compleatly Justified before God from the Guilt of Original Sin both Originans and Originations and yet when they come to Years of Discretion may yea must by their actual closing with or refusing the Terms of the Covenant either obtain the continuation and confirmation of their Covenant Interest or be utterly and finally cut off from it and so perish Eternally in their Ignorance of God and Rebellion against him Answer To which I must say That they seem to make the Covenant of Grace such a Conditional Covenant that renders it in Nature and Quality like the Sinai Covenant or Covenant of Works i. e. If they perform the Righteousness required they shall live if they Obey not or make not Good this pretended Covenant of Grace they shall dye or be cut off Let our Brethren who are sound in the Doctrine of Free-Grace consider this 2. And as the Promises of the New Covenant will admit of no such partial Interest saith a Learned Author so neither can this Opinion consist with the Analogy of Faith in other Respects for either the stain of Original Sin in these Infanrs is purged and the dominion of Concupiscence in them destroyed when their Guilt is pardoned or it is not if it be then the Case of these Infants in point of Perseverance is the same with Adult Persons that are under Grace by actual Faith and then a final Apostacy from the Grace of the New Covenant must be allowed to befall the one as well as the other notwithstanding all Provisions of that Covenant and Engagement of God therein to make the Promise sure to all the Seed Rom. 4.16 But this the Author will not admit If he say That their Guilt is pardoned but their Natures are not changed or renewed nor the Power of Original Corruption destroyed so as that Sin shall not have Dominion over them it will be replyed That then notwithstanding their supposed Pardon they remain as an unclean Thing and so uncapable of admission into the Kingdom of God Thus this worthy Author 3. To which let me add Certainly if Divine Habits were in those Infants they would immediately be manifested or be sure when they are grown up would appear in them by gracious Operations flowing from thence But since those Acts or Products of such a gracious Habit appear not in them 't is evident they never had them infused 4. All that are in the Covenant of Grace if they live the Fruits of Faith and Holiness will flow naturally from those sacred Habits God hath by his spirit planted in them as heat and light doth from the Fire when 't is kindled on the Hearth The Truth is such who are united to Christ and have Faith in him and so are actually in the Covenant of Grace are also washed and purged from Sin and Pollution see Ezek. 16. Rom. 5.14 Act. 15.10 None can have Union with Christ but by the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit and wheresoever the Spirit of Christ is it applies The Blood of the Covenant not only for Pardon but also for the purging the Conscience from dead Works to serve the living God And therefore as the same Learned Author observes as certain as any derive a New Covenant Rite from Christ for Pardon they also receive a vital Influence from him for the renovation of their Natures and conforming their Souls to his Image Therefore to assert That the Grace of Christ is applied to some for remission of Sins only or that the guilt of any Sin can be pardoned to any Person and yet that Sin retains its Dominion over them is a Doctrine I understand not to be sound or agreeable to the Doctrine that is according to Godliness 5. To conclude with this 't is evident these Men must by their Notion make every believing Parent to be considered in respect of that Covenant made with Abraham a common Head and Father not only to his own natural Seed but to all Believers also as Abraham was and then it would follow that there are as many common Fathers like as Abraham was so called as there are believing Men in the World and so a knowing or knowledge of Men still after the Flesh which the Apostle disclaims 2 Cor. 5. 