will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee We Answer First That we know of none that do affirm that the Children of Believers are Excluded from the Promise But this we say That as the Denial of Infants Baptism imports no Exclusion from the Promise so neither doth every Right to the Promise Instate a Person into the Inheritance The Jew had a Right to the Promise uncalled First As God had his Remnant among them according to Election Secondly He had a Right to the Promise as God gave him a Priority and Precedency in the tenders of the Promise above and before all other People Thirdly They had a right to the Promise as they were lost Sinners whom Christ came to seek and to save But in neither of these Respects was the Jew an Heir in the Promise Such an Interest and Right to the Promise declares the Person to be a Son by Adoption And if Sons then Heirs of God through Christ Gal. 4. 7. a Priviledge which no title to the natural Father could ever prefer a Creature unto whether under the Gospel Administration or before Secondly The Scripture made use of for Infants Baptism in this Objection is this If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise How plainly doth this Scripture lay the Title of the Heir upon this conditional Qualification of being Christ's And he that is Christs is an Heir by this Text be the Children never so great Aliens and Strangers Thirdly It is said that the Childrens right to the Promise is part of the Fathers Inheritance For the Promise is to thee and to thy Seed whereby is intended that if the Father be Christ's and so cometh to be an Heir then the Promise carrieth the same Title of the Inheritance down to the Children that is if the Father be a Son of Abraham which in Gospel Construction is a Believer then the Child must be a Son of Abraham and a Believer also even by his Birth Priviledge directly confronting many Scriptures which restrain the Blessing of Sonship to Abraham and the Inheritance in all manner of Persons to Faith in Christ Gal. 3. 9. They which are of Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham Not they which are the Children of Believers And in the Text alledged If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's Seed not if ye be the Children of Believers Fourthly As to the Interpretation of that Passage taken from Ver. 16. The Promise is to Abraham and his Seed Besides what hath been said in Answer to the foregoing Objection It ought to be duely considered that the Covenant of Grace or the Gospel Covenant which God made with believing Abraham before his Removal out of his own Countrey Gen. 12. 1 2. was not made with Believers and their Seed but with Abraham and his Seed In thy Seed saith the Text shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed Gen. 22. 18. compared with Gen. 12. 2 3. In thy Seed that is Christ For so the Apostle tells us expresly That to Abraham and to his Seed were the Promises made He saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ Gal 3. 16. So that all Gospel Promises run directly to Christ the Inheriting Seed To him they are made In him do they all center and â—â— him alone all the Blessings in Promise are to be communicated to all his Members 'T is true in the Covenant of Circumcision which God made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9. which was a legal conditional Covenant As God doth therein promise to be a God unto Abraham so he had also a Noble Seed to whom the Blessings therein promised as an Inheritance did inure But under this Qualification as they were his Natural Seed priviledged under that Typical Administration by which this Prerogative was so setled Now to improve this aright the Heavenly Mystery vailed in this Dispensation must be sought out For although Abraham stood a common Father under the Law yet Christ is the only Father the Everlasting Father under the Gospel Administration And this Ancestour hath also his Seed more nobly descended than the Natural Seed of Abraham being all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ ver 16. Yea it is impossible that by any other Qualification men can come to be the Sons of this Ancestour than by being made one with him in the Participation of the Everlasting Grace of the Unchangeable Covenant Now then it is an incompetent Application of Persons to compare every particular Believer and his Children to Abraham the common Ancestour of a whole Administration and the Seed priviledged thereby And no less incompetent is the Application of the Qualification requisite in Persons to be accounted Heirs that because it sufficed to Abraham's Heirs that they were the Sons of his Natural Generation and that they were thereby made capable of an Inheritance in the Figure and Letter That therefore it sufficeth by being the Child according to Natural Generation of any Believer to be upon that account an Heir of God and joint Heir with Christ in the very Substance and Mystery which the former Administration did Prefigure Upon the whole then as to this We say that it is no right Reasoning to infer or suppose that the Infants of Believers are Joynt Heirs with Christ and their godly Parents under the Administration of Grace because of the Birth Priviledge given to Abraham and his Seed by the Law Objection 11. Those to whom the Gospel Covenant belonged to them the Seal thereof appertained But to Believers and their Seed the Gospel Covenant belonged Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed therefore to them the Seal thereof did appertain For the Faederati were to be Signati that is those that were in Covenant were to have the Seal thereof Gen. 17. 10. By way of Consequence therefore it naturally follows that if Circumcision the Seal of the Gospel Covenant belonged to the Seed of Believers under the Law then doth the Gospel Seal Baptism much more appertain to the Seed of Believers now To this we Reply First That there is no natural Consequence at all from this Scripture to infer the Baptizing of Infants nor any ground to build the Gospel Ordinance Baptism upon the command of the legal Ordinance Circumcision as hath been already manifested by what we have said in our Answers to several of the foregoing Objections wherein it hath also been made evident that neither the one nor the other are Represented in the Scripture as the common Seals of the New Covenant that being the peculiar Office of the Holy Spirit Eph. 1. 13. We shall therefore in Answer to the present Objection take occasion more particularly to consider the Nature and Scope of the Covenant God made with Abraham in the Text alledged Gen. 17. 7. And therein to enquire whether the New Covenant made with Believers under the Gospel and that be
if Circumcision the Seal of the Gospel Covenant belonged to the Seed of Believers under the Law Then doth Baptism much more appertain to the Seed of Believers under the Gospel We Reply by denying the Consequence of the Argument For though it should be granted that the Covenant of Circumcision mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8 9. is indeed a Gospel Covenant and that all the Infants of Believers are therein comprehended with their Parents Yet it follows not that they are therefore to have the Seal thereof For the consequence must be proved from this Vniversal All that are in Covenant must be Sealed Which is not true If it were true it must be so either by Reason of some necessary Connexion between the Terms which is none For it is but a common Accident to a Man that hath a Promise or a Covenant made to him that he should have a special Sign for the confirmation thereof It may be present or absent from the Subject God made a Special Promise to Joshua that he should bring Israel into the Land of Canaan To Phineas a Covenant of an Everlasting Priest-hood without any special Sign or Seal distinct from the Covenant Or else it must be so by reason of GOD's Will declared concerning the Covenant of Grace But that is not true The Promise made to Adam which was the same in substance with the Covenant of Grace had no special Sign or Seal annexed to it Noah and Abel were within the Covenant of Grace yet no special Sign appointed them Therefore it is not God's Will that all that are in the Covenant must be Sealed If they had it had been Wâ—ll Worship God not appointing it to them And if you say All that are in Covenant since Abraham's time should be Sealed But neither is that certain since we find no such thing concerning Melchâ—sidek and Lot that Lived in Abraham's time nor concerning Job that it s conceived lived after his time You will say but it is true of those that were in Covenant in Abraham's Family But neither is that true For Male Children before the eighth day and Women though in Covenant yet were not to be Sealed So that you see it is so far from being universally true that all that are in Covenant must be Sealed that this is all which is true All the Male Children of Abraham 's Family if they were eight days old must be signed with the Sign of Circumcision which will never be able to prove the Consequence of the Argument That therefore All the Children of Believers Males or Females must be Baptized unless there were an Express Command or Example in the New Testament signifying God's mind unto us therein The Covenant of Grace was Ratified and Confirmed unto Abraham a considerable time before the Covenant of Circumcision was given to him viz. about twenty five years before it and had then no outward Sign or Seal annexed thereunto And indeed that which hath been of late affirmed That the Covenant of Grace always had an Outward Sign or Seal added to it is so wide a Mistake that on the contrary it may be affirmed That although the Efficacy of its Grace did reach Believers in all Ages yet it was not filled up with Ordinances of Worship proper and peculiar to it self until the times of Reformation nor had till then any outward Sign or Token immediately belonging thereunto For had it been so this Sign or Token as the Covenant it self had remained without change and not vanished away with the other Shadows of the Mosaical Oeconomy Mr. Cox in his Discourse of the Covenants p. 83 84. If it be said That though the sign of Circumcision was Actually applyed only to the Males yet it must be understood that the Females were virtually Circumcised in them as the Nobler Sex We answer That the Conclusion to be proved is that Infants are to be Sealed Actually not Virtually For if a Virtual Sealing or Baptizing were all that you would prove we might grant it we may say Infants are virtually baptized in their Parents and yet it may be unlawful to Baptize them Actually as it would have been unlawful to have Circumcised Women Actually had they been capable thereof notwithstanding their Virtual Circumcision For it had been a Will-Worship there being no Command to do it And indeed to speak exactly Women were not Circumcised Virtually in the Males For he is said Virtually to have a thing by another as by a Proxy or Attorney that might receive it by himself yet according to the Effect of Law another's receiving it is as if he had received it But so the Males did not receive Circumcision for the Females For the Females had they been capable might not be Circumcised in their own Persons It had been their Sin if they had received it God not appointing it as it had been a Sin for a Child to be Circumcised before or after the eighth day in them that altered or swerved from the Appointment of God So that the Conclusion remains yet to be proved that all the Infants of Believing Parents are to be Actually Signed or Sealed by the Ordinance of Baptism unto which you give the term of the Gospel Seal For as there is no Command for the same in the New Testament nor any Example that may give hint unto us of the mind of God therein So neither can it be proved by any just Analogy or Proportion between that and Circumcision Together with which it must be considered that there are other signs of the Covenant besides Baptism As Circumcision and the Pass-over of old so the Lord's Supper now If then we should grant the Conclusion in general that the Infants of Believers are to be Signed yet you would say they are not to be Partakers of the Lord's Supper because it is not appointed for them So in like manner it follows not that they are to be Baptized unless you can prove that it is appointed to them And indeed there is as much reason for the one as for the other For if we must Examine our selves before we be admitted to the one wbich you say Infants cannot do So Faith and Repentance are required as the Condition of the other which Infants are as uncapable of and therefore cannot be duely admitted to either without some Express signifying God's Mind unto us therein For though it may be good to argue thus It is God's Mind therefore it is to be done yet it is too much for us to argue This should be and therefore God hath appointed it Inasmuch as no Reason of ours in Positive Worship such as Baptism is but God's Will alone gathered by some Express Command or Example in the New Testament can acquit an Action so performed from the Guilt of Will-Worship Seventhly Whereas you conceive that Circumcision and Baptism are appointed by God as common Seals of the New Covenant this is affirmed without Proof For no where doth the Scripture give that Character to them that
