Consequence of the former it will also naturally follow that it is only by the Actual Faith of both Parents and Children as an Instrumental means by which either of them shall be blessed with that their desired Restauration And this may serve also for a Confutation of that Groundless and Unscriptural conceit of Mr. Allen when he affirms that the Infants of Believers are Abraham's Spiritual Seed and that upon this Account it was that they were admitted to the Priviledge of Church-Membership under the Law For thus he tells us If such Infants are as much of the Church and as much Abraham's Spiritual Seed as ever Infants in the Old Testament-Church were then they can be no more uncapable than they were of a solemn Admission into the Church by the Ordinance of Initiation for the time being as Baptism is now and as Circumcision was then But this which Mr. Allen takes here for granted and is indeed the Foundation of his Argument we utterly deny as not having been at all proved nor indeed can be proved by him or any other to wit That the Infants of Believers have any where in Scripture the Denomination of Abraham's Spiritual Seed This is a most certain Truth that as Abraham himself had a double Capacity one of a Natural Father the other the Father of the Faithful So he had a two-fold Seed For First he had a Seed that proceeded from him according to the Course of Natural Generation only And Secondly some were his Natural and Spiritual Seed also such as was Isaac and all the Faithful who proceeded from Abrahams Loyns To which we must add a Third sort and that is all true Believers or the Elect of God in all Nations who by Vertue of their Interest in Christ have also in Scripture the Denomination of Abraham's Seed who yet can lay no claim to Abraham as their Father according to the common Course of Nature And to imagine that Abraham hath any Seed in any other Religious or Spiritual Consideration whatsoever under the Gospel is to be wise above what is written For whatever the Jewish Children were to say that the Children of Christians are Relatively Holy that they are Church-Members and as much Christians externally as the Children of the Jews were Jews externally as some have suggested All these are but unproved Figments and Unscriptural Dictates And therefore from hence to infer their Relation to Abraham as his Spiritual Seed and thence that they are the proper Subjects of Baptism is no other than to build a lofty Structure upon a Sandy Foundation If then we shall affirm that the Infants of Believers now are Abraham's Seed they must of Necessity come under one or another of these Heads To say that they are so in either of the two former Respects cannot be at all pretended unto if in the latter neither can this with any shadow of Truth be affirmed For thus it was not with all the Natural Seed of Abraham himself as the Apostle expresly affirms Rom. 9. 7 8. Neither saith he because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called that is they that are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed So likewise Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christs then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise Therefore to affirm that all the Infants of Believers are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham as there is no Scripture that proves it so it is directly contrary to the Scripture and indeed contrary to our own most common and obvious Experience whilst we consider with all that as for many of Abraham's own Natural Posterity they are so far from being his Spiritual Seed that as hath been already observed together with their Children they are Unchurched broken off and rejected by God because of their Vnbelief to this very day Which yet had not been had they been the Spiritual as well as the Natural Seed of Abraham For sure it is altogether Inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of Grace the Gifts and Callings whereof are without Repentance that Abraham's Spiritual Seed or that such as are Members of the Invisible as well as the Visible Church should be at all cast off rejected and forsaken as the Jews now are Upon the whole therefore of our Answer to the forementioned Objection That if this Interpretation hold good there would be a great change in the extent of the Covenant narrower under the Gospel than it was under the Law and yet no notice in all the Book of God given of such a Change We say that there is abundant notice given unto us in the Book of God and that both in the Old and New Testament also concerning the change in question viz. the disfranchisement of Infants from their so long enjoyed Priviledge of Church-Membership We grant that under the Law they were admitted thereunto with their Parents But the Scriptures already alledged do abundantly prove their Exclusion under the Gospel Administration Unto which we shall only at present add Heb. 7. 12. For the Priesthood heing changed there is made of Necessity a change also of the Law which Change of the Law there spoken of must needs include Circumcision with all the Priviledges and Appurtenances belonging to it And therefore as Infants Church-Membership came in with the Law of Circumcision so it went out and was Repealed with it Objection 3. If this Interpretation be true the Believing Jews should have loss upon their Repentance and Belief of the Gospel if their Children formerly Church Members should now be Excluded upon the Faith and Repentance of their Parents To this we Answer First It is true that insome Sence a Jew converted to the Gospel should have loss and particularly in that point of Signing his Fleshly Seed by an Ordinance together with the Fall of all the Glory of their Sanctuary and pompous Priest-hood so much and so long the joy and boasting of that Nation Which the Spirit of GOD fore-saw and fore-told Isa 8. 14. And hence it came to pass that Christ became so great an Offence and the Gospel so sore a Stone of Stumbling and Rock of Offence to them all yea even to many of them after they had submitted to the Gospel yea the Gentile Churches were scarce if at all preserved from Stumbling hereat with the Jews But all this Loss well considered would amount to no more than what befals a Man who from the Priviledges of a Servant is Invested into the Priviledges of a Son And this was the very Case Gal. 4. 4. God sent forth His Son c. Verse 5. To redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons Verse 7. Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Son And the Reason of this Change the Apostle plainly sheweth us Verse 23. He that was after the Bond-Woman was Born after the