17. Besides the Thing is usurp'd in it self Therefore let all know That a Believers Right to the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham's or by vertue of that Promise made with him do relate to such a Seed as do believe and not as Co-ordinate with him in Covenant Interest they are not each one by this Covenant made the Father of a Blessed Seed as Abraham was the Father of the Faithful neither can they claim the Promise for themselves and their Seed according to the Tenour of Abraham's Covenant as he might as this Author observes but they must believe as Abraham did or have a Faith of their own For if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham 's seed and heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3 29. This the same Author notes Obj. 7. The Covenant of Circumcision was an Everlasting Covenant therefore it was the Covenant of Grace Answ. I Answer 'T is not unknown to our Opponants that the Hebrew Word for Everlasting sometimes signifies no more then a long continuance of time And so extensive was the Promise of God's peculiar Favours to the natural Seed of Abraham and the original of their Claim there-from that the severity of that Law afterwards given to them was so far restrained as that notwithstanding their manifold breach of Covenant with God and forfeiture of all legal Claim of their Right and Privileges in the Land of Canaan thereby that they were never utterly cut off from that good Land and ceased to be a peculiar People unto God untill the end or period of that time determined by the Almighty was fully come which was the Revealation of the Messiah and the setting up his spiritual Temple under the Dispensation of the Gospel and thus far the Word Everlasting doth extend 'T is said God promised to give the Land of Canaan to Abraham and to his Seed for ever and again Gen. 17.8 for an everlasting Inheritance whereas it is evident they have for many Ages been dispossessed of it Nor may this seem strange if we consult other Texts where the same Terms are used with the like Restriction for the Priesthood of Levi is called an Everlasting Priesthood Numb 25.13 And the Gates of the Temple Everlasting Doors Psal. 24.6 so the Statute to make an Atonement for the Holy Sanctuary and for the Tabernacle and for the Altar and for the Priests and for all the People of the Congregation is called an Everlasting Statute Levit. 16.34 And this shall be for an everlasting statute c. So that from hence 't is very clear that the Word Everlasting is to be taken sometimes with Restriction and referrs to the end of that Dispensation to which the Law Statute or Covenant did belong and when Christ came as
not by our Obedience to God shew forth his Grace in us as well as our Duty of Obedience to him what New Divinity is this Wonder O Heavens Obj. If commanded then the performance of it externally could not make a Change upon their State and Relation towards God any more than the performance of any other Duty Much less could it when not commanded Pag. 45. 1. Answ. Because a Confession of Sin can't make a Change upon our State or Relation to God Must we not make an External Confession of that which God's Spirit hath wrought Internally upon our Souls Or must an External Confession of Sin make a Change and so all other Duties or else not be performed by us 2. It seems to me by your unfound Expressions as if you conceive that an External Confession could make a Change upon our State and Relation to God whereas that makes no Change but only discovers or makes known what a blessed Change the Grace of God hath wrought or made on the Soul Besides it is not Universally true i. e. because a thing is commanded it can't make a Change for sometimes a Command is attended with Power to change the Soul c. Iohn 6.28 Obj. If this say you had been a commanded Duty viz. a Confession of Sin to qualifie them for Baptism then they must not be admitted upon the Account of their being the Children of Abraham nor as the Children of the Promise but the Promise ceases which is notoriously false Rom. 15.8 Pag. 45. 1. Answ. We do not say a bare verbal Confession qualifies any Person for Baptism but inward Grace or Truth Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ this is the only Qualification which ought to be in all the Subjects of Baptism and this Faith must be made manifest by the Confession of the Mouth and the holy Fruits of the Life Hence Iohn required not only a bare verbal Confession which might hold-forth or signifie their Repentance but also saith he You must bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance Don't think to say you have sinned or barely to acknowledge your Iniquities is all I look for No your Lives must make it manifest to me you are changed or regenerated if you would as true Subjects partake of my Baptism for of such my Master's Kingdom is to consist of whose way I am come to prepare i. e. to make ready such a People for him to build his Chnrch with 2. As to your other Reason viz. if a Confession be necessary then their being the Children of Abraham and Children of the Promise was made to cease c. You hit it in that for their being the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh could give them no Right to Gospel Baptism Iohn plainly told them the very same thing for the Gospel has put an End to the Jewish Covenant Right of Admission of