Hicks Copyright 2013 by Puritan Publications and A Puritans Mind Published by Puritan PublicationsA Ministry of A Puritans Mind4101 Coral Tree Circle #214Coconut Creek, FL 33073www.puritanpublications.comwww.apuritansmind.comwww.puritanshop.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system ortransmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise,without the prior permission of the publisher, except as provided by USA copyright law. First Electronic Edition, 2013First Print Edition, 2013Manufactured in the United States of America eISBN: 978-1-938721-88-5ISBN: 978-1-938721-89-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS A Discourse on Covenant Theology and Infant Baptism

Copyright InformationTABLE OF CONTENTSMEET CUTHBERT SYDENHAM[ORIGINAL TITLE PAGE]PREFACECHAPTER 1: Several Considerations premised, as an entrance to the discourse.CHAPTER 2: About the nature of the Covenant made with Abraham.CHAPTER 3: The distinction of Abrahams seed into fleshly and spiritual, into natural andbelieving, considered. Whether the infants of believers may not be called in the New Testamentthe seed of Abraham.CHAPTER 4: How any person may be said to be in the Covenant, the diverse considerationsabout it.CHAPTER 5: Opening that place in Acts 2:39.CHAPTER 6: Their great place from Matthew 3:8-9 concerning John the Baptists speeches tothe Pharisees and Sadducees, made vain, and that text cleared from mistakes.CHAPTER 7: That special place in 1 Cor. 7:14 opened, and argument. Else were your childrenunclean, but now they are holy.CHAPTER 8: The Harmony that notable Chapter, Rom. 11 has with the former scriptures,particularly verses 15-17 opened.CHAPTER 9: In which Mr. Tombes eight arguments in his Apology against Mr. Marshal, forthe engrafting in, mentioned verse 17 to be of the Gentiles into the invisible Church by electionand saving faith, are examined and answered.CHAPTER 10: The harmony of Matthew 19:13-14 with Mark 10:13, and Luke 18:15-17,concerning the bringing of infants to Christ, his acts to them, and how far it contributes to proveinfant baptism.CHAPTER 11: In this is considered the method of God in the Old Testament of administeringordinances in families, and baptizing households in the New Testament, and how far itcontributes to infant baptism.CHAPTER 12: Circumcision and Baptism compared, that they have both one spiritualsignificance, the true nature of them both opened, and what influence this consideration has toprove infant baptism.CHAPTER 13: The famous place, Col. 2:11-12, opened. The correspondence betweencircumcision and baptism further cleared.CHAPTER 14: A clear explication of Matthew 28:19 with Mark 16:15-16, in which their

argument from the first institution is opened and confuted.CHAPTER 15: Concerning the significance and use of the word Baptism, or to bebaptized. The genuine etymology of it in the Old and New Testaments. The places in the NewTestament brought to prove it signifies to plunge the whole body, answered.CHAPTER 16: An explication of Heb. 10:22, about washing the whole body with pure water.The improper application of it to their manner of baptizing by plunging the whole body.CHAPTER 17: A short summing up of the former principles, and arguing them from the methodof the Apostle Peter about those he baptized, Acts 10:47.CHAPTER 18: In which is showed who is to administer this ordinance of baptism, according tothe rule of the Gospel.CHAPTER 19: On Christs being baptized by John when he was about thirty years old. Whetheranything can be gathered from it against the baptizing of infants.CHAPTER 20: That Baptism does not form a Church.

MEET CUTHBERT SYDENHAM

Cuthbert Sydenham (or Sidenham) (16221654), theologian, born at Truro, Cornwall, in 1622,was the fourth son of Cuthbert Sydenham (d. May 8, 1630, aged 64), woollendraper at Truro andmayor of that borough in 1627. He was probably educated at Truro grammar school, and he became acommoner of St. Alban Hall, Oxford, in the Lent term of 1639. When the city was garrisoned for theking, he seems to have withdrawn to Newcastle-on-Tyne.

Sydenham, according to Anthony Wood, received ordination from the Presbyterian divines,and was a Reformed Calvinistic Preacher. He officiated for some time as lecturer at St. Johns,Newcastle, and on May 30, 1645 was appointed the senior of the two lecturers at the church of St.Nicholas in that borough, with a stipend of 100 per year. On July 5, 1647 he was settled as the solelecturer in that church on Sunday afternoons at the same salary; but on April 5, 1648 it was raised to140. per year. The parliamentary committee for regulating the university sent letters to the membersof convocation lauding his abilities, and bearing witness to his service to their cause, and on March8, 16501651 he was given an M.A. On Nov. 22, 1652 Sydenham was appointed master of St. MaryMagdalen Hospital at Newcastle. He was in delicate health, and in hope of improvement came toLondon, lodging in Axe Yard, adjoining King Street, Westminster, where he died about March 25,1654. He was a genteel, comely personage, with an aquiline nose, and in the pulpit was aSeraph. He married a daughter of the Rev. Sidrach Sympson. The portrait at the beginning of thisbiography was done in 1654, at age 31, and in a cloak. It was painted by Gaywood, and prefixed tothe first editions of this work, Hypocrisie Discovered, (cf. Granger, Biogr. Hist. iii. 45).

On a side note, the views of Sydenham on infant baptism (which were covenantal andPresbyterian) were attacked by the Rev. William Kaye of Stokesley and the Baptist, Rev. JohnTombes. Addresses by him were prefixed to Roger Quatermaynes Conquest over CanterburiesCourt (1642), and the Rev. Nicholas Lockyers Little Stone out of the Mountain (1652).


For Further Study: Woods Athen, ed. Bliss, iii. 3513, 358, 1065, Fasti, ii. 163; Boase and Courtneys Bibl. Cornub.ii. 6957, iii. 1341; Memoirs of Ambrose Barnes (Surtees Soc.), passim; Brands Newcastle, i. 313,430. Sydenham was also the author of the following works: 1. An Anatomy of Lievt.-col. John Lilburns Spirit and Pamphlets, or a Vindication of the twohonourable Patriots, Oliver Cromwell and Sir Arthur Haslerig, 1649.2. An English Translation of the Scottish Declaration against James Graham, alias Marquess ofMontrose, 1650.3. The False Brother, or the Mappe of Scotland, drawn by an English Pencill, 1650. For his goodservices in writing these tracts the sum of 50 was voted to him by the council of state on 10 Jan.164950 (Cal. of State Papers, p. 476).4. The false Jew, or a wonderfull Discovery of a Scot. Baptised for a Christian, circumcised to act aJew, rebaptised for a Believer, but found to be a Cheat (i.e. Thomas Ramsay), 1653; signed bySydenham and others.5. A Christian, Sober, and Plain Exercitation on the two grand practicall Controversies of theseTimes; Infant Baptism and Singing of Psalms, 1653; he was in favour of both practices, but againstorgans and harps.6. Greatness of the Mystery of Godliness, 1654; reproduced in 1657 and 1672.7. Hypocrisie Discovered, 1654. A posthumous production, dedicated by Thomas Weld and othersto Sir Arthur Hesilrigge.

[ORIGINAL TITLE PAGE] A

CHRISTIAN,Sober and Plain

EXERCITATIONon a Controversy of These Times

Concerning

INFANT BAPTISM

Wherein all the Scriptures on both sides are recited, opened and argued, with brevity and tenderness, and whatever has been

largely discussed by others, briefly contracted in a special method for the edification of the SAINTS.

BY CUTHBERT SYDENHAM,

Teacher to a Church of Christ in Newcastle upon Tine.

LONDON,Printed by Thomas Mabb, and are to be sold by Francis Tyron at the Three Daggers in Fleet street,

near the Inn Temple Gate. 1657.

