hereupon their respective Covenant-Interest must of necessity be divers and fall under a distinct Consideration and the Blessings appropriated to either must be conveyed in a way agreeable to their peculiar and respective Covenant-Interest and if we compare this with his insuing Inquiry it evidently appears though he expresseth himself very darkly that his plain meaning is that these distinct Seeds or kinds of Seed as a Father unto which Abraham was now considered being as he had just afore supposed them to be formally distinguished the one from the other there must of necessity be two distinct Covenants the one the Covenant of Grace the other the Covenant of Works the same with that made with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai And these two Covenants conveying quite distinct kinds of Blessings were entered with Abraham for them respectively 4. That there was and it was necessary there should be an intermixture of the Promises conveying those distinct Blessings Spiritual Blessings being involved as he speaks in the shade of Temporal and a Spiritual Seed in the shade of a Natural these four particulars are included in that one General here premitted by our Author Now there are four things in this Paragraf that make it exceeding remarkable to me 1. That Mr. Cox should affirm that this thing including those four Particulars is most clearly stated in the New Testament and yet give us no Intimations where 2. That he should say there is a necessity that two distinct Covenants should be entered with Abraham for those two kinds of Seed and yet give us no reason why he so judges 3. That he should affirm these things cannot be confounded without hazard to the most important Articles in the Christian Religion and yet not instance in any one that is hazarded thereby 4. That which is most remarkable unto me is That he should say this is more evident than to admit of a denial I conceive he must needs intend the same thing that before he had said was most clearly stated in the New Testament and so that Particle this must have reference to all those four Particulars before mentioned But how Mr. Cox can possibly imagine that all those Particulars yea or any one of them in his sence should be more evident than to admit of a denial is to me matter of great Admiration sure he cannot but know that the whole of what he has said excepting that first Clause viz. that Abraham must be considered in a double Capacity and that as abstracted from that account he gives of it and that Passage concerning the involving of Spiritual Blessings in the shade of Temporal is vehemently denied not only by me but by many others yea that the whole of what he hath said taken conjunctly and in the sence intended by him is uno ore denied by all that have hitherto pleaded the Cause of Infant Baptism from Abraham's Covenant Now that Mr. Cox should suppose that to be more evident than to admit of a denial which is denied by Hundreds or Thousands yea almost by the whole Universal Church without giving us any reason at all of that his supposal is certainly matter of great Admiration But Sand must be laid for a Foundation by the ablest Builders where better Materials are not to be had Mr. Cox having laid this Foundation such as it is proceeds to the Inquiries bottomed thereon But for me to follow him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through them all would be utterly impertinent seeing there is no just Foundation at all for the one or the other of his two last Inquiries I shall therefore in a direct Opposition to the very design of his whole Discourse as it concerns the Federal Transactions of God with Abraham lay down a fourfold Proposition and offer somewhat for their Confirmation especially of the two former and consider whatever he has said that carries the least Appearance of Opposition to any of them Prop. 1. That God in making or when he did make those Promises unto Abraham recorded Gen. 12.2 3. did not enter or establish the Covenant of grace with him This lieth directly opposite to what Mr. Cex affirms p. 74. where saith he in the Transaction of God with Abraham recorded Gen. 12. he did solemnly confirm his Covenant with him he means he then established so he expresseth himself p. 74. or made so he expresseth himself p. 77. His Covenant evidently intending the Covenant of Grace Now this I absolutely deny and on the contrary affirm That in these Transactions of God with Abraham he did not make or establish the Covenant of Grace with him The truth is he did not then make any Covenant at all with him and consequently not the Covenant of Grace And though the Proof lies upon the Opponant and it might be enough for me to deny yet I shall offer a threefold Argument to prove the Negative Arg. 1. Where we have neither the Name of a Covenant nor the thing it self there no Covenant and consequently not the Covenant of Grace was made But in those Transactions of God with Abraham we have neither the Name of a Covenant nor the thing it self Therefore c. That we have not the Name of a Covenant Mr. Cox acknowledges and that here was nothing like a Covenant taking that term Covenant in a proper Sense as it is alwayes taken when the Covenant of Grace is intended is alike evident Here are it is true some absolute Promises made to Abraham personally considered but not any made to his Seed whether Natural or Spiritual conveying unto them any particular Good neither is here any Restipulation required as there is as I suppose Mr. C. will grant in the Covenant of Grace as in all other Covenants when that term is used in a proper sense there is See Mr. Cox his Discourse pag. 5. So that neither having the Name nor the Thing it self it is utterly unscriptural yea unreasonable to affirm that any in special that that Covenant of Grace was at this time entred with Abraham it was only the preaching of the Gospel to him so the Apostle expresly tells us Gal. 3.8 Arg. 2. If the Covenant of Grace were at this time entred with Abraham and this be a distinct Covenant from that mentioned Gen. 17.7 then there were two distinct Covenants of Grace entred with Abraham but there were not two distinct Covenants of Grace entred with Abraham therefore at this time the Covenant of Grace was not entred with him That that Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. is the Covenant of Grace shall be after proved Whence in case this Covenant were the Covenant of Grace and that a distinct Covenant from that then there must needs be two distinct Covenants of Grace which is false Arg. 3. The Covenant of Grace was made with Abraham as actually constituted the Father of the Faithful but at the time of this Transaction of God with him he was not actually constituted in that Relation therefore at that time the
Covenant of Grace was not entred with him it may seem that Abraham was not constituted in that Relation till the Change of his Name Gen. 17.5 However this is certain he was not to be looked upon in that Relation till after those noble Acts of his Faith of which we have an account Gen. 15.6 seeing the Apostle expresly tells us he put forth those Acts of Faith That he might become the Father of many Nations Rom. 4.18 plainly implying he was not so before Indeed in that Gen. 12. God intimated to him that he should be for the future constituted in that Relation but doth not then actually constitute him in it but now I say the Covenant of Grace was made with him as the Father of the Faithful so that at this Transaction God neither did nor could enter the Covenant of Grace with him But let us see what Mr. Cox hath said in Confirmation of his Affirmation viz. That God in this Transaction with Abraham Gen. 12. did enter or make the Covenant of Grace with him and all that I can find is only this viz. That the Covenant of Grace was as the Apostle tells us Gal. 3.17 Confirmed of God in Christ 430 Years before the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai Now saith he from the giving of that first Promise to Abraham recorded Gen. 12.2 3. unto that very Night in which the Children of Israel were delivered out of their Egyptian Bondage is the Computation of those Years to be made which he thinks will be evident to any that shall diligently compare the Chronology of those times with the express Testimony of Moses Exod. 12.41 Now to this I shall say in the general that had Mr. C. given us an exact Computation of the Chronologies of those times it might have given some more light into this matter but that I suppose he knew would be a matter of no small difficulty to do I remember what Illyricus saith Ab hoc tempore meaning the time of Jacob's Death * Illyricus de Ratione Lib 4. p. 52. Seriem annorum non possumus pari facilitate deducere And he gives this reason for it Nam Geneologiae haud quaquam eadem ratione pertaxuntur in Aegypto qua hactenus factum est so that how evident soever Mr. Cox supposes it will be yet this learned Man was of another mind but more particularly I shall offer these few things to consideration 1. That it is very uncertain where to fix the Epocha of these four hundred and thirty Years mentioned by Moses and after him by the Apostle There needs no other Proof of this then the Disagreement and sharp Contests found amongst Interpreters and Chronologers about it vix duo hactenus inter se conveniunt saith Pareus I suppose Mr. C. is not ignorant of what he hath said to prove that these Years must necessarily be reckoned from the Establishment of that Covenant Gen. 15.18 which he takes to be the same with that Gen. 17. I shall not determine only this I shall say the uncertainty is so great as that no Argument can be taken therefrom to prove that the Promise or Covenant the Apostle hath reference unto is that mentioned Gen. 12. 2. That it is utterly improbable that these 430 Years do if not absolutely certain that they do not bear Date from the giving of those Promises Gen. 12. unto Abraham for let but these three things be considered 1. That there is a probability at least that those 400 Years mentioned Gen. 15.13 and those 430 Years mentioned by Moses and by the Apostle intend one and the same number of Years both Pareus and many other Interpreters conclude and answerably must begin end at the same times the thirty odd Years not being at first mentioned tho after when there is a more exact account of the time of the Israelites abode in Egypt including their Peregrination in Canaan is given they are exprest Now it is agreed on by many if not by most that those 400 Years bean either at the Birth of Isaac or at Ishmael's mocking of him and that they must begin at the one or the other of those times seems evident because the Predictions expresly concern Abraham's Seed and not Abraham himself the Words are Know of a Surety that thy Seed shall be a stranger in the Land that is not theirs So that supposing these distinct Numbers viz. 400 and 430. intend as to their beginning and ending one and the same Period of time they must at least publickly be dated either at Isaac's Birth or Ishmael's Persecuting as the Apostle interprets his mocking of him 2. Suppose the 430 Years must begin 30 Years before the 400 yet this 430 Years must be dated at if not after Abraham's coming into the Land of Canaan this is not only expresly affired by the 70 Translaters in their Version of that Exod. 12.40 but is necessarily implied in the Text for so the Words run And the sojourning of the Children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 Years It is not said indeed they did sojourn so long in Egypt but their sojourning was so long Now they cannot possibly be said to sojourn in Canaan before Abraham come into it and that of their sojourning in that Land and in Egypt the Text there speaks I conceive is agreed on by all whence it appears that those 430 Years must necessarily begin after Abraham's coming into Canaan Hence 3. That those Promises Gen. 12.2 3. were gien to Abraham sometime how long is hard to determine before he came into Canaan they were given him while in Vr of the Caldeans after which he dwelt sometime in Charran yea and a considerable time as appears Gen. 12.5 Now should we date these Years intervening between the giving of those Promises and the coming of the Children of Israel out of Egypt they would amount to many more than 430 seeing as all agree yea Mr. Cox himself affirms there past exactly so many Years from Abraham's coming into Canaan unto the Children of Israel's going out of Egypt From the whole it is if not absolutely certain yet exceeding probable That that cannot be the Promise or Covenant from the giving of which to the giving of the Law there are said to be 430 Years it may rather seem it was that Promise mentioned Gen 12. v. 6. But 4. Suppose which yet I grant not that the 430 Years are to be reckoned from God's giving those Promises 12. Gen. 2 3. Yet it cannot be from thence concluded that the Covenant of Grace was then or in them established with Abraham Mr. Cox himself grants that the Covenant of Circumcision as he callâ— â—t viz. that Covenant mentioned Gen. 17.7 which they take to be the old Covenant but we affirm to be the Covenant of Grace was not perfected at one Transaction nor all the Promises of it made to Ahraham at one time and this I shall readily grant that God in making those Promises Gen. 12. did begin to