of Faith must of necessity according to the Apostles Reckoning be desirous of Returning to that old Bondage which Christ hath deliver'd us from and which the Apostle doth so earnestly Exhort us to avoid Gal. 5. 1. Stand fast therefore in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and be not Intangled again with the Yoke of Bondage § 8. But though Mount Sinai Covenant which answered to Jerusalem that then was is a Bondage Covenant The Gospel Covenant saith the Apostle which answereth to Jerusalem that is above is free which is the Mother of us all The Gospel Covenant therefore being a free Covenant It must not it ought not to be Blended or Mixt with that from Mount Sinai as if the one were the other and no difference at all to be made betwixt them onely in Respect of the different Degrees of the Discovery of Gospel Grace No saith the Apostle What saith the Scripture Cast out the Bond-Woman and her Son For the Son of the Bond-Woman shall not be Heir with the Son of the Free-Woman So then Brethren we are not Children of the Bond-Woman but of the Free In the 30. and 31. Verses of the forementioned 4th to the Galatians And this we must be And thus we must do as the Apostle here adviseth us unless we shall mingle Law and Gospel together Bondage and Liberty Works and Grace Death and Life And a ministration of Condemnation with that of Righteousness and Peace Which would be no other than as much as in us lies to overthrow the whole Gospel and to obscure darken and confound those truths that are of highest Importance And which ought therefore to be carefully and distinctly handled by us according to the different Services they are designed and appointed for SECT VIII BUT then we are yet further told by Mr. Sedgwick in his forementioned Discourse pag. 174. That that Covenant which was Confirmed by Bloud and Sprinkling which Typified the Bloud of Christ Gonfirming and Ratifying the Covenant was no Covenant of Works But the Covenant which God made then with the Israelites was Confirmed by Blood Exod. 24. 7. Moses took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the Audience of the People And they said All that the Lord hath said we will do and be Obedient Vers 8. And Moses took the Blood and Sprinkled it on the People And said Behold the Bloud of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words Now this very place is quoted by the Apostle Heb. 9. 19. He Sprinkled both the Book and the People Vers 20. Saying This is the Bloud of the Testament which God hath Enjoyned you And expresly Interprets it and applies it to the Blood of Christ Vers 14. and Vers 23. And therefore that Covenant with that People was not a Covenant of Works which never was nor shall be Confirmed by the Bloud of Christ § 2. To which we Reply First That it is Evident that the Covenant the Bloud whereof Moses Sprinkled on the People in the forementioned Exod. 24. 7 8. Could not possibly be the Law Written in Stones which will appear in a diligent Examination of the words before and after Vers 3 4. Moses came and told the People all the words of the Lord and all the Judgments And all the People Answerd with one Voice and said All the words which the Lord hath spoken we will do And Moses Wrote all the words of the Lord and rose up early in the Morning and builded an Altar c. Vers 5. And be sent Young Men of the Children of Israel which offered burnt offerings and Sacrificed Peace offerings of Oxen unto the Lord Vers 6. And Moses took half of the Bloud and put it in Basons And half of the Bloud be Sprinkled on the Altar Vers 7. And he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the Audience of the People And they said All that the Lord hath said we will do and be Obedient Vers 8. And Moses took the Bloud and Sprinkled it on the People and said behold the Bloud of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words Now that the Book of the Covenant here spoken of the Bloud whereof was thus Sprinkled on the People could not be the Law Written in Stones appears most evidently from the following words Vers 9. Then went up Moses and Aaron Nadab and Abihu and Seventy of the Elders of Israel And they saw the God of Israel c. Vers 12. And the Lord said unto Moses Come up to me into the Mount and be there And I will give thee Tables of Stone and a Law and Commandments which I have Written that thou mayst teach them Wherein first we cannot but observe That whereas the words of the Covenant the Bloud whereof was Sprinkled on the People Vers 8. are expresly said Vers 4. to be Written by Moses So on the other hand the Law Written in Stones is here expresly said to be Written by God himself And Secondly It is also as evident that Moses had not as yet so much as received the Law Written in Stones from God till after he had Sprinkled the Bloud of the forementioned Covenant wherein the Statutes and Judgments were contained upon the People So that the Law Written in Stones therefore could not possibly be the Covenant the Bloud whereof was so sprinkled but was indeed another Covenant and delivered at a distinct Season and in a distinct Method the one uttered and declared by â—he Mouth of God himself in the Audience of all the People the other delivered unto them by the Mouth and Ministration of Moses onely The one Written with Gods own Finger in the two Tables of Stone the other Written in a Book by the Hand of Moses which is accordingly here called the Book of the Covenant by way of distinction from the Tables of Stone From whence by the way it clearly appears That that Covenant which as Moses elsewhere assures us God himself with his own Immediate Mouth and Voice declared unto Israel and that in the Audience of all the People Deut. 4. 10 11 12 13. was in this as well as in other respects as much a Covenant of Works as that made with our first Parent For if the Covenant made with Adam had no Mediator so neither had this 'T is plain indeed that God made use of the Ministration of Moses in the delivery of the Ceremonial Covenant but not so in the Promulgation of this For this was both Written and declared Immediately by the Hand and Mouth of God himself § 3. But to return Whereas Mr. Sedgwick tells us That that Covenant with that People which was Confirmed by Bloud and Sprinkling which Typified the Blood of Christ Confirming and Ratifying the Covenant was not a Covenant of Works which never was nor shall be Confirmed by the Blood of Christ and makes no distinction thereon between the Ceremonial Covenant that was Dedicated with Bloud