PREFACE To his dear and honored brother, Mr. William Durant, my faithful fellow laborer in the Gospel, andthe Church of Christ, over whom the Holy Spirit has made us joint overseers. Dearly Beloved, I present you these first-fruits of my poor labors as a pledge of my love and testimony of mydesire that you be settled and comforted together. I am endeared to you in the bowels of Christ, andfor his sake owe myself to you. My highest ambition in this world is to see you established in truth,and flourishing in the glorious graces of the Gospel. I have treated on these two subjects because Iknow they are the tempting errors of these times, and have the fairest gloss set on them, and have toomuch influence to disturb the peace and order of churches. The first especially, which cast out mensaffections and creeps at the heart like a gangrene insensibly. It is an opinion which has always beenan ominous and strange influence, accompanied with the most dangerous retinue of errors since itsfirst embryo was brought forth. Whether by a judgment of God, or from its natural secret connectionwith other principles of darkness, I will not determine. Only that God has showed some blackcharacters on it in every nation where it has prevailed, though we cannot but say, many saints areinnocently under the power of it. For the second, I hope when mens hearts come in tune, their voices will likewise. Theformer denies more fundamental principles, as the Covenant in its extent, and subjects, the freeness ofgrace, the riches of its workings in the New Testaments, and contracts the Gospel, leaving more gracevisible in the legal and Old Testament dispensation, than in the New. I have only summed up what others express more at large, with something new, and never yettouched, that I know of. And as to the method, all is new, and made fit for your use, as Christ sets ithome on you. I have nothing else to add, but to tell you that you have been yet kept pure in the midst ofmany distractions, and the violence of desperate opinions. Take heed of plausible errors that comepainted to you with the name of the most glorious truths. Do not lose your glory at last. Try and weighevery small bit that is propounded. It is my desire that you may have the glorious title given to youthat the Bereans had, to be men of better breeding (, Acts 17:11) than to take up anythingon trust, though taking up the Apostles themselves until you know how they were inspired. CompareScripture with Scripture . Do not distract yourselves in the Gospel. Lay truths together. They willshine in their proper glory. Do not part so easily with ancient entailed privileges. Have so much pityto your children, as not to blot their names out of Heaven with your own hands, until God does so by

His sovereignty. Do not bury them alive. Those that know the riches of such a privilege will noteasily part with it on such poor terms as most propose. I plead for poor infants. It is but charity tospeak for those whose tongues are tied. I intend brevity in this, as in the entirety of the followingdiscourse. The Lord fill you with wisdom and understanding and give you to know what his perfect willis, and hearts to obey it. And thrive like saints of the New Testament that lie at Christs breasts nightand day. These are the desires of, Your Unworthy Teacher,CUTHBERT SYDENHAM.

CHAPTER 1: Several Considerations premised, as an entrance to the discourse.

Before I enter on the main questions handled in this discourse, it is necessary to premisesomething in general concerning this controversy which is such a bone of contention among the saints,so as to make clear the way before us. And, 1. Let this be considered, that there is nothing in all the New Testament against thebaptizing of infants, not one hint from any express word dropped from Christ or his Apostles. Not onephrase, which, though never so much strained, forbids such an act. But there is much for it in diverseScriptures compared together, and what is lacking in the one is supplied in another abundantly, as itwill appear hereafter. 2. The sum of all that our opponents have to say, though they make a great deal of noise in theworld, is only this: that they can find no precept or word of command in terms saying, Go baptizeinfants, or any positive example where it is said in so many words that infants were baptized. Allthat they say besides that is only to quarrel with our arguments, and try to evade the strength of them.But this is their only argument, and their all. However, they talk of the Covenant, and fleshly andspiritual seed, yet this is the Goliaths sword, and they have nothing else like it. I would thereforefairly encounter with it in the beginning, that I may see all their strength before me. Concerning which, take in these considerations. First, this argument is built on this falseprinciple: that no direct consequences from Scripture are mandatory, and so obliging, nor of DivineAuthority, which all orthodox professors and divines grant, but these which are against infantbaptism. And it is most clear: For, 1. The way to know Scriptures is by comparing them together (1 Cor. 2:13) and this mustnecessarily be by their harmony and by deduction from one to another. 2. Without true consequences being accepted as Scripture, no one could speak truth, exceptthose that speak only the very expressions of Scripture. 3. There could be no spiritual reasons nor arguments used in any discourse to be of anyforce or consequence though they are from Scripture. For there can be no arguing from Scripture butby consequences and deduction. For in all arguments there must be a medium and a conclusion, aproposition and an inference. 4. Nothing on this account can be Scripture, but the very letters and syllables in the Bible.Nothing of the meaning or sense is Scripture. For you must draw out the sense and meaning from theletters by rational consequence, as the conclusion from a proposition by a fit medium. And howabsurd would this prove that letters should be Scripture, and not the sense? And so it must be this way

according to their maxim. 5. This is against all preaching and expounding Scripture. Nothing must be read but the verybare characters, for to draw any deductions from such is to no purpose, though never so directand fully. For if they are not Scripture, they cannot bind consciences, and to what end is preaching,but to open and apply Scripture? 6. The searching of the Scriptures would have been the most useless undertaking that couldbe imagined, for why would anyone need to search, if they are simply to read? For no consequence,by comparison of Scripture is of authority to satisfy my conscience. If I draw a conclusion from a text,and perceive the meaning of it to be in this way. If nothing without it is laid down into many syllables.How many such strange absurdities would follow the denial of interpreting consequences fromScripture, which are purely deduced? And by this principle, that where there are not so many lettersput together in one sentences, there is no command, men would soon draw religion into a very narrowcompass. 7. This would be as much against themselves, for, First, they have no command in so many words, Go and baptize actual or visiblebelievers. If they say such were baptized, it is answered, that is not the purpose. For it is a verbalcommand required by them to give warrant to an ordinance. Secondly, that they must prove by consequence also, believers were baptized. Ergo, therewas a command. Neither, Thirdly, can they prove one act concerning their own form of baptizing by any command, butby consequences. When they say infants are not to be baptized, they draw it from consequence in thisway, because there is no command in their sense. When they affirm the covenant is not made withbelievers now, and their seed, as with Abraham, it is drawn by consequence, because they say,Abraham is not a natural father to us, as to the Jews, and because that covenant was a mixedcovenant, etc. When they come to prove baptism to be by plunging, they argue by consequence,because the word signifies it, because they went where there was much water when they baptized,and went down into the water, etc. Though, they are mistaken in all their consequences, as I shallshow. Yet, this is full ad hominem, and against themselves, who deny consequences to warrantinstitutions, and yet have nothing to prove their own way except by way of consequence fromScripture. 8. It is common among the Apostles to argue in such a method, and to deduce one thing fromanother, to make out what they intended. 2 Cor. 5:14, We thus judge, that if Christ died for all, thenwere all dead. If the first is true, then the latter, so this is what 1 Cor. 15:13-20 means and all thatchapter, the Apostle argues out the resurrection by fit mediums. So about the ordinance of baptism,

Acts 10:47, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received theHoly Spirit as well as we? There was never any command to baptized these that had received theHoly Spirit, not any example of any baptized on these terms; but the Apostle argues from theequivalency of the mercy, and the reason of the state they were in. He uses the same method in 1 Cor.10:15-18 and 1 Tim. 5:17-18. 9. There will hardly be found a definition of the most doctrinal and high mysteries of theGospel, except by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and so making it forth by consequence. Whatperfect definition of justification, or justifying faith, in so many formal expressions in all of the NewTestament but what must be deduced by comparing Scriptures together to make one result? Where arewomen either by such a wordy expression commanded to receive the Lords Supper? Or anyexample? If they say the Greek word for man () signifies both sexes, yet it is still byconsequence, not command or example. And why not holy saints (, Eph. 4:12) as fit to signifyinfant saints, as grown saints, infant holiness, as perfect holiness? It is applied to both. If they willstick at a syllable, we may stick with a syllable on the same grounds. 10. Deny that consequences have the same strength of explicit commands, and you will leavevery few duties to be practiced or sins to be avoided in the Old or New Testament. Expound the TenCommandments, the sum of the Law, without consequences, and very few shall be found literaltransgressors, but most desperately debauched people. In Matthew 5 Christ expounds the whole Law,and by consequences from the inward meaning draws out new considerations of duties. And since theBible is but a short system of Religion, every place is fit to expound each other and this must be doneby rational, spiritual comparisons and inferences. But enough to the first consideration on this head ofcommands and consequences. 2. Where we have a promise laid as the foundation of a duty, that is equivalent to anyexpress command. For as commands in the Gospel suppose promises, to encourage us to performthem, and help us in them, so promises made to persons include commands, especially when theduties commanded are annexed to the promises, as all New Testament ordinances are, as well as Old. 3. We have as much in the New Testament to prove infant baptism from the true principles ofrighteousness to ordinances as they have for those whom they baptize. For they baptize grown personso n such and such considerations, and we shall hereafter show that we baptize on as strong andequivalent grounds, and that is enough to warrant a command to demonstrate the same substantialgrounds of the command to reach the same case. 4. If we can find no positive command in so many words for their baptizing (showing thesame fundamental grounds), it is requisite that they should show us some express command to thecontrary, and some authentic repeal, seeing infants so long enjoyed such a ordinance like Baptism inthe Old Testament. On the same grounds, Christ would not have taken away such an ancient privilege