of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had while Uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe in Uncircumcision to one that never had Faith either before or after his Circumcision nor ever had or should have the Relation of a Father to all Believers as Abraham had In which respect it is equally absurd to say that Circumcision was a Seal unto all its Subjects of the Righteousness of the Faith which they had while Uncircumcised as to affirm that it was the Seal of a Paternal Relation to all Believers unto every one that received it And therefore both these must necessarily be resolved into the particular Circumstances of Abraham the particular Relation he had in the Covenants made with him and not into the Nature of Circumcision considered simply and in it self What Circumcision was directly and in its immediate use is one thing and what it was as subordinate to a better Covenant and Promise that had Precedency to it is another And it is easie to conceive that it was that to the Father of the Faithful in its extraordinary Institution that it could not be to the Children of the Flesh or carnal â—â—ed in its ordinary Use Page 189 190 191. 194. Upon the whole therefore it clearly appears That Circumcision was never appointed by God as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith or of the Gospel Covenant to the Generality of the Subjects thereof It was indeed a Token of the Covenant then made betwixt God and them but a Seal only to Abraham and that in respect of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had being yet Vncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe which cannot be affirmed of any others And so for Baptism it is indeed called a Figure 1 Pet. 3. 21. But a Sign or Figure proper only for men of Understanding not as Circumcision which was a Sign not improper for Infants because it left a signal Impression upon their Flesh when they came to understand the Reason of it But so cannot Baptism be to any Infant And indeed if Baptism be as you say it is a Seal of being already ingrafted into Christ and consequently into the Church then it is a Seal only to Believers who alone are capable thereof Since it is by Faith that men are in Christ and Christ in them 2 Cor. 13. 5. Rom. 11. 20 29. Eph. 3. 17 And therefore it cannot be any Seal at all to Infants that have no Faith But as it is evident that a Profession of Faith is required of all to be Baptized Mark 16. 16. Act 8. 37. which Infants are uncapable of so it is as evident that though Baptism is indeed a Sign or Figure of Regeneration to the Baptized 1 Pet. 3. 21. yet a Seal it cannot be that being the Work which the Holy Scripture assigns unto the Holy Spirit only Eph. 1. 13. In whom also after ye believed ye were Sealed by that Holy Spirit of Promise And no where is it assigned unto Baptism Besides as the true Seal of the Gospel Covenant is not at all at Man's dispose Jo. 3. 8. as Baptism is if that be it So it is as certain that God never sets his Seal to a Blank Which yet it must of Necessity follow that he doth if Circumcision or Baptism either were appointed by God as Seals of the Gospel Covenant or as Seals of their Interest in the Righteousness of Faith to whom soever they were to be Administred 'T is true both serve to represent Spiritual Things and Mysteries and therefore may be justly enough termed Signs Tokens or Figures But yet in a different Respect as well as also in a different manner For though Circumcision might and did signify the Duty of Regeneration or the Necessity thereof to Infants when they came to Years of Understanding Yet Regeneration in Actual being before their Circumcision could not be signified by it for then they had been all saved as it ought to be in the Baptized at least in Profession Mar. 16. 16. Acts 8. 37. Which is all the Baptizer is to require which cannot be expected of Infants However by the Secret Operation of God the great Work of Regeneration may be wrought in them from which they are not excluded by us though they are from Baptism for want of an Institution And if you say you have as much Reason to look upon Infants of Believers to be Sanctified as we have to esteem grown Christians to be such because our owning of these as such depends upon their own Testimony only in a Verbal Profession which may be Counterfeit We Answer That this is not Cogent forasmuch as we have no Testimony of Infants that they are Regenerate but Visible Profession of grown Per sons being Free and Serious is not only in the Judgment of Charity buâ— also of Ministerial Prudence to be taken for a Sign of Regeneration though it may be in God's Sight Counterfeit which belongs to us to examine Eighthly But then at last you tell us That though it cannot be made out that God hath promised to be a God by Regenerating and Justifying every Believer's Child which cannot be affirmed of all the Natural Posterity of Believing Abraham himself without contradicting Rom. 9. 6 7 8. Yet say you they are in Covenant in Respect of outward Priviledges But this we also deny Nor do the Scriptures any where give any Countenance at all unto such a conceit No Scripture in the whole New Testament doth affirm it neither by their Profession nor any other way as a Nation or by solemn Oath or by having Prophets sent unto them or by any other Revelation of Gods Mind or Promise are Infants said to be now at all in Covenant with God upon this Account And if it could be made out that they have an External being in the Covenant yet that gives them no Interest in the Covenant of Grace by God's Promise to be a God to Abraham's Seed Gen. 17. 7. And therefore that Text is in vain alledged to prove Infants to have an Interest in the Covenant of Evangelical Blessings and so of right to be Sealed with the Seal thereof For your Argument if the terms be distinctly opened is nothing else but this Infants of Believers as their Natural Seed are all in the Gospel Covenant not in the Inward but the Outward that is in the Outward Administration that is Baptism and therefore to be Baptized Which is meer trifling as proving that they are to be Baptized because they are to be Baptized and is but a meer Petitio Principij or a pitiful begging the Question in dispute It hath been frequently demanded by us what plain Scripture can you produce for the Warrant of Infants Baptism But for want of a plain Scripture Proof you are driven to make Use of Consequental Deductions And among the rest you seem to have your Principal Reliance upon those drawn from Gen. 17. 7. deriving your Consequence
Flesh but He of the Free-Woman was by Promise There was an Infinite difference in the Propagation of the Seed of the former Church-state and of the Seed of the Gospel-state no less than between Nature and the power of God as was in the Types Ishmael and Isaac Secondly Neither hath this Change brought any other loss upon the Child But First The Interest which it had in the Everlasting Covenant under the former Administration it still retains Secondly The Benefits and Advantages which it had by the Parent are so much bettered by how much the Spiritual State of the Parent under the Gospel by Baptism after Faith is better ratified than under the Law Thirdly All other and further Benefits from the Covenant are more freely and fully tendred and with many enforcing Advantages brought near to be had and enjoyed Fourthly It is an Advantage that as a Token of the Expiration of the Bondage Church State their Signing upon the Natural Birth is also at an end and their Signing into all these Priviledges transferred to an Ordinance upon the visible Test of their New Birth Without which no Word of GOD can be found to raise them to the visible Dignity and Prerogative of the Sons and Heirs of Sarah the Gospel Covenant or Administration Thirdly There is no Colour or Warrant from the Word of GOD that Jesus Christ in the Day of His Appearing did Establish any one Ordinance in the Church which did Import a Communion in his Intercession to be practicable duly by a Person in an unregenerate State or at least that makes not an External Profession thereof Object 4. But what hope can we have of our Infants if they must not be admitted unto Christian Baptism nor reputed as Members of the Common Body and Church of the Faithful We Answer First If the Hope of the Parent for the Childs Salvation be grounded upon the Administration of an Ordinance in Infancy then neither had the Patriarchs for above 2000 Years Hope of their Children which we find untrue by Noahs Prophecy Gen. 9. 26 27. Secondly We demand what Hopes are intended and by what Scriptures the same are Annexed to the Administration of an Ordinance in Infancy Thirdly We justifie a Holy Hope in Believers in behalf of their Children which is grounded upon plain Scriptures without Infant Baptism Fourthly This Argument seemeth to carry in it this Conclusion That Christian People by Infants Baptism are by Scripture Grounds assured according to Gospel Hope of the Salvation of their Children But there wants a Proof for it and we suppose it is not received as a Truth by many that Oppose us in this Point Object 5. If Children may not now be Baptized this makes the Priviledge of Believers under the Gospel to be less than was theirs under the Law For their Children were all admitted as Members of the Visible Church by the Ordinance of Circumcision and we cannot but conclude that our Priviledges for our Selves and for our Children are at least as Honourable Large and Comfortable as theirs and therefore our Infants are to be Baptized To this we Answer That it is true our Priviledge is the same with theirs in respect of the Substance of the Covenant of Grace But neither was that made to the Jews Natural Posterity as such nor is it made to ours As for Circumcision It was indeed a Priviledge to the Jews in comparison of the Heathens but a Burthen in comparison of us And it is accordingly so termed by the Apostle Acts 15. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear And to the same purpose the Apostle Paul also exhorts the Believers Gal. 5. 1 2 3 4. to stand fast in their Christian Liberty and not to be Intangled again in their former Yoke of Bondage in this respect And therefore it is so far from being a Priviledge to our Children that they should have either it or any other thing in the place and use of it that the Truth is it is a great Priviledge that they have neither it nor any other thing in the stead of it but Christ manifested in the Flesh And the Parents lose nothing by denying Baptism to Infants in the place and use of Circumcision but it is indeed if rightly considered a Benefit to them to want it God not appointing it nor making a Promise of Grace to be confirmed by it to the Infants of Believers Clear it is that we have no better Promises in respect of the Substance of the Covenant of Grace now than they had then only the Administration of the Covenant is now better than it was to them Then it was with Expectation of Christ to come now with Assurance of Christ already come in the Flesh and accomplishing what was foretold of Him Then Christ was shadowed with dark Types now we see Him unvailed in a plain History So that though it be true that the Priviledges of Believers are now many ways Inlarged in some respects yet simply the Covenant of Grace is not inlarged in respect of the Substance of it The Promises of Grace are still belonging to the Elect and Believers and to no other In respect of the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9. it is plain the Jews had some Priviledges above us but the want of some Priviledges which they had is abundantly recompenced unto us by other Priviledges which they had not Particularly in respect of the clearness of the Revelation of the Gospel Covenant and also in respect of the universal tender and publication of it in as much as now not only the small Nation of the Jews but also of all Nations Believers are brought into the participation of the same together with the more abundant Communication of the Holy Spirit To which purpose we are told that the Holy Spirit was not yet given to wit neither in that manner nor measure as afterward because Christ was not yet Glorified Jo. 7. 39. So that it is no Absurdity to grant that the Jews might have more Privilebges in some things than we and yet our Case and Condition to speak simply better than theirs by reason of other Priviledges we have above them which abundantly recompence the defect of those Priviledges of theirs whether real or supposed And the Truth is Priviledges are so Arbitrary and Various that God gives them as He thinks good oft times without assigning any special Reason So that no Argument can be drawn thus GOD gave such a Priviledge to the Jews therefore we must have such a Priviledge too except we can prove it is GOD's Will it should be so And therefore this Argument is of no force without an Institution to attempt to prove that because the Jews had a Priviledge to Circumcise their Infants therefore we must have a Priviledge to Baptize ours Nor indeed is there any Scripture that proves that Baptism of Infants is a Priviledge