onely give himself but all his Children and even his Servants all his to God to take his Sign upon them and so it must be now Answered p. 28 29. But for the further support of Infants Baptism it is Objected First That since Infants stood visible Members of the Church for 2000 years under the Legal Administration It is unlikely they should be now Excluded Answered from p. 27 to 30. Obj 2. If Infants are now Excluded there would be a very great change in the Extent of the Covenant Narrower under the Gospel than it was under the Law And yet no notice in all the Book of God given of such a change Answered from p. 30 to 36. Obj. 3. The Believing Jews should have loss upon their Repentance and belief of the Gospel if their Children formerly Church-Members should now be Excluded upon the Faith and Repentance of their Parents Answered p. 37. Obj. 4. What hope can we have of our Infants if they must not be admitted to Christian Baptism nor reputed as Members of the common Body and Church of the faithful Answered p. 38. Obj. 5. If Children may not now be Baptized this makes the Priviledge of Believers under the Gospel to be less than was theirs under the Law for their Children were all admitted as Members of the Visible Church by the Ordinance of Circumcision and we cannot but Conclude that Priviledges for our selves and for our Children are at least as Honourable Large and Comfortable as theirs Answered p. 38 39. Obj. 6. Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to Believers and their Seed under the Law and therefore so is Baptism to the Seed of Christian Parents under the Gospel The denial therefore of Baptism to Infants in the denial of a great Priviledge which of Right belongs unto them Answered p. 39 40. Obj. 7. Circumcision was Administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed after them as such to which Baptism was to correspond Answered p. 40 41. Obj. 8. Since by the Express Command of God the Jewish Infants were Circumcised Are not now Infants as Capable of Answering the Ends of Christian Baptism as theirs of Circumcision Answered p. 41 42. Obj. 9. If the Infants of Believing Gentiles are not to be Baptized How doth the Blessing of Abraham come on the Gentiles Gal. 3. 14. Which Blessing of Abraham was I will be a God unto thee and to thy Seed Gen. 17. 7. Answered p. 42. 43. Obj. 10. Then also how can Believers be Heirs according to the Promise Gal. 24. If their Children should be excluded from the Promise For the Childrens right to the Promise is part of the Fathers Inheritance For the Promise unto Abraham was I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee Answered p. 44 45. Obj. 11. Those to whom the Gospel Covenant belonged to them the Seal thereof appertained But to Believers and their Seed the Gospel Covenant belonged Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed therefore to them the Seal thereof did appertain For the Faederati were to be Signati that is those that were in Covenant were to have the Seal thereof Gen. 17. 10. By way of consequence therefore it naturally follows that if Circumcision the Seal of the Gospel Covenant belonged to the Seed of Believers under the Law then doth the Gospel Seal Baptism much more appertain to the Seed of Believers now Answered from p. 45. to 61. Obj. 12. Though 't is true when God made a Promise to Abraham to be a God to him and to his Seed Gen. 17 7. The Seed there mentioned is by the Apostle applied to Christ Gal. 3. 16. He saith not unto Seeds as many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ yet this is not to be understood of Christ Personal but of Christ Mystical as in 1 Cor. 12. 12. And so 't is to be understood of the Visible Church of which Infants Born of Believing Parents are a part Answered p. 61 62. Obj. 13. In the Commission Mat. 28. The Apostles are commanded to teach or disciple all Nations Baptizing them But Infants are Disciples and therefore to be Baptized Answered from p. 62 to 65. Obj. 14. The Infants of Believers even while they are Infants are capable of being made Partakers of the Inward Grace of Baptism as well as grown Men. And therefore they ought to receive the outward Sign of Baptism Answered p. 65. Obj. 15. Our Saviour tells us that unto such belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven If Children therefore are capable of the greater then they are capable of the lesser If capable of a Membership in the Kingdom then of the Sign and Cognisance thereof But the first is true Ergo the latter Answered p. 65 66. Obj. 16. The Gospel took place just as the Old Administration did by bringing in whole Families together When Abraham was taken in his whole Family was taken in So in this New Administration usually if the Master of the House turned Christian the whole Family came in and were Baptiz'd with him The whole Houshold of Cornelius the first Converted Gentile Act. 11. 14. The Houshold of Stephanus The Houshold of Lydia The Houshold of the Jaylor Answered from p. 66. to 69. Obj. 17. As there is no Express Command or Example in the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Infants So neither is there any concerning the Baptism of Persons at Age whose Parents were Christians when they were Born and who have been educated from their Childhood in the Christian Religion The Scripture giving no Account of the Baptism of any in the Apostle's days but such as were Converted from Judaism or Paganism to Christianity And therefore the Baptizing of Infants is as Lawful as the Baptism of such there being no Express Warrant or Example in the Scripture for the one more than for the other And if a just Consequence may be admitted for the proof of the one why not for the other also You are wont to reject all Scripture Consequences in Respect of Infants Baptism and yet here you must of Necessity admit of the same So that this Argument therefore returns upon your selves Answered from p 69 to 71 Obj 18. Infants were by God's Express Command to be Circumcised under the former Administration and all God's Commands about his Institutions then according to the Rule of Analogy or Proportion are equally binding unto us as well as to the Jews then As in the Case of the Christian Sabbath unto us which the Fourth Commandment binds us as it did the Jews to the former And thus it is in Reference to Infants Baptism In Respect of which though there is no Express Command to that Purpose recorded in the New Testament yet we cannot but conclude that God's Command unto the Jews to Circumcise their Infants under the Law carries with it the force at least of a virtual Command unto us to Baptize ours Answered p. 71 72 73. Obj. 19. If the