when his grace abounded, and super abounded, but he would have left some characters of it in theGospel, and entered some formal discharge in his Word of such persons, and given a warning of it tothe Gentile believers to expect it. But he has both by his words and carriages left cleardemonstrations that he is so far from repealing as he confirms it to infants. Let the Scriptures whichwill after be opened speak to this. The third consideration premised is this, as all that they urge as to examples of actualbelievers being baptized all along the New Testament, especially in the book of Acts, and that ifthou believest thou mayest, etc. we can freely grant without any damage to this truth. For, 1. We say as well as they do, professing believers, grown men were first baptized, and sothey ought to be, who are to be the first subjects of the administration of an ordinance, persons able togive an account of their own faith. It was so with Abraham, (Gen. 17:24). He was 99 years old whenhe was circumcised, and he must be the first circumcised before he could convey a right to his seed.Now you may as well argue Abraham was the first circumcised when so old, therefore old people areto be circumcised, and none else; as because grown persons were baptized, therefore not infants,when they must be first baptized themselves. For children are baptized by the promise first to them,and in them to their seed. 2. An affirmative position is not exclusive of subordinates. Because believers were said tobe baptized, therefore their infants were not, is not true reasoning. For their seed werecomprehended with them in the same promise. 3. A non dicto ad non facium, non valet consequential, as divines say, Because it is notexpressed in so many words, therefore it was not done, is no argument. Especially when there isenough to show it was done, though not written. Christ speaks short, that we may search. He expectsNew Testament saints to be so ingenuous as to take more by a hint, than those Old Testament saints,who were not so bred as we know. They had every pin of the Tabernacle appointed, it is not sopunctually set down now, either as to Churches, or Government, but only the main substantials laiddown, and it is left to ingenuity of the Saints to draw forth the consequences. Lastly, to premise no more: God has always ordained some ordinances, in the administrationof which, for the most part, the subject has been purely passive, to express his own free grace mosteminently as circumcision of infants. And can we think he has left no ordinance now as a visiblecharacter, only to hold forth his mere grace in the New Testament where he reigns by grace? Andthere is no sign so fit to express it as baptism, and no subject so capable as poor infants.

CHAPTER 2: About the nature of the Covenant made with Abraham.

The first great thing in this controversy is to consider the nature of the Covenant, which isthe first foundation of the privilege to believers and their seed, as it was first given to Abraham andhis seed, in the name of all believers, and their seed both Jews and Gentiles; for so large is the extentof that Covenant to both, as after shall be proved from New Testament expressions . And if we findthe same Covenant reaching Gentile believers, and their children, as Abraham and his, we cannot bedenied the new external sign and seal of the same Covenant; for though the outward signs may bechanged, yet there is no change of the privileges if the Covenant remains entire. For the opening ofthis we shall consider the following, 1. The nature of Abrahams Covenant. And, 2. How persons may be said to be in thatCovenant. For the first, we must begin with that place where God began not only to express theCovenant in larger terms than formerly (Gen. 17), but to add a visible seal to it, viz. that ofCircumcision. There is much conjecture about this Covenant; those that differ, conceive it to be amixed Covenant, made up of spiritual and temporal blessings together, and not of the same purity withthe Covenant in the New Testament, and so make a carnal part, and a spiritual part of it, andcircumcision to be annexed especially to the former, not so to the latter. This is the true relation oftheir judgment about this. Let us review the Covenant and its terms, and we shall soon find themistake. First and chiefly, we affirm that this was a Covenant of pure grace, the same in substancewith the Covenant administered now under the Gospel, since Christs coming in the flesh and spirit. 1. It was founded on pure grace, Gods love to Abraham, and it is not anything in Abraham,or his children, to move God more than to the Gentiles. 2. It was a Covenant without works, therefore of pure grace (Rom. 4:1-5 and all along thechapter). 3. It was a Covenant made only with a believer on Gospel terms; the same in the NewTestament holds forth in Romans 4:3-5. Now faith is the only condition of the Covenant of Grace. 4. It was a Covenant made in Christ, and therefore a pure Covenant of Grace, as any can bein the Gospel, (Gal. 3:16-18, 29). 5. Consider the tenure of this Covenant, And I will establish my covenant between me andthee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, andto thy seed after thee, (Gen. 17:7). Here is the substance and strength of this Covenant, to be a God

to Abraham and to his seed. And what can be more than to be Jehovah to him? Can there be anyhigher expression, or that can set forth more grace and purity than this? It is more than can beexpressed that God engages his deity to him, and it is as much as if God had said, Whatever I am inmine own Godhead, I will be to thee and thy seed, to make you happy and blessed. This is the firstand main thing premised, and it comprehends Christ, grace, glory, all blessings above imagination. InHebrews 8:10, the Apostle uses the same expression as the sum of all when he speaks of the newCovenant, I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. We need to add no more if thatwere not a Covenant of pure grace, the Gospel knows none other. That which they have to say why it is a mixed Covenant, and a temporal, as some of the mostignorant affirm, is from the following expression of Genesis 17:8, And I will give unto thee, and tothy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlastingpossession, etc. Now they say if the promises are mixed, so is the Covenant. To which I answer that the land of Canaan, and such like promises, were but additional, andadded ex superabundinti, to the first promise, not at all incorporated to the bulk and body of theCovenant which was made in Christ, and consisted for more pure considerations. These promiseswere but fitted to the outward administration of the first promise of grace and the state of Abrahamsfamily, but there was no mixture. For, 1. The Covenant with Abraham is repeated in the New Testament throughout without any ofthose additions, as is proved formerly. 2. The promise of Canaan was typical of heaven, and opened up all the more the firstpromise, to be their God, showing them that God would bring him and his family to heaven, and thefullness of his glory, as he would bring them to an outward Canaan. And this was suited to Godsdesign in administering that vast promise by types and outward figures. So Abraham closed in with itby faith, as a promise, expounding figuratively the substance of the Covenant, (Heb. 11:8-10, 13-16).So that the first promise was positive and showed the nature of the covenant, the other was typicallyexpository, Canaan setting out Heaven, and the eternity of their rest with this God in Covenant. Andthis will no more make a mixed Covenant than the type and the substance when they meet togetherwill differ in significance. 3. We may as well say these promises in the New Testament make up a mixed Covenant, andso of a different nature, when God says in Matthew 6:33, But seek ye first the kingdom of God, andhis righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. And 1 Timothy 4:8, Godliness isprofitable unto all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.These are as much mixed as ever the Covenant made with Abraham was. Where everyone knowsthese are but accidental appendices of the promise of grace, and dispensed according to the use he

has for, and the conditions of his saints. In this way Canaan was added to the Covenant as all otherthings to the kingdom of God. 4. If this is a mixed Covenant because Canaan is added, and the like, then how does it cometo be the same in the New Testament and to be of force now, when no notice is taken of Canaan andthe temporal promises? Surely in this mixture the promise of free grace was primary, and was like oilat top of a glass of water. For Abrahams Covenant the very same substance is clear and withoutmixture in the Gospel, though it is administered externally, as it was then and the blessings ofAbraham come on the Gentiles, though not of an external Canaan. If they say that Canaan was added only for the dispensation of the Covenant to the Jews, it isgranted; but that it should make a mixture in the Covenant is most false which is the same forever,though the outward administration is different. Things may be added, yet not mixed, as a mansclothes to his body, and yet there is no mixture between a mans flesh and his clothes. But let us come to circumcision, the seal of this Covenant. They say, It sealed it as a mixedCovenant. Then, 1. It sealed the one part as well as the other. Take it in their own sense, that is, it sealed Godto be their God, as Canaan. And so it was not a seal merely to a temporal promise. 2. If the Covenant was mixed in its nature, then circumcision sealed unequally, though it wasadded to a mixed Covenant, for it sealed the promise of Canaan to those that never went into Canaan,as many that died before that time, and afterwards many that were circumcised died in the wilderness,and under Gods wrath, and so sealed nothing at all, neither part of the Covenant visible, and that ishard, that so many there should be neither the fulfilling of spiritual, nor temporal part of the promise. 3 . We grant them that this Covenant was mixed, then it was either in the substance, orcircumstances. If in the substance then Abrahams Covenant was not the Gospel, and believers mustseek for another Father, as to the example of faith, and that were to make it rather likeNebuchadnezzars image of iron and clay, than made up of Gospel materials. If in circumstances ofadministration, and addition of external types, it is granted, and we have the same promise now, withnew outward administrations. If this mixture were in the nature and the substance of the Covenant,then it must remain as long as the Covenant lasted, and so to this day. For no man is so bold (thoughmany are bold enough) as to say that Abrahams Covenant is abrogated. If it is under any otherconsideration, it is easily waved, and the truth the same. So that circumcision sealed the Covenantprimarily in its nature, as a Covenant of Grace, and God being a God to circumcise their hearts, etc.and Canaan, and other things consequently and accidentally as God made a promise of them, for thebetter visible administration of the Covenant to them in that external polity. And surely it is beyond anordinary reach to believe that God should make a Covenant with Abraham, and for his faith in itshould create him the Father of the faithful in all ages, and this Covenant should be brought in the

New Testament and renewed, and the tenure of it freshly held for to believers there, and yet at thefirst making of it God should mix temporal promises with the spiritual substance of it, and annex aseal that should only or specially seal the temporal part of it, and so poorly confirm the main andessential nature of it, especially when God speaking of Abrahams faith describes circumcision as theseal of the righteousness of it, Rom. 4. But I will touch on more of this in another chapter.