one and the same In order to the Resolution whereof we must understand that as Abraham by Promise stood in a double Capacity viz. First As he was a natural Father unto the Jews who proceeded from him in a course of Natural Generation Secondly As he was a Spiritual Father in which respect he was the Father of many Nations comprehending the Spiritual Israel whether Jews or Gentiles throughout the World So accordingly the Promises made unto Abraham were of two sorts some respecting his Natural Seed whether Domestick or National which were Typical of the Spiritual as the Birth of Ifaac the Deliverance of his Posterity out of Egypt the possessing of the Land of Canaan with many other temporal Blessings and Benefits Annexed thereunto And others again respecting in a peculiar manner the Spiritual Seed the Family of the Faithful the Elect of whom through Christ he was the Father and which are Evangelical belonging in an especial manner to the Gospel Covenant As Gen. 17. 5. I have made thee a Father of many Nations And that which we find Gen. 15. 5. So shall thy Seed be In which it is promised That there should be of the Nations innumerable that should be Abrahams Seed by believing Rom. 4. 17 18. And again it was an Evangelical Promise that we find Gen. 12. 3. and Gen. 18. 18. And in thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be Blessed For in these is promised a Blessing to Believers of whom Abraham is Father Gal. 3. 8 9. And by Christ who is the Seed of Abraham Gal. 3. 16. And therefore Secondly It is of great moment in the present Case rightly to distinguish and truly to apply the several Promises God made unto Abraham according to their proper Subjects It being evident from what hath been already said that though under the Domestick or National Promises to Abraham peculiar to him and his Posterity by Sarah Spiritual Blessings in Christ were shadowed yet Circumcision was not a Token to every one Circumcised that the Promises whether National or Spiritual did belong to him Nor was Interest in the Covenant the Adequate Formal or proper Reason of the Circumcising of them For Ishmael was Circumcised and others were to be Circumcised to whom none of the Promises in that Covenant were made as is plain from Gen. 17. 21. Rom. 9. 7 8. Gal. 4. 28 29. It is no good Argument therefore to say they were in the Covenant therefore to be Circumcised For Females were in the Covenant yet not to be Circumcised Nor on the other side Males were to be Circumcised therefore they were in the Covenant For Ishmael and others were to be Circumcised yet not in the Covenant Whereby 't is plain that the true Reason why any were Circumcised was the Command not Interest in the Covenant Much less is it true that is suggested by some That Children are to be Baptized by Vertue of the Promise first to the Parents as Believers and in them to their Seed as subordinates For besides that there is no such Promise in Scripture that God will be a God to every Believer and his natural Seed So the Rule of Baptizing either Parents or Children is not Interest in the Promise by God's Promise to them But their Profession of Faith or being actual Disciples of Christ whom alone Christ hath appointed to be Baptized Thirdly As to what concerns the Covenant of Grace therefore or the Gospel Covenant which according to the foregoing Argument is said to be now made with Believers and their Seed as the ground of their Admission to Baptism We must know that the Covenant of Grace is to be considered either in respect of the Promises of Eternal Life made to all the Elect in Christ the which remains one and the same in all Ages though variously Administred in the times of the Old and New Testament or else in respect of the manner of its Administration For if the Covenant be understood in the first sence of the Promise of Eternal Life and Salvation made to the Elect in Christ That did never belong to all the Children born of Believing Parents as hath been already Instanced in Ishmael and Esau c. but only such as are Elected of them Rom. 9. 7 8 9. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children c. The Covenant of Grace being first made between God and Christ and all the Elect in Christ And therefore in Scripture it is called The Promise of Eternal Life which was made to the Elect before the World began who are therefore called the Heirs of Promise Which Promise had its first Promulgation to Adam in the Garden of Paradise where we have also the first Discovery of the Mystery of the two Seeds Now the Covenant of Grace in this Sense is not the Ground and Reason of Administring Ordinances to any Person whatsoever But the Law of Institution only is the Ground and Reason of visible Administrations For the Administration of Ordinances belongs not to the substance of the Covenant but depends meerly upon the Law of Institution without any other Consideration And hence we find that from the first Promulgation of the Covenant to Adam until God made the Covenant of Circumcision with Abraham there was no Ordinance to be administred to Infants Though some Infants as well as grown Persons both of Believers and Unbelievers might be comprehended in the Covenant Yet not to be Circumcised and so not to be Baptized for want of an Institution So the Promise Acts 2. 39. is said to be to them afar off in the present tense while uncalled And yet not to be Baptized before calling unless you will Baptize Gentiles in professed Gentilism And so the Jews some not yet born some not called have the Promise of God made to them Rom. 11. 27. For this is my Covenant unto them when I shall take away their Sins And yet they are not to be Baptized ' til Converted Nor indeed can the Covenant considered in its pute Nature be a Ministers Rule to Administer Ordinances by seeing it is unknown who are in the Covenant and who are not But that which is their Rule must be something that is manifest As for the External Administration of the Covenant as you have already heard that hath varied in several Ages according to the Will of the Law-giver for during all that period of time from Adam to Abraham there was no Ordinance to be Administred to Infants In Abraham's time indeed Circumcision was Instituted which Ordinance belongs peculiarly to the Old Testament Administration and was part of Moses's Law which is now Abrogated and done away And this was the first Ordinance that was Administred to Infants and not to all Infants but only to Male Infants Living in Abraham's Family if they did Live to the Eighth Day otherwise they had no right to this Ordinance though many of them doubtless in the Covenant of Grace and so Saved So we say of
therefore said to have Obtained a more Excellent Ministry viz. than that of Moses by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant which is established upon better Promises Heb. 8. 6. Besides we are expresly told Jo. 1. 17. That the Law was given by Moses but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ From whence it plainly follows that the Covenant insisted on was not a Covenant of Grace properly so called not only for as much as Moses was the Mediator of it But also forasmuch as the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ is here so plainly Contradistinguished or opposed thereunto § 4. But that this Covenant which by the Mediation of Moses was thus Solemnly renewed and afresh transacted between God and them in the land of Moab was plainly a Covenant of Works or a Legal Covenant will be yet further undeniable by comparing Exod. 1◠5. with Deut. 29. 9. and both with Lev. 18. and Rom. 10. 5. For as in Exod. 19 Where that Covenant is first mentioned which God made with Israel by the Mediation of Moses in Horeb or at Mount Sinai which the Apostle speaks of Heb. 8. when God took them by the hand to lead them out of Aegypt He there tells them ver 5. Now therefore if you will obey my voice indeed and keep my Covenant then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all People for all the Earth is mine So in like mannner upon the same terms and by the hand of the same Mediator is the same Covenant afterward renewed with them Deut. 29. 9. Keep therefore saith God there unto them the words of this Covenant and do them that you may prosper in all that you do Now that both these were but two several Repetitions of the same Covenant of Works the Apostle plainly shews Rom. 10. 4. 5. Christ saith he there is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth For Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the man which doth these things shall live by them which he citeth from Lev. 18. 5. Where the Lord tells them you shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgments which if a man do he shall live in them The same with Exod 19. 5. and Deut. 29. 9. And the same Apostle also assures us Gal. 3. 10. that as many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse for it is written saith he Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are in the Book of the Law to do them § 5. Now it having been thus proved that the Covenants Mentioned in both these forenamed Scriptures were made by the hands of the same Mediator Moses And that they were both also of one and the same tenor requiring perfect Obedience as the Condition of Obtaining the Promised Mercy And forasmuch as St. Paul doth so plainly assure us that this was no other than a Covenant of Works and that which he Contradistinguisheth or opposeth to the Righteousness of Faith or the Gospel Covenant which he afterward speaks of ver 6 7 8 9. of the same 10th to the Romans From hence it plainly follows That the formentioned Covenants both that in Deut. 29. as well as that in Exod. 19. which were but two several Repetitions of the same Covenant of Works are now Repealed and done away in Christ For so he doth plainly assure us Heb. 8. 8 9 13. where he tells us That if that first Covenant had been faultless then no place should have been sought for the second For finding Fault with them he saith Behold the days come saith the Lord when I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah not according to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers in the Day when I took them by the Hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt because they continued not in my Covenant and I regarded them not And verse 13 In that he saith a New Covenant he hath made the first Old Now that which decayeth saith he and waxeth old is ready to vanish away From whence it is plain that the old Covenant he there speaks of which God made with his People when he took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt mentioned Exod. 19. 5. and Deut 29. 9. for the faultyness thereof is now Abollished For there is verily saith he Heb. 7. 18. a disannulling of the Commandment going before for the Weakness and unprofitableness thereof Upon which Account a New Covenant was to take place which was to be Established upon better Promises § 6. And therefore though 't is true in Deut. 30. 6. which Mr. Baxter urgeth and alledgeth to prove that the Covenant mentioned Chapter 29. is a Gospel-Covenant The Lord then promiseth that he will Circumcise their Heart and the Heart of their Seed to love the Lord their God with all their Heart and with all their Soul that they might live Which are plainly Gospel Promises yet it is evident that that is a distinct Covenant from that mentioned Chapter 29. the one being Conditional the other Absolute And it is as evident that the Promises therein contained were not to be fulfilled till after the Lord had turned their threatned Captivity for their Breach of the Covenant he now made with them and till after he had returned and gathered them from all the Nations and from the outmost Parts of Heaven whether they should be scattered and from whence the Lord there promiseth to gather and to fetch them as it is plainly Expressed in the 1 2 3 4 and 5th Verses of that Chapter compared with the 24th and 25th Verses of the 29th Chapter which was never yet fulfilled § 7. But saith Mr. Baxter Did God Promise Spiritual Grace to the Jews after the Captivity and not before Was not the Promise made to them that then were Were not they Captivated oft in the time of the Judges and so might at least be made good then If God would do as much for them before they forsook him and broke the Covenant by Rebellion as he would do afterward when they Repented then he would Circumcise their Hearts before as well as after But the former is true therefore the latter Besides some Divines say that the Promise Deut. 30. 6. is Conditional And if it be on Condition of Obedience than it was made to more than the Elect and if it were not performed to any but the Elect no wonder when it was a Conditional Promise and the rest performed not the Condition which God will Cause the Elect to perform §8 To this we Reply That as it is evident that the Promises mentioned Deut. 30. 6. are Absolute and therefore Essentially different from those mentioned ch 29. which were Conditional so they are as clearly to be understood in Reference to a time to come and cannot without palpable streining be applied unto the time then present nor indeed unto any