Church-Members the Text you mention Rom. 15.8 where 't is said Christ was a Minister of the Circumcision you strangely mistake the Place Christ did not confirm Circumcision nor Infants Right to Church Membership the Holy Ghost means no more then that Christ was a Minister of the Jews as well as of the Gentiles or of the Circumcision as of the Uncircumcision and so speak our Annotators on the place and as to the Promise ceasing see what St. Paul saith Rom. 9.6 Tho' the carnal Seed of Abraham as such are now rejected yet the Promise of God is not made of none Effect For saith he They are not all Israel which are of Israel Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children v. 7. That is they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed v. 8. Can't you see from hence who are the Seed of the Promise Even none else but such who are begotten and born of the Spirit or are in Christ Gal. 3.29 So that what you say is notoriously false Your 9th Reason is the same with the part of your 8th Obj. You say in the tenth and last Place then the Command of Christ that Infants must come to him was and must be null and void Mark 10.13.14.15 Or be a fresh Warrant for their coming to him if John had cast them out Pag. 45. 1. Answ. We deny there was ever any Command of Christ for Infants to be brought or to come to Christ to be baptized 2. That Text in Mark 10.13 14. proves no such thing as you conclude it doth they were brought to Christ 't is true that he might put his hands upon them which was the way he used when he healed People of their bodily Diseases therefore you say right since Iohn or rather Jesus Christ hath cast out the natural Seed of Abraham and the old Covenant too as well as the old Covenant-seed Infant Church-Membership is made null and void unless there had been a fresh Warrant for their Admission i. e. they must be brought in and made Members by an Appointment of Christ or by a new Institution or they must not be admitted at all for the old Covenant-right we have proved is gone for ever As to what you speak in Pag. 32. about the Habit of Grace is nothing to the Purpose these are your words viz. Obj. And if the habit cannot constitute us Members the Acts or Exercise of it can never do it Answ. You do not attempt to prove Infants as such either before Baptism or in being baptized have the Habit of Grace I have shewed in my Answer to Mr. Rothwell that it can't be proved that Infante as such have the Habit of Faith or of Grace neither before nor in Baptism if they had doubtless those Habits would appear some way or another but they do not appear therefore they have no such Habits infused into them all are born in Sin and are Children of Wrath by Nature and Baptism doth not convey Grace nor infuse any sacred Habits What tho' God in a miraculous manner hath sanctified some Infants in the Womb and may sanctifie such Infants that die who are in the Election of Grace do's it from thence follow that all Infants as such or all Infant of Believers as such are so sanctified We read of one Animal that spoke must all Animals speak therefore If you could prove Infants had Grace in the Habit or that it appears they are regenerated you had said something to excuse their inability or disability to make a verbal Confession tho' not so much as you think 't is the Act of Faith that must demonstrate the Habit to us or the Fruits or Product of Grace that those Habits are in those Subjects Christ commands to be baptized non apparentium non existentium eadem est ration they must act must believe must repent or must be actually discipled that Baptism doth belong unto tho' I deny not but that where the Habit of one Grace â—s there is the Habit of every Grace
main Argument pag. 2 3. to prove the Minor thus he argues viz. 2. That Principle which makes the Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works hinders the Propagation of the Christian Religion but the former Principle does so Ergo To prove the Minor of this Argument he adds another viz. That Principle which allows not as great Immunities Benefits and Privileges to the Covenant of Grace as to the Covenant of Works makes the Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works but the Principle that denies Baptism to Infants does so Ergo. Answ. 1. This Gentleman calls these Rational Arguments but I have nothing but his own word for it but to proceed he should have shewed what those Immunities and Benefits were in the Covenant oâ— Works which we by denying Infants Baptism render the Privileges of the Covenant of Grace to be less than those were but do you not intimate hereby that Circumcision belonged to the Covenant of Works and if so in vain do you urge