CHAPTER 3: The distinction of Abrahams seed into fleshly and spiritual, into natural and believing,

considered. Whether the infants of believers may not be called in the New Testament the seed of

Abraham.

The next thing which must have its place of consideration is that question of Abrahams seed,with whom the promise was made. On this hinge hangs all the main weight on both sides. If we makeinfants of believers in the New Testament to be in the Covenant, as Abrahams seed, the controversywould be at end. Most of the following chapters are designed to prove this and we shall now fallmore directly on the question itself. Those that differ from us make many distinctions of a fleshly carnal seed of Abraham and aspiritual seed, a believing and a natural seed, which distinctions are taken out of Romans 9:7-8;Galatians 4:23 and 3:16, and most true, if well applied. But before I come to open the Scriptures, Iwould premise these considerations concerning Abraham and his seed. 1. That Abrahams spiritual seed were as much as his fleshly seed also, Isaac and Ishmael,except proselytes and servants. 2. The Covenant was administered to all of Abrahams natural and fleshly children, as if theyhad been spiritual, and before they knew what faith was, or could actually possess Abrahams faith. 3. It is no contradiction in different respects to be a seed of the flesh by natural generationand a child under the same promise made with the parent, for they both agreed in Abrahams case.None was a child of promise but as he came of Abrahams flesh, and as he came from Abrahamsflesh, so everyone had the seal of Gods Covenant on his flesh. In this way a spiritual promise wasmade with Abraham and his carnal seed. 4. There was no distinction of Abrahams fleshly seed and his spiritual seed in the OldTestament, but all comprehended under the same Covenant until they degenerated from Abrahamsfaith and proved themselves to be carnal, and rejected the promise. 5. There is a carnal and spiritual seed of Abraham even under the New Testament as ouropposites must acknowledge, as well as infants. So are the most visible professors which theybaptized, which may have no grace, and many prove carnal indeed, through the predominance of theirlusts and corruptions. 6. When there is a mention of Abrahams carnal seed in opposition to the spiritual seed, itcannot be meant primarily or solely of those that descended from Abrahams flesh, for then Isaac andJacob were the carnal seed, yes, Christ himself, who as concerning the flesh came from Abraham. It

must be therefore of those of Abrahams seed which degenerated and slighted the Covenant of theGospel, and these were properly the carnal seed. Suitable to this is that distinction of Abraham being a natural and a spiritual father, for: First, He was a natural father to these to whom he was a spiritual father, as to Isaac andJacob, and the godly of their posterity. Secondly, all to whom he was a natural father were under the Covenant, and had the seal,until they rejected themselves. The promise took in both relations, as to outward administration, Rom.3:1-4. And if men truly state things, you may argue as much against Abrahams natural seed fromenjoying the privileges as believers natural seed now, and with as much evidence of truth. But let us weigh these Scriptures which are brought by our opposites. First, consider that ofRomans 9:6-8, For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed ofAbraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are thechildren of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted forthe seed. The Apostle in this chapter, with a bleeding heart, begins the sad story of the Jews rejectionfrom being a Church, and speaks as one loathe to mention it, and therefore brings it in with apassionate and hearty apology (verses 1-3). He was in heaviness. He could wish himself, accursedfrom Christ for his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh, that is, those we call Jews accordingto the flesh ( , , (Rom. 9:3). Question. But what needed all this trouble to have a carnal generation of men cut off? Whydoes Paul take on so heavily? Answer. In the fourth and fifth verses, he says, Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth theadoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and thepromises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came. Here is a catalogof high privileges which belonged to the Jews, which they were to be cut off from, which lay onPauls heart, and was heavy enough, as to sink him. Objection. Well, might some say (verse 6) then the promise of God is in vain, if they arerejected unto whom the adoption and the promises belong? Answer. The Apostle anticipates that objections (verse 6), Not as though the word of Godhath taken none effect, no, the promise is the same, and immutable, For they are not all Israel, whichare of Israel. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they are all children, etc. This is thevery natural coherence of these words. Let us now use our judgments to distinguish and review theplace, and we shall find it a weapon whose edge is turned against these that count it their own. 1. The Apostle is sadly troubled for his kinsmen after the flesh for their rejection. His reason

is because of the Covenant and the promises made to them, because they were the natural seed ofAbraham, which holds forth that the promises and the privileges of the Covenant were madeindefinitely to all the Israelites. 2. That it is a most sad thing to be excluded from the outward and general administration ofthe Covenant. Why should Paul in this way break out in his affections for the loss of outwardprivileges if it was not such a mercy to be under them? 3. The Apostle holds forth that persons may be under the outward administrations of theCovenant and yet not get the efficacy of it (verse 6), They are not all Israel, which are of Israel. TheCovenant was made with Abraham and his seed, all that were of him, and yet all were not Israel, thatis, partakers of the inward life and efficacy of the Covenant. The Apostle, only in these verses,endeavors to take off that objection that God had broken his Covenant by casting away the Jews, andso distinguishes of these that were merely of his flesh, who had the outward administration, but notthe inward fruit, and these which were elect in the promise, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Therest he calls the children of the flesh, the former the children of the promise, verse 8 and so thoughthey were under the outward dispensation of the Covenant, yet God was not mutable, nor his promise,though he rejected them because of their own degeneration. The sum and meaning of this place is, 1. That the Covenant was made in general with Abrahams seed, to all that came from him. 2. That in the administration of general and indefinite promises, there is a secret distinctionand a vein of election carried throughout the administration that takes hold of some, but not others. 3. That none are the children of promise, real saints, except those that have the true effects ofthe Covenant in their hearts. 4. That all children of believers, though the promise visibly belongs to them, as to Abrahamand his seed, yet might not follow their parents faith, and so not be Israel, though of Israel. But here is nothing at all to demonstrate that infants, being children of the flesh, are not underthe promise. But rather the contrary, for in Isaac shall thy seed be called, God says. Now he was achild of Abrahams flesh, as well as those that were cast off, and yet a child of promise. So Godmakes his Covenant indefinitely with believers and their seed, and yet the efficacy of the Covenantmay reach only some, and Isaac or a Jacob, an elect vessel, and yet the other under the outwardadministration, until they manifest the contrary. But more for this from Acts 2:38-39. I come now to that other place so much urged by them, Galatians 3:16, Now to Abrahamand his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And tothy seed, which is Christ. Now Christ here cannot mean Christ merely personally, for then nobeliever should be accounted for the seed but only Christ. It must mean of Christ mystically, orpolitically considered as the visible Head of the Church. If to Christ mystical, then to all the elect as

in him, and so to infants as well as grown person, who make up that mystical body. But in this way thepromise is conveyed under what as it were, no one knows its vein. In this way the Old Testamentflesh came from Abraham, the Covenant administered to them both by its seal, yet one flesh enjoyedthe spiritual blessings, while the other was rejected. Take the promise to be made of Christ, the seed, as Head of a visible church, then still itspeaks for us. For infants of believers were never cast out of the visible Church they were once in.And the promise is made now to them with their parents, as shall be proved at large. If we look no