shall be a peculiar Treasure unto me above all People for all the Earth is mine ve 6. And ye shall be unto me a Kingdom of Priests and an Holy Nation And if this was a Covenant of Works as the Apostle doth plainly Affirm it is Rom. 10. 5. from Lev. 18. 5. Why not that made with Abraham also since the terms are the same as well as the Promises are the same The like account the Scripture gives us of the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. You have seen saith Moses there ver 2 3. all that the Lord did before your Eyes in the Land of Egypt unto Pharaoh and all his Servants the great Temptations which thine Eyes have seen and those great Miracles ver 4. Yet the Lord hath not given you an Heart to perceive and Eyes to see and Ears to hear unto this day ver 5. 6. And I have led you forty years in the Wilderness your clothes are not waxen old upon you That ye might know that I am the Lord your God ver 9. Keep therefore the words of this Covenant and do them that ye may prosper in all that ye do The same Language with that Exod 19. 5. and Lev. 18. 5. compared with Rom. 10. 5. So that we cannot but plainly see that all those fore-mentioned Covenants are of one and the same Nature what the one is the others are the same And therefore if the Covenant made with our First Parent before the Fall and that made with Israel at Mount Sinai were neither of them a Covenant of Grace nor a Gospel Covenant whereof Christ is the alone and only Mediator For the same Reason neither was that mentioned Deut. 29. nor that Gen. 17. 7 8 9. as being all of the same tenor and the Promises in them all of a like Nature § 6. The whole entire Nature saith Dr. Owen of the Covenant of Works consisted in this That upon our Personal Obedience according unto the Law and Rule of it we should be Accepted with God and Rewarded with him Herein the Essence of it did consist And what ever Covenant proceedeth on these terms or hath the Nature of them in it however it may be varied with Additions or Alterations is the same Covenant stiil and not another As in the Renovation of the Promise wherein the Essence of the Covenant of Grace was contained God did oft times make other Additions unto it as unto Abraham and David yet was it still the same Covenant for the Substance of it and not another So whatever Variations may be made in or Additions unto the Dispensation of the First Covenant so long as this Rule is retained Do this and Live it is still the same Covenant for the Substance and Essence of it Dr. Owen in his late Discourse Entituled The Doctrine of Justification by Imputed Righteousness p. 397. SECT II. BUt forasmuch as Mr. Roberts Mr. Sedgwick and many other Divines who have Written upon the Covenants do affirm that the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Faith or which is all one a Covenant of Grace At least that it was Subserviently the Covenant of Grace Or a Covenant of Grace for the Substance of it though propounded in a more dark way and in a manner fitting for the State of that People and that present time and Condition of the Church And for as much as it will unavoidably follow that if that was a Covenant of Grace So also was that made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9. We shall therefore the more Intently apply our selves toward the Discovery of their great Mistakes in this Respect it being of so vast an Importance to the Church of God to be set at rights herein on which as all will grant So much of the Superstructure of the Christian Faith and Practice depends For this purpose therefore Additional unto what hath been already said we shall only premise two Arguments proving that the Covenant at Mount Sinai mentioned Exod. 19. and Exod 20. was no other than a Covenant of Works And then proceed to Answer those Scripture Objections which are usually urged by way of Opposition hereunto § 2. In the first place then that the Covenant at Mount Sinai before mentioned was no other then a Covenant of Works We thus prove First that Covenant that is not of Faith cannot be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle doth Expresly affirm that the Law is not of Faith Gal. 3. 11 12. Which is most plainly to be understood of Mount Sinai Covenant therefore that Covenant cannot be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Secondly that Covenant which is now Repealed could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works But the Apostle doth plainly Affirm that the Covenant which God made with his People at Mount Sinai when he took them by the Hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt for the faultiness thereof is now Repealed Heb. 7. 18. Chap. 8. 7. 13. 2. Cor. 3. 7. 11. Col. 2. 14. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works The Covenant of Grace being every way Immutable and perfect and therefore unrepealable and Eternal 2. Sam. 23. 5. Isa 55. 3. Heb. 7. 21 22 24 25. Heb. 13. 20. And the Gifts and Callings thereof without Repentance Rom. 11. 27. 29. And if Mount Sinai Covenant was no other than a Covenant of Works and accordingly now Repealed It cannt be denied but that the Covenant Gen. 17. 7 8 9. Was of the same Nature and therefore also now Repealed Act. 15. 10. 24. Col. 2. 14. § 3. If any shall Object that it is unlikely that the Covenant of Works should be Renewed after Mans fall and after the Covenant of Grace had actually taken place as it did in the first promise Concerning the Womans Seed that was to bruise the Serpents Head We answer that how absur'd so ever it may seem to us it is plain matter of fact that so it was and we ought not to Impeach Infinite Wisdome that so appointed it And if we will know the reason why the Covenant of Works should be thus Renewed after the Fall the Scripture Expresly tells us That the Law was added because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made Gal. 3. 19. The Apostle had before told us ver 17. That the Covenant that was Confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430. Years after could not Disannul that it should make the Promise of none Effect wherefore then saith he ver 19. Serveth the Law To which himself gives this Resolution That it was added because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made And elsevvhere the same Apostle Informs us That the Law entered that the Offence might abound Rom. 5. 20. Or as he Expresseth it Chap. 7. 13. That Sin by the Commandment might become exceeding Sinful It being Evident that the Lavv vvas appointed as a School-master to Christ Gal. 3.
can be a more plain Description of a Covenant of Works and that of God's own Designation and Appointment And that not in the way of a Partial imperfect Obedience But as it is Written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. which the Apostle quotes from Deut. 27. 26. Cursed be be that Confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them And all the People shall say Amen § 3. So that the Jews were right enough in their Notion concerning the Law in reference to the true Nature thereof that it was indeed a Covenant of Works For Paul doth plainly acknowledge it to be such and God himself by the Mouth of his Servant Moses as plainly expresseth it so to be in the very first Sanction of it though they were out in respect of its proper use and intention which was not that any should attain unto Life and Righteousness thereby but as we have before observed to shew them the Nature of Sin and the Holiness and Righteousness of God to convince them of their Sin and Misery without Christ and their necessity therefore of a Saviour which they being ignorant of and still going about to Establish their own Righteousness which was of the Law and refusing to submit themselves unto the Righteousness of God which was now Manifested without the Law as it had been before Witnessed by the Law and the Prophets They Stumbled at that Stumbling-stone and were accordingly Broken and Snared and Taken Rom 9. 31 32 33. Chap. 10. 3. And this was the true ground of the Dispute between the Apostle and them § 4. But all this notwithstanding it is evident that the Law was a Covenant of Works still And it is also as evident that it was Appointed and Established by God as a distinct Covenant from the Promise of Grace and essentially different therefrom under which the Natural Posterity of Abraham were for a Season to be Subjected until the time appointed of the Father Gal. 4. 1 2 c. as the Fruit of infinite Wisdom who thought fit to impose this Burthen upon them notwithstanding or rather Additional unto those Discoveries of Grace For the Law is said to have been Added unto the Promise that had been otherwise Revealed unto them and whereby they were Saved So that the forementioned Objection notwithstanding it still remains Firm and Unshaken that the Law was no other than a Covenant of Works So it was designed and appointed by God himself and constantly in the Scripture is it Represented to us under that Character SECT V. BUt whereas the Apostle tells us that the Law is not against the Promises Gal. 3. 21. Mr. Sedgwick will needs hence conclude that the Law was not a Covenant of Works For saith he The Law is not against the Promises nor doth Faith make void the Law Both these can very well agree together but so they could not if the Law had been given as a Covenant of Works For now the Law would be Expresly against the Promises and Faith will certainly make void the Law The Promises of God are contrary to a Covenant of Works and Faith is Destructive to a Covenant of Works If therefore the Promises and Faith and the Law can consist then the Law cannot be set up as a Covenant of Works § 2. To this we Reply First That it ought to be duly Observed that the Law and the Promise having divers ends it doth not therefore follow that there is an Inconsistency between them For although there is nothing that can be clearer than this That the Law was set up and appointed by God as a Covenant of Works to the Jews to convince them of Sin and the necessity of a Saviour yet did God never intend it as a Means to give Life and Righteousness nor was it able so to do The end of the Primise was to give Life Righteousness Justification and Salvation all by Christ to whom and concerning whom it was made But this was not the end for which the Covenant of Works was Revived in the Covenant of Sinai For although in its self it requires a perfect Righteousness and gives a promise of Life thereon He that doth these things shall live in them yet it could give neither Righteousness nor Life to any in a State of Sin Rom. 8. 3. Chap. 10. 4. Wherefore the Promise and the Law having divers ends they are not contrary to one another Nay rather the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works instead of being against the Promise it tends to the Establishment of it by declaring the Impossibility of obtaining Reconciliation and Peace with God any other way but by the Promise For representing the Commands of the Covenant of Works requiring perfect Sin-less Obedience under the Penalty of the Curse it convinced Men that this was no way for Sinners to seek for Life and Salvation by And herewith it so urged the Consciences of Men that they could have no Rest nor Peace in themselves but what the Promise would afford them whereunto therefore they saw a necessity of betaking themselves So that though we affirm the Law to be no other than a Covenant of Works as the Apostle himself doth yet it doth not therefore follow that it is against the Promise it having so Blessed a Subserviency toward the Establishment thereof § 3. Secondly though the Apostle doth indeed tell us Gal. 3. 21. That the Law is not against the Promises The following Words do sufficiently clear his Meaning to be of quite another Nature than Mr. Sedgwick in his forementioned Discourse apprehends it to be Mr. Sedgwick indeed will by no-means allow that the Law was set up as a Covenant of Works and then it must of necessity follow that it is a Covenant of Faith But the Apostle seems to be of another mind For having told us ver 18. That if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise But God gave it to Abraham by Promise And having answered the Question or Objection ver 19. Wherefore then serveth the Law To which himself gives this Resolution That it was added because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made He brings in this further Objection ver 21. against what he had before Asserted viz. That if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise c. Is the Law then against the Promises God forbid saith he For if there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe In the first place then it is Evident and Undeniable that Abraham's Inheritance was not derived unto him through the Law For saith our Apostle If the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise
have built up an Answerable Superstructure of Faith and Practice how great will such a Miscarriage prove to be at last Indeed there is no part of the Christian Faith or Practice but must one way or other have been Influenced and Corrupted thereby Accordingly hence hath sprung that Jumbling or Confounding of Law and Gospel together which the Spirit of God doth so Distinguishingly represent unto us in the Word of Truth and which the Apostle doth so severely Rebuke the Teachers among the Galatians concerning I Marvel saith he Gal. 1. 6 7. that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the Grace of Christ unto another Gospel which is not another but there be some that trouble you and would Pervert the Gospel of Christ They would Pervert it that is they would change it Overthrow it and turn it upside down by mingling Law and Gospel together pretend unto the Gospel and yet seek for Righteousness as it were by the Works of the Law But certainly as we are not to Seperate or put asunder what God hath Conjoyned so neither are we to mingle what God hath Separated and doth plainly Distinguish The Law is not the Gospel nor is the Gospel the Law These two are distinct and must be kept so as having their Distinct Services and in their proper Places To call therefore the Covenant of Works a Covenant of Faith or the Legal Covenant deliver'd on Mount Sinai a Covenant of Grace is no other than to Blend or Confound Law and Gospel together as if they were the same thing and no distinstion at all to be made betwixt them only in respect of the different Degrees or clearness of the Revelation of Gospel Grace § 6. But whatever we may Imagine the Apostle doth most plainly distinguish betwixt Law and Gospel and that in Respect of the whole Entire Nature Essence or Subsistance of either Tell me saith he Gal. 4. 21. c. You that desire to be under the Law do ye not hear the Law Know you not that Abraham had two Sons the one by a Bondwoman the other by Free the one Born after the Flesh the other by Promise And know you not that this was plainly Typical of the two Covenants the Legal and the Gospel And that these two must needs be therefore Essentially Different as much as Bondage is from Liberty Or a Birth after the Flesh from that by promise Tell me saith he You that desire to be under the Law do ye not hear the Law Doth not the Old Testament it self speak this Language to you But whom doth the Apostle mean when he speaks of them that desire to be under the Law 'T is strange that after the Gospel took place any should desire to be under the Law or that any should be desirous of returning to that old and former Yoke of Bondage they had so long been Labouring under and were now delivered from To be under the Law is not to be under Grace For these two are directly opposite Rom. 6. 14. Sin shall not have Dominion over you for ye are not under the Law but under Grace But yet nevertheless it seems such there were even in the Apostle's time who were desirous to be under the Law And 't is as plain that such there are now But who are they Why they are plainly those that Affirm that the Law is a Covenant of Faith or a Covenant of Grace Those must needs be of the Number of them that desire to be under the Law And how can it be otherwise For ought we not to submit our selves to a Covenant of Faith and Subject our selves under the Power and Dominion of Gospel Grace If therefore we affirm that the Law is a Covenant of Faith or a Covenant of Grace we cannot be true to our own Principles if we do not desire to be under it and under the Power and Dominion of it and that not barely as a Rule of Life which we all grant but as a Covenant of Life or as a Covenant of Faith and Grace as it is affirmed to be But if we are desirous to be under the Law let our Notion thereof be what it will that it is a Covenant of Works or a Covenant of Grace This is the direct and ready way for Christ to become of no Effect unto us For saith the Apostle Gal. 5 4. Whosoever of you are Justified by the Law ye are fallen from Grace And Consequently instead of being not under the Law but under Grace as the same Apostle speaks of the believing Romans We are rather under the Law and not under Grace For these two are there as well as in many other places besides plainly distinguished as quite Opposite the one unto the other So that if we are under the one we are not under the other If we are under Grace we are not under the Law And if we are under the Law we are not under Grace § 7. But tell me saith Paul in the forementioned Gal. 4 21 c. You that desire to be under the Law Do you not hear the Law For it is Written that Abraham had two Sons the one by a Bond-Maid the other by a Free-Woman But he who was of the Bond-Woman was born after the Flesh But he of the Free-Woman by Promise Which things are an Allegory For these are the two Covenants the one from Mount Sinai which gendereth to Bondage which is Agar For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to Jerusalem which now is and i◠in Bondage with her Children But Jerusalem which is above is free which is the Mother of us all For it is Written Rejoyce thou barren that bearest not c. Now we Brethren saith he as Isaac was are the Children of the Promise Wherein the Apostle doth make a plain Difference between the two Covenants the Legal and the Gospel in the very Radical Nature or Essence of either Not in point of the Degrees of the Manifestation of Gospel Grace as is by many Divines suggested For the Law Written in Stones discovers none at all The Covenant from Mount Sinai saith our Apostle gendereth to Bondage For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and is in Bondage with her Children So that Mount Sinai Covenant is no other than a Bondage Covenant it gendereth to Bondage this is the natural scope and tendency of it and accordingly all her Children are in Bondage And therefore unless we shall say that the Covenant of Faith gendereth to Bondage Or that the Covenant of Grace is a Bondage Covenant And that all those that are under it or are the Children of it are in Bondage we can by no means allow that Mount Sinai Covenant was ever designed by God as a Covenant of Faith or as a Covenant of Grace as by many Divines it is Confidently Affirmed to be And therefore also All those that desire to be under it which cannot be avoided by those that affirm it to be a Covenant
after Breaches do Else why doth the Apostle tell us as he doth concerning the same Sinai Covenant that it is dis-annulled Heb. 7. 18 For there is verily a dis-annulling of the Commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof So likewise Heb. 8. 7. For if that first Covenant had been faultless there should no place have been sought for the second And Vers 13. In that he saith a New Covenant he hath made the first Old Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away Though the Sinai Covenant therefore was Renewed after the first Breach thereof yet the Scriptures do give us a Positive Assurance that at length it was utterly and irreparably broken And so broken that at last it was dis-annulled made to Expire and vanish away which is utterly Inconsistent with the Nature of the Covenant of Faith according to the whole Scope and Tenour of the Scriptures So that we see that without a Manifest and Palpable Absurdity there is no Resisting the force and Evidence of the forementioned Objection The Conclusion whence Resulting is therefore highly Rational and remains firm and unshaken That since the Sinai Covenant is both by the Prophet and Apostle plainly opposed to the New Covenant and is said to be broken and so broken as to Expire and vanish away Therefore it is not a Covenant of Faith which is Everlasting and cannot be broken but a Covenant of Works that was but Temporary and liable thereunto As for the unchangeable nature of the Covenant of Faith at least on Gods part whatever it is on ours besides a multitude of other Testimonies that might be produced the 89. Psalm gives us a clear and convincing Evidence thereof Vers 30. c. If his Children forsake my Law and walk not in my Judgments if they break my Statutes and keep not my Commandments Then will I Visit their Transgression with the Rod and their Iniquity with Stripes Nevertheless my Loving kindness will I not utterly take from him nor suffer my faithfulness to fail My Covenant will I not break nor alter the thing that is gone out of my Lips Once have I Sworn by my Holiness that I will not lie unto David his Seed shall endure for ever and his Throne as the Sun before me It shall be Established for ever as the Moon and as a faithful Witness in Heaven The like Assurance we have concerning the Promise made to Abraham Wherein saith the Apostle Heb. 6. 17 18. God willing more abundantly to shew unto the Heirs of Promise the Immutability of his Counsel Confirmed it by an Oath that by two Immutable things in which it was Impossible for God to lie we might have strong Consolation c. So that we see the Covenant of Faith or which is all one the Covenant of Grace is every way perfect unchangeable unrepealable and Everlasting Whereas the Sinai Covenant was of a faulty decaying vanishing Nature and accordingly was at last disannulled and therefore could not possibly be any other than a Covenant of Works § 8. The Second Absurdity is this Whereas Mr. Roberts pag. 772. of his forementioned Discourse pretending to Answer the Seventh Objection against his Assertion the Objection it self as himself states it runs thus Object 7. The Condition upon which Life and Happiness is held forth in the Law or Sinai Covenant is Perfect Doing For Moses describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law that the man which doth these things shall live by them Rom. 10. 3. with Lev. 18. 5. Gal. 3. 12. And he denounceth a Curse upon the least failing Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. But the Condition upon which Life and Happiness is tendred in the Covenant of Faith is Believing in Christ Rom. 10. 6. to 12. Doing and Believing Works and Faith are two Contrary Conditions of Life Consequently the Law or Sinai Covenant which requires Doing unto Life cannot be a Covenant of Faith but must needs be a Covenant of Works The Answer which Mr. Roberts returns unto this Strong and Substantial Objection first of all in general runs thus This Objection saith he as it is most Obvious to every one that reads the Epistles of Paul to the Romans and Galatians so it is in my judgment of greatest difficulty to be clearly and satisfactorily Answered And yet it is of great Consequence and Necessity to be Cleared because otherwise the true Nature and Intent of this Sinai Covenant as a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus will not be fully and sufficiently evidenced Several Answers are given I shall propound them and pitely upon such as afford best satisfaction And accordingly he proceeds to give an Account of the several Answers given thereunto by Mr. John Ball and Peter Maâ—â—yr by D. Pareus and Mr. Anthony Burgess but neither of these fully pleasing him p. 775. I add therefore saith he for the unfolding of this Mysterie more clearly and for Answering of this Objection more fully First That the Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two Opposite and Contrary Conditions viz. Works and Faith Perfect Doing and Believing This is clear saith he by Paul's Epistles without Dispute And to deny this which is so clear will but tend to weaken Paul's Authority to darken many Scriptures both of Moses and Paul and to strengthen the Objection And so proceeds to make out this Notion § 9. Reply But if ever there was an Absurdity or plain Contradiction imposed upon the Scriptures we think we may justly and truly say that here it is For though 't is true there are those that labour to fasten an absurdity upon such as affirm that Gods People of old were under two Contrary Covenants at one and the same time yet was it ever known that the same Fountain did at the same time send forth Bitter Waters and Sweet Or can it ever be rationally imagined that the same Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed as to tence life and happiness upon two Opposite and Contrary Conditions For though 't is true two Opposite Covenants may be allowed to be purposely so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two Opposite and Contrary Conditions Works and Faith yet it is utterly impossible that the same Covenant should be so dispensed For as the Apostle reasoneth concerning Election Rom. 11. 6. So it is here If by Grace then it is no more of Works otherwise Grace is no more Grace But if it be of Works then it is no more Grace otherwise Work is no more Work So that we see according to the Apostles reckoning it is utterly impossible that two Opposite and Contrary Conditions should be able to consist together in one and the same Covenant Either the Sinai Covenant therefore is a Covenant of Grace or it is a Covenant of Works If it is a Covenant of Grace