not only to the Father but to the Children yea to all his Family And the Father of the Family did not only give Himself but all his Children and even his Servants all His to GOD to take his Sign upon them and so it must be now To which We Reply that it is indeed the unspeakable Blessedness of the Believing Gentiles to be Graffed in upon such a Stock not upon the Legal Branch but upon the Root Olive which affordeth all the Nourishment that either the Jews had or the Gentiles have that Root Olive being no other than Christ Himself who was given for a Covenant of the People and a Light to Lighten the Gentiles The Gospel of whose Grace was indeed Preached to Abraham 430 Years at least before the Law was given But what then Doth it therefore follow that the Believing Gentiles are put into that very State of things as under Circumcision Where is that Scripture that affirms it Evident it is that though Circumcision was in use before as well as under the Law and though Jesus Christ Himself is by the Apostle Stiled the Minister of the Circumcision for the Truth of God to confirm the Promises made unto the Fathers yet as it cannot be denied but that it was adopted into the Legal Family And that it was also adopted unto the Nature and Quality of the Legal Dispensation So it is as evident that it is now Abolished And we can meet with no one Text in all the New Testament that tells us that Baptism is appointed to have the same Place and Vse in the Church of God that Circumcision had but rather much to the contrary as hath been already proved And it being manifest that the External Administration of the Covenant is changed to what it was in Abraham's Time it plainly follows that there is an Alteration of the Rule that must direct us in our Practice in that Respect Obj. 2. If this Interpretation hold good there would be a very great Change in the Extent of the Covenant narrower under the Gospel than it was under the Law and yet no notice in all the Book of God given of such a Change We Reply First That the Covenant of Grace hath one and the same Extent before under and since the Law in Respect of the Substance of it or considered singly in its self as hath been already declared In Respect of the Administration of it indeed it is Changedble and hath been often Changed Secondly we say that the Administration under the Gospel is not narrower than that under the Law because it admits not Infants Baptism The Administration under the Law was Circumscribed to a little Land and a small People the Bounds of the other are stretched from Sea to Sea and from the River to the ends of the Earth That was restrained to the Seed and Family of Abraham the other extends to the Seed and Family of Christ That had its Existence but 2000 Years upon an Occasional Temporary Principle the other is suited to Answer a Principle existing from Everlasting to Everlasting That Administration was the Shadow Figure and Example the other the Substance That was the Handmaid the other the Mistress And if the Case be thus between these two Administrations can we Reasonably Charge the Gospel Administration with more narrowness than the Law because of the Discontinuance of the Birth-Priviledge Thirdly Although the Grace of the Gospel be extended far beyond the Grace under the Law yet as to Persons the Children of the Gospel are formed to so strict and refined a Qualification that in that Respect we grant that the Law had a Latitude beyond the Gospel But yet with this Mark that the Indulgence of the Law was one of the great Imperfections which the Gospel came to Reform Mat. 3. 10 11 12. And of this Change the Book of God doth give abundant Notice Gen. 21. 10. Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son c. Shortly after the Institution of the Ordinance of Circumcision for the Priviledge of the Seed according to the Flesh The Lord brings forth a Prophetical Instance in the very Family of Abraham wherein this great Change of Church Priviledge was revealed viz. That it was to be taken from the Carnal Seed and that it should be given to the Seed according to Grace under the Gospel Administration And to put that matter out of Question we have the unvailing of this Prophetical Instance to the very same purpose in Gal. 4. 30. So also Isa 14. 1. Sing O Barren thou that bearest not What she was the Apostle tells us Gal. 4. 26 27. ver 5. Thy Maker is thy Husband the Lord of Hosts is his Name and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel At ver 13. We have the Refined Qualification of her Children and People And all thy Children shall be Taught of the Lord Where we have a Prophetical Description of the Gospel Church State which the People of a Fleshly Extraction only from the most sanctified Saints cannot possible compare unto It must therefore necessarily be understood of another Seed even of a Seed begotten of God by the Word of Truth Jam. 1. 18. the Gospel People And this was a fair Notice given of the Change in Question to wit narrower as to the Qualifications of the Persons but more extended in Grace Another fair warning for the Fleshly Seed is Isa 65. 15. For the Lord God shall slay thee and call his People by another Name In all which we find plain notice given of the Change of the Old Administration which gloried in the Seed of Abraham after the Flesh and as plainly foretelling the Cessation of that Propagation to give place to the New Administration and the true Seed of Abraham the Seed according to the Spirit And indeed the Change of the Administration necessarily removes the fleshly Seed because it hath a standing by no other Right than what it had under that Covenant As for the New Testament it every where abounds with Evidence to the Proof hereof as appears from the several Scriptures that have in part been already opened and discussed in the former part of this Discourse Wherein it hath been proved that though Infants were comprehended with their Parents in the Jewish Church yet none but such as are capable of making an Actual Profession of Faith and Repentance with some competent Measure of Fruitfulness answerable thereunto are to be admitted to the Priviledge of Church-Membership under the Gospel To this purpose we are told Mat. 3. 7. That when many of the Pharisees and Sadduces came to be Baptized of John Though their being of the Natural Seed of Abraham was a sufficient ground why they should be Circumcised yet it was no sufficient ground why they should be Baptized And therefore their Birth-Priviledge notwithstanding John rejects them as a Generation of Vipers and bids them bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance 'T is true those that John had now to deal with were Men at