farther back than the 14th verse of this chapter, we shall receive some light to this. It is said in verses13 and 14, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for usthat theblessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. What was Abrahams blessingbut the promises, and the fruits, and privileges of the promise and Covenant made to him and hisseed? The same blessing is now come on the Gentiles, but through Christ, who took away allobstructions in the passage of the Covenant by his death. Now, 1. This blessing of Abraham was not personal, but to him and his seed. 2. This very blessing has come on Gentile believers, as on Abraham. Therefore, it mustcome on believers of the Gentiles and their seed also. For, 3. It cannot be called Abrahams blessing except it comes on the Gentiles according to thesubstantial terms of Abrahams Covenant. Now this was the absolute form of Abrahams blessing, Iwill be a God to thee and to thy seed, and this very blessing has come on the Gentiles through Christ,as it came on Abraham. Therefore, it must be to believing Gentiles and their seed, otherwise it willneither be Abrahams blessing in the form nor the fatness of it. Abrahams blessing will descend onthe Gentiles clipped half-off, nor like itself. And it must be a very uncouth saying to all judicious earsto say that Abrahams blessing came on the Gentiles by Christ as it was on the Jews by Abraham, andexclude half the subjects at once from any right to it. For so you must say this, if you cast out the seedof Gentile believers. And to what end should the Apostle say the blessing of Abraham, and not the promise orCovenant has come to the Gentiles, but that he intended it to the Gentile believers and their seed, asformerly it came to Abraham and his? This shall be further cleared from Acts 2 and Romans 11 intheir order. But in Galatians 3:29 the Apostle, they say, describes who are the seed, if you beChrists, then you are Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise. So that now no childrenborn of believing parents can be the seed, for they must be Christs, according to that in verse 26,We are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. In general, not to omit that which Beza says on the place that Claramontanus Bible has the

words in this way (and as he thinks more right), ( , .(Gal. 3:29)) If you are one in Christ, then ye are Abrahams seed. This is suitable to the formerverse where he says, There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, etc. but ye are all one inChrist Jesus; and if ye are all one, then Abrahams seed. From which, 1. It is clear that the Apostle is endeavoring to take away all difference between Jew andGentile, and to hold forth their unity in Christ, where there is no distinction as formerly. But now theGentiles being one in Christ are Abrahams seed, as well as the natural and believing Jews. 2. The Apostle here has no intent to show the distinction of Abrahams seed as the subject ofoutward privileges and administrations of ordinances, but to show that none are spiritually and reallyAbrahams seed and heirs of promise except those who are Christs, one in him with Abraham. For ifthis should be the distinction of seed as the subject of outward ordinances, it would be as muchagainst professing believers as infants. For there is a carnal profession as well as a fleshlygeneration, the former more abominable. The proposition from this expression, as they draw, is in this way: none but these who areChrists are Abrahams seed, and none are Christs but real believers, and therefore none b ut theymust be baptized. So some say (though weakly) the spiritual seed. and now the subject of baptism, the newcreature, the man in Christ, baptism knows no flesh, with many such like expressions from this andother places. But let us weigh things. 1. If none but such are Abrahams seed, and so none but such the subject of baptism, thenvisible believers are not the subject of baptism, for they may not be Christs, or new creatures, nomore than infants. Hardly one among twenty that are truly in Christ among the most glorious of them,and so not Abrahams seed. 2. None must be baptized at all on this account, for who knows who is Christs according toelection and saving faith? If they say, We have charitable grounds to believe so of visible professors, until we see thecontrary. I answer, this is nothing to the question, as it is stated, no as it lies in the text. The text says,If ye be Christs, then ye are Abrahams seed. You say none are in Christ but real believers, andyou must baptize none but a spiritual seed, and new creatures, which will require not only a judgmentof charity, but infallibility to determine. 2. The Apostle is here describing what the real seed and spiritual seed are, as having aninward right to Christ, and not what the apparent seed of Abrahams was. For, 1. Note to whom he speaks: to grown persons, the Galatians, who were visible professorsand believers.

2. He puts them to a trial of themselves whether they were Christs or not, after they hadmade a profession. For they having legalized, and returned to look after Jewish ordinances andworks, he tells them their ordinances were nothing, their privileges nothing, being Jew or Greek, butas they were in Christ. He follows the same on in chapter 6 verse 15, For in Christ Jesus neithercircumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. So here the Apostle puts anif to the professing Galatians. If ye be of Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed. 3. If you have no more but the judgment of your charity to distinguish thus of men in Christ,real believers, and Abrahams seed, then we have the same ground of charity to act on infants ofbelievers. For, 1. They may be Christs as we all as grown persons. 2. God would have us account them holy, as we shall prove from 1 Corinthians 7:14. 3. Seeing they have been taken into the same Covenant. 4. Seeing Christ showed so much respect to infants when brought to him. To judge a visibleprofessor to be Christs, and Abrahams seed, I have nothing but the impaired eye of my probablejudgment. To judge a believers infant to be Christs , I have a general Scripture assertion and theground of an indefinite promise, which is more than all my conjectures. So that, 1. Visible professors are not the spiritual seed of Abraham, for they may not be Christs.Therefore, there is no spiritual seed but these that have saving faith, which all do not have. 2. Infants of believers are as much the spiritual seed of Abraham as visible professingbelievers and we have as much ground to judge of the one as the other, until they manifest thecontrary. And our judgment on them may have less deceit in it than there is in that we pass on grownpersons. 3. If you will distinguish Abrahams fleshly seed and spiritual seed under the Gospel, youcannot apply it to infants, but to professing believers, for the children of believers are not the fleshlyseed of Abraham. But if there be any such distinction, it must be between visible grown professors ofwhom some are spiritual, and Christs, and others carnal, and born under Mount Sinai, and notChrists. 4. It is a true rule in logic that in every good division, partes debent inter se opponi, theparts ought to be opposite. Now to be born from Abraham both as a natural and spiritual father, wasboth common, through the promise in the Old Testament, and not universally opposite. And so it maybe now, an infant is born of the flesh of a believer yet the Covenant makes the believer a spiritualfather in some respects, as well as a natural. 5. The seed takes its demonstration from the Covenant, and its tenure. If the Covenant ismade to Abraham and his seed, and these were at first infants in his body, and renewed with

believers in the New Testament (as we shall prove in the following discourse), then infants ofbelievers are the seed now as well as formerly, Abraham only being the first root and father. 6. Visibility of profession no more makes a man of the spiritual seed and so Christs nowunder the New Testament, than the Covenant in its outward administration in the Old made all theJews and their children really new creatures, and a spiritual seed. For under the one and the other,persons may be carnal. All these considerations are to show that these places of Scripture are mistaken by ouropponents, and do not show who is the seed as to the ordinances, but who are the seed as to electionand salvation, and that infants may be as well the seed, notwithstanding all these places, as well asvisible professors. Objection. If any say, But we have no warrant to judge of any but by visible profession. Answer. 1. Let us judge as God would have us, and we shall find as much ground to passsuch a judgment on infants as them. If God calls them holy, we may do so, and it will be dangerousthen to call them unclean. 2. The promise is the surer way of judging, seeing at best that we can only judge externally,and with hopes. It is better to rely on God and to expect what he will do through his promise, at leaston some, than to trust my own judgment. 3. The Word owns infants of believers visibly as we own visible professors, as theScriptures following will demonstrate. For the present, seriously view all these places together, Gen. 17:7, Acts 2:38, 39, Deut.30:6, 11-14, Rom. 10:1, 6-8 with Heb. 8:10, 11, Jer. 31:22, Isa. 65:23 with many such places thathold forth the seed to infants as well in the New Testament as in the Old. I end this chapter with this consideration, that if you exclude infants of believers to beAbrahams seed on the ground that they are not the spiritual seed, then dash out the name as well ofgrown professors to be Abrahams seed who are no more so really because of that than the infants,and we shall dismiss the one with the other, and then there shall be found no visible subjects ofbaptism either of infants or grown persons. For they are both as to election and inward graceunknown to us to be Abrahams seed. They were both formerly accounted Abrahams seed, grownpersons and infants especially by the Covenant. And now the one is to be accounted Abrahams seed,viz. grown people professing, though they may have no right to the inward grace of the Covenant, andinfants who had first right next to Abraham, must be excluded, though they have never had so real aninterest, because they are infants and cannot speak for themselves. But so much of this, the nextchapter will second this.

CHAPTER 4: How any person may be said to be in the Covenant, the diverse considerations about it.