3. 10. And is it not as plain that from hence even that from hence it is that the Apostle calls it as he doth a Ministration of Death and Condemnation Against us and Contrary to us c. Besides it ought to be duly considered that the Gospel and Covenant of Grace it self was liable to aâ— great an abuse as the Law by being turned into Lasciviousness as the Scriptures tells us it was and yet the Apostle never thunders against the Gospel as he doth against the Law because Men had abused it 'T is true he tells us concerning the Gospel that to some it is the savour of death unto death to others it is the savour of life unto life that is to those that Reject it it is the savour of death unto death to those that Receive it it is the savour of life unto life But this is vastly different from the character he gives of the Law For saith he By the deeds of the Law there shall no Flesh be justified in his sight Rom. 3. 20. And therefore whether it is Received or Rejected it is as the Apostle calls it a Ministration of Death c. Whereas the Gospel is such only to those that Reject it and do not give a saving entertainment to it So that the Distinction we now oppose is altogether without Scripture Warrant and is indeed no other than to impute unfaithfulness to Paul and Moses also in declaring the Nature of the Law as they do And accordingly hence we have just reason to conclude that the Law was never instituted as a Covenant of Faith or as a Covenant of Grace that hath such Epethites fixed thereon by the Spirit of God himself § 3. 'T is true as you say the Law was our School-master to Christ to Convince us of our Necessity of him And Christ is also said to be the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth that is he was the accomplishment thereof he having perfectly fulfilled its Commands submitted to its Curse and answered its Penalty on our behalf whereby it received the Greatest Honour that could be given it a greater by far than ever could be given it by us in our own persons For what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the Flesh God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful Flesh and for sin or by a Sacrifice for Sin condemned Sin in the Flesh that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us that is in the Person of our Sureâ—y for us Rom. 8. 3 4. But then it is so far from being true that the Law was therefore a Covenant of Faith that it is so much the more Convincingly Evident that it was no other than a Covenant of Works For as much as it is plain that as such Christ himself submitted thereunto on our account And it is as plain that as such it would else have lighted on us in our own Persons in the Execution of its most dreadful Curses and Threatnings But if we will rather have the sense of the words to be as you suggest it is that Christ was the End or Scope of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth that is that it was God's design thereby to drive them to Christ their only Remedy by Convincing them of their Necessity of him It still comes to the same Reckoning For though 't is true there is a plain subserviency in the Law towards the promoting of the Designs of the Covenant of Grace yet as we have already seen it no way follows that the Law is therefore the Covenant of Grace it self or the Handmaid the Mistress her self For saith the Apostle Gal. 4. 24. 25 26. These are the two Covenants the one from Mount Sinai which gendereth to Bondage and is in Bondage with her Children The other Answereth to Jerusalem that is above which is free and is the Mother of us all And if these were the two Covenants and those two essentially different the one from the other in the nature and tendency of either as it is plain by the Apostles scope they are so they must be kept Two they were and two they still remain to be so as what the one is the other is not Hagar had indeed a plain subserviency to Sarah But yet as were the Types so are the Antitypes themselves Essentially different so as that the Bondage Covenant can with no more Sense nor Justice be called a Covenant of Faith because it hath a subserviency thereunto than the Covenant of Faith can wish any shadow of pretence be called a Covenant of Bondage § 4. Besides when the Apostle speaks of the two Covenants these were the two Covenants the one from Mount Sinai meaning the Legal the other the Gospel Covenant He doth sufficiently Intimate that there were never but two General Covenants made with Mankind in all that is the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace And if so then if there were any such thing as a Covenant of Works made with our first Parent before the Fall as we all affirm there was it must of necessity be Included in the Sinai Covenant And that both Materially Considered and Intentionally also Else there were three Covenants and those Specifically different each from other whereas the Apostle tells us but of two To say it was Included in the Gospel Covenant is wholly Absurd Therefore it must of necessity be Included in the Sinai Covenant so as that both together make up that first or old Covenant which the Scripture speaks of For when the Apostle Heb. 8. calls the Sinai Covenant by the Name of the first or Old Covenant as he there doth several times over it cannot possibly be understood that it was therefore the first Covenant that God ever made with Men in respect of time for there had been an Express Covenant made with Abraham and with Noah also long before And we also acknowledge that there was an Implicite Covenant of Works made with our first Parent upon his first Creation besides the Promise of Grace that followed soon after the Fall Therefore the Sinai Covenant must of necessity be called the first or old Covenant because of its Congruity Harmony and Identity with the Covenant of Works made with our first Parent And that both in respect of the matter and Intention thereof also Or else iâ— could never with any Propriety or fitness of Expression be called the first or old Covenant as by the Apostle divers times over it is in the forementioned 8th to the Hebrews § 5. The Law therefore could not possibly be a Covenant of Gospel Grace as by many the most Learned and Worthy Divines and it may be the far greater part of Moderns at least it hath been confidently affirmed to be For as we have before acknowledged though there was never any Covenant that God ever made with Men but hath more or less of Grace therein Since it is an Infinite Condescention
differeâ—h nothing from a Servant though he be Lord of all But it under Tutors and Governours until the time appointed of the Father Even so we when we were Children were in Bondage under the Elements of the World But when the fulness of time was come God sent forth his Son made of a Woman made under the Law to Redeem them that were under the Law that we might Receive the Adoption of Sons So that upon the whole it is plain matter of Fact evident and undeniable Resolve we the Mystery thereof how we will That the Jews even the whole Body of that People without exception of any were for the time appointed of the Father under the Dominion and Tiranny of the Law and that as a Covenant of Works or a Bondage Covenant when yet it is equally as evident that at the same time all the Elect among them were under a Covenant of pure Gospel Grace whereby they were saved § 3. Wherefore we must grant that God's People were then under two distinct or essentially different Covenants We say we must do so provided always that the way of Reconciliation and Salvation was the same under both But it will be said and with great pretence of Reason for it is that which is the sole Foundation they all build upon who affirm the Legal and the Gospel-Covenants to be only a twofold Administration of the same Covenant That this being the Principal End of a Divine Covenant If the way of Reconciliation and Salvation be the same under both then indeed they are for the Substance of them but one And we grant that this would inevitably follow If it were so equally by vertue of them both If Reconciliation and Salvation by Christ were to be obtained not only under the Old Covenant but by vertue thereof then it must be the same for substance with the New But this is not so For no Reconciliation with God nor Salvation could ever be obtained by vertue of the Old Covenant or the Administration of it For by the Deeds of the Law there shall no Flesh be justified in his sight as our Apostle disputes at large Rom. 3. 20 c. though all Believers were Râ—â—oncâ—led Justified and Saved by vertue of the Promise whilst they were under that Covenant § 4. And how absurd soever it may seem to be to affirm that God'â— People were under two Contrary Covenants at one and the same time yet as we see the Scriptures do plainly assure us they were so it is evident that the absurdity is by far the greater on the other hand to affirm that the Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two Opposite and quite Contrary Conditions viz. Works and Faith Perfect Doing and Believing as if the same Foundaiâ—â—â— could at the same time yield forth bitter waters and sweet Which absurdity all those must of necessity run into that affirm the Sinai Covenant to be a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus As hath been already shewn SECT XIV ANd here we should have drawn up the sum of what hath been already offered on the present Subject but that there are four Arguments yet behind pretending to prove that the Sinai Covenant and that made with Adam in Paradise were not the same but widely different Covenants which remain therefore to be Answered Only by the way it must be remembred that two Arguments to the same purpose have already been dispatcht The First was That though the Sinai Covenant materially Considered is the same with Adams yet intentionally it is vastly different The Second was That the Sinai Covenant had a Mediator which Adams wanted Both which we hope have been Satisfactorily Answered in the foregoing parts of this Discourse It remains therefore that we proceed to the Consideration of those that follow The first whereof runs thus Arg. 1. Those Covenants that differ in the Subjects or Parties with whom they are made are not the same but different Covenants But so doth that at Sinai and that in Paradice The Covenant made with Adam was made with Innocent and Perfect Man able to keep it This with Lapsed Sinful Man utterly disabled to keep any one Precept of it Reply To which we Reply That the difference betwixt the Subjects makes no alteration in the Substance or Essence of the Covenants Especially since we have already by several Arguments substantially proved not only that they were Materially the same which your selves cannot but acknowledge but intentionally also And forasmuch as 't is undeniable That God hath not forfeited or lost his Right of Sovereignty or Dominion over us though we have forfeited and lost our strength and capacity of Obedience the Covenants in question therefore may very well be the same notwithstanding the difference betwixt their Subjects Arg. 2. Those Covenants that vastly differ in their Dedication are not the same but divers But so doth the Covenants with Israel and with Adam The Covenant with Adam taught no way of the Expiation of Sins by the Dedication of it so did that with Moses Exod. 24. 8. And Moses took the Blood and sprinkled it on the People and said Behold this is the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words Reply To this we Reply That it hath been already proved That though the Ceremonial Covenant was indeed dedicated with Blood and Sprinkling yet the Law written in Stones was noâ— So that if Adam's Covenant wanted Confirmation or Dedication with Blood shewing the Remission of Sins so did that written in Stones also And therefore in this respect there is no difference at all betwixt them True it is that the Ceremonial Covenant was â—o dedicated in which respect there is a plain difference betwixt that and the Covenant made with Adam But this alters not the Case For it is evident that the Law written in Stones was not so dedicated and that is enough to prove what we have all along asserted That the Covenant of Works made with our First Parent was renewed to that People in the Wilderness And though 't is true the Ceremonial Covenant being dedicated as it was did point unto Christ and the way of Salvation by him yet nevertheless it hath been already proved that it was a Covenant of Works as well as that written in Stones and therefore both of them now Repealed to make way for the New Covenant which was established upon better Promises And it having been proved that they were both no other than two several Editions of the same Covenant of Works and that neither of them can with any shadow of Truth or Justice be stiled a Covenant of Grace or a Gospel Covenant which cannot be affirmed without contradicting the whole Scope of the Scriptures it sufficiently serves the design we level at whether there be a Perfect Identity in every Circumstance between either of these and Adam's Covenant or no. For as Dr. Owen well observes Whatever variations