Circumcision as a Privilege and also since the Covenant of Works is abrogated what is there in your Arguments for the baptizing of Infants For all Iewish Rites and Privileges may be forced upon the Christian World by this Argument of yours or else we may say the Privileges of the Gospel are less than the Privileges of the Iews under the Covenant of Works which I have already answered 2. His mentioning that Passage of Calvin is remote to his purpose he speaks of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham not of the Covenant of Works which we say is not curtail'd by Christ's coming but is every way as extensive now as it was from the beginning but we have proved that there was a Two-fold Covenant made with Abraham and that Circumcision did appertain to his Natural Seed as such and so part of the legal Covenant Obj But the Commission Mat. 28.19 you say is as full or rather more beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works and consequently that the baptizing of Infants is a Christian Duty for had there been as general a Commission given by Moses to Twelve Elders of Israel as the Blessed Iesus gave to his Disciples and it had been said to them Go teach all Nations Circumcising them this had been no Prohibition to Circumcise the Iewish Children c. Ans. 1. Is this that the Mountains have brought forth we were big in Expectation by your Title Page wondering what new Notion or Arguments you had found out from the Commission Mat. 28.19 20. or what your different Method should be to prove Infant Baptism But truly Sir the Log is still too heavy you cannot lift it up I see nothing new in your whole Tract nor any thing but what has been answered but this being the main Pin upon which all hangs I shall give a brief Reply to you 1. I thank you for your plain and just Concession I see you conclude and grant Circumcision did belong to the Covenants or Works I doubt not but you are right so far and with that your Cause is gone and Calvin and all that came after him have said nothing in calling Circumcision a Gospel Covenant 2. But Sir suppose the People of Israel had never been commanded by the Lord to Circumcise their Children till Moses came and Moses had given such a Commission that you mention viz. to teach all Nations Circumcising them do you think they would have had ground from thence to have circumcised their Infants whereas his Circumcision required the teaching of all Nations first before they were circumcised of which Infants were not capable 3. 'T is evident that our Saviour in his Great Commission enjoineth no more to be baptized but such who are first taught or made Disciples and this agrees with his own Practice Joh. 4.1 he made and baptized more Disciples than John he first made them Disciples and then baptized them nor were there any baptized in the New Testament but such who first professed Faith in the Lord Jesus See our Answer to Mr. Burkit which I sent you Also our Answer to the Athenian Society this is there fully spoken unto 4. If the Commission be so extensive as you intimate Why do you not go or stir up some Ministers to go into all Heathen and Pagan Nations and Baptise them and their Children and so that way make them all Christians You may teach them the Christian Doctrine i. e. Faith and Repentance afterwards as you do your Children but the Truth is there is no need to teach them afterwards the way of Faith and Regeneration if your Doctrine be true because the chief Thing they received in Baptism you say is divine Grace viz. Regeneration Adoption and a Title to the Inheritance of eternal Life p. 20. Sure those divine Habits can never be lost Reader take what this Man says farther on this Respect Obj. But you say we neither regard nor consider the chief Thing in Baptism viz. The Testification or Witness of the divine Benevolence taking them into Covenant Protection and Patronage and conferring and bestowing Grace upon them for in Baptism the chief Thing is divine Grace which consists and stands in the remission pardon and forgiveness of Sins in Adoption or Sonship and in a Right and Title to the Inheritance of Eternal Life of which Grace Infants stand in need and are as capable as the Adult c. p. 20. Answ. This is such Doctrine that few Paedo-Baptists besides your self do assert or believe but What Proof do you give us to confirm it from God's Word You say right we do not regard it indeed Doth Baptism do all this 'T is wonderful How conferr Grace and give Pardon and Eternal Life You Ministers of the Church of England if this be so can do as strange things as the Popish Priests in Transubstantiation you can by sprinkling a little Water on the Face of a Babe it appears change the