he drives at is this There were some in the Covenant of Grace which were not circumcised nor under an Obligation to be circumcised Now in Answer to this I would only demand of Mr. G. Whether he is sure the Covenant now entred with Abraham was so far promulgated as that the Persons he talks of had knowledg of it Or suppose they had some notice of it Whether their Duty to be circumcised was made known unto them Either of these things being granted how their not being circumcised should intimate that this Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace nor Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance is as much above the Reason of Man to apprehend as the former I would commend to Mr. G. the Case of Cornelius in Acts 10. the latter end There is only one thing more that I would take notice of in Mr. G's Discourse And thus he argues against that Covenant its being a Covenant of Grace from the Date of the Promise But I have returned so satisfactory an Answer to that in my Answer to Mr. Cox that I shall and no more see p. 97 and so on I shall now come to what Mr. Cary hath said in pursuance of the same Design namely to prove That that Covenant Gen. 17.7 is not the Covenant of Grace but on the other hand that it is the Old Covenant or a Covenant of Works only I shall premise that at present I design not a full Answer of his Book that I have already done in my Answer to Mr. Cox Neither do I know how I could more effectually answer his Book than by laying down and proving those three Propositions there laid down and proved I shall now only take notice of what is Argumentative in his Book and considering the Commendation it hath by Five as I suppose of the chiefest of that Perswasion and a Commendatory Epistle by a Sixth I might justly expect something extraordinary and I shall not deny but that my Expectations were somewhat high But if ever that Proverb Parturiunt Montes were verified it is here Alas what do I meet with but Ridiculus Mus For I have yet observed but two Arguments syllogistically framed by which he attempts the Confirmation of his Notion and the very recital of them may in the judgment of all unbyassed Persons be a sufficient confutation of them There first is in his p. 120. and it is this If that Covenant he means that recorded in Gen. 17. was as much a Covenant of Works as that Covenant of Mount Sinai and that Covenant mentioned Deut. 29.9 nay as much as the Covenant made with Adam before his Fall then it is not a Covenant of Grace But it was as much a Covenant of Works as either of the Covenants before-mentioned were Therefore c. A lusty Argument if it would stand But truly I might with sorrow say as the Apostle of some that would be teachers of the Law There are some that would be Teachers of the Gospel neither knowing what they say nor whereof they affirm But to the Argument I positively deny the Minor Proposition as that concerns the Covenant made with Adam and that entred with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai As for that Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. 't is the same with this in Genesis both which I affirm to be one and the same Covenant of Grace But Mr. Cary attempts to prove his Minor thus It must needs be as much a Covenant of Works as that entred with the People at Mount Sinai yea as that made with Adam in Innocency because although God promised to be a God to Abraham and his Seed yet it was upon condition of Obedience with an answerable Threatning But can Mr. Cary or any other Man of common sense think that the bare requiring of Obedience in any Covenant or Threatning of Judgments in Case of Disobedience makes it presently a Covenant of Works Is it not expresly said That our Lord Christ is the Author of Salvation to all that obey him and doth he not say according to the Covenant of Grace Yea and is not Faith it self an Act of Obedience and yet the Condition of the Covenant of Grace Mr. G. expresly grants that it is and if I do not mistake so doth Mr. Cary also And for Threatnings doth not the Apostle tell us If we live after the Flesh we shall die Rom. 8.13 Yea doth not our Lord Christ give us the Sum of the Gospel-Covenant in his Commission to his Apostles Mark 16. and yet doth he not say He that believeth not shall be damned But not to waste time Mr. Cary must know that it is not the bare requiring of Obedience nor yet the denouncing Threatnings that makes a Covenant a Covenant of Works but the commanding a perfect sinless Obedience to all that is written therein and threatning Death unto all in case of the least failure in such an Obedience And therefore to proceed His 2. Argument which is of a like validity with this we have p. 204. and it is this That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness could never be a Covenant of Faith of Grace I suppose he means And this Argument he takes to be irresistible Strange Confidence And not to spend Time in shewing the Insufficiency of his Proof that speaking of Circumcision