deal with Abraham with reference to the Establishment of the Covenant of Grace with him and answerably that those Promises did prepare the way thereunto and do contain the Blessings of it as more generally revealed And which was afterwards more particularly exprest and the Apostle might compute the Years intervening the making that Covenant after confirmed in Christ and the giving the Law from the first Transaction of God with Abraham with reference thereunto which is no Proof that the Covenant was then established between God and Abraham But Lastly Suppose we should grant that the Covenant of Grace was entered with or as Mr. Cox expresseth it revealed to Abraham in those Promises Gen. 12. Yet that is no Argument at all that that Covenant Gen. 17. is not the Covenant of Grace The first Lines of the Covenant of Grace might be then drawn as Mr. Cox saith the first Lines of the Covenant at Mount Sinai were first drawn in the establishment of that Covenant Gen. 17. and yet the same Covenant might be more fully and explicitly entered in that Transaction recorded Gen. 17. and that is enough as to my present purpose This I suppose I may safely say is more evident than to admit of a denial at least by Mr. Cox and from the whole of what hath been said we may evidently see of how little use this Observation about the Years intervening between the Covenant confirmed in Christ and the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai is as to Mr. Cox's purpose But to proceed to the second Proposition the more full Establishment of which is that I peculiarly designed these Sheets for and that is this 2. Prop. That that Covenant established with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations Gen. 17.7 is the Govenant of Grace or that gracious Covenant confirmed in Christ according unto which all the Elect always have been still are and yet shall be saved And for a more full Establishment of this Proposition wherein the Covenant-Interest and by Consequence the Baptism of the Infant-Seed of Believers is peculiarly concerned I shall speak to it both negatively and positively First Negatively And here I shall first offer somewhat to prove that this Covenant was not the old Covenant or the same with that entered with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai And then consider what Mr. Cox hath said in confirmation of his Supposition viz. That it was the old Covenant and that this is his Opinion though he expresseth not himself in totidem verbis that I have yet observed is sufficiently evident from the whole design of his Discourse at least so far as it concerns the Covenant-Transactions of God with Abraham and more especially pag. 104. and 113. and frequently elswhere as also by his constant distinguishing of it from the Covenant of Grace Now in a direct opposition unto this Supposition of his I shall indeavour to prove that it was not the old Covenant Indeed I should sufficiently discharge the part of a Respondent to answer what he hath said to prove that it is and besides to prove that it is the Covenant of Grace will sufficiently overthrow this Supposal of his but yet ex abundanti I shall offer somewhat to prove that it was not the old Covenant And 1. If the Scripture continually declares that the Covenant made at Mount Sanai was the old Covenant and no where declares that this Covenant made with Abraham was so Then that Covenant made at Mount Sinai and not this made with Abraham was the old Covenant But the Antecedent is true therefore the Consequent As God is the Author and Establisher of all Covenants that have past between Himself and Man so we are to be regulated in our Notions and Conceptions of them by the Revelation he hath made of them in his Word Hence for any to affirm that this Covenant established with Abraham was the old Covenant when God hath no where declared that it was so is openly to declare themselves to be guided by their own Fancies and Imaginations and not by the unerring Light of the Scriptures But especially when God himself hath declared expressy in his Word yea once and again that there is another Covenant viz. that made at Mount Sinai that he gives the denomination of the old Covenant unto And this may be further observed That the sameness of some particular Good promised and Duties commanded in this Covenant established with Abraham and that made at Mount Sinai cannot justly be interpreted a Revelationg from God that the Covenants are one and the same there may be observed an Identity or Sameness both of Good promised and Duties commanded in the Covenant of Nature and the Covenant of Grace in sundry Particulars and yet the Covenants are not only distinct but of quite different natures and tenors Now that the Scriptures declare that the Covenant made at Mount Sinai is the old Covenant is plain see Jerem. 31.32 with Heb. 8.10 and let our Opponants shew wherever the Covenant made with Abraham is declared in Scripture to be the old Covenant Arg. 2. The Law or the old Covenant was ordain'd by Angels in the hand of a human Mediator a Mediator that was a mere Man but this Covenant established with Abraham was not ordained by Angels in the hand of a humane Mediator therefore this Covenant was not the Law or the old Covenant The Major is expresly affirmed by the Apostle Gal. 3.19 If any shall affirm that the Covenant made with Abraham was so ordained it concerns them to prove it Arg. 3. The Law or old Covenant was given 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace was established with Abraham but this Covenant entered with Abraham was not entered 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace was entered with him therefore this Covenant cannot be the Law or old Covenant The Major is evident from the express Words of the Apostle Gal. 3.17 The Minor is evident from the History of God's Covenant-Transaction with Abraham Arg. 4. God himself expresly denies that this Covenant established with Abraham was the old Covenant Therefore that God expresly denies the Covenant established with Abraham to be the old Covenant is evident Deut. 5.2 3. where saith Moses speaking by the Spirit of God The Lord our God made a Covenant with us in Horeb The Lore made not this Covenant with our Fathers Now that under this Term Fathers we must necessarily include Abraham cannot be denied Whence it is evident that the Covenant made in Horeb that is at Mount Sinai was not made with Abrham And that which may yet further confirm us if it needs any further Confirmation is this that the Lord himself expresly distinguisheth that Covenant made with Abraham from that Covenant made at Mount Sinai Deut. 29.1 These are the Words of the Covenant viz. which they were not entring with God as is exprest ver 10. and so on And that this was the Covenant made with Abrham is expresly declared ver 13. Now this
Mountain Now I would desire to know whether this Promise be not applicable to Beleivers under the New-Testament and hence whether Believers may not now lay claim to and appropriate to themselves the spiritual good typified when yet they can lay no claim to any part of that Land and why the like Assignment may not be made with respect to this Promise of the Covenant I cannot conjecture From the whole we may see how insignificant this reasoning of our Authour is to prove that this Covenant under consideration was the Old-Covenant But to proceed in his Pages 122 and 123 we have three Scriptures cited in pursuance of the same design namely to prove that that Covenant Gen. 17. was the Old-Covenant and his design in the general is this to prove that Circumcision did belong to the Mosaical Oeconomy and consequently that this Covenant whereunto Circumcision was anexed must needs be the Law or old Covenant In answer to this I shall offer these two things First That it cannot be certainly proved that Circumsicion did at all much less that it did equally and alike belong to the Mosaical Oeconomy as well or as Mr. Cox expresseth it no less then any other part of the Law given by him As for the passages cited by our Author they are very far from proving any such thing let us briefly review them The first is Rom. 3.1 2. where the Apostle makes these two terms the Law and Circumcision convertible terms and tells us that the Jew or the Circumcision that is the Circumcised had much advantage every way above other Nations and instances in particular in their having the Oracles of God committed unto them But how this should prove that Circumcision did no less belong to the Mosaical Oeconomy than any other part of the Law is to me unimaginable nay I doubt not but to shew it proves the direct contrary of which more anon 2dly The next passage is that of the same Apostle Gal. 5.3 where says he I testifie again to every man that is Circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole Law and Mr. C. thinks this was the direct and proper use of Circumcision viz. to oblige the Jews to keep the Law and that according to the first institution of it To which I would say three things First That the Apostle here may as he seems evidently to do speak of Circumcision according to the false Notions that the false Teachers had of it and answerably tho we read not of its appointment to any new use different from what it had at the first Institution of it yet the false Teachers might as it 's evident they did mistake that use of it and pressed it upon the Galatians to a quite different use from what God had appointed it unto at the first A Learned Man glosses it thus If any Man be Circumcised scilicet eo animo out of such a conceit as the false Teachers had taken up about it or for such an end as they preached it up with reference thereunto he is a Debtor to do the whole Law Vide Calvin in loe Secondly Suppose it be granted that Circumcision was taken in and inserted into the Law as given at Mount Sinai yet it cannot be proved from thence that it did oblige to keep the whole Law ad uch less tht it did belong to the Mosaical Oeconomy no less than any other part of the Law did Thirdly That tho Circumcision was meerly the Token of the Covenant of Grace and had no place at all in the Mosaical Oeconomy yet the submitting unto it under the New Testament might bring Persons under an Obligation to keep the whole Law and that according to the intendment of God in given of it The Jews were obliged by the Covenant of Grace to keep the Law according to the true use and end of it this is evident Deut. 29.9 compared with 25. But then Thirdly The last Passage is that of the Aposile in Phil. 3. Where boasting in Circumcision is esteemed a boasting in the Flesh I shall only say he that can prove from hence that the Covenant of Circumcision was the old Covenant may prove quidlibet è quolibet Certainly to boast in any holy Action supposing the giving the Body to be burned for the sake of Christ would be but a boasting in the Flesh and yet that will not prove that that is a legal and no New Covenant Duty so that there is no Passage at least that is as yet produced either out of the Old or New Testament will prove that Circumcision did at all belong to the Mosaical Oeconomy But Secondly This I would offer that tho Circumcision by reason of somewhat in it that was Ceremonial or Typical might be inserted in the Law yet it will not follow from thence that it was not at the first Institution of God and so continued under that Administration the Token of the Covenant of Grace it might be and continue to be the Token of the Covenant of Grace tho after as having something of a Ceremonial Nature in it it was inserted in the old Covenant and thereupon abolished at the ceasing of that Administration There is yet one Passage more that I met with in the Discourse that apparently carries on the same Design with all those hitherto taken notice of and that we have pag. 123. and it is this That Levi payed Tithes in Abraham But now this Mr. C. himself seems to lay little weight upon and he had a great deal of reason for it seeing that paying of Tithes by Levi in Abraham was before the establishment of this Covenant and therefore could not possibly be by virtue of it But Mr. C. laying himself so little stress upon this I shall not insist upon it and that shall suffice for the first Branch of our second Proposition And I shall proceed to the second Branch Secondly That the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17.7 is the Covenant of Grace that very Covenant according unto which all the Elect always have been still are and shall be saved Now this hath been afore proved See Infant-Baptism from Heaven Book 1. pag. 181. to 195. As also Infant-Baptism plainly proved pag. 46 47. where the Reader will find these two Positions laid down and proved First That this was a Covenant of Grace Secondly That it is the Covenant of Grace under which Believers now are That former of these Positions was proved by four Arguments the latter by two The second of the four former was taken from the subject matter of the main Promise of the Covenant and that is that God would be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their Generations Now this Good the subject matter of this Promise being a Spiritual Good as was there shewed can only be conveyed by the Covenant of Grace and consequently this Covenant must needs be the Covenant of Grace Now I find Mr. C. is otherwise minded Thus in his 142 143 144 145. pages where he