Spiritual We say not For it is plain there was no such Inquisition concerning the good or bad qualities the Fruitfulness or Unfruitfulness of the Members of the former Church in 〈◊〉 to Admission thereinto It was enough barely to be of Abraham's Seed or Family to be so esteemed But now saith John the Axe is laid unto the Root of the Trees And they must all be hewn down under the Gospel that have nothing else to pretend unto but that of a Godly Parentage which plainly excludes Infants as well as all other unfruitful Branches from the Gospel Church And to this same purpose is it that he doth further assure them ver 12. That Jesus Christ was now resolved with the Gospel Fan to Purge thoroghly the Floor of the Gospel Church and to gather the Wheat into His Garner Under the Law and before also even in Abrahmam's time the Chaff and the Wheat remained together unsevered but now the Fan must go to Work We read of no such Fanning Work in the former Church state And to what purpose is it else that Christ told the Woman of Samaria as he doth Jo. 4. 23. The Hour cometh and now is when the true Worshippers shall Worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth For the Father seeketh such to Worship Him Which plainly sheweth that God expecteth now greater Purity Exactness and Spirituality in such as were to approach His Presence in the Celebration of Gospel Worship And indeed of this the whole fifth of Mat. is a sufficient and convincing Proof giving clear evidence concerning the refinedness and spirituality of the Gospel Administration above and beyond that of the Law For then saith our Saviour it was thus and thus but I am come to tell you a New Doctrine and do call you up to greater Purity and Strictness § 4. Secondly We Answer That that Holiness which was ascribed unto the whole Body of the Jewish Nation was a Typical Ceremonial Holiness and was no other than was ascribed to the whole Land City Temple Altar and divers other things and is therefore now Abolished For if all things under the Law were but a Figure and Shadow of good things to come then such was the Holiness of the Jewish Nation and People also Now this the Apostle in the 9th and 10th Chapters to the Hebrews proves at large shewing that all things under the Law all the Priviledges of the Old Covenà nt with all the Perquisites Dependancies and Appurtenances thereunto belonging are called by such Names as make them evidently appear to be Typical As First they are called a Figure Heb. 9. 9. Which was a Figure for the time then present So verse 24. For Christ is not Entered into the Holy Place made with Hands which are the Figures of the true Secondly They are called a Pattern Heb. 9. 23. It was necessary that the Pattern of things in the Heavens c. Thirdly They are called a Shadow Heb. 10. 1. For the Law having a Shadow of good things to come and not the very Image of the thing◠c. Now the Holiness of the Jewish Nation being an Appurtenance belonging to the Law or the Old Covenant It was but a Figure Pattern or Shadow of all good things to come and was therefore Typical and is now Abolished And if we will know what the Holiness of the Jewish Nation did serve to Typifie or Represent unto us It is evident that as it Typified the Holiness of Christ himself So of all Abraham's Spiritual Seed who are made Holy by Believing in Christ § 5. The Time of Reformation therefore spoken of in the forementioned Scripture Heb. 9. 8 9 10. being come wherein those Imperfect Gifts and Sacrifices with all those Carnal Ordinances which were for a Season Imposed on the Jewish Nation were to be done away and the Gospel-Church taking place in the Room thereof It cannot rationally be supposed but the one doth far exceed the other at least in Purity and Inward Glory For by how much Christ hath now obtained a more excellent Ministry than that of Moses and by how much also he is the Mediatour of a better Covenant Which is Established upon better Promises as the Apostle affirmes Heb. 8. 6. By so much of necessity must the gospell Church exceed in lustre beauty Refinedness and Spirituality the former Administration SECT VIII THE Second Argument in Mr. Allen's Book remaining to be Answered is this That all Persons and so little Children that were of the Legal Church must needs in one Respect or other have been Persons of a Religious or Spiritual Consideration And this considered saith he I know not upon what better to place the Visible Church-Membership of Infants or to Attribute it to than God's Electing and Calling them to his People and their Parents Dedicating and Devoting them to God and his Service And the Scripture useth to reckon little Children as having begun to do this or that when they are but placed in Circumstances that will bring them to it Actually in the Issue And thus the Children of the Kohathites of a Month Old were numbred with their Fathers as with them keeping the charge of the Sanctuary when they were but in a way of being trained up to it And for the same Reason little Children were said to enter into Covenant with God when their Parents did so Deut. 29. 11 12 § 2. To this we Answer First By granting that it was in a Religious Consideration that Children were then Admitted Members of the Legal Church But yet it doth not therefore follow that they are to be admitted Members of the Gospel-Church for the Reasons before rendered The Terms of Admission into that being far more strict and Spiritual than were those under the Law Secondly Whereas he tells us That the Reason of their Admission into the Legal Church was God's Electing and Calling them to that Priviledge This we also grant But then we also say that though the Call and Election of God in Reference to the Inward Substance of the Covenant of Grace or to an Invisible Membership in the Invisible Church is Invariable It doth not follow that the Gifts and Callings of God in Reference to External Membership are therefore also Invariable or Irrevokable as is afterward by Mr. Allen Asserted and unto which we have already in the Second Part of this Discourse given a sufficient Answer For we find by undeniable Evidence that those External Gifts and Priviledges that the Natural Posterity of Abraham were once Invested with are now Rescinded Repealed and Repented of and it cannot be affirmed that in any Religious Capacity whatsoever they are now at all owned by God as his Church and People as once they were neither Parents nor Children But for the most part remain broken off and Unchurched to this Day And if you say That they and their Children being broken off We and our Children are Ingraffed in their Room This is that which remains to be proved and indeed the