when his Argument speaks of the Covenant and sure there is a wide difference between the Covenant and Circumcision the Token of it So that this Argument of it self falls to the ground for want of Proof But yet let me ask this one Question of Mr. Cary and that is Whether Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness by a meer Act of Soveraign Grace without Respect had to any Covenant he was then under Or was it reckoned to him by virtue of some Promise of any Covenant that he was then under If he say the former Then I shall only say how his having his Faith reckoned unto him for Righteousness by such an Act of Soveraign Grace should be an Argument that this Covenant after entred with him was not the Covenant of Grace is above the reach of Man's Understanding to apprehend But if he say the latter then I shall affirm That was the Covenant of Grace the same for substance with this now entred with him only before less compleat but now fully compleated and how the Institution of Circumcision could either cast Abraham out of it or alter the Tenure of the Covenant so as that before he had Faith reckoned to him for Righteousness by virtue of the Promises contained in it but after neither had nor could have Faith alike reckoned to him for Righteousness by virtue of the same Promises is as much above the Understanding of Man as the former We will suppose an Heathen or a Pagan converted and enabled to believe Now upon his very first Conversion and Believing he hath his Faith reckoned to him for Righteousness but afterwards this Man is baptized shall we now say
hand that that take it of Circumcision in particular might be and was a Gospel-Ordinance which yet would not profit Men except they kept the whole Law seeing it might and did profit them who did so keep the Law Thus the Apostle affirms it did profit them that kept the Law What is here said of Circumcision may be alike said of Baptism It profits not those that keep not the Law in the latter Sense before-mentioned but as for those that do so keep the Law it doth profit them No Ordinance will profit any Men in case of their failing in that Obedience indispensably required in the Covenant they are under which is no Argument at all that it is no Gospel-Ordinance Gospel-Ordinances will not profit Men as of themselves in case they are Hypocrites and do not walk up to that Profession they make which is all that the Apostle intends in that place 2. His second Argument is this If Circumcision bound Men to keep the whole Law then it was no Gospel-Ordinance c. Before I return an Answer to this Argument I shall premise that by Law in Gal. 5.3 which he cites to prove his Assumption we are as I suppose is granted on all hands to understand the Mosaical Law the Law given by Moses at Mount Sinai and that in the utmost Latitude and Extent of it Now this Law may be considered two ways 1. As given by God to the People of Israel 2. As after misinterpreted and misunderstood by them 1. As given by God it had only a Subserviency to the Covenant of Grace and answerably as in it there was a Revival of the Law given to Adam in Innocency so there were various Sacrifices and Ceremonial Observations anew instituted that so the People seeing the Exactness and Severity of the Law and finding their own Inability so to perform it as to live therein they might be engaged to flee unto Christ and take hold of the Covenant of Grace confirmed as the Apostle speaks Gal. 3.17 in him whereunto they were guided by the Sacrifices and those other Ceremonial Observations Hence the Law is said to have been a School-Master to bring them unto Christ Gal. 3.24 whether we read as in our Translation or only a School-Master unto Christ it is all one seeing a School-Master it was Now take the Law as thus given by God himself and Keeping in the latter Sense before-mentioned I grant his Assumption but deny the Consequence in the Major Proposition and affirm That tho Circumcision did bind Men to keep the whole Law during its continuance in the Church yet it might be and was a Gospel-Ordinance and supposing the Apostle only intends this Term Law in this Sense yet he might justly argue against Circumcision as laying them under this Obligation to keep the Law because there was now a change and alteration in the Law The whole Ceremonial Law was abrogated and laid aside and for them to put themselves under an Obligation to keep a Law that was now abrogated was sinful and would have deprived them of any Benefit by Christ tho they obliged themselves to keep it in that Sense in which the Jews under the first Testament were bound to keep it and their keeping of it was acceptable to God and profitable to themselves 2. Take the Law as misinterpreted and misunderstood by the Jews viz. as tho it had been a Law through their meer keeping of which they should be saved without the Mediation of Christ as it is evident they did so understand it then I deny the Assumption and affirm that Circumcision never bound any Man so to