evil and vitious Habits form Christ in the Soul raise the Dead to Life and of a Child of Wrath make a Child of God It grieves me to think a Man called a Minister of the Gospel should teach such corrupt Doctrine and deceive the Ignorant For as it is without Scripture-Evidence nay contrary to it for God's Word that tells us Baptism washes not away the Filth of the Flesh that is the Corruption of depraved Nature so 't is contrary to Reason and without any rational Demonstration as Reverend Stephen Charnock tho' a Paedo-Baptist shews Many Men saith he take Baptism for Regeneration The Ancients usually give it this Term one calls our Saviour's Baptism his Regeneration This conferrs not Grace but engageth to it outward Water cannot convey inward Life How can Water an external Thing work upon the Soul in a Physical manner neither can it be proved That ever the Spirit of God is tyed by any Promise to apply himself to the Soul in gracious Opperations when
Infants have from thence a Right to Baptism they have also as much Right to the Lord's Supper great part of your Book is answered in these preceding Sermons But to proceed 2. Is it not said he Preached the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins Mark 1.4 Do you suppose he did not require of such that came to his Baptism first to repent or that he would Baptize them for Remission of Sins without manifesting their Repentance nay and did he not refuse to baptize such he found who did not bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance or Works that were the proper Product of true Repentance Mat. 3.8 you would with your Brother Rothwell have Persons be first made Christians by Baptism and then afterwards bring forth Fruits of Repentance but this 't is evident was not the Doctrine nor Practice of Iohn the Baptist nor of Christ and his Apostles If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest Act. 8. He that truly repented and did believe might nay ought to be Baptised and none else Obj. May be you will say that respects the Adult Answ. I Answer There is no Account given of any Infant that was Baptised no Precept no President and that is forbidden which is not Commanded or for the Practice of which there is no Ground or Rule â—rom God's Word for all humane Innovations and Inventions of Men are forbid and sinful I doubt not but if a Man would try his Wit he might say as much for Infants to receive the Lord's-Supper as you have said for the Baptising of them Pray consider what you your self speak in p. 1. And if all must be Acccepters or Rejecters then all and every individual Persâ—â— are under and must have as great Express particular and authoritive Command to accept and receive Christ and every Thing of Christianity in its Right Order and Manner as another p. 1. Tho' you bring this for to prove Infants must be Baptised and so receive Jesus Christ yet I must tell you it quite overthrows all you strive to do For 1. Where is there an express particular and authoritive Command for them to receive Christ by Baptism or any Ordinance or Principle of Christianity whilst Infants And where is there any Rule or Order in all the New Testament that the Adult must first Believe and then be Baptized but Infants must be first Baptised and then Believe Sir God's Word knows nothing of the last and the Right of Baptism only depends upon Christ's positive Precept and Example of the Apostolical Church 2. I affirm That Infants cannot be said as such to be Receivers of Christ nor Rejectors of him because they are capable to do neither nor is there any other way taught in the Gospel of receiving Christ but by Faith He that is Baptised who hath no Grace no true Grace true Faith is but a Baptised Infidel Obj. You Object Infants have the the Habit of Faith or the Habit of Grace Answ. We deny it see how you can prove it i. e. That Infants as such have the Habit of Faith Who is able to know that What tho' God may change the Hearts of some dying Infants or some who did live were sanctified in the Womb Doth it from thence follow all Infants in common or as such haâ—e their Hearts changed or are so sanctified 2. You are to prove That sacred Habits infused by the Holy Ghost may be utterly lost for 't is evident Infants that live when grown up tho' Baptised have no other Habits then such have who never were Baptised How can you prove There can be the Divine Habits of Grace in Infants and yet those Habits lie still as dead in them for so many Years as 't is from the time they are Baptised to their Conversion A sacred Habit is a Principle of divine Life yea a most active and lively Principle Can the weakness of Nature hinder the Operations of the Holy Ghost in Infants