To the former let this be added, because it seems strange how any can be in Covenant and yetnot partake of salvation. In the opening of this the common distinctions of all Divines must berepeated, that according as there is an internal and external administration of the Covenant, so there isa twofold way of being in the Covenant. 1. Secuncum propositum electionis, According to the purpose of election in Gods heart,and his eternal decree, only the elect, and these which have saving faith, are in Covenant. This somecall, and not improperly, to be intentionally in Covenant. God principally intending the Covenant tothem. Others call it spiritually and savingly from the effect. 2. There is a being in Covenant in facie visibilis Ecclesiae, in the face, or according to thejudgment of a visible church, where judgment and charity are mixed together, Rom. 9:4, Deut. 29:10-14, John 15:2, John 1:11, Psa. 50:5, with variety of other Scriptures. And of such there are two sorts. 1. Such as stand by their own visible profession as all first Covenanters do, so all visiblesaints now, and so many proselytes in the Old Testament, Exod. 12:44, 45, Deut. 29:10, 11, Gen.12:5. Or else, 2. As in a political moral consideration, as in the right of another through a freepromise. As if a prince gives a title of honor, or a piece of land to one of his heirs, they are allinterested in it, yet some prove fools, or traitors, and are afterwards incapable. It is so in this, andwas with Abraham and his seed. Now that this distinction holds in the New Testament, I shall in thisway show this to you. 1. If men deny an external, as well as internal being in Covenant, none can administer anexternal ordinance, and outward sign to any, for we must go by external rules in these acts. 2. Visible professors will have the worst of it, for we must administer no ordinance to thesewhich are not internally in Covenant. We have no proof but their own expressions and our goodhopes and present judgment to warrant us, and many visible miscarriages to contradict our judgmentsand hopes at special times. 3. We set a seal to all grown persons who are baptized, or receive the Lords Supperwithout knowing they are certainly in the Covenant, and that who knows? For our judgment will nomore hinder the seal from being blank concerning grown professors than to infants, without provingtruly to be in covenant at last. 4. The best evidence you can have from any of their being in Covenant is but visibleexpressions, suppositions, and hopes, and probabilities, all which you must help out by your owncharity, and fallible observation. For God has promised no seal on my spirit for another mans

condition. It is a blessed mercy if I get the seal on my own heart for myself. So that the great question will be answered from this, which Mr. Tombes and they all urge,That if God made the Covenant with believers, and their seed, they must all be saved, etc. Withwhich I shall but thus respond. 1 . Does God make the Covenant of salvation with every visible professor whom theybaptize? Or with every visible saint? Or do they baptize them out of Covenant? Then how do any tofall off, and become damned? Or what rule do they have to baptize by? 2. Why should it be thought more heinous to set a seal on infants, as in the Covenant, than onthese professors which afterwards prove not to be in Covenant? 3. Or do they baptize because persons are in the Covenant? If not, then on no spiritualaccount, if on their being in Covenant, than either internally or externally. On the first it cannot beabsolutely, but as manifested externally. Not on a mere external being in Covenant, for then they mayset a seal to one blank. If on both together, the one externally demonstrated by the other, then it is stillby the external being in Covenant that we judge with hopes of the other. There is a trick that somehave, by which they think to evade his being in Covenant as the fundamental ground of baptism, bythis distinction. That it is not being in Covenant, but being an actual believer, gives right. To which Ianswer, 1. That the Covenant, taken spiritually, is the ground of faith, not faith the ground of theCovenant. 2. If the Covenant is the ground of faith (for who can believe without a promise?), it maywell be the ground of an outward privilege. 3. To separate the Covenant from the conveyance of actual privileges is almost as dangerousas to separate actual faith from the Covenant, for the one gives a right as well as the other. 4. Infants in the Old Testament were in this way as really to be esteemed in the Covenant asactual visible believers are now, and under the external administration of the Covenant, as theproselytes who came into the Jewish Church, and were the first fruits of the Gentiles. For that there is an external administration of the Covenant of Abraham, or rather of God inChrist, even in the New Testament, is clear. For that many were baptized who proved hypocrites andmany believed visibly likewise, as Simon Magus, Hymenaeus, Alexander, Philetus, etc. many in allthe churches. Yet these must be accounted spiritual seed, though most wicked, because they canprofess their own present sudden faith. And poor infants of believers must be accounted the carnalseed, though so long under a Gospel promise, of which you shall not lack proof afterwards. Now that all who are baptized, or have any ordinance, have it administered fundamentally onthe ground of the Covenant externally administered, I prove this in the following way.

1. God administers all his graces by Covenant, much more in outward ordinances. 2. Souls can have no challenge or interest in God, except by some Covenant or other. God istied to none except that he ties himself. 3. If there were not a visible and external administration of the Covenant, none should knowof the invisible design of it unto any. All things would be in the dark to us, as to Gods Covenant in avisible dispensation. 4. If this invisible design were not secretly carried on in an outward visible dispensation,there could be none condemned by an outward rule, for who can condemn those who are intentionally,and invisibly in Covenant? And if everyone visibly in Covenant is intentionally and spiritually inCovenant, it is just the same. The whole is this: None are in Covenant (say our opponents) except real believers, thespiritual seed, so none are to be baptized except such. When it comes to application of the ordinance,then none are the spiritual seed but visible believers, and these visible believers can be judged by noway except an external profession to be in Covenant. And infants are no visible believers, thereforeno spiritual seed. When as the one is as visible by promise, as the other by profession.

CHAPTER 5: Opening that place in Acts 2:39.

, , , . (Act 2:39). For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as theLord our God shall call, (Act 2:39). This text I first hold forth as fit to discover the New Testament application of the Covenantof Grace, and its continuation to believers and their seed, as to Abraham and his in the OldTestament. It is the first argument used after Christs ascension to provoke the Jews to repent andsubmit to Gospel ordinances, and the first open promulgation of the Covenant both to Jew andGentile, with the prime privileges of it. In which is contained the Gospel Covenant made withbelievers and their seed. 1. Here is () the promise, which can be no other than the promise of remission ofsins and so of salvation, suitable to that in Gen. 17:7 and repeated at large in Jer. 31:34. For it musteither be a promise of temporal things, or spiritual. It cannot be of temporal things, for there is noabsolute promise of these things in the New Testament, but as included in, or following spiritualmercies, as Matt. 6:33. Neither is there one syllable in this chapter pressing men to look aftertemporal enjoyments, or engaging them to embrace the Gospel by any outward profits. Objection. The great and only interpretation of this promise by these that differ is that it hasreference to verse 16 and is meant of the promise of the Holy Spirit prophesied by Joel 2:28, whichwas to be poured forth in the latter days, and now visible and eminently begun to be fulfilled at theday of Pentecost. To which the answer will be clear and fair, though that is granted, and not at all weakened,but strengthened in the former sense. For, 1. That promise is a spiritual promise and more large and comprehensive of spiritualmercies than any other. The promise of the Spirit is as much as to promise all at once, graces, gifts,even heaven itself, for all are but the fruits of this promise. Christ in the Old Testament, and the Spiritin the New, contain all the promises in eminency. When Jesus Christ was to leave the world, andspeak all his heart at once, and leave his last blessing, that should be better than his bodily presenceamong them, he expresses all in this, that he would send the Spirit, John. 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7. Andof this large promise, as well according to Christs promise before his ascension, as Joels prophesy,

the Apostles and believers received the first fruits in this solemn day of Christs triumph. So that tosay it is the promise of the Spirit is as much as to say it is the promise of all spiritual things. For thisread in Gal. 3:14, the Apostle speaking of the fruits of Christs death, says it was that the blessing ofAbraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of theSpirit through faith. The same phrase that is in Acts 2:38. And in the promise of the Spirit which isto be received by faith is included justification, sanctification, yes all graces, and it is here joinedwith the blessing of Abraham. But, 2. If they take the promise of the Spirit in a limited and restrictive sense, for the externalgifts, as the most do, for the gifts of tongues, and miracles, and prophecy, they both clip the promiseand make the argument and comfort from it invalid, and of no efficacy. 1. It is a mighty wrong to that famous promise of the Spirit, to circumscribe it in theseaccidental gifts which were especially necessary, and almost only for that time. When it is a promisethat reaches all the latter days, and is still accomplishing, though all these extraordinary gifts areceased. 2. This straightened sense is expunged by the manner of the expression of that prophecy, bothin Joel and this in the book of Acts, I will pour out my spirit on all flesh, and on your servants andhandmaids will I pour out my spirit, which shows the universality and variety of the subjects, andblessings in this promise, that it shall be so large and full of mercy, as if there were to be nolimitation of its measure. 3. If it were meant merely of these gifts, why then is there no more benefit of that promiseafter the Apostles days, except that Christ was out of date, and did expire with that age. Where , it isa promise made for all the time of the New Testament, which is expressed by the latter days, and thelast days, up and down the Scripture. You have a parallel promise to this in Isa. 44:3, For I will pour water upon him that isthirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing uponthine offspring. Now the promise of the Spirit is always appropriated to the New Testament days. And secondly, this cannot be the meaning of this phrase if we consider to whom the Apostlespeaks, to persons pricked in their hearts, wounded for their sins in crucifying of Jesus Christ, cryingout, Men and Brethren, what shall we do to be saved? (Acts 2:37). Now what comfort could this beto tell them they should have extraordinary gifts? Their hearts were bleeding under sin, their eye wason salvation, they saw no hopes of it, nor knew the way to obtain it. The Apostle bids them to repentand be baptized. They might have said, What shall we do the better? The Apostle says, You shallreceive the gift of the Holy Spirit, for the promise is unto you. What promise? Of gifts, of tonguesand miracles? What is this to our souls? How will this save us? Might they well object. It would be