keep the Law and then the Apostle in arguing against Circumcision deals with the Galatians according to that false Notion of the Law they had imbibed from their false Teachers and tells them that in case they were circumcised that is as obliging themselves to the Law in the Sense now mentioned they would be Debtors to do the whole Law not only uprightly and sincerely but to do absolutely all things written therein seeing neither their Sacrifices nor Ceremonial Observations appointed in that Law would yield them any Relief in case of their failing to do all things written in the whole Law and their returning and adhering to the Law in this sense would deprive them of any Benefit by Christ And thus I judg we are to understand the Apostle in that place So that take the Apostle's Sense which way we will the Argument is of no force Take the Sense the former way then the Consequence is unsound if we take his Sense the latter way the Antecedent is false And a greater Absurdity can hardly be vented by Men than to say That God ever designed Circumcision as an Obligation unto the Jews thus to keep the Law or any part of it But 3. His third Argument is this That which was always in comparison of the Gospel a weak and beggarly Element was never a Gospel-Ordinance but Circumcision was such Ergo c. Answ Here I shall positively deny the Consequence in the Major Proposition and affirm That that might be in the Apostle's Sense said to be a weak and beggarly Element which yet during the First-Testament-Administration might be a Gospel-Ordinance Will Mr. G. say That the Jews had no Gospel-Ordinances Yet all their Ordinances come within the compass of these weak and beggarly Elements Take it of the Passover surely that was a Gospel-Ordinance and yet one of these weak and beggarly Elements But to hasten As a close of this and to make way to what follows I shall offer this one Argument to prove That Circumcision was a Gospel-Ordinance it is this If Circumcision was the Token of the Covenant of Grace and as such a Representation and Seal to those to whom it was applied of those great Gospel-Blessings Righteousness Interest in God and Sanctification then it was a Gospel-Ordinance but the former is true therefore the latter I am aware Mr. G. will deny the Assumption but I prove it thus If that Covenant Gen. 17.7 be the Covenant of Grace and Circumcision was the Token of that Covenant and as such a Representation and Seal to those to whom it was applied of those forementioned Gospel-Blessings then it was a Gospel-Ordinance The Minor or Assumption in both Arguments consists in two Branches both which I know will be denied But it is the former Branch that at present falls under our Consideration and supposing that be sufficiently proved the latter will hardly meet with any opposition Now that being already demonstrated I shall at present add no more only consider what Mr. G. hath said to prove the contrary That that Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace but the Old Covenant or that Covenant said by the Apostle to be done away and this he saith will appear three ways 1. From the recital of the Covenant it self 2. From the Nature of Circumcision and chiefly because the Covenant of Grace was not peculiar to Abraham and
true Messias promised to their Fathers Hence it is no way absurd nor the least prejudice to the Cause of Infant-Baptism to grant that none of the Infant-Seed of believing Jews till the absolute abrogation and laying aside of Circumcision was published and fully made known to the Church were baptized But now after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ when Circumcision was wholly laid aside we still find when Parents were Baptized their Housholds peculiarly including their Children were Baptized with them But it may be our Author will say he doth not argue meerly from the Scriptures not mentioning the Baptism of Infants but from that taken in Conjunction with John's Preaching Repentance and Christ's making Disciples by teaching them and the Apostles requiring Faith of those that they Baptized But to that I Answer Both John Baptist our Lord and the Apostles having to do with grown Persons they did and it was necessary they should preach Repentance teach and instruct them before they baptized them and upon their professing their Faith and Repentance administer that Ordinance to them But what is that to Infants They might have and had by virtue of their Parents Faith an Interest in the Covenant and upon that account had a right to Baptism which when Circumcision was laid aside and Baptism instituted was applied to them But 2. He would prove his Assertion from the Commission given by our Lord Christ to his Apostles But to that having so fully proved that the Commission doth not exclude but on the other hand include Infants supposing their Interest in the Covenant and yet the fitness and meetness of our Lord Christ's expressing the Commission as he hath done that it is wholly superfluous to add any