full and glorious enough yet those Promises being not absolute but conditional as the Covenant at Mount Sinai was it is therefore represented to us under the same Character and not as a Covenant of Promise or an Evangelical Covenant For that is the Peculiar Character or Denomination which is given by the Holy Spirit himself to the forementioned Covenant Gen. 12. 2 3. which God had made with Abraham long before § 3. Wherefore saith Dr. Owen the Covenant of Grace supposing it a New Real Absolute Covenant and not a Reformation of the Old or a Reduction of it unto the use of our present Condition as some saith he imagine it to be must differ in the Essence Substance and Nature of it from that First Covenant of Works Ibid. ut supra p. 389. § 4. The Covenant of Grace saith Mr. Troughton in a late Discourse of his Entituled Lutherus Redivivus Part. 1. p. 111. is expressed in the Nature and Form of a Promise throughout the Scripture Thus it was to our First Parents soon after the fall a Promise that the Seed of the Woman should overcome the Devil and his Seed No Terms no Conditions added but a bare Declaration of Mercy to their Dejected Self-condemned Consciences Next when the Covenant was Revealed to Abraham Gen. 12 1 2 3. It is a Formal Promise that God would bless him and all Nations in his Seed and accordingly ever after it is called the Promise made to Abraham which Israel waited to see performed And the Apostle Gal. 3. 18. affirms that the Inheritance was given to Abraham by Promise and not by Law and in vers 15 16 17. he maketh the Covenant and Promise equipollent terms The Law saith he which was 420 years after cannot disannul the Covenant with Abraham that the Promise should be of none Effect Neither was this Promise only of Christ's coming in the Flesh but of a Blessing through Christ vers 14. Yea the giving of the Holy Spirit is a part of the Blessing Promised to Abraham That the Blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus that we might receive the Promise of the Spirit through Faith § 5. And indeed this is that therefore that renders it sure and certain to all the Seed therein concerned For as it is evident that this Gospel Covenant mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. was Preached unto Abraham long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him So the Addition of the Covenant of Circumcision afterwards as the Apostle speaks of the Law given by Moses because of transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made could not disannul that it should make this forementioned and fore-established Promise to be of none Effect For it being most plainly a Gospel Covenant wholly free and absolute and only to be received by Faith Hence it follows that it is of an Everlasting Unchangeable Nature and consequently sure without any possibility of Miscarriage unto all the Seed thereunto belonging which the Covenant of Circumcision being Conditional was not as is most excellently reasoned and argued by the Apostle to this purpose Rom. 4. 13. where he tells us that the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World which is the same in effect with his being the Father of all them that believe just before spoken of was not to him or to his seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith Not through the Law that is not through the Covenant of Circumcision as shall be afterward demonstrated For that was as much a Covenant of Works as the Covenant at Mount Sinai was and therefore a Legal Covenant But through that mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. which was purely Evangelical and therefore through the Righteousness of Faith alone Which gives the only Security to the Seed therein concerned as is afterwards asserted vers 14 15 16. of the forementioned 4th to the Romans For saith he if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise made of none Effect because the Law worketh wrath for where no Law is there is no Transgression Therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed not to that only which is of the Law that is the Jews but to that also that is of the Faith of Abraham that is the Gentiles who is the Father of us all as it is written I have made thee Father of many Nations according to that which was spoken so shall thy Seed be SECT II. § 1. IT is indeed suggested by Dr. Burthogg That the forementioned Promise That Abraham should be the Heir of the World which as the Apostle tells was not to him or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith is to be understood in reference to Gen. 17. 8. Where God promiseth to give unto Abraham and to his Seed after him the Land of Canaan for an Everlasting Possession From whence he infers that the Covenant there mentioned is a Covenant of Faith and therefore a Covenant of Grace But it doth not follow because Canaan was promised in the Covenant of Circumcision that therefore according to the Apostles reckoning that Covenant should be a Covenant of Faith For as much as the Promise concerning Abraham's Heirship of the World which the Apostle here speaks of is of a vastly different Nature from the Promise of Canaan or indeed any Terrestrial Inheritance whatsoever § 2. It is true as the Apostle tells us That Godliness is profitable unto all things that is in all respects in respect of this World as well as in respect of the other And why so Because it hath the Promise Having the Promise of the Life that now is as well as of that to come In which respect it ought to be duly observed that Abraham was promised Canaan long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him For so we are told Gen. 12. 7. The Lord appeared unto Abraham and said unto thy Seed will I give this Land So Gen. 13. 15. All the Land which thou seest to thee will I give it and to thy Seed for ever So likewise Gen. 15. 18. In that same day the Lord made a Covenant with Abraham saying unto thy Seed have I given this Land from the River of Egypt unto the Great River the River Euphrates From all which it plainly appears that Abraham was promised Canaan long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him And it was indeed therefore a free Promise or a part of that Covenant of Promise which the Apostle speaks of Gal. 3. 17 18. which was afterward ratified and confirmed by Oath so as that it shall never be disannulled For so we are expresly assured Psal 105. 8 9 10 11. He hath remembred his Covenant for ever the Word which he commanded to a thousand Generations which Covenant he made with Abraham and his Oath unto Isaac and confirmed the
same unto Jacob for a Law and to Israel for an Everlasting Covenant saying unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan the lot of your Inheritance And though 't is true Canaan was only promised in the Letter and was inherited only by the Carnal Seed and Descendants of Abraham yet in the mysterie it means the whole World of which Canaan was a part in which he took Possession or as it were had Livery and Seisin given him in the name of the whole § 3. The like is to be said concerning the Spiritual Seed of Abraham even the Gentiles also on whom that self-same Blessing of Abraham as being the fruit of the Free Promise doth also descend For in this respect it is that the Apostle tells us that all is ours But how For we are Christ's and Christ is God's And therefore as God hath promised that the Meek shall inherit the Earth Psal 37. 11. Mat. 5. 5. So he hath also promised that the Kingdom and Dominion and the greatness of the Kingdom and Dominion under the whole Heaven shall be given to the People of the Saints of the Most High whose Kingdom is an Everlasting Kingdom So likewise Rev. 5. 10. Thou hast made us unto our God Kings and Priests and we shall Reign upon the Earth All which are glorious Promises and shall certainly receive their full accomplishment in the appointed Season as being indeed no other than Gospel Promises and of the same Nature with the free Promise of that kind even the Promise of Canaan made unto Abraham long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him So that it is no wonder that the Apostle tells as he doth that Godliness hath the Promise of the Life that now is as well as of that that is to come § 4. 'T is true Canaan was promised in the Covenant of Circumcision also as was also the Promise of a Coelestial Inheritance too When God told Abraham I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee I will give unto thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a stranger All the Land of Canaan for an Everlasting Possession and I will be their God Gen. 17. 7 8. But all these Promises though good enough in themselves yet being Conditional they were therefore failable and still liable to forfeiture as they were contained in that Covenant And therefore the Apostle would have us strictly to observe that the forementioned Promise concerning Abraham's Heirship whatever it signifies was not to him or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith For though it should be granted that it hath reference to a Terrestrial Inheritance in Canaan and consequently to his Interest in the whole World in the sense but now mentioned Yet forasmuch as this Promise wa◠made unto him long before his Circumcision and was therefore a part of the free Promise The Apostle doth sufficiently suggest that that was th◠Promise he had most reason to trust unto or to relie upon as being a far surer Promise of the two and that both to himself and his Seed also than was the Promise of the same kind as it was contained in the Covenant of Circumcision which the Scripture doth so plainly represent unto us as a Conditional Covenant The Promise saith he was not to him nor to his Seed through the Law And why not through the Law Because as he also tells us in the very next following words If they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise made of none effect Because the Law worketh wrath for where no Law is there is no Transgression Therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed The like he tells the Galatians also chap. 3. 18. If the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise But God gave it to Abraham by Promise Which clearly argues the Freeness or Absoluteness thereof which the Covenant of Circumcision was not It being evident that it obliged all that were under it to Perfect and Universal Obedience as the Condition of Obtaining thc Mercies therein contained Gal. 5. 3. For I testifie to every man that is Circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law And therefore though 't is true Canaan was promised in that Covenant as well as in the other as was also the Promise of the Coelestial Inheritance too when God promised to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed yet those Promises there mentioned being bounded as they were with Conditions impossible to be performed and therefore of a Legal Stamp and liable to forfeiture That is not the Way that is not the Channel through which the Blessings in Promise must be derived unto the Heirs of Promise For if ever they be derived it must be through the Free Promise and through that alone Yea if ever they be derived it must be through the Free Promise or not at all For saith he vers 21. If there had been a Law given that could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe § 5. But as we have already said the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World is of a vastly different nature from the Promise of Canaan neither indeed is it at all contained in the Covenant of Circumcision where the Promise of Canaan is inserted For it is evident that the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World hath a single reference to his Fatherhood unto all them that believe that is both Jews and Gentiles or the whole World of Believers Thus Pareus in his Comment upon the Place carries the sense of the Words and so the Apostle himself interprets it vers 11 12. And it is as evident that there is no Promise at all of that kind in the Covenant of Circumcision that Abraham should be the Common Father of all them that Believe That Covenant having a plain reference to Abraham's Natural Posterity only for as much as all those to whom the Promises of that Covenant were made were bound to be Circumcised as the Sign or Token of it which doth not concern the Gentiles at all So that it is the Gospel Covenant therefore which we have before spoken of which we find mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. and not the Covenant of Circumcision mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8 9. that is the Great Charter by which the Believing Gentiles always did and do rightly claim both Heaven and Earth and all the Promises they have Title to SECT III. § 1. BUT whereas the Doctor lays a mighty stress upon those words of the Apostle before mentioned Rom. 4. 13. For the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but