when the Power of the Devil can't in the Adult When God works who can let Can there be fire and no heat Sure such a mighty Cause would have like weighty Effect on the Souls of Children were it as you suppose Obj You say p. 10. we must prove no Infant is Converted or else grant some Infants to be there that is John did Baptise Infants Answ. You mistake your Work it is to prove what you affirm We are not to prove a Negative yet I shall now prove that Iohn the Baptist did Baptise no Infants but only the Adult Arg. 1. If Iohn Baptist required Repentance of all those that came to be Baptised by him and Infants are not capable to Repent then he did not Baptise any Infants But Iohn Baptist did require Repentance of all such that came to be Baptized of him Ergo He bad them Repent Repentance was his grand Doctrine and he also exhorted them to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance Mat. 3.8 Arg. 2. If the being the Seed of Abraham as such or the Off-spring of Believers would not give the Jews a Right to Iohn's Baptism then Iohn Baptised no Infants But the former is true Ergo I have proved largely in this Treatise That the Covenant made with Abraham's natural Seed as such would not give any of his Off-spring Right to Gospel Baptism Think not to say within your selves ye have Abraham to your Father If you Answer this Argument you must Answer this small Treatise Arg. 3. If the Covenant for the external In-Covenanting of Infants as such is Abrogated and the Fleshly Seed cast out by the Establishing the Gospel Covenant then Iohn Baptist Baptised no Infants But the former is true Ergo This Argument is largely proved in the precedent Discourse Arg. 4. If Infant-Baptism does them no good there being no Promise of Blessing made to them in their Baptism then Iohn Baptist Baptised no Infants But Infants Baptism does them no good there being no Promise of Blessing made to them in their Baptism Ergo. If it does them good or there is a Promise of Blessing made to them in their Baptism prove it since 't is deny'd But to proceed Arg 5. If the Baptism of the Adult who have no Faith no Grace doth them no good nor can convey Grace to them then it cannot do Infants as such any good But the former is true Ergo What good did Simon Magus his Baptism do him or Iudas's who no doubt was Baptised If you can prove Baptism conveys Grace to Infants or makes them Christians do it for I utterly deny it and have a cloud of Witnesses on my side among found Protestant Writers Consult with Mr. Rothwell on this Point Arg. 6. If all those Iohn Baptist Baptised confessed their Sins and Infants can't confess their Sins then Iohn Baptist Baptised no Infantâ— But the former is true Ergo This Argument you endeavor to Answer p. 36.37 You would know what Confession it was which they made of their Sins whether Verbal or Moral 'T is
Mr. Cary as if it was impossible for the Saints to be under the Covenant of Works under the former Dispensation and yet in the Covenant of Grace for I would know Whether or not they were not at that time under the Ministration of that Covenant but what tho' no sooner did they believe in Christ the Promised Seed but they were delivered from the Curse of the Law Nor is this any strange Thing For are not all now in these Days under the Dispensation of the Gospel yet untill Men and Women believe in Christ they abide still under the Curse of the Law of the First Covenant for Christ is not the end of the Law to all the World so as some erroneously assert i. e. all are justified in God's sight from the Curse of the Law but he is only the end of the Law touching Righteousness to every one that beleiveth to them and to no other Adult Person Therefore Men might be under the outward Dispensation of the Law of Works and yet through Faith be Justified and also others may be and are now under the Dispensation of the Gospel and yet for not believing in Christ be Condemned and under the Curse of the Law For the Gospel is not the Cause of our Sickness but our Cure none believing is the refusal of the Medicine So that there 's no Reason for him to say because we assert this That the Godly under that Dispensation hung mid-way betwixt Life and Death Justification and Condemnation and after Death mid-way betwixt Heaven and Hell p. 180. Therefore as all that lived under the Dispensation of the Law or Covenant of Works were saved by Faith in the Promise of Christ or by the Covenant of Grace Abraham saith our Saviour saw my Day and was glad so without Faith or Interest in Christ such that live under the Dispensation of the Gospel cannot be saved nor are they delivered from the Curse of the Law or Covenant of Works Therefore to conclude with this 