can be a more plain Description of a Covenant of Works and that of God's own Designation and Appointment And that not in the way of a Partial imperfect Obedience But as it is Written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. which the Apostle quotes from Deut. 27. 26. Cursed be be that Confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them And all the People shall say Amen § 3. So that the Jews were right enough in their Notion concerning the Law in reference to the true Nature thereof that it was indeed a Covenant of Works For Paul doth plainly acknowledge it to be such and God himself by the Mouth of his Servant Moses as plainly expresseth it so to be in the very first Sanction of it though they were out in respect of its proper use and intention which was not that any should attain unto Life and Righteousness thereby but as we have before observed to shew them the Nature of Sin and the Holiness and Righteousness of God to convince them of their Sin and Misery without Christ and their necessity therefore of a Saviour which they being ignorant of and still going about to Establish their own Righteousness which was of the Law and refusing to submit themselves unto the Righteousness of God which was now Manifested without the Law as it had been before Witnessed by the Law and the Prophets They Stumbled at that Stumbling-stone and were accordingly Broken and Snared and Taken Rom 9. 31 32 33. Chap. 10. 3. And this was the true ground of the Dispute between the Apostle and them § 4. But all this notwithstanding it is evident that the Law was a Covenant of Works still And it is also as evident that it was Appointed and Established by God as a distinct Covenant from the Promise of Grace and essentially different therefrom under which the Natural Posterity of Abraham were for a Season to be Subjected until the time appointed of the Father Gal. 4. 1 2 c. as the Fruit of infinite Wisdom who thought fit to impose this Burthen upon them notwithstanding or rather Additional unto those Discoveries of Grace For the Law is said to have been Added unto the Promise that had been otherwise Revealed unto them and whereby they were Saved So that the forementioned Objection notwithstanding it still remains Firm and Unshaken that the Law was no other than a Covenant of Works So it was designed and appointed by God himself and constantly in the Scripture is it Represented to us under that Character SECT V. BUt whereas the Apostle tells us that the Law is not against the Promises Gal. 3. 21. Mr. Sedgwick will needs hence conclude that the Law was not a Covenant of Works For saith he The Law is not against the Promises nor doth Faith make void the Law Both these can very well agree together but so they could not if the Law had been given as a Covenant of Works For now the Law would be Expresly against the Promises and Faith will certainly make void the Law The Promises of God are contrary to a Covenant of Works and Faith is Destructive to a Covenant of Works If therefore the Promises and Faith and the Law can consist then the Law cannot be set up as a Covenant of Works § 2. To this we Reply First That it ought to be duly Observed that the Law and the Promise having divers ends it doth not therefore follow that there is an Inconsistency between them For although there is nothing that can be clearer than this That the Law was set up and appointed by God as a Covenant of Works to the Jews to convince them of Sin and the necessity of a Saviour yet did God never intend it as a Means to give Life and Righteousness nor was it able so to do The end of the Primise was to give Life Righteousness Justification and Salvation all by Christ to whom and concerning whom it was made But this was not the end for which the Covenant of Works was Revived in the Covenant of Sinai For although in its self it requires a perfect Righteousness and gives a promise of Life thereon He that doth these things shall live in them yet it could give neither Righteousness nor Life to any in a State of Sin Rom. 8. 3. Chap. 10. 4. Wherefore the Promise and the Law having divers ends they are not contrary to one another Nay rather the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works instead of being against the Promise it tends to the Establishment of it by declaring the Impossibility of obtaining Reconciliation and Peace with God any other way but by the Promise For representing the Commands of the Covenant of Works requiring perfect Sin-less Obedience under the Penalty of the Curse it convinced Men that this was no way for Sinners to seek for Life and Salvation by And herewith it so urged the Consciences of Men that they could have no Rest nor Peace in themselves but what the Promise would afford them whereunto therefore they saw a necessity of betaking themselves So that though we affirm the Law to be no other than a Covenant of Works as the Apostle himself doth yet it doth not therefore follow that it is against the Promise it having so Blessed a Subserviency toward the Establishment thereof § 3. Secondly though the Apostle doth indeed tell us Gal. 3. 21. That the Law is not against the Promises The following Words do sufficiently clear his Meaning to be of quite another Nature than Mr. Sedgwick in his forementioned Discourse apprehends it to be Mr. Sedgwick indeed will by no-means allow that the Law was set up as a Covenant of Works and then it must of necessity follow that it is a Covenant of Faith But the Apostle seems to be of another mind For having told us ver 18. That if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise But God gave it to Abraham by Promise And having answered the Question or Objection ver 19. Wherefore then serveth the Law To which himself gives this Resolution That it was added because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made He brings in this further Objection ver 21. against what he had before Asserted viz. That if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise c. Is the Law then against the Promises God forbid saith he For if there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe In the first place then it is Evident and Undeniable that Abraham's Inheritance was not derived unto him through the Law For saith our Apostle If the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise
to be never so small a transgression though in the least Circumstance the Curse of the Law presently took hold upon them and that without mercy For as James saith Whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one Point he is guilty of all And accordingly the Curse of the Law was pronounced upon every one that continued not in all things therein contained to do them This is the true Scope and Tenor even of the Ceremonial Covenant it self to all under it that were not relieved by the Grace of the Gospel § 7. Wherefore though it is plain that the Law written in Stones and the Book wherein the Statutes and Judgments were contained were two distinct Covenants and delivered at distinct Seasons and in a distinct Method the one with the other without a Mediator the one dedicated with Blood and Sprinkling the other that we read of not so dedicated yet it is as clear from the Premises that they were both of the same Nature that is no other than a Covenant of Works and accordingly both now Repealed and that under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant which was of a decaying vanishing nature Heb. 8. ult And accordingly though the Blood of the Legal Sacrifices wherewith the Ceremonial Covenant was dedicated was plainly Typical of the Blood of Christ yet forasmuch as the Apostle informs us it could not take away sins nor make the Comers thereunto perfect as pertaining to the Conscience Heb. 9. 9. Chap. 10. 1 4. That Covenant therefore which was dedicated only by the Blood of such Sacrifices could never be a Covenant of Grace properly so called which hath Christ alone for the Mediator thereof and was confirmed only by his Blood and Sufferings for us but of Works § 8. Besides If the Ceremonial Covenant which was thus dedicated by Blood and Sprinkling had been indeed a Covenant of Grace and confirmed also by the Blood of Christ why should it be Repealed as we know it was as well as the Law written in Stones which is said to be now done away Is it possible that a Covenant of Grace confirmed by the Blood of Christ should ever be Repealed Or why did God appoint the New Covenant to succeed it which was Really so Confirmed and which is also opposed thereunto as another Covenant and of a quite different Nature Unless we shall say that there were two Covenants of Grace Confirmed by the Blood of Christ the one whereof was of a faulty accaying vanishing Nature as the First Covenant is by the Spirit of God himself described which to affirm would be perfectly to Contradict the whole Scope of the Scriptures § 9. The Blood of those Sacrifices therefore wherewith the Ceremonial Covenant was dedicated together with the rest of the Types that were then afforded served only as an Example Figure and Shadow of Heavenly things They were not as the Apostle speaks The Heavenly things themselves Heb. 9. 23. For the Law saith he Heb. 10. 1 c. having a shadow of good things to come and not the very Image of the things can never with those Sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the Commers thereunto perfect For then they should not have ceased to be Offered because that the Worshippers once purged should have had no more Conscience of Sins But in these Sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of Sins every year For it is not possible that the Blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away Sins All those Sacrifices therefore could never amount to the value of the Blood of Christ And accordingly that Covenant though dedicated by Blood and Sprinkling was no other than a Covenant of Works for as much as it was not confirmed by the Blood of Christ For if it had it would have made the Commers thereunto Perfect as pertaining to the Conscience which it did not § 10. Besides the Apostle expresly tells us That Christ hath obtained a more Excellent Ministry than that of Moses by how much also he is the Mediator of a Better Covenant which was Established upon better Promises Heb. 8. 6. Which Better Covenant the Apostle doth plainly oppose unto the First or Old Covenant vers 7 8 9 13. From whence it plainly follows that Christ was not the Mediator of the First or Old Covenant unless we shall say that he was the Mediator of two Covenants a Better and a Worse And consequently it doth as plainly follow that the First Covenant was no other than a Covenant of Works since neither was Christ the Mediator of it nor did he ever shed his Blood for the Confirmation thereof SECT IX HAving thus far considered Mr. Obadiah Sedgwick's Arguments wherewith he labours to prove that the Sinai Covenant was not a Covenant of Works but of Grace We should next have considered Mr. Francis Roberts his Arguments also to the same purpose in his large Discourse upon the Covenants But that the most substantial part of them have been already dispatcht in the Answers we have returned to Mr. Sedgwick's Arguments Onely we cannot but take notice of two grand Absurdities which Mr. Roberts and all others who Assert that the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Faith do and cannot but unavoidably run into and fasten upon the Scriptures on that Hypothesis The first is this Whereas Mr. Roberts pretending to Answer several Objections which are urged by way of opposition to his forementioned Doctrine the Fourth Objection which he mentions pag. 769. of his forementioned Discourse runs thus § 2. Object 4. The Sinai Covenant is opposed by the Prophet Jeremy and by the Apostle Paul to the New Covenant and is said to be broken by the People of Israel Jer. 31. 31 32 c. Heb. 8. 8 9 10. Therefore it is not a Covenant of Faith which is everlasting and cannot be broken But a Covenant of works which is but Temporary and liable to be broken This is indeed a substantial Argument or Objection against what he Asserts But how substantially answered may appear by what follows For thus he returns thereunto These Premises saith he will not bear this Conclusion for first though the Sinai Covenant made with Israel when God brought them out of the Land of Egypt is said to be unlike or not according to the New Covenant yet it is not said either by the Prophet or Apostle to be unlike to the Covenant of Faith § 3. Reply But what a strange Evasion is this And whither will not Men run when left to themselves For is not the New Covenant a Covenant of Faith And therefore when the Sinai Covenant is opposed to the New Covenant is it not plainly opposed to the Covenant of Faith Or shall we make the New-Covenant and the Covenant of Faith opposite and Contradistinct the one from the other as Mr. Roberts plainly doth when he saith that though the Sinai Covenant is opposed to the New Covenant yet it is not opposed to the Covenant of Faith