ΕÎΕ'ΡΓΕΙΑ ΠΛΑ'ÎΗΣ Or a brief DISCOURSE Concerning Man's natural proneness to and tenaciousness of Errour Whereunto is added Some Arguments to prove that that Covenant entred with Abraham Gen. 17.7 is the Covenant of Grace By J. Whiston Minister of the Gospel I have laid the Foundation and another buildeth thereon but let every Man take heed how he buildeth thereupon 1 Cor. 3.10 Nemo sibi tantum errat sed alieni Erroris Causa Autor est Sen. de vit beat Nimis perversè seipsum amat qui alios vult errare ut Error suus lateat Aug. LONDON Printed by J.D. for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden-Lyon in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1682. THE PREFACE TO THE READER THat there is a Time coming viz. When the Fulness of the Gentiles shall be come in and the Deliverer come out of Sion and hath turned Ungodliness from Jacob when all the Diversities of Doctrines shall cease and the Doctrine of the Gospel be taught in its Perfection Purity and Simplicity thereupon through the more plentiful pourings forth of the Spirit a perfect Vnty of Mind Judgment and Practice in especial in the Worship of God among Saints and that no small part of the Glory and Happiness of the Church shall consist therein these Scriptures with divers others of a like import do fully declare Hic Fluvius est uberrima Doctrina Christi Bright in loco Rev. 22.1 Zeph. 3.9 Zech. 14.9 Vnto which State when the Church is arrived she shall receive that Approbatory and Commendatory Eulogium from Christ's own Mouth Cant. 6.8 My Dove my Undefiled is but One she is the only One of her Mother she is the chief of her that bear her Then the Daughters shall see her and bless her the Queens and Concubines shall behold her and praise her Then shall she be Ephziba the King shall greatly delight in her Beauty Then shall she be called Beulah as visibly appearing in her Marriage-Vnion with Christ But alas how far doth the Church at present fall short of this Glory and Happiness What Diversity of Doctrines what Variety of Opinions and Practices arising therefrom are there Surely for the Divisions of Rouben of Zion there are and cannot but be great Thoughts and those sorrowful ones too of Heart in all that are true and legitimate Children Neither in these present Diversities of Doctrine Judgments and Practices found in the Church some of which must necessarily be erronious if not heretical less matter of Sorrow and Grief then her future Vnity is matter of Joy and Rejoycing And therefore let all that wish well unto Zion say For Zion 's sake will I not hold my Peace for Jerusalem 's sake will I not rest till the Righteousness thereof go forth a Brightness and the Salvation thereof as a burning Lamp that there may be one Lord and his Name one throughout all the Earth 'T is indeed no wonder that Errours and Heresies do abound among those who only have the Form but want the Power of Godliness especially those whom God as an effect of his Wrath and Displeasure hath sent strong Delusions and consequently while there are such in the Churches of Christ and mingled with his Saints that there are Errors and Heresies in and among them There must be Heresies saith the Apostle speaking to the Church at Corinth among you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those that are allowed and approved viz. by Christ may be manifest 1 Cor. 11.19 But that there should be such an abounding of Errors and these some of them bordering upon and coming very nigh unto Heresies not only among but in and tenaciously held by those who have the same Faith in and Love to our Lord Christ and for whom he hath made such Provision for their Knowledg of and Guidance into Truth as he hath done is a like matter of Admiration as of Lamentation whence this should come to pass is worthy of our most serious Inquiry Some Satisfaction whereunto may be received from the former of the ensuing Discourses but yet a further Inquiry may arise with an especial respect unto those we now speak of at least some of them viz. such who not only have the old Man crucified and thereby the Body of Sin destroyed in common with all other Saints but do walk in a peculiar exactness of Obedience to the whole Will of Christ so far as known by them and consequently who cannot be supposed to be left of God nor given up to the Power of Satan to be seduced and influenced by him to the imbracement or tenacious holding of Errour especially such who have competent Parts and Abilities rendring them capable of discerning between Truth and Error Now the Enquiry is Whence it should come to pass that such as these should yet take up and embrace Errors yea and that some that are very plain and palpably so and having once taken up and embraced them should be so tenacious of them as sometimes they are found to be Can it be supposed that that corrupt Principle or Inclination unto Error connatural unto Men as fallen should retain and keep up its vigor and strength so as to have any considerable Influence upon such Men's Embracement of Error or can they be supposed to be so far under the power of Self-Love as by that to be rendered so tenacious of it when embraced by them Can these particular Lusts retain their Force and Vigor when all other Lusts are in a good measure mortified and subdued For Satisfaction hereunto I shall not at present insist on the low degree of Mortification that the Generality of sincere Christians do attain unto and consequently the Strength that inherent Lust tho greatly enervated and weakened by renewing Grace yet retains in them nor the variety of Biasses that good Men may lye under to particular Errours nor yet the Soveraign Pleasure of God in concealing particular Truths from some of his choicest Serevants There are three things that have no little Interest in such Men's embracing and tenacious holding of Error We may call them the deficient Causes of those Evils 1. Either some Error or Mistake about God as dwelling in Jesus Christ or the want of preserving in their Hearts a continual due sense of what is known of him The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Error making way for all others oftentimes respects God himself even those who do truly know and are known of God yet may and do greatly err and mistake about him and in especial as to our present purpose about his Holiness and Jealousy proceeding therefrom respective to his own People or suppose they are right in their Notions yet they do not preserve an abiding due sense of what they know of him upon their Hearts Had but Christians those awakening words of Joshua Josh 24.19 Ye cannot serve the Lord for he is an holy God he is a jealous God he will not forgive your Transgressions nor your Sins Not only he will not forgive your
Christ in Sincerity throughly acquaint themselves with the infinite Hoiness of God and his holy Jealousy yea and that with reference to his own People proceeding therefrom and endeavour to recover their lost Communion with the Holy-Ghost and as apprehensive and sensible of their own Propensity unto Error with the Advantage it receives as to its holding the Mind in Captivity to it from the evil Influences of the Remainders of Self-Love in them and apply themselves in an holy Awe and Dread of God and Reliance upon our Lord Christ for the Teachings of his Spirit to the study and search of the Scriptures taking in the benefit of those Helps and Advantages afforded to them for the distinguishing Truth from Error and all with an holy Resolution to comply with Truth and relinquish Error as the one and the other is discovered to them withall communicating the Light received each unto other with a Spirit of Meekness they would arrive to a greater Vnity of Mind Deus non singulis seorsum largiter Spiritum sed pro gratiae mensura cuique distribuit ut Ecclesiae membra vicissim inter se communicando unitatem foveant Calv. Judgment and Practice and thereby retreive the Glory of the Church with that holy Doctrine 't is built upon now greatly obscured from the Eyes of Men through the sad Diversity of Doctrines Opinions and Practices too visible among Christians In subservency to this blessed End I have in the ensuing Discourse endeavoured to represent Christians to themselves and shew them the danger they are in of taking up and embracing Error and having once embraced it of their tenaciously holding of it under a Notion of Truth not having had a sole respect to Christians of any one Perswasion the things therein offered I hope may be of some Vse unto all For besides the Vse they may be of in those Respects pointed at in the Application espeically considering the Times we are fallen into and the Circumstances we are under to be awakened to an holy Jealousy of themselves and thereupon review their own Principles and Practices with the Scriptures they are bottomed upon will be prejudicial unto none Yet shall I not deny but that I have a peculiar respect to our Opponents in that Controversie relating to the Covenant-Interest and Baptism of the Infant-Seed of Believers that if the Lord will their Minds may be prepared for a serious Attention to and through weighing of what is offered in those few Sheets added in the close to evince that the Covenant of Circumcision is indeed the Covenant of Grace which would they but proceed in the Method before declared so full and demonstrative is the Evidence given thereunto throughout the whole Scriptures sure they could not but comply with and consequently that long Controversy depending between them and us would hasten to a Period it being at least by many and those among the chief on either side agreed that the main Hinge of that Controversy doth turn upon that Covenant Could they prove that that Covenant was the old Covenant it must be granted that the ground we lay to Infants Covenant-Interest and Baptism therein must needs fall and consequently the Claim we bottom thereupon must be acknowledged to be vain So on the other hand were they fully convinced that that Covenant is indeed the Covenant of Grace they must acknowledg our Claim to be just so much some of them have acknowledged See Dr. Winter of Infant Baptism It is possible indeed that some may grant this Covenant to be the Covenant of Grace and yet deny the Covenant-Interest and Baptism of the Infant-Seed of Believers and that upon this Supposition viz. That Infants are not Abraham's Seed But that Plea will soon appear exceeding insignificant seeing that by the Promise its being extended to them they are constituted his Seed Abraham's Seed in their Generations constitutes but one Seed the Text is plain Gen. 17.7 Seed in their Generations in the former part of the Verese is expressed by that single Term Seed in the latter And besides could it be proved which it can never be that they could not according to Scripture-warrant be accounted Abraham's Seed yet so long as the Promise runs to Abraham's Seed in their Generations their Covenant-Interest and Baptism will stand firm Hence to deny them to be Abraham's Seed and on that ground to deny their Covenant-Interest and Baptism will come to all one as to deny their Covenant-Interest and Baptism absolutely without any respect to that Supposition seeing the same Arguments that prove their Covenant-Interest proves them to be Abraham's Seed at least we are no way prejudiced by a denial that they are so And this I add to shew what will be expected from any that shall attempt to invalidate our Claim to their Covenant-Interest and Baptism by that Supposition they must answere all our Arguments and prove them unconcerned in the Covenant from other Topicks otherwise whatsoever they shall say will signifiy nothing unto us But not to detain the Reader any longer any Apology for the Publication of the ensuing Discourses whether in regard of the matters and things treated of in them the season of their coming abroad or their meanness and plainness I conceive is either unnecessary or will be but of little use at least with reference to the end designed Only this may be said The things treated of are weighty the general Design of the former is to convince Christiansof a Possibility that they may take hold of and hold fast Deceit and Error under a Notion of Truth yea that they are prone so to do and this not only in matters of Faith and Religious Observance but in matters of Practice in the ordinary course of their Lives and Conversations and that to the subjecting themselves to Divine Displeasure and those Judgments that seem impendent thereby to awaken them to an holy Jealousy lest they should have so done The design of the latter is to establish and secure one of those great Truths included in the Faith once delivered to the Saints wherein their Comfort is not a little concerned And surely the nature and import of these Designs secures their Pursuance from a charge of Vnseasonableness be the Times or State of Affairs what they will yea the Evil of the Days with the Circumstances we are under makes it more especially necessary yet did I know of any thing extant of the same Import with the former of these Discourses it had probably been as an untimely Birth that sees not the Sun As for their meanness and plainness I shall only say that as to the former it is but an Abstract of some few Sermons preached to a plain Congregation who rather desire that their Souls should be fed with the sincere Milk of the Word than their Fancies gratified with the words of Man's Wisdom and possibly the Sence may sometimes seem somewhat obscure and the Sentence less coherent through the Abbreviations made than otherwise
saith the Lord to a righteous Man Psal 32.8 But here is Man's Misery God speaks once yea twice viz. by his Works but Man perceiveth it not Now then God having made such Provision and vouchsafed such a Sufficiency of Means for our Guidance into Truth and preservation from Error our Errors must needs be greatly aggravated and consequently more provoking unto God How careful then should we be to free our selves from Error How diligently should we inquire Whether we have not already taken it up how wary should we be for the future that we do not take up Error instead of Truth I shall close this with that of Solomon Buy the Truth and sell it not But one word more Lastly In case God has of his free Grace instructed us in Truth and preserved us from Error let us praise the Mercy and be exceeding thankful for it God has done great things for us considering the Multiplicity of Errors that now are abroad THE Covenant of Circumcision THE Covenant of Grace OR That that Covenant established with Abraham Gen. 17.7 is the Covenant of Grace clearly and fully proved Wherein the Mistake of Mr. Nehemia Cox in his Historical Account of the Foederal Transactions of God with Abraham are rectified and the Foundation laid in that Covenant to the Covenant-Interest and Baptism of the Infant-Seed of Believers more fully confirmed By J. Whiston Minister of the Gospel And he gave him the Covenant of Circumcision so Abraham begot Isaac and circumcised him the eight day Acts 7.8 LONDON Printed by J. D. for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden-Lyon in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1682. The Covenant of Circumcision the Covenant of Grace c. THat there is in Men as in this fallen and corrupted Estate a marvellous Propencity unto Errour and that having once taken up and imbraced it they are too commonly exceeding tenacious of it hath been as I conceive sufficiently evinced in the foregoing Discourse Those Instances therein produced do evidently declare it Neither are there wanting too many Instances for the illustrating and confirming the Truth of what is there affirmed among those who stile themselves and may justly bare the Denomination of Protestants In all Controversies that are not meerly verbal Errour must necessarily lye on the one side and sometimes on both Truth cannot but Error may be contradictory and that there are such Controversies among Protestants and they maintained and kept up with great Obstinacy by the Letigant Parties is obvious unto all To pass by all others I shall only single out that between Faedo-Baptists and Antipaedo-Baptists that no Infants are to be baptized That some Infants are to be baptized are Propositions tho not absolutely contrary yet contradictory the one to the other hence both cannot be true Errour must lye on the one side or the other side And yet with what obstinacy this Controversy hath been and still is kept up is sufficiently known hence as the Parties Letigant do mutually charge each other with the Evils afore discoursed of so it must be granted on all hands that the Charge is justly laid on the one party at least as to what yet appears seems so to be Where the Charge justly lieth I shall for the present leave to the Judgment of all that are sober and judicious and refer the final Decision to Him that is ready to judg the quick and the dead who as being in the Bosom of the Father has a perfect Knowledg of Truth so being above all possibility of any biass on the one or the other hand will truly determine without respect of Persons in the mean time being past all rational doubt satisfied that the Truth in this Controversy lieth on the Affirmative Part I have judged it an incumbant Duty to appear according to Grace received in defence of the Part. Neither am I as yet convinced but that the same Duty is still incumbant on me and therefore having now again as hath been judged by some a Call by a late Tract published by Mr. Nehemiah Cox intituled A Discourse of the Covenants that God made with Man before the Law where this debate is revived to appear in defence of the Truth I have readily complied therewith not so much that the Truth is like to be wrested out of the Hands of any that are possessed of it by what he hath said as that his Discourse treating of the Covenants and in special that entered with Abraham I might take the advantage given more fully to settle the Foundation laid in that Covenant to Infant-Baptism But to come to the Discourse by which I am called to this Work In it the Author treats of God's Foederal Transaction first with Adam secondly with Noah thirdly with Abraham they are the last that I judg my self called to the Consideration of With reference unto these he makes a threefold Inquiry see Chap. 4. Sect. 3. p. 72. as a Foundation unto all which he premises this remarkable Paragraph which for the remarkableness of it shall be transcribed verbatim and thus he begins There is one thing more to be premised to the Consideration of God's Covenant-Transactions with Abraham in particular which we have most clearly stated in the New Testament viz. That with respect unto them Abraham is to be considered in a double Capacity both as the Father of all true Believers and as the Father and Root of the Israelitish Nation And for both these Seeds God did enter into Covenant with him howbeit these Seeds being formally distinguisht the one from the other their Covenant-Interest must of necessity be divers and fall under a distinct Consideration and the Blessings appropriated unto either must be conveyed in a way agreeable to their peculiar and respective Covenant-Interest and these things may not be confounded without a manifest hazard of the most important Articles in the Christian Religion and yet such is the mutual respect of all God's Covenant-Transactions with Abraham and such was to be his Dispensation towards the Church for some Ages following as did require a present Intermixture of the Promises and an involving of Spiritual Blessings in the stead of Temporal and of a Spiritual Seed in a Natural this I suppose is more evident than to admit a Denial This one thing that Mr. Cox premits as a Foundation unto the ensuing Inquiries is complicated and made up of several Particulars As 1 That Abraham is to be considered in a double Capacity viz. 1. As the Father of all true Believers 2. As the Father and Root of the Israelitish Nation and he means he is to be considered in this twofold Capacity with respect to God's Covenant-Transactions with him so he expresly declares himself 2. That these two Seeds or kinds of Seed are formally distinguished the one from the other viz. with respect to the Covenants for so he supposes them to be two distinct Covenants that God made with them as Abraham's Seed or as he speaks entered with Abraham for them 3. That
Covenant is expresly said to be another Covenant besides that made in Horeb so ver 1. they could not be one and the same Covenant Now what can possibly be more plain who can with any pretence to any attendance to divine Revelation question whether that Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17.7 be the old Covenant or the same Covenant with that made with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai when the Lord himself not only denies that that Covenant made at Mount Sinai was made with Abraham but evidently and in plain Words distinguisheth the one from the other And that which may yet further confirm us is that the Scriptures every-where speak of the Covenant made with Abraham in the singular Number and no where give the least intimation that there were two Covenants the one of which can possibly be supposed to be the Covenant of Grace and the other the old Covenant These Arguments are so plain that nothing can be rationally replied Not that I suppose nothing at all can be by the Wit of Man invented Alas 〈◊〉 hath found out many Inventions to deceive â—â—â—â—self and others But I say nothing can be said that shall carry any appearance of a just Reply But let us see what Mr. C. hath said in Confirmation of his Supposition whether that may not counter-ballance what hath been now said to prove that this Covenant was not the old Covenant and in passage I shall only remark that in case he expected that his Discourse should be of any use for the clearing up that great Point concerning the right Subjects of Baptism as he professedly designed it he should have applyed himself with the utmost diligence to have proved this his Supposition Of all that he affirms in his whole Discourse this required the clearest and most convincing proof Certainly he could not but foresee that his Reader suppose him inquisitive after Truth would expect a clear solid and substantial Proof of this Supposition But alas that must not be expected seeing he declines the handling of things in a polemical way but that quite spoils his design and renders his whole Discourse utterly useless as to such Readers And he might easily have foreseen that it would so do two things among others made it indispensably necessary to his attaining the end professedly aimed at that he should either have produced some plain and express Scripture one or more Or else that he should have laid down some sound Arguments well bottom'd upon the Scripture The first is the Interest that this Covenant under Consideration is pleaded to have in the practice of Infant-Baptism Himself tells us he had observed that the main hinge of the Controversy about the right Subjects of Baptism does turn upon that Covenant Gen. 17. thus in his Preface page 2. Neither do I think he is much mistaken in that his Observation Now he knows that we that plead for Infant-Baptism do affirm that that is the Covenant of Grace surely then when he not only denies that but affirms the quite contrary viz. that it is the old Covenant in which we readily grant that Infant-Baptism is not concerned he should have well established that his Affirmation otherwise he might well see he would leave us where we were 2. That which made this necessary is the opposition that his Supposition bears to the judgment of the generality if not universality of those who among Protestants have had the repute of Orthodox and its falling in and exact Compliance with the Notions that both the Papists and Socinians have of this Covenant and what an ill repute both these Sects have among Protestants is not unknown Now tho it is true it 's not sufficient Proof of any Doctrine or Tenent that it is held by the generality of Orthodox Divines nor a sufficient Confutation to say it is held by Papists and Socinians yet he might well conclude that those that are Protestants and resolve so to continue will not without very good Proof embrace a Notion so directly opposite to the judgment of all Orthodox Divines and so exactly complies with the Sentiments of those who are of so ill Fame amongst them and the consideration of the time our Lot is cast in with the Circumstances we are under adds to the necessariness of a clear Proof of any Doctrine or Tenent of this Nature so that tho in other parts of his Discourse naked Suggestions might be more tolerable yet here they are intolerable And if it be said that tho Mr. C. has declined the handling of this Question between him and the Paedobaptists relating to this Covenant in a Polemical way yet he hath given a sufficient enforcement to this his Supposition whether he hath done so or no shall now be considered And that I might not pass by any thing that he hath said in Confirmation of his Supposition I have with what diligence I could searched again and again the whole of his ensuing Discourse and can find only these few Passages scattered here and there that can with any shew of Reason be supposed to carry on that Design which I shall briefly weigh The first is that pag. 104. line 13. where says he having respect to this Covenant it is observable that in this transaction of God with Abraham we first meet with an express injunction of Obedience to a Command and that of positive Right and that as the Condition of Covenant-Interest and the whole is ushered in with this Prologue I am the Almighty God walk thou before me and be thou perfect In which Words a strict and intire Obedience to his that is God's Precepts is required in order to the inheriting of the good things that were to be given by this Covenant In answer unto which I must say I should never have imagined that this Passage had been designed as a Proof that this Covenant was the old Covenant had it not been ushered in with such an observable Term I shall only add that let that mistake be rectified viz. that obedience to a Command of positive Right he means the Command concerning Circumcision was required as the Condition of Covenant-Interest for Circumcision was not required unto Covenant-Interest but did suppose it compare Gen. 17.7 8. with 11. I say let this Mistake be rectified and I shall not be so uncharitable as to think it needs any Answer at all sure none will deny but Baptism though a positive Duty with strict and entire Obedience is required in the Covenant of Grace Secondly The second Passage that occurs wherein the same Design seems to be carried on is in his 108. pag. Where having said there is no way of avoiding confusion and entanglement in our conceptions of these things but by keeping before our Eyes the distinction of Abraham 's Seed what things he intends is hard for me to imagine but be they what they will sure they are some things that he had immediately before laid down which if so I must say they are only such as
have a being in his own Imagination and none in the Scriptures Hence the avoiding or not avoiding of Confusion or entanglements in our conceptions of them is of no concern as to the Controversy under debate but having thus exprest himself he immediately subjoins Neither can I see any reason for an assignment of Covenant-Interest in all Spiritual Blessings typified as well as in the Temporal that were the Types of them to the carnal Seed and yet not to admit the coveyance of the same Covenant to hold good in point of Temporal Blessings to the Spiritual Seed seeing as some conceive both are directly included in the same Covenant and the Promise of both was sealed with the same Seal Now tho Mr. C. express himself somewhat odly and obscurely yet as his Design is or at least seems to be to disprove our Assertion viz. That this Covenant is the Covenant of Grace and by Consequence to establish his own Supposition viz. That it was the old Covenant so he seems to reason thus Seeing we affirm that this is the Covenant of Grace and answerably that it did convey both the Temporal Blessings to Abraham's Natural Seed as Types and also the Spiritual Blessings typified by them so now under the New Testament it must convey Temporal Blessings as the Type as well as the Spiritual Blessings typified by them to his Spiritual Seed To which I answer How far the Covenant did extend to Abraham's Natural Seed and how far or to whom of them it did convey either Temporal or Spiritual Blessings meerly as such hath been elsewhere declared and is unnecessary here to be repeated at present as previous to the discovery of the frivolousness of this Reasoning I shall only say that it might have been of some use had our Author shewed us what Temporal Blessings he means which as Types of Spiritual Blessings were conveyed to Abraham's Natural Seed By this Covenant he seems to distinguish them from the Land of Canaan but now certainly he cannot but know that the only Temporal Blessing that we affirm was conveyed to Abraham's Natural Seed by this Covenant as a Type of any Spiritual Blessing was the Land of Canaan it self Whence the only scruple that can arise from what we affirm is this viz. How the Promise of the Land of Canaan could convey both a Temporal Blessing viz. that Land it self as a â—ype of a Spiritual Blessing and the Spiritual Blessing typified by it to Abraham's Natural Seed and yet only conveyed the Spiritual Blessing typified to his Spiritual Seed And the only Reason that Mr. C. assigns why this cannot be is this because he cannot see any Reason why under the first Testament both a Temporal Blessing as a Type and the Spiritual Blessing typified should be conveyed to Abraham's Natural Seed and yet only the Spiritual Blessing typified should be conveyed to his Spiritual Seed seeing both are directly included in the same Covenant and the Promise of both sealed with the same Seal To which I shall say three things First That it is no Reason to prove that such a thing cannot be because one Man cannot see any Reason why it should be Secondly That whether any Reasoncan be seen by him or any body else or no yet it is certain it hath been so and that from the very first establishment of the Covenant with Abraham to this very day this Promise hath coveyed to very many the Spiritual Blessings typified when yet it hath not conveyed to them any Interest in or Right to the temporal Blessing as the Type It did so to Abraham himself and it did so to many of his Children That it did convey the spiritual Blessing typified to Abraham himself is evident from that of the Apostle in Heb. 11.10 By virtue of what Promise did Abraham look for that City if not by virtue of this And yet it did not convey unto him the Land of Canaan it self no not so much of it as whereon to set his Feet as Stephen speaks And that it did alike convey the â—piritual Blessing to many of his spiritual Seed under the First Testament who had no Interest in that Land is alike evident Witness all those of Abraham's natural Seed that were also his spiritual Seed antecedent to their actual Possession of that Land So witness all the sincere Proselytes that joined themselves to the Lord during the standing of the Jewish Church they had a Right to the spiritual Blessing typified and that by virtue of this very Promise and yet no Possession no not so much as whereon to set their Feet as it is said of Abraham in the Land of Canaan and why should any question how this can be under the New Testament which was so common under the Old is unaccountable as to me Thirdly The plain Reason of this Assignment of Covenant-Interest in Spiritual Blessings typified by the Land of Canaan as well as in that Temporal Blessing as a Type unto Abraham's Natural Seed and yet of Covenant-Interest only in the Spiritual Blessing typified to his Spiritual Seed so far as such an Assignment was to be made is because it was the Will and Pleasure of God that the Natural Seed should enjoy both the Temporal and the Spiritual Blessings but that his Spiritual Seed should only enjoy the Spiritual Blessings and not the Temporal God as I may so speak first gave the good of the Covenant in the Shell but after gives the Kernal without the Shell and no other Reason is to be assigned hereof but his meer Will and Pleasure But however this is enough for us to prove that in this Promise of Canaan there was included a Spiritual Good viz. Heaven as typified by that Land and that that Promise does still convey an Interest in that Spiritual Good to all Abraham's Spiritual Seed if any shall judg themselves to have sufficient ground still to lay claim to the Temporal Good as the Type they shall not be opposed by me Now that that Promise did imply or include a Spiritual Good is evident by Abraham's looking for a City that hath Foundations by virtue of it Mr. C. himself I suppose will readily grant this and that this Promise doth convey the same Spiritual Good to all his Spiritual Seed is evident from this Covenant its having received its confirmation in Christ and consequently its being not disannuled and the promise thereof unrevoked and consequently applicable to all the Spiritual Seed of Abraham only let this one thing be added that it is not unusual for the Prophets and holy Men of God to promise spiritual Things in terms that according to the letter only intend a temporal good when yet those to whom the Promise does appertain can only lay claim to the spiritual good typified and not to the temporal tipifying take only that one instance Isa 57.13 He that putteth his trust in me they are the words of the Lord by the Prophet shall possess the Land and shall inherit my holy
enquires what that Good and Blessing is which by this Covenant was ensured to the Seed of Abraham mentioned in this Covenant tho he denie not that this Good viz. for a People or Person to have God engaged by Promise to be a God unto them is a Spiritual Good yet he conceives there is no particular Good ensured by that Promise only that by it a general assurance is given that the Promises of the Covenant whereunto it is annexed shall not fail on God's part And for the further satisfying his Reader that this is the true import of and as he supposeth the only thing intended in this Promise he quotes a Passage out of my Essay of that import and hence he conceives this Promise may be and answerably is annexed both to the Old and New Covenant so pag. 145. In answer wherunto I shall say in the general that I shall not contend with any whether this Promise may or may not be annexed to the Old or New Testament and therefore shall not examine the Scriptures quoted by him to prove that it may whether they make to his Purpose or no. The Question is only Whether when this Promise is an essential or constitutive part of any Covenant as it was undoubtedly of this that Covenant can be any other than the Covenant of Grace Now that I deny and on the contrary affirm that it must necessarily be a Covenant of Grace and that for the reason before given and for further clearing up and evincing this I shall offer two things 1st That when it is an essential or constitutive part of any Covenant it doth constitute a mutual Relation between God and the Parties with whom the Covenant is made So much I have affirmed in the place cited by him so that he cites only a part of which I there affirmed Tho its true supposing this Promise did give only such a general Assurance as Mr. C. speaks of it might have been indifferently annexed to the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace but seeing it not only gives that Assurance but also constitutes such a mutual Relation betwixt God and Man it cannot possibly be made an essential or constitutive part of the Covenant of Works The Covenant of Works neither doth nor can constitute such a mutual Relation between God and Man To have an Interest and Propriety in God as their God is a greater Good than can be conveyed to any of the Sons of Men as in their faln and corrupted Estate by a Covenant of Works There is a vast difference between Men's having all the Attributes of God ingaged to make good a particular Promise by virtue of his Truth and Faithfulness in his Promises and a Man's having a personal particular Interest in God as his God and consequently having an Interest in all the Perfections of his Nature as Mr. C. himself acknowledgeth is conveyed by this Promise The former an Heathen may have as in Nebuchadnezzar's case when God had promised him as a Reward for the Service done against Tyrus Ezek. 29.18 The latter is peculiar to those that stand in a New-Covenant-Relation unto God Hence this Promise is never made but it doth constitute or suppose a new Covenant-Relation between God and the Party to whom it is made 2dly That tho that God might lay in to use our Authors words all his Divine Perfections as Pledges that the Promise of any Covenant as it may possibly be entred shall not fail on his part yet it is impossible that he should so lay in his Attributes or Divine Perfections as Pledges that the Promises of this Covenant were it a Covenant of Works should not fail on his part the Tenour of this Covenant renders that impossible Seeing then he should have laid in his Attributes as Pledges that thâ—se Promises should not fail on his part which in respect of many thousands of those to whom they were made he never intended to nor did make them good See my first Book pag. 181. So that we may see how little our Opponent's Cause is advantaged by what I have said and answerably that as that so all the other three Arguments urged for the proving this Covenant to be a Covenant of Grace yet abide in their full force and upon Supposition of te Truth of this former Position the second will be more easily granted Hence I used only two Arguments to prove it both which were drawn from the Discourse of the Apostle Gal. 3. 16 17 29. and they are both grounded upon this Supposition that the Covenant the Apostle there speaks of and hath reference unto is this Covenant recorded Gen. 17.7 which I proved by the Tenour of the Promise constituting the Covenant said by the Apostle to be confirmed in Christ The Promise was to Abraham and his Seed so that the Covenant made with Abraham the Promises of which are to his Seed or run in his Tenour To thee and to thy Seed that must needs be the Covenant the Apostle hath reference unto and consequently must necessarily be the Covenant of Grace under which Believers now are And that this Covenant recorded Gen. 17.7 must necessarily be this Covenant I prove because there is no other Covenant made with Abraham that the Apostle can possibly intend the Promises of which are exprest in those Terms or run in that Tenour Now these things being so plain and carrying such convincing Evidence along with them it may seem exceeding strange how they can be gainsaid by any Yet Mr. Cox denies that that is the Covenant the Apostle hath reference to and to evade this so plain and demonstrative Evidence that it is he doth two things First He insinuates that some of those Promises that ultimately respect Abraham's Spiritual Seed and Spiritual Blessings were sometimes given to Abraham under the covert of those Terms that have an immediate respect unto his Natural Seed and Temporal Blessings as made Types of the other and when they are so the Promise still runs to his Seed in the singular Number Now to this in general I must say neither am I careful what Censures I may fall under thereby a stranger Evasion of any Scripture-Argument rarely if ever occurs in any of those Polemical Treatises that are extant in the Would And I cannot but wonder that Mr. C. would commit such an Evasion to writing seeing litera scripta manet I shall not anatomize it as I might do without a further Call but more particularly I shall say only two things at present 1. That the thing insinuated is utterly false there are no such Promises as those Mr. C. speaks of given to Abraham that did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace Let any one Instance be produced 2. I say where this true yet the Inference drawn therefrom is nothing to the purpose seeing the Question is not whether the Promise is made to Abraham's Seed both Natural and Spiritual or Mystical in one and the same Tenour That 's nothing to
the present purpose whether it be or not the only Question is Whether the Promise Gen. 17.7 be the Promise the Apostle here refers unto which that it is in this his Evasion Mr. C. denies not but rather grants that it is and that is all that at present is contended for Let that be granted it will undoubtedly follow that that Covenant one constitutive part of which that Promise is is the Covenant of Grace seeing the Apostle in the very next Verse assures us it was the Covenant confirmed in Christ 430 Years before the Law was given for having said Verse 1 That tho it be but a Man's Covenant yet if it be confirmed no Man disanulleth or addeth thereto he subjoins ver 16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made it is all one as if he should say now with Abraham and his Seed was the Covenant made For the Promises in this 16th Verse and Covenant both in the foregoing and following Verses are convertible or synonimous Terms intending one and the same thing And then for the Proof of what he designed to prove he expresseth the Tenour of the Covenant made with or Promises made to Abraham and his Seed it was made with or they were made to him and his Seed not with or to Abraham and his Seeds but with or to him and his Seed whence the Covenant or Promises exprest or running in that Tenour must necessarily by the Covenant or Promises here intended but that was the Covenant or those were the Promises recorded Gen. 17.7 And then the Apostle immediately adds in Verse 17. The Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430 Years after cannot disanul Now can it possibly be imagined that the Apostle sould intend any other Promise or Covenant than those or that just before recited How absurd and utterly unreasonable would it be so to do So that that is the Covenant that Apostle must necessarily past all rational Supposition have reference unto Indeed that which Mr. C. would seem to insinuate is this That who the Apostle may have reference to that Promise Gen. 17.7 yet it is so as only to recite the bare Words of it but indeed intending another Covenant and that of a quite different Nature from and made long before this the Words of which he recites But then I would know how we shall be sure that either the Apostle or other Pen-Men of the Holy Scriptures intend according to the Letter of their Words in any other place of the Scriptures But Mr. C. himself seems to be sensible of the insufficency of this Evasion and possibly was not altogether inapprehnsive of the ill consequence of avoiding such plain Scripture as this would be supposing it granted that the Apostle did recite the Words of that Promise Hence he attempts the Evasion of this Evidence given to what we affirm concerning the Covenant by this Discourse of the Apostle another way And so Secondly He endeavours to perswade his Reader that the Promise given Gen. 17. was not the Promise and consequently the Covenant there established with Abraham was not the Covenant that the Apostle refers unto but that it was the Promise made with Abraham Gen. 22.18 Thus pag. 78. which the Apostle calls the Covenant so he expresseth himself Howbeit I conceive the Apostle hath here a direct and special Eye to that Promise Gen. 22.18 In thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed But then he foresees as well he might that this Objection would arise in the Minds of Men That whereas the Promise that the Aostle had reference unto and intends is exprest in these Terms and runs in this Tenour To thy Seed that Promise of Gen. 22. is only made concerning Abraham's Seed that Promise there is not To thee and to thy Seed but in thy Seed and consequently cannot be the Promise the Apostle here refers unto Now let us see what answer can be given to this Objection Why saith Mr. C. Let it be minded that all the Promises made of this Seed viz. Christ in one respect may be said to be made to this Seed in another because they are originally established in the everlasting Covenant of Redemption that was between the Father and the Son In answer whereunto it must be said that this is an Evasion of a like import with the former seeing it signifies nothing at all as to the present Purpose for the Question still concerns not the sence or meaning of the Promise but is only what Promise the Apostle hath reference unto and doth intend And besides it doth imply that the Apostle may cite one Promise and yet intend another Hence unless any Promise made to Abraham with reference to his Seed exprest in these Terms To thy Seed can be produced we may and necessarily must conclude that it is the Promise of this Covenant that the Apostle hath a reference unto and intends By such an answer as this the plainest Scripture may easily be evaded But surely when the Apostle expresseth the Promise he hath reference unto and directly intends in the very Words and Tenour of the Promise Gen. 17.7 and there being no other Promise recorded in Scripture exprest in the same Words or running in the same Tenour that he can possibly have reference unto but only this it will hardly be questioned by any Man that is not resolved to turn away his Ears from him that speaketh from Heaven whether that he the Promise referred unto and intended by the Apostle or no This I shall be bold to say that this one Testimony of the Apostle concerning this Covenant will bear the weight laid upon it will evince to the Judgment of all Men whose Minds are not blinded with excess of Prejudice the infallible certainty of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 its being the Covenant of Grace let Men or Devils do their utmost to weaken it From the whole we see the ground of those two Arguments lying firm the Arguments bottomed thereupon are valid and consequently those six Arguments to prove this Covenant to be the Covenant of Grace remain in their full force Now then before I proceed any further I shall briefly recapitulate what Evidence we have from plain and express Scripture that this Covenant under consideration is not the old Covenant or Covenant of Works but is indeed the Covenant of Grace And 1. The Scripture positively thus affirms this to be a Covenant I will establish my Covenant and this is the Covenant Mr. C. himself acknowledgeth to be a solemn Covenant 2. The Scripture expresly declares that there was but one Covenant made with Abraham wherein his Seed were taken in as joint Parties with himself 3. The Scripture expresly declares that the old Covenant was ordained by Angels in the Hand of a Mediator which this Covenant with Abraham was not 4. The Scripture expresly declares that the old Covenant was made 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace established with
Abraham but this Covenant was made with Abraham himself and that within 40 Years after the very first Transactions of God with him in a Covenant-way 5. The Scripture in express Terms affirms that the old Covenant was not made with either Abraham Isaac or Jacob. And Lastly The Apostle expresly declares that it was this Covenant mentioned Gen. 17.7 that was confirmed of God in Christ which all must and will confess was the Covenant of Grace Now then having thus demonstrated the Truth of this second Proposition both negatively and positively by so many express Scriptures it seems utterly unnecessary that I should add any thing more in the confirmation of it And the Truth is those that after so much plain Scripture will deny this to be the Covenant of Grace and affirm it to be the old Covenant seem to be Persons rather to be pitied and prayed for as under the highest efficacy of Errro than to be disputed with They will remain Instances to succeeding Generations of Mens tenaciousness of Error when once taken upon and entertained by them Neither can it be judged unreasonable tho I should dismiss them with a like answer with that of Abraham's to Dives They have Moses and Paul they have the Old and New Testament let them hear them But yet that I may give our Opponents full Measure heaped up and running over I shall add one Argument more to prove that that Covenant is the Covenant of Grace and it is this Arg. That Covenant the being under or taking hold of which gave Persons a Membership or a right to Membership in the Jewish Church or the Church of Israel after the Flesh was the Covenant of Grace but it was the Covenant of Circumcision or that Covenant established with Abraham that the being under or taking hold of which gave Persons a Membership or a Right to Membership in that Church therefore that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace The Minor Proposition I judg will meet with no Opposition Mr. C. expresly affirms \That Circumcision was the entrance into and boundary of Communion in the Jewish Church so pag. 12. Hence it will and must necessarily be granted that all that had a Right to Circumcision which all that were under or did take hold of that Covenant had had a Membership or a Right to Membership in that Church and therefore not to spend time in the Proof of that which neither can nor will be denied 't is the Major Proposition that only needs Proof ' That then which I am to prove is this viz. That that Covenant the being under or taking hold of which did give Membership or a Right to Membership in the Jewish Church was the Covenant of Grace And for the Proof of this take these Arguments 1. By the Covenant as under or taking hold of which Persons had a Membership or Right of Membership in the Jewish Church Jesus Christ and they came to have and had a mutual Interest and Propriety in each other but it was by the Covenant of Grace that Jesus Christ and any of the Children of Men came to have or have had a mutual Interest or Propriety in each other therefore that Covenant must needs be the Covenant of Grace For the Major Proposition that is evident past all rational Contradiction by a twofold Consideration 1. That Jesus Christ and all those that had a Membership or Right of Membership in the Jewish Church had a mutual Interest and Propriety in each other This is expresly declared Cant. 2.16 My Beloved is mine and I am his They are the Words of the Church speaking of her self in a collective Notion as the Spouse of Christ Now whether we take this Song of Solomon's as a Prophetical History or an Historical Prophesy and so apply the several Passages passing between Christ and his Church to different periods of Time or take it as applicable in the whole of it to the Church indefinitely in all periods of Time we must necessarily understand the Jewish Church or Church under the first Testament consisting of the natural Posterity of Abraham speaking here unto Christ under the notion of a single Person as his Spouse Some that take this Song as a Prophetical History understand this as spoken by the Spouse in Nehemiah's time however the Church under the First-Testament-Administration cannot be excluded Now saith she My Beloved is mine and I am his Here was a mutual Interest and Propriety that Christ and that Church had one in the other and what the Church here speaks of this mutual Interest and Propriety that Jesus Christ and she had in each other may be spoken of or by every particular Member So that whosoever by being under or taking hold of the Covenant were Members of the Jewish Church Christ and they had a mutual Interest and Propriety in each other Christ was theirs and they were his Whosoever were indeed and in truth under or had indeed and in truth taken hold of the Covenant Christ and they had a mutual Interest and Propriety in each other in Foro Dei so whosoever were visibly under or did visibly take hold of the Covenant Christ and they had a mutual Interest and Propriety in each other in Foro Ecclesiae 2. That it was by that Covenant as under or as taking hold of which Persons had a Membership or a Right of Membership in the Jewish Church that Christ and they came to have a mutual Interest and Propriety in each other This is evident seeing it must be by some Covenant that Jesus Christ and the Jewish Church collectively taken and consequently the particular Members of it came to have that mutual Interest and Propriety in each other and what Covenant can it possibly be imagined to be but that as under or taking hold of which they came to be a Church or to have a Membership therein So that the Major Proposition stands firm 2. For the Minor viz. That it was by the Covenant of Grace that Jesus Christ and they came to have a mutual Interest and Propriety in each other This is so plain throughout the Scriptures that it 's hardly to be supposed it should be gainsaid by any that own the Scriptures to be of Divine Original It must either be by the old Covenant or the Covenant of Grace but it could not be by the old Covenant and that for a double Reason 1. Because the very Design of the old Covenant was only to lead Men unto Christ It was as the Apostle expresly declares Gal. 3.24 A Schoolmaster to bring Men unto Christ By it none ever had nor could have an Interest and Propriety in him 2. Because could Christ and Men come to have had a mutual Interest and Propriety in each other by the Law or by the old Covenant the Covenant of Grace had been unnecessary So much the Apostle plainly implies Heb. 8. v. 7. compared with 10. Hence it must necessarily be by the Covenant of Grace Now both the Propositions being true
the Consequent is undeniable Arg. 2. If it were the failing in or non-performance of the Covenant of Grace that did forfeit or disanul their Membership in the Jewish Church who were actual Members of it then it was the Covenant of Grace that their being under or taking hold of which did give them Membership or Right or Membership in that Church But the former is true therefore the latter For the Consequent in the Major Proposition that carries its own Evidence along with it It must necessarily be the same Covenant that the failing in or the non-performance of the Conditions of which they did forfeit or disanul their Membership that their being under or taking hold of which that did give them a Membership or a Right of Membership in that Church their continuance to have performed the Conditions of that Covenant through their being under or taking hold of which they came to have a Membership in that Church would have continued their Membership therein and the failing or non-performance of the Conditions of any other Covenant could not have forfeited or disanulled that their Membership So that look what Covenant it was that the failing in or the non-performance of the Conditions of which did forfeit or disanul their Membership in that Church must undoubtedly be the Covenant that through their being under or taking hold of which they first came to have a Membership therein This istoo plain then to admit of a Denial Therefore 2. For the Minor Proposition viz. That it was their failing in or non-performance of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace that did forfeit or disanul their Membership in that Church who before were Members of it This is expresly affirmed by the Apostle Rom. 11.25 It was their Unbelief that did forfeit and disanul their Membership in that Church They were broken off because of their Vnbelief And that Unbelief is Man's failure in or non-performance of the great Condition of the Covenant of Grace in unquestionable Now I would willingly know what Mr. C. or any others who are like-minded with him as to the nature of the Covenant do judg the Jews through their Unbelief where broken off from I conceive they must either say it was Abraham or the visible Church seeing there is no breaking off from the invisible Church If they say it was Abraham as the Root of that Nation they were broken off from then the meaning must be that through their Unbelief their Relation unto Abraham as his Children was dissolved their natural Relation it could not be hence it will necessarily follow that hitherto respective to the Covenant they had only stood in that Relation of Children unto Abraham through Faith viz. that Faith required under that first Administration But that will utterly overthrow their own Supposition viz. That the Jews stood in their Relation to Abraham as his Children meerly by virtue of their Natural Descent from him and will fully prove what I have elsewhere affirmed of which more by and by If they say it was the visible Church which they were broken off from which is the thing that we affirm then they must either say that their Church was the only visible Church or it was part of the visible Church Let them say which they please it comes all to one seeing it was the same Covenant as under or by taking hold of which they were or came to be Members of that particular Church and Members of the Universal Visible Church Now it was the Covenant of Grace that by their being undere or taking hold of which they were of the Visible Church seeing it was by the failing in and non-performance of the Conditions of that Covenant that they were broken off and that was as before is proved the Covenant of Circumcision therefore that must needs be the Covenant of Grace Arg. 3. That Covenant as under or by virtue of which the Jews had the Oracles of God committed to them was the Covenant of Grace but it was the Covenant of Circumcision or that Covenant established Gen. 17.7 that as under or by virtue of which the Jews had the Oracles of God committed to them therefore that Covenant is the Covenant of Grace The Minor Proposition is expresly affirmed by Mr. C. himself and therefore is secure from any Opposition from him See Pag. 122. Sect. 7. As for the Majro Proposition as previous to the Proof of that let it be observed That by the Oracles of God we are to understand chiefly and primarily the Word of God whether only as written or preached 1 Pet. 4.10 Tho we exclude not any other Means whereby God communicates his Will unto Men Yet I say the Word of God is chiefly and primarily intended Now that the Jews had the Word of God committed unto and entrusted with them as under or by virtue of the Covenant of Grace is evident because the Vouchsafement of this Priviledg as necessarily implied and included in those Promises that do undeniably appertain and must be referred to the Covenant of Grace As for Instance that Promise in Deut. 30.6 where the Lord promiseth to circumcise their Hearts That that Promise is to be referred to the Covenant of Grace will not I suppose be denied Now in the Promise the outward Means which are eminently the Word of God whereby God doth in an ordinary Way effect the Good promised is included and implied See my Essay p. 85. Arg. 4. If the Jewish Church were a Spiritual and not a Carnal or a mere Typical Church then the Covenant it was built upon or the being under or taking hold of which gave a Membership or a Right of Membership in it was the Covenant opf Grace but the former is true therefore the latter The Consequent in the Major Proposition needs no Proof and for the Minor that the Jewish Church was a Spiritual and not a mere Carnal or Typical Church is evident these three ways Only I shall premise this that it is readily granted that that Church at least in most Ages was too carnal many of them were wholly Strangers to Regeneration and true Piety and the major part even of those that were truly Godly yet had but a lower measure of Grace they had Spiritual Life but it was in a lower degree and so in a sense may be said to have been a Carnal Church that is comparatively they were so Thus the Church at Corinth is said to be carnal 1 Cor. 3.3 4. So much shall be readily granted but that that Church by Divine Constitution was to be and answerably at the first Plantation of it was a truly Spiritual Church that is a Church consisting of such as were truly Godly according to the Measure of Grace then given See for this my Answer to Mr. Danver's p. 102 103. And after throughout all Ages there were so many among them true Saints as that that Church in general might be denominated a Spiritual Church in the same sense in which the Church
at Corinth or any other New-Testament-Church may be so called and this I say is evident these three ways First 'T is evident from the Relation constituted between God and it as a collective Body as for Instance 1. He was a Father to it and it his Child Sometimes it is called his Son so Jer. 31.9 Hos 11.1 Sometimes his Daughter so in Psal 45.10 2. God was a Husband to that Church and it as collectively considered his Spouse Jer. 31.32 Hence the Entrance or Renovation of the Covenant between God and that Church is called her Espousals Now can it be supposed that God would take a mere Carnal Church that is a Company of ungodly and unholy Persons into such nigh Relation to himself 2dly What we affirm is evident from the special Love that God bare unto that Church She is called his Beloved Isa 5.1 Jer. 11.15 The dearly Beloved of his Soul Jer. 12.7 So how many Titles doth our Lord Christ give his Church in the Book of Canticles from which that Church cannot be excluded importing the specialty yea the strength of his Love to it 't is needless to mention them Now would an infinitely holy God bear such a Love to an unholy and ungodly Association of Men 3dly To add no more It is evident from the constant Design of all the Prophets to bring up that Church to the Power of Godliness in case of their Degeneracy therefrom But not to enlarge at present I shall only add that it seems to me to argue very low and carnal Conceptions of God and Jesus Christ to talk of his Church as being for many Generations a meer carnal Church As a Close of this we may remark how greatly Mr. C. is mistaken in his Historical Account of God's federal Transactions with Abraham In brief the History lies plainly thus When Abraham was in Vr of the Chaldees serving other Gods as Joshua speaks God of his own free Grace in a pursuance of his eternal Purposes concerning him appears to him and calls him out of his own Country to go into a Land that he would shew him and for his Encouragement so to do makes those Promises Gen. 12.2 3. whereby he prepares the Way to but doth not then enter his Covenant with him Hereupon Terah Abraham's Father takes Abraham and Lot his Grandchild by Haran and they with Abraham's Wife go into Canaan in order to their passing on unto that Land God had called Abraham unto Here they stay for some considerable Time how long we cannot determine But there Terah Abraham's Father dies after which Abraham and Lot whether upon a new Call or no is not certain come into Canaan and immediately upon their coming into that Land the Lord appears to Abraham and tells him expresly that was the Land he had promised to shew him Thus in Gen. 12.6 About nine or ten Years after this the Lord appears to him again and settles this Land upon his Posterity by Covenant yet not to be possessed by them till the fourth Generation so in Gen. 15. latter end Whether this Covenant was the same with that after established as some think I shall not determine But about fifteen Years after this when Abraham was ninety and nine Years old the Lord appears to him again and both constitutes him the Father of the Faithful and thereupon changes his Name from Abram to Abraham and now as the Father of the Faithful as well as of a natural Seed establisheth the Covenant of Grace with him and his Seed in their Generations and ordains an outward Token which he and his Seed were to keep in their Generations And then lastly about six and twenty Years after this the Lord appears to Abraham again and as before he had confirmed this Covenant in Christ more implicitely so now more expresly In thy Seed meaning principally Jesus Christ shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed Gen. 22.18 And this was the last time that we read of that God dealt with Abraham in a way of federal Transactions This being noted I return and come to the third Propsition Prop. 3. That under that Term Seed in the Promise Abraham's natural Seed namely those proceeding immediately from his own Loins were included and primarily intended This I need not insist upon having sufficiently proved it formerly See Infant Baptism from Heaven Book 1. pag. 19. to 32. Neither doth Mr. C. absolutely deny it in his 120 pag. saith he We exclude not the immediate Seed meaning of Abraham only he dissents from me in this which also some Paedo-Baptists do he thinks only Isaac was intended but that Ishmael and Abraham's other Children by Keturah were excluded Answ But be it so I see not how either the Cause of Anti paedo Baptism is much advantaged nor the Cause of Paedo-Baptism prejudiced thereby unless it could be proved therefrom that this Covenant was the old Covenant and not the Covenant of Grace which I shall not so much as suppose that Mr. C. designs Certainly to any considering Man it rather proves the quite contrary But saith Mr. C. We make a Believer's Interest in this Covenant of larger Extent than ever Abraham 's was seeing as he supposes only Isaac was a joint Confederate with Abraham but we make all the Seed of Believers Confederate with their Parents Thus p. 131. To which I answer Supposing it should be granted which yet I am far from doing that only Isaac was included with Abraham in this Covenant that would not at all weaken the claim we ground upon the Extent of this Covenant to the Covenant-Interest of all the Seed of Believers and the Reason is obvious viz. Because the Promise runs in indefinite Terms which are equivolent to universal I will be a God to thee and thy Seed in their Generations Now supposing we are to understand that Phrase in their Generations as extending the Covenant to and taking in the natural Seed of Abraham's Seed viz. Believers as I have elsewhere proved that we are to do and of which more immediately Hence tho God who knew his own Eternal Decrees should have for some special Reasons by express Revelation excluded all Abraham's immediate Children excepting Isaac from an Interest in the Promises and done the like also in respect of Isaac's Children yet after when no such exclusion was made by any immediate Revelation from God the Promise was and is to be understood in the full Latitude in which it is exprest and answerably it so was understood in all succeeding Generations God may exclude whom he will from his Promises by immediate Revelation but when no such Revelation is made we are to interpret the Promise and Practice thereupon according to the true and proper Sence of the Terms it is expressed in But. 2. I absolutely deny that God did then exclude either Ishmael or any other of Abraham's immediate Children and affirm on the other hand that they were all one as well as another included and intended in that
were any such Infants as he speaks of yet it 's unimaginable that they should be left to the wide World and should not be taken up and incorporated into some other Family But 3. Suppose we should grant they were not incorporared into any other Family but were carried into Canaan by some body whose Children either as descended from or adopted by them they could not be accounted to be yet they might have a Right to the Land of Canaan by virtue of their own immediate Parents Interests though not Stedfastness in the Covenant I suppose Mr. Cox will not imagin that all that fell in the Wilderness under the Displeasure of God did forfeit their Covenant-state So that it must be said that this is a very feeble yea reasonless Reason to prove that Abraham's Covenant did extend to and include his remote as well as his immediate Seed 3. Mr. Cox hath one Reason more viz. Because when the Israelites fell into gross Idolatry yet God claims an Interest in their Children which he supposes must needs be by virtue of this Covenant made with Abraham because he thinks it will not be denied but gross Idolatry was a manifest Breach of the Covenant so pag. 118 To which I answer That tho it be not denied that gross Idolatry is a manifest Breach of the Covenant yet all gross Idolatry doth not immediately dissolve the Covenant-Relation between God and his People Adultery and Murder are as manifest Breaches of the Covenant as Idolatry and yet David's Sins of that nature did not dissolve the Covenant-Relation between God and him God always doth but in those times more especially did bear with his People for a while in their Sins tho very gross using the means to bring them to Repentance and that was the Case of the People of Israel at the time referred unto by Mr. Cox God was then dealing with them by his Prophets to bring them to Repentance and designed to try another Means viz. by delivering them into the hands of the Babylonians which did effectually reduce them from that Sin so that notwithstanding their Idolatry God did yet own them for his Covenant-People and answerably might and did claim an Interest in their Children not by virtue of their Relation to Abraham but as the Children of the Covenant tho greatly degenerate Parents But now after when through Unbelief their Covenant-Relation was dissolved God cast off both Parents and Children As for what is added out of the Apochrypha in Confirmation of this Reason its Insignificancy excuses from any Consideration of it He needed not to have shewn us the Sense of the Jews concerning the Covenant-Interest of Parents or Children out of the Apochrypha the Holy Scriptures fully declare and confute their gross Mistakes about it But the Frivolousness of our Author's Reasons being detected I shall at least till the Invalidity of the Arguments I have urged be shown which I expect ad Graecas Calendas conclude that whatever the Sense of the Jews or any others that espouse their Defence was or is yet indeed that Covenant established with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations did as the Pomises of it are to be understood definitely only reach to and include Abraham's immediate Seed and shall add that in the same Latitude and with the some Limitations it hath always been and still is continued to his Spiritual Seed 't is entered with them and their Natural Seed immediately proceeding from their own Loins yet not as tho they were coordinate Parents of the Faithful with Abraham but as Abraham's Seed have Abraham's Blessing come upon them through Jesus Christ I have only one more Paragraph in Mr. Cox's Discourse to reflect upon and that is in his pag. 85. Where he deduces this Corollary from what he said concerning that Transaction of God with Abraham recorded Gen. 12.2 3. wherein he fancies the Covenant of Grace was entered with him Now tho having before proved that no Covenant and consequently not the Covenant of Grace was then entred with him his Corollaries can be look'd upon but as meer Impertinencies yet because what I have elsewhere affirmed is concerned in what he there saith I shall briefly reflect upon that Paragraph And he thus expresses himself That the proper Heirs of this Blessing of Abraham have a Right not only in some but in all the Promises of the New-Covenant and that not in a limited Sense and as suspended on uncertain Conditions but in a full Sense c. Now to this I shall only say that as the Inference is impertinent so the things inferred seem to be very unsound and of a dangerous Consequence to the Souls of Men. I say they seem to be so because I know not how he will interpret those two Expressions A Right in all the Promises of the New Covenant and suspended on uncertain Conditions And therefore shall only desire Mr. Cox to review and seriously consider whether what he here says be consistent with Truth or with what himself hath elsewhere affirmed in particular in his 5th so 142 143 144 Pages and shall go on And Mr. C. having added somewhat in Confirmation of this Inference he adds the Limitation therefore of a New Covenant-Interest to the Grant of an external and temporary Priviledg only I conceive it to be utterly inconsistent with the Promises of the Covenant it self citing Isa 54.13 and 29.21 Jer. 31.33 34. Ezek. 36.26 27. with Heb. 8. In this Mr. Cox and I differ not as to the thing it self tho I conceive such a Limitation of a New-Covenant-Interest as he speaks of is no way inconsistent with those Promises But to come to that wherein I am peculiarly concerned and thus he adds Neither will these Texts admit of another Notion of late insisted on for the Commendation of Paedo-Baptism Here I suppose Mr. Cox hath a direct respect unto me and therefore it 's necessary that I should briefly take notice of what he hath said And this I would in passage remark how far Mr. C. will extend that Expression of late I know not but if he thinks this is a new Notion started by me it argues him to be but little acquainted with this â—ontroversy But for the Notion it self and that is That the Infant-seed of Believers have all of them a certain and definite Interest in the Covenant of Grace by virtue of which they are compleatly justified before God from the Guilt of Original Sin both Origans Originatum and yet not having their Natures renewed they may after fall away This Mr. Cox thinks inconsistent with those Texts before mentioned but whether it be so or no I shall refer him with all others to what I have written once and again to shew its consistency with them Only let it be observed that I say not they are compleatly justified before God only I say they are discharged or freed from the Guilt of Original Sin and that as the necessary result of the change of their States See
Infant-Baptism from Heaven p. 46. to 63. So again p. 208. to 213. See also my Essay p. 89 and so on And having spoken so much to this already I shall add no more at present 2. Mr. C. thinks this Notion is inconsistent with the Analogy of Faith So pag. 86. To which I would say That Men wedded to an Opinion are apt to conceit that inconsistent with the Analogy of Faith which only opposes their own private Opinion possibly by them stiled Faith and so is only inconsistent with the Analogy of their Faith Sure Mr. C. cannot but know that many great Divines who sufficiently understood the Faith of the Gospel judg this Notion is no way inconsistent with that Faith But 2. I would rather say The great Question is Whether the Covenant of Grace do indeed extend to and include the Infants of believing Parents And that it doth as I conceive I may say is fully and as to all unbyassed and unprejudiced Persons satisfactorily proved That that Covenant Gen. 17. is the Covenant of Grace I judg is if not before yet now convincingly demonstrated Now Mr. C. grants that Isaac was included in this Covenant and I suppose he will grant he was so meerly of Abraham's natural Seed Hence it will undeniably follow that the natural Seed of Believers and that as such may have and have had an Interest in the Covenant of Grace and then some Good must be assigned them by virtue of that their Interest therien Hence I would desire one of these two Things of Mr. C. 1. That in case he persist in his Opinion and denies this to be the Covenant of Grace and thereupon denies Infants to have any Interest in that Covenant that then in case he send forth another Impression of his Book or think meet to engage any further in this Controversy he will not fail to give us a clear and ingenuous account of his Judgment relating to the future State of Infants dying in their Infancy especially the Infants of Believers and in case he judg any of them to find Mercy at the Hands of God how they come so to do 2. That in case he acknowledgeth this Covenant to be the Covenant of Grace that then he will give us his Thoughts about the Good and Benefit that the Infant Seed of Believers have by their Covenant-Interest as in case this be the Covenant of Grace a Covenant-Interest some such must necessarily have And this I shall say if he can assign them any considerable Benefit in a way more consistent with the Analogy of Faith than I have done I am not so fond of this Notion but I can relinquish it if he cannot then his utere mecum But let us briefly see what he hath said to prove the inconsistency of this Notion with the Analogy of Faith And thus he proceeds having supposed that it must be granted as it readily shall That either the stain of Original Sin in these Infants is purged when their Guilt is pardoned or it is not The former he knows I affirm not and therefore he proceeds to the latter and saith If he saith their Guilt is pardoned but their Natures not renewed nor the power of Original Concupiscence destroyed so as Sin shall not have Dominion over them To which I answer Mr. C. knows well enough what I have said I say they are discharged from the Guilt and condemning Power of Original Sin but have not their Natures at present renewed But then saith he it will be replyed That then notwithstanding their supposed Pardon they remain an unclean Thing and so uncapable of Admission into the Kingdom of Glory Which is readily granted And I suppose Mr. C. will not deny but that Believers have so much of Original Corruption inherent in them as to render them as so depraved and corrupted uncapable of Admission into the Kingdom of Glory And why may not God purge Infants from the whole Mass of Original Pollution at their very reception into Glory as well as purge Believers of the remainders of that Pollution in them at theirs But he proceeds But the Truth is none are at any time justified before God but such as Christ hath loved and wash'd from their Sins in his own Blood and none are washed by him but those that are in him as the second Adam Which is again granted But then saith he None can have Vnion with him but by the indwelling of his Spirit This I deny and desire to see it proved There is a Political as well as a Physical Union with Christ The former is made by the Covenant The latter by the indwelling of the Spirit See my Essay pag. 65 66. Till what is there said be substantially confuted and the contrary proved viz. That none have any Vnion with Christ but those who have the Spirit dwelling in them I shall conclude that the Benefits afore mentioned are assignable to the Infant-Seed of Believers in a full consistency with the Analogy of the Faith of the Gospel As to what Mr. Cox adds I shall desire that he will explain what he meaneth by the Spirit of God's applying the Blood of Christ for the remission of Sin and prove what he there affirms and I hope he will find me no way tenacious of Deceit But having dispatched what I mainly intended and Mr. C. proceeding in his two last Chapters upon a Supposition that the Covenant under debate is the old Covenant and that it did run in the extent pleaded for by him the groundlesness of both which Suppositions being very apparent they need no further Consideration FINIS