't is evident the Covenant of Works though but one as to the substance of it yet there was several Ministrations of it as it was given also upon different Ends and Designs by the Lord And therefore because the said Covenant of Works was first given to Adam by vertue of which he was accepted and justified in his Innocency Could not God give forth a Second Addition Ministration or Transcript of his Righteousness and Holy Law requiring perfect Obedience though not to Justification yet to aggravate their Sin and so to their just Condemnation And doth not the Apostle assert the same Thing Rom. 3.19 20. compared with Rom. 7.13 Gal. 3.19 But saith Bishop Usher Quest. Doth not God wrong to Men to require of him that he is not able to perform Answ. He Answers No for God made Man so that he might have performed it but he by Sin spoiled himself and Posterity of those Gifts Therefore To proceed I do affirm That always generally when the Apostle speaks of the Old Covenant or Covenant of Works he passes by in silence the Covenant made with Adam and more immediately and directly applies it unto the Sinai Covenant and to that of Circumcision as all careful Readers who read the Epistles to the Romans Galatians and to the Hebrews may clearly find And farther to evince the Truth we contend for 't is evident That although there is and ever was but one Covenant of Grace yet nothing is more plain then that there were several distinct Additions of it altho' we say the Promise or Gospel Covenant was one and the same in all Ages in respect of the Things promised with the Nature and Quality thereof which is a free and absolute Covenant without Works or Conditions of foreseen Acts of Obedience or Righteousness done by the Creature whatsoever Rom. 4.5 The Substance and Essential Part of this Gospel Covenant as to the Promises of it is Christ Faith a New Heart Regeneration Remission of Sins Sanctification Perseverance and everlasting Life Yet this Evangelical Covenant had divers Forms Additions or Transcripts of it which signified those Things and the various Sanctions by which it was given forth and confirmed To Adam the Promise of it was under the Name Of the Seed of the Woman bruising the Head of the Serpent To Enoch Noah c. in other Terms To Abraham under the Name of His Seed in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed To Moses by the Name of A great Prophet among his Brethren and it was signified also unto him under dark Shadows and Sacrifices Unto David under the Name of A Successour in his Kingdom To other Prophets more clearer still made known Unto as a Child is born a Woman shall compass a Man a New Covenant I will make c In the New Testament in plain Words We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord 2 Cor. 3.18 But now because there were so many Additions or Ministrations of the Gospel or New Covenant Doth it follow there are so many New Covenants This being so Mr. Flavel hath done nothing to remove Mr. Cary's Arguments but they stand firm For he says not That the Sinai Ministration of the Covenant of Works was ordained to justifie Mankind nor was it possible it could after a Man had sinned and yet in its Nature an absolute Covenant of Works or do for Life or Perish The Man that doeth these Things shall live in them Obj. 9. Circumcision could not oblige the Iews in its own Nature to keep the whole Law because Paul Circumcised Timothy If in the very Nature of the Act it had bound Timothy to keep the Law for Iustification how could it have been Paul's Liberty so to do saith Mr. Flavel which he asserts it was Gal. 2.3 4. p. 226. Answ. 1. That Circumcision did oblige the Jews to keep the whole Law is evident Gal. 5.3 and as I hinted before our Learned Annotators on the said place speak the same Thing positively Take more largely their very Words They were obliged to one Part of the Law they must be obliged to all other Parts of it besides that Circumcision was an owning and professing Subjection to the whole Law c. Obj. But did not the Fathers then by being Circumcised acknowledge themselves Debtors to the Law he Answers Yes they did acknowledge themselves bound to the observation of it and to endure upon the breaking of it the Curse of it but they were discharged from that Obligation by believing in Christ who was made a Curse for them that he might redeem them from the Curse of the Law Thus Pool's Annotations 2. But as to Paul's Circumcising Timothy it was when he knew Circumcision was abolished and therefore it could not oblige him Paul well knew to keep the Law Sith no Law in its own Nature can oblige any Person according to the Nature and Quality of it when 't is abrogated and in no force tho' he saw