but a poor comfort to a wounded soul to tell him of a promise of gifts, not of spiritual grace. And theHoly Spirit is a better physician to apply such a raw improper plaster to a wounded heart, whichwould hardly heal the skin. This promise is brought in as a cordial, to keep them from fainting, and togive them spirits to believe and lay hold on Jesus Christ. And truly no other promise but that of freegrace, in order to salvation, can be imagined to give them comfort in that condition. But to put all out of question, that the promise prophesied in Joel, and quoted here, was thepromise of salvation, and the same with the Covenant of Grace, consult the original passage in Joeland the parallel in this in the book of Acts. In Joel 2:27, the Prophet sounds all the promises that wentbefore, and all that come after, on this, That he is the Lord their God, and none else, which was thevery express words in that Covenant made with Abraham. And then afterwards, viz. in the NewTestament, to make this out fully, He will pour out his spirit on all flesh, etc. (Acts 2:32), which isa part of that prophecy, and is quoted again in verse 21, Whosoever shall call on the name of theLord shall be saved. One grace put for all, and salvation being put at the end of the promise, must bethe aim of it. You have the same expression again repeated in Rom. 10:13. And the former (verse 38) he exhorts them to repent ( ), for theremission of sin. The exhortation is to a Gospel duty. The effect and profit of it was to the remissionof sins, and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise must be answerable, by which all isenforced. It must have been a mighty low and disproportionable way of persuasion to put them uponsuch things in the former verse, and to encourage them only by narration of a promise of sometemporary gifts in the following, when their eye and heart was set on remission of sins and salvationby Jesus Christ. Nothing but a promise holding forth these mercies could have been considerable tothem. And it is very observable that in that verse he joins remission of sins with the gift of the HolySpirit, then adds the promise to both as the ground of one and the other, comprehending both. For thatexpression of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, it may well be noted, that it is ( (Acts 2:38)) the free gift. No, the gifts of the Holy Spirit as a free gift to bestow allmercies on them, and so respecting rather the free and bounteous manner of bestowing the Holy Spiriton them, than any limited effects of his reception. By all which it is demonstrated that this is no ordinary, common, temporal promise, or ofmere gifts, though never so extraordinary. Rather, it is a promise of free grace. I only add this to all the rest as undeniable by the principles of these that differ. It is apromise made not only to the Jews, but it is universally to the Gentiles, and to all the called of God.All that are called have not received such gifts of the Holy Spirit which then were given, buteveryone that is effectually called receives the promise of remission of sins, and the free favor ofGod, and therefore this promise must be taken mainly in that sense.

But the great difficulty is in the following part of the verse, and about the interest of theirchildren in this promise, and therefore the next work must be to make this out: that the children aswell as the parents are included in this promise, as they were in the promise made with Abraham. 1. Let us consider to whom the Apostle speaks, to the Jews, who were pricked in theirhearts. The promise is to you and your children. He speaks to them after the customary manner ofexpression in the Old Testament whenever the promise is mentioned, and uses their own language inwhich they were trained up in from their Father, I will be the God of thee and thy seed, (Gen. 17:7).This promise is to you and your children. If the Apostle had intended to exclude their children fromthe same privileges they formerly had by the Covenant, he would never have spoken in such a knowndialect of the Old Testament, or to Jews, who could take it in no other sense but this, that the promiseshall run as formerly, to them and their seed. 2. Let us mind on what ground this is brought in, viz. as an argument and strong inducement ofthem to repent and be baptized, as in the former verse, for the promise is to you and your seed. Heencourages them from this to receive the ordinance of baptism themselves, for the promise was stillthe same to them and their children, only now they must first believe and be baptized themselves,therefore their children could be considered in the promise. If the apostle had not intended to holdforth to them now believing and being baptized, and their children, the same privileges they hadbefore as to the promise, it would have been the greatest delusion instead of an argument to persuadethem to be baptized on this ground, because the promise was to them and their children. They hadbeen rather deceived by it, than enlightened, and stumbled by such a proposition more than informedof a New Testament administration. 3. On what hinge can this exhortation turn? Where is the virtue and strength it has to movethem to be baptized themselves, except on this consideration: that they should not only enjoy blessingsthemselves, through the promise, but their children with them? The promise to them was enough forthemselves to submit to that ordinance, but the height of the enforcement is from the riches of thepromise, that it was not only to them, but their children. They might bless themselves and theirs bysubmitting to the Gospel. Otherwise, to put this in the name of their children speaking to the Jews wasonly to lay a temptation before them and rather puzzle them than encourage them. Doubtless the HolySpirit would never in the first opening of the Gospel, and encouraging souls to embrace it, use such alanguage and expression that might deceive those he spoke to, for what could the Jews imagine orconceive upon such a discovery, but that if they themselves did repent and were baptized, the promiseshould be the same in the New Testament to them and their children, as it was formerly to Abraham,o n his believing and being circumcised to him and his seed? Keep in mind that there was noexpression that the Jews were so accustomed to, more delighted in, than that of the promise to them

and their children. And but to mention their children with the promise, if it was not mean to hold forththat they were still in the promise, was sufficient to have deceived them, who were never instructed inany other method. The great design of the Apostle was to open the New Testament promise, and bythat to encourage the poor wounded Jews to repent and be baptized. That they might have no cloud ontheir apprehensions, or discouragement, he utters it in linguavernacula, the phrase the promise wasalways expressed in the Old Testament. 4. If the intent of the Apostle was not to hold forth the sameness and identity of the privilegeof the promise to the Jews and Gentiles now believing, as was formerly, he never would havementioned children when he mentions baptism, and especially not in the same line with the promisemade to the parents, or with one breath expressed the promise to both and make that the strength of hisargument to put them on the practice of that ordinance. Doubtless it had not been so carried away, notsuitable to the simplicity of the Gospel to tell them of their children, just when he tells them of beingbaptized themselves, and name them immediately with the promise, if the design was utterly toexclude them both from the promise and baptism. I have been the longer inculcating theseconsiderations because there is much in them and engaged persons can slightly pass over the mosteminent places with a mere glance. Objection. But it is objected that the latter clause, ( , (Acts 2:39)) As many as the Lord our God shall call, is a limitation of the verse, and nomore are under the promise, and so children, if God shall call them, shall also enjoy the promise. Solution. For an answer to this last objection, which is the strength of their confidence fromthis place, we must consider these particulars. 1 . That in this verse you have an extra distribution of the world into Jew and Gentile,according to the usual distribution in other Scriptures. The Gentiles being usually called these afaroff and the promise equally distributed among, only he adds (as many as the Lord shall call) to thesewhich are afar, as most proper in that place. But it can in no sense be referred to the former part of theverse, either to parents or children. For, 1. He changes the tense in both parts of the verse. In the first part unto the Jews, he speaks depraesenti, of the present application of the promise. Repent you, and be baptizedfor the promiseis to you and your children. Even now the promise is offered to you and they were then under the callof God. But when he speaks of the Gentiles, because they were yet afar off, and not at all called, hespeaks defuturo, as many as God shall call, even of them also. Which is the first expressed hint of thecalling of the Gentiles in all the Acts of the Apostles. 2. How unequal would the distribution be of this verse, not suitable to the laws of expressionamong rational men? If As many as the Lord shall call should be a limitation to the former part ofthe verse, the word children must needs be redundant and superfluous, for Jews and Gentiles