Therefore that Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works Ninthly That Covenant that is plainly and in direct terms opposed unto Grace cannot be a Covenant of Grace But the Law is by the Apostle directly opposed unto Grace Rom. 6. 14. Sin shall not have Dominion over you For ye are not under the Law but under Grace Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Grace Tenthly That Covenant that was not onely by the Jews Estimated as a Covenant of Works but was so by Gods own Appointment must needs be a Covenant of Works But the Law was not onely by the Jews so Reckoned but by Gods own Appointment it was expresly so designed Lev. 18. 4 5. Deut. 27. 26. Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 10 12. Therefore that Covenant must needs be a Covenant of Works Eleventhly That Covenant through which Abrahams Inheritance was not derived could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle doth expresly tell us That if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise But God gave it to Abraham by Promise Gal. 3. 18. Therefore the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twelfthly That Covenant through which had the Inheritance been conveyed would have made void Faith and made the Promise of none effect could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith But the Apostle doth expresly tell us That if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise made of none effect Rom. 4. 14. Therefore the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith Thirteenthly That Covenant from the Curse whereof we were Redeemed by Christ could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works But the Apostle Informs us That Christ hath Redeemed us from the Curse of the Law himself being made a Curse for us Gal. 3. 13. chap. 4. 4 5. Therefore the Law could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Fourteenthly That Covenant that is set forth by the Apostle as a Ministration of Death and Condemnation could be no other than a Covenant of Works But the Apostle doth assure us that the Law Written in Stones was a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 7 9. Therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works Fifteenthly That Covenant in which 〈◊〉 the Hand writing of Ordinances contained was against us and contrary to us which is therefore now Blotted out and taken out of the way being Nailed to the Cross of Christ could be no other than a Covenant of Works But such is the Nature of the Law Col. 2. 14. 2 Cor. 3. 6 7 8 9. Therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works Sixteenthly That Covenant which when it comes Revives Sin and kills the Sinner And which though it was Ordained to Life is by Experience found to be unto Death could not be a Covenant of Grace But Paul doth expresly tell us That when the Commandment came Sin Revived and he died And the Commandment which was Ordained to Life he found to be unto Death Rom. 7. 9 10. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Seventeenthly That Covenant that is a Bondage Covenant which gendereth to Bondage all whose Children also are in Bondage cannot possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle doth Expresly Inform us that Mount Sinai Covenant is a Bondage Covenant that is gendereth to Bondage and that her Children also are in Bondage Gal. 4. 21 22 23 24 26. Therefore Mount Sinai Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works Eighteenthly That Covenant that admitted not of Faith in the Redeemer nor Repentance of Sin Since Pardon of Sin and Curse for Sin are Inconsistent could not be a Covenant of Grace But the Scripture doth expresly assure us That as many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse For it is Written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Nineteenthly That Covenant that had not Christ for the Mediator of it could never be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle speaking of the Legal Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai tells us That Christ hath obtained a more Excellent Ministry by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant which was Established upon better Promises Heb. 8. 6 7 8. 9. From whence it plainly follows that Christ was not the Mediator of the Legal Covenant Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twentiethly That Covenant that was not Confirmed by the Blood of Christ which alone can cleanse us from all unrighteousness but onely by the Bloud of Bulls and Goats and Calves and the Ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean which onely Sanctified to the Purifying of the Flesh and could never take away Sins nor make him that did the Service perfect as pertaining to the Conscience could not be a Covenant of Faith But the Ceremonial Law was of this Nature and the Sacrifices thereof wherewith alone it was Dedicated Heb. 9. 9 10. 11 12 13 14. Chap. 10. 1 2 3 4 c. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twenty first That Covenant that was not confirmed by the Bloud of Christ No nor so much as by the Bloud of Bulls or Goats or Calves which was plainly Typical thereof could never be a Covenant of Grace but of Works But the Law Written in Stones was so far from being confirmed by the Bloud of Christ that it was never that we read of Dedicated with any other sort of Bloud whatsoever Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Twenty second That Covenant that is Represented to us in the Scripture as a Fiery Burning Law the Proclamation also whereof was attended with dreadful Thunderings and Lightenings with Blackness and Darkness and Tempest And such a Voice of Words as could not be endured which made Moses himself exceedingly to quake and tremble could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But such was the Nature and Quality of the Legal Covenant at Mount Sinai Exod. 20. 18. 19. Deut. 33. 2. Heb. 12. 18 19 20 21. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twenty third That Covenant that is just opposite to the Gospel Covenant which the Scripture represents unto us as a Covenant of Peace and Liberty making a Joyful found and speaking with a small still comfortable and alluring Voice in the Ears and to the Hearts of Sinners that hath also Jesus for the Mediator thereof and speaketh better things than the Bloud of Abel Proclaiming the Lord the Lord God Gracious and Merciful Abundant in Goodness and in Truth forgiving Iniquity