thing more See my Plain Proof of Infant-Baptism p. 73. as also my Answer to Mr. Danvers Chap. 2. p. 25. and therefore shall proceed Our Author offers two Reasons why Baptism is by Dipping Washing or burying the Body all over in Water only to Believers upon a profession of their Faith and Repentance 1. That it is the Positive Law and Soveraign Will and Pleasure of God In Answer to which As to the Manner of Administring Baptism which his two Reasons seem to have a peculiar respect unto having spoken to that already I shall add no more but take his Reasons as respecting the Subjects of Baptism and as to this First I say in a direct Opposition to what he saith That it is not the positive Will or Pleasure of God that Believers only should be baptized but it is alike his positive Will and Pleasure that their Infants should be baptized with them This I have fully proved which I refer him unto and proceed to his Second Reason and that is taken from two Ends of Baptism To which I say that there are other Ends of Baptism with reference to which it is the Will and Pleasure of God that it should be applied to Infants To instance only in these two 1. That by it they may be by a solemn Right or Ordinance of his own Institution dedicated given up and engaged unto God in Christ 2. That in and by it the Benefits and Blessings of the Covenant may be represented and signified and the Promises wherein they are contained ratified and confirmed both to Parents and Children which when they come to Years of Maturity they are to improve as to encourage so to engage themselves personally to close in with the Covenant and give up themselves to God in Christ according to the Tenour of it and thereupon strengthen and confirm their Faith in a believing Application of the Promises to themselves Hence what he saith of all Worship which he saith is not commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ in his Holy Word is vain Worship c. It concerns not us seeing we affirm it is according to the Will of God revealed in his Word That Infants should be baptized But 3. He argues from certain Absurdities which as he supposes will follow upon our Practice Of which I must say in the General that they are all mere Mistakes and Scare-Crows the Effects of a clouded Fancy As 1. That we go to Moses for an Institution of Baptism When as we go not to Moses but to the Covenant of Grace established with our Father Abraham and his Seed in their Generations and confirmed of God in Christ 430 Years before the Law was given by Moses For his Second viz. 2. That our Practice lays a Foundation for a National Church 'T is still a gross Mistake 'T is well known that there are in England and New-England who plead for and live in the Practice of Congregational Churches and yet maintain the Doctrine and Practice of Infant-Baptism and that in a perfect consistency with their Principles and Practice For the Third viz. 3. That it affirmeth the Children of Believers were by Virtue of their Parents Faith in the Covenant of Grace united or ingrafted into Christ contrary to Eph. 2. But that our Practice should contradict the Apostle in that Eph. 2. where all are said to be Children of Wrath which are the Words I suppose he hath reference to supposing our Principles rightly understood is unimaginable Yea it is because we believe them to be Children of Wrath as well as others that we so earnestly contend for their Covenant-Interest and the Dueness of their Baptism up on the Account thereof They may be and are Children of Wrath by Nature as having sinned in Adam and being shapen in Iniquity and conceived in Sin and yet upon their Birth into the World be as the Seed of Believing Parents taken with their Parents into the Covenant of Grace and hereupon have a Right to be implanted into Christ's Mystical Body whereby they are secured during their pure Infant-State from the Effects of that Wrath they were by Nature the Children of And who can assign any shew of Reason why it may not be so They are not the Children of Wrath and in the Covenant of Grace at one and the same instant of Time their State as Children of Wrath precedes their State as in Covenant with God 4. As for the Fourth Absurdity it 's deceiving of Souls I shall only say That if any such thing doth happen 't is from the ignorance or neglect of Parents or those that should instruct them We only affirm That their Covenant-State secures them from the Effects of Wrath during their pure Infancy The Covenant indispensably requiring their personal Faith and Repentance when they come to Years capacifying them to Believe and Repent And what Deceit is here put upon any For his Last Absurdity that still is but his own Fancy proceeding from his Ignorance of the true Doctrine of Infants Covenant-Interest and Baptism Will he but peruse what I have written in my Essay p. 143. c. he may see this Absurdity fully removed out of his Way But Lastly This Our Brother for so I shall own him comes to answer some Objections against what