comprehend all the world. Now children must either be one part of the world, or comprehendedunder one or both names, or be a distinct world by themselves, neither Jews nor Gentiles. And thismust follow on such a reading of the two words, for the design of the Apostle is to hold forth thefreeness of the promise to Jew and Gentile, and their children. To these Jews at present, to theGentiles and their children when God should call the parents, as he did the Jews. Now put childrenby themselves, as a third party, and add whom the Lord shall call, and you exclude them from beingeither Jews or Gentiles, and to excommunicate them from any hopes of calling or being saved. Nowthis is, 1. Contrary to that known rule in logic, Omnis bona distributo debet esse bimebris, only oftwo members, and these opposite one to another, to bring in a third, marks all. So that it is most clearthat the word must be understood as they are translated: The promise is to you Jews, and yourchildren at present, and to those afar off also, and their children, when God shall call them, elsecalling can with no sense be applied to any tittle of the former part of the verse without making itmonstrous, and unlike itself. 2. It is against another rule about distribution, which is partes divisionis ambulant equalipassus, that the parts of a distribution should be equally set together. Now here will be a mightyinequality as to the communication of the promise if the words should be taken in their sense, theJews will have a greater privilege than the Gentiles, if children are not equally added to both. TheJews had the promise made to them and their children at present. These afar off shall only have thepromise to themselves, but not their children. 3. Consider how this word (your children) is kept in, for what end and use, if it were not toshow some special privilege they have with their parents, when God calls or converts the parents?What does it stand for except to be a stone of offense to conscientious hearers? Objection. All they answer to this is, that the Apostle names their children to comfort their parentsbecause they had wished Christs blood on their children, and so to give them hopes they might yet besaved, if God should call them. Solution. 1. To see the said shifts of error is a wonder. Can many imagine that the parents could doubtmore, or so much of their children being accepted and saved, when God should call them who wereinnocent and only under the sudden rash curse of their parents, when they saw the promise was tothemselves, and Christ offered pardon to themselves, who were the actual murderers of the LordJesus. 2. Such consideration would rather sadden them than refresh them, to mention the calling of

their children. For they might more doubt of that than of anything, whether God would call them ornot, and be as far to seek as every they were that they would have but cold comfort on this account.This was enough to break their hearts if that were in their eye. The old way of conveying the promiseis cut off, no promise but to called ones. Our poor children are uncalled, and God knows whetherever they may be called of God. In this way might they reason. But when he includes them in the samepromise with parents, and exhorts the parents to repent upon this ground, that the promise is to themand their children. This savors like a Gospel comforting exhortation and could not be but of greatefficacy upon their spirits. 4. What strange mysterious tautologies would be in this one verse if that last sentence shouldrefer to all the former expressions, we must read it thus to make sense of it. The promise is to you parents of the Jews, when God shall call you (and they were thenunder the call) and to you grown children, when God shall call them, and to all which are afar off,when God shall call them. Can any man with his understanding about him think the Holy Spirit shouldfalter so much in common expression of his mind when there was no need of adding or calling to anypart but to these that were afar off, who were never yet under Gods Gospel call? Lastly, the word children may and must be understood of little ones, infants, not of adult andgrown person, for these reasons, 1. The word here ( (Acts 2:39)) properly signifies an offspring, anything broughtforth, though it be but of a day, or of a moment old. So when a woman is said to be in pain, and tobring forth, this word is used, John 14:21, Luke 1:31, Matthew 1:26, Luke 1:57. 2. It is an indefinite word and therefore may not be restrained to grown children, except Godhad expressed it in a peculiar phrase. 3. It must be especially meant of little ones because they are distinguished from themselves,who were men of years in the text. Now when we distinguish between men and children, we supposethe one to be an adult, the other under age, and not grown up, and it is contrary to all ways ofexpression to think otherwise. 4. It cannot rationally be conjectured otherwise, because the Apostle joins them with theirparents in the same promise, and does not leave them to stand by themselves, as grown persons must. So that all things weighed, this text of Scripture, if there were no more, holds forth thesameness of the promise to believers of the Gospel, both Jew and Gentile and their children, as everit was to Abraham, and his natural seed.

CHAPTER 6: Their great place from Matthew 3:8-9 concerning John the Baptists speeches to the Pharisees

and Sadducees, made vain, and that text cleared from mistakes.

That we may still take of the main objections, let us view that place so much stood on,Matthew 3:7-9. But when John saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, hesaid unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bringforth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abrahamto our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.From this text, they gather that the pretense of being Abrahams children could not give them a right tobaptism, and if John denied Abrahams natural seed on that account, much more would he the adoptedchildren. That this is no such ominous place against infant baptism, consider, 1. Who they were that John speaks to, the Pharisees and Sadducees, men of age, anddegenerated from Abrahams faith, persons that live on their own works and righteousness. Thereforehe calls them ( , (Matt. 3:7)), a generation of vipers. Which was not as they wereAbrahams children, but as they had not walked in Abrahams steps, but were quite degenerated. Inthis way he did not refuse them because Abraham was their father, or on that account that Abrahamsseed had no right to the promise, but as only pretending Abraham to be their father, when they walkedcontrary to the principles of Abrahams faith. 2. That is the same now as to grown visible professors who have related their faith to theChurch, and so are baptized on that account of faith, and repentance. Yet if afterwards they growcarnal and apostate, and if such should come to receive the Lords Supper, and challenge it becausethey are baptized, we might say the same as John to the Pharisees and Sadducees. Do not think to saythat you are baptized, or that you have godly parents, for you are a generation of vipers, you have cutoff your own right by contrary actions in your own persons and yet it does not at all impeach the truthof this position. That believers and their infants are in Covenant and ought to be judged so until theymanifest the contrary, or that if they believed themselves afterward, the promise should be to themand their children. And that text holds no more than this, that when persons are grown up to years, andcome to understanding, they must then stand on their right and look to make out personal qualificationsof new ordinances. 3. This was at the first institution of the ordinance, when baptism was newly administered.Now new institutions (as before) require grown persons, and actual visible believers to be the first

subject of them. They could not baptize their children first, for then the parents would be neglected.The bringing in of a new ordinance requires renewing of special acts in these which partake first of itas if an old lease which is made in the name of a man and his children are at such a season to berenewed on some certain terms, the man himself must come, and acknowledge his owning these terms,and then it is to him and his, as before. So now in the New Testament God renews the Covenant ofAbraham, and adds a new initiating seal to it. It was before entailed in such a line, which is cut off, itis now of the same nature, only everyone must come in his own person first, as Abraham, and enterhis own name, and then the promise is to him and his seed. So it was in the former place when theJews came to be baptized, they were exhorted first to repent and be baptized themselves, then thepromise is to you and your children. So that this we affirm: 1. That no man must be baptized, or receive an ordinance by any fleshly prerogative, butwhere there is an entail of a promise, there is a spiritual ground of administration. 2. That no person grown up to years of understanding, has a right to a sealing ordinance, buton his own personal qualifications. 3. That persons may have present capacities and visible rights to an ordinance, and yetafterwards cut off themselves and be found incapable, as Ishmael and here the Pharisees andSadducees. 4. That the exception of some persons on the account of their degeneration and personaldefects does not hinder, but the old privilege of the promise may be conveyed to these which doreally embrace the Gospel, and to their seed. All these are undeniable in themselves, and this textreaches no further than to the exclusion of these which had demonstrated themselves to be only thechildren of the flesh, and not of the promise also. This is a demonstration of aposteriori, from theirafter actions and teaches us that these who boast in outward privileges, without looking afterpersonal qualifications, and holy frames within, may be as well judged carnal, and heathens andprofane persons.

CHAPTER 7: That special place in 1 Cor. 7:14 opened, and argument. Else were your children unclean, but

now they are holy.

This place of Scripture, though it seems to stand by itself, yet has full correspondence andharmony with all other places in the New Testament concerning this truth. As the former did holdforth the promise, the Covenant to believers and their children, in distinction from the entire world.So this leaves a character of special qualifications suitable to a subject of such an ordinance andwhen the promise and the qualification shall meet together, there is enough to capacitate to anyordinance. The Apostle is in this verse answering scruple which might arise in the hearts of theCorinthians concerning abiding together of married persons, the one being a convert, and a believer;the other, whether man or woman, an unbeliever. As it was common in the Apostles times, thehusband might be converted, the wife not. The wife might be converted, and not the husband, theWord working on the one and not on the other. This caused a doubt in the believing party whether heor she might, with good conscience, continue living together in that state. The Apostle answers it (verses 12-13) positively that they ought not separate or leave eachother, notwithstanding that the one was an unbeliever. In verse 14 he gives a strong and peculiarargument which he makes instar omnium, for the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the believingwife, else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. The scope of the Apostle here is to hold forth from special Gospel-privilege annexed to thestate, and he frames his argument by no ordinary medium, of the lawfulness of the marriage accordingto a natural or positive rule, but a majori, from an eminent advantage they had together in the Gospel.For, 1. The unbelieving husband is sanctified in, or to, or by the wife. 2. The children in such a state are holy, as if they had both been believers. That the

Documents

A Discourse on Covenant Theology and Infant Baptism (English Edition)_B00AZQ1GUC