through the Righteousness of Faith Whereby he endeavours to prove that the Covenant of Circumcision mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8 9. is that very Covenant of Grace that the Believing Gentiles are now under and from whence all their hopes and Comforts are derived We must of necessity therefore endeavour to overrhrow and remove the seeming strength of what he offers by way of opposition to what we have asserted before any thorow Conclusion can be drawn § 2. The Sum then of his Argument is this It is Evident saith he that the Covenant of Promise made to Abraham which is called the Blessing of Abraham is still in being and is the Covenant of Grace into a Participation of which the true Believing Gentiles are taken which is the true ground and Foundation of all their hopes and Comforts For thus the Apostle carries it when he affirms that God gave the Inheritance to Abraham by Promise And by what Promise but that ratified Covenant of Promise I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed In short saith he this is the Climax If Believers then Christs If Christs then Abrahams Seed If Abrahams Seed then Heirs according to the Promise For the Promise is I will be a God to thee and thy Seed And I will give to thee and thy Seed Nor doth it make any alteration in the case that Faith is now the requisite condition of Salvation or that we must believe to be saved This but Evidences the more clearly that the Gospel is but a Renovation of the Covenant of Abraham For as it is through Faith that we Gentiles do become Christs and by being Christs that we become the Seed of Abraham and consequently Heirs of Salvation according to the Promise so it was through Faith the Righteousness of Faith that Abraham the Father of the Faithful had the Promise himself For so the Apostle Rom. 4. 13. For the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith And if the Promise made to Abraham be the ground and Foundation of all our hopes and expectations as we are Christians and it be the true Covenant of Grace to be sure it is still in being or we do but beat the Air and are at a loss our hope is in vain and our rejoycing vain which God forbid I know you take it for a very strong Argument that the Covenant of Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8. cannot be the Evangelical or Gospel Covenant because it is a Mixt one and Composed of a Temporal as well as an Eternal bequest But for that Reason I the rather take it to be Evangelical For this is Gospel that Godliness is profitable unto all things that is in all Respects In respect of this World and in respect of the other And why so Why it hath the Promise Having the Promise of the Life that now is as well as of that to come And what is this but a finger to point you to the Covenant of Promise as the Evangelical Covenant the Promise the Blessing that did descend on the Gentiles And indeed the Inheritance promised to Abraham and which in by and under him is descended on the Gentiles is not onely a Coelestial but a Terrestrial one also For by that Promise Abraham was not onely the Heir of Heaven but also Heir of the World And so the Apostle styles him And the same Apostle tells all is ours And Abraham being Constituted by the Promise Heir of the World he and his descendants according to the Flesh were to take Possession of it and to have Livery of Seisin given in Canaan a Livery of Seisin which was given indeed and taken but in part of the World as Livery of Seisin usually is but in the Name of the whole From the whole of which the Doctor Infers That that Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8. where this Promise of a Terrestrial Inheritance bequeathed to Abraham and his Seed is inserted which he takes to be the same with his being the Heir of the World must be a Covenant of Grace or an Evangelical Covenant For since the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World was not to him or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith Therefore the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8. where this Promise is Inserted must of necessity be a Covenant of Grace and such a Covenant as on which all the Hopes and Comforts of Believing Gentiles are Built § 3. This is the substance of what the Doctor offers by which it may be easily perceived that there is a necessity that this now mentioned Argument of his be substantially resolved and removed out of the way before we can draw any thorow Conclusion from the Premises It being true enough That if Abrahams Heirship of the World spoken of Rom. 4. 13. And the Promise of a Terrestrial Inheritance in Canaan mentioned Gen. 17. 8. be one and the same thing and not of a quite different nature then indeed there will be some kind of appearance or some shadow at least of Argument in what the Doctor offers toward the proof of what he asserteth That the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8. is the Covenant of Grace Though should it be granted that the Doctors Notion is right That Abrahams Heirship of the World is to be understood of the Promise of a Terrestrial Inheritance in Canaan Yet it will not therefore follow that the Inheritance the Apostle speaks of is derived unto Abraham or to his Seed through the Righteousness of that Covenant and consequently that it is a Gospel Covenant Because as hath been already observed though that be one of the Promises contained in that Covenant yet since the same thing had been before assured unto Abraham and his Seed also by vertue of the free Promise mentioned Gen. 12. 7. c. which the Apostle takes such special notice of Gal. 3. 17. 18. And forasmuch as the Conditional Covenant of Circumcision might be broken as it was and the Mercies therein contained forfeited as they were which the other could not From hence it plainly follows that the free Promise and that alone is that Covenant of Grace or Anchor of Hope that both Abraham and his Seed were onely to trust unto and through which the Inheritance was to be derived SECT IV. HOwever since the Doctor lays the stress he doth upon the Argument before us It is necessary that it be Examined and brought to the Test whether right or no In order whereunto our main business will be to prove that Abrahams Heirship of the World spoken of Rom. 4. 13. And the Promise that was made unto him of a Terrestrial Inheritance in Canaan mentioned Gen. 17. 8. is not one and the same Promise but of a vastly different Nature and Tendency The one being the Great Charter of all the Gentiles hope and blessedness in reference both to this World and
8 9. as well as those mentioned Gen. 2. Exod. 19. Exod. 20. and Deut. 29. were all Conditional and therefore Legal Covenants requiring strict and perfect Obedience as the Condition propounded in order to the Enjoyment of the Mercies Contained in them Which are all of them therefore done away in Christ So on the other hand we see that the Covenant that God made with Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. Gen. 17. 2 3 4. and Gen. 22. 16 17 18. was wholly Free and Absolute and therefore purely Evangelical and that which never shall be disannulled being Confirmed both by Word and Oath and consequently sure to all the Seed therein concerned For as therein God hath Absolutely promised that in Christ the Promised Seed all the Nations of the Earth shall be Blessed which according to the whole Current of the Scriptures must of necessity be limitted to the Elect or the true Believers of all Nations that all that shall be blessed shall be blessed by this means and no other way So lest it should be suspected that any Condition should start up whereby they might either be hindered from obtaining the Promised Blessing or forfeit it when in Possession thereof we are therefore also told that God having raised up his Son Jesus hath sent him to Bless us by turning away every one of us from his Iniquities And it is as plain that of the same Nature and Tenor is â—he Covenant mentioned Deut. 30. 6. As was also the Covenant which God made with Noah Gen. 9. 9 10 11. As also those mentioned Jer. 31. 31 32 33. Jer. 32. 38 39 40. Ezek. 36. 25 26 27. Heb. 8. 7 8 9 10 11. For as God Promiseth to the Israelites Deut. 30. 6. That he will Circumcise their Heart and the Heart of their Seed to Love the Lord their God with all their Heart and with all their Soul that thy mightlive So in Jer. 31. Jer. 32. and Heb. 8. the Lord there also promiseth unto the House of Israel and to the House of Judah after those Days to put his Law in their Inward parts and to Write it in their Hearts and that as he will not turn away from them to do them good so neither shall they depart from him c. Wherein as well as in the Gospel Covenant before mentioned which the Believing Gentiles are now under the terms are not Conditional or failable I will if ye will But Absolute and Soveraign I will and ye shall So that that which God had before required as the Condition of the Covenant of Works and was not before Promised is now become a main Branch of the Covenant of Promise it self § 2. And therefore when the Apostle tells us Gal. 3. 21. That if there had been a Law given that could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law from hence it appears that the Gospel Covenant doth more for us than the Legal did For it giveth Life and then Enables to the performance of that which it requireth of us whereas from what the Apostle there tells us it appears that the Legal Covenant did not give Life and that it failed because it was Conditional The Law indeed shews us our Duty but gives no strength to perform it The Gospel Covenant doth both by Writing the Law in the Heart Hence it is truely and properly a Covenant of Grace as not depending at all upon Works For if it be of Works then it is no more Grace otherwise Work is no more Work Rom. 11. 6. And if by Grace then it is no more of Works Otherwise Grace is no more Grace And therefore Christ is said to have obtained a more Excellent Ministry than that of Moses by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant which is Established upon better Promises Heb. 8. 6. 'T is true the Promises for the Substance of them as hath been before observed are the same as before I will be their God and they shall be my People But now the terms are altered For whereas before it depended upon the Works of our Obedience Now Faith alone is required in order to the receiving and consequently in order to our participation of them Thus Paul directs the Jaylor Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved Acts 16. 31. So Rom. 4. 5. To him that worketh not but believeth on him that Justifieth the ungodly his Faith is Counted for Righteousness And in like manner the Apostle tells us Gal. 3. 22. That the Scripture hath Concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe Not that Believing is the Condition of the Promise as 't is generally Asserted but a Designation rather of the Persons to whom the Promise is given that is to Believers or a Declaration of the Way in which the Promise is given that is in a way of Believing For indeed Faith is not the Condition but the Fruit of the Promise For if it be the Condition either it must be wrought by us of our selves Or it must be given us of God If it be to be wrought by our selves Then is the Promise of Grace worse and harder than the Covenant of Works which God made with our First Parent For though it was required of Adam to do and live yet he had then a Power of Doing But so have not we of Believing Yea no more was required of him than was put into his Nature For the Covenant of Works was Written in his Nature but so is not Faith in ours If it be given us of God as the Scripture doth plainly affirm it is Eph. 2. 8. For by Grace are ye saved through Faith and that not of your selves it is the Gift of God then it is given by vertue of some Promise For God gives nothing but by vertue of some Promise which Promise can be no other than the Free Promise the Promise of Grace From whence it plainly follows that the Covenant of Grace is wholly free and Absolute Since Faith it self is the Fruit and therefore cannot be the Condition thereof § 3. So that the Material Difference between the Covenant of Grace and that of Works Consisteth in the Different Terms of either The one being Conditional the other free and Absolute Not that we are therefore discharged from Duty under the Gospel For as the Apostle tells us by way of Answer to the same Objection Rom. 3. 31. Do we then make void the Law through Faith God forbid yea we Establish the Law Because that Obedience which was before the Obedience of Servants and Slaves is now become Filial or Son like Not for Life as under the Legal Covenant but from a Principle of Life already received which Powerfully Constraineth and Effectually Enableth unto the Love and Service of God 2 Cor. 5. 14. 15. Tit. 2. 11 12. Tit. 3. 8. It is certain therefore that Working is required under the Covenant of Grace as much as under
the Covenant of Works it self But not for the same purpose nor from the same Principle Not for the same Purpose forasmuch as no Works of any kind whatsoever as done or Performable by us are at all designed as the matter of our Justification before Gods Presence under the Gospel Covenant Rom. 3. 20. Tit. 3. 5. though they were so propounded under the Legal Rom. 10. 5. Nor from the same Principle Forasmuch as Good Works are not Previous to Faith but the Consequent of it That being the onely Principle from whence all true Gospel Obedience flows Heb. 11. 4 5 6 c. SECT XIV § 1. HAving therefore we hope Substantially proved that the Covenant of Circumcision which God made with Abraham and his Natural Posterity mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8. 9 10. was no other than a Covenant of Works As also that the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. wherein the Jews and their little ones were Concerned was of the same stamp as well as that made at Mount Sinai mentioned Exod. 19. 5. and Exod. 20. All which were but several Repetitons of the Covenant of Works made with our First Parent And therefore called the Old or the First Covenant Heb. 8. 7 13. And forasmuch as 't is as plain and evident that they are all of them done away in Christ as hath been already proved From hence therefore it unavoidably follows that all the Arguments for the Support of Infants Church Membership and Baptism under the Gospel which are founded upon the like Priviledges granted unto the Natural Posterity of Abraham under the former Administration do of themselves fall to the ground Forasmuch as the Covenants themselves which those Priviledges were then Bottomed upon are now Repealed Neither is there any Room left for any other or further Argument from either of those forementioned Covenants to Infer the