43° The Birth-Prìviledge and Covenant- holzne Ch.47 fering, and forbearance of them, that he is pleafed to % cuo hfafe them farther and more large evidences of his favour, Nehem, 9. 50. Hierufalem z,as corrupted more then Sodom and Samaria, in all her wayef. Ezek. 16. 47. Sodom and her daughters, had not done as Hierulalem and her daughtcrs,ver. 48. Samaria had not com- mitted half her fnnes, ver. r. In her abominations íhe had ¡u- nified both of them ; yet fiierufalem enjoyed thofe priviledges; that Samaria and Sodom enjoyed not; Hierufalem was in Cove- nant ver. 16. when Sodom and Samaria were no Covenant - people, but worfhipped they knew not what, roh. 4. ver. 2 2. Co- ra-tin and Bethfxida, Cities of grad, were no better in the eye of God then Tyre and Sidon yea their fìnnes deférved an heavi- er weight of judgement, Alatth. r r, 22. It /hall be more tolera- ble fir Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgement, then for you, faith our Saviour ; and fo it was with Ciapernaum, compared to Sodom, ver. 2 3. yet Chorazin,Bethfaida, Capernaum, enjoyed thole priviledges from God, that tyre, Sidon and Sodom wanted. As the Apoflles zeal againil the Samaritanes fïnnes, Luke 9, 54. did out -drip our Saviours, when they would have fire from heaven to conlúme them ; fo our zeal out-goes Gods, when we would have fuch men, root and branch, parent and childe Bruck out of Cove- nant, before God hath feed out any Bill of divorce againfl them, or removed his Candleilick, and taken all Covenant- privíledges from them. Mailer Firmin, pag. 2, of his Serious 1neftion fated tells us of an argument, but (as he faies) indifcreetly ufed, and as he puts it, I confeffe, he fufficiently anfwers it; what though the parents be never fo wicked, what do you know what the childe may prove ?many a ricked man may have good children, they may be eleî1, & contra, this I fay (faith he) proves an argument of no flrength; for elelíi on is no rule for me to go by : 1 will fay the fame of the Indians children, efiecially nor, in New- England.; what do you know but this ro that childe may he der I, prove godly, though the father be an Indian? Ea fuppoftion de futuro, is no rule for me, togive the feat of the Covenant at this prefent, but 1 mull look at the fhilde as a Covenanter, but that is in the parent. I freely confeffe, that ele- &ion is no rule of our adminiffration, nor yet the bare pofiibility or peradventlre of the Infants future godlineffe; But put the que- non as it may be put, in its full flrength,I fiippofe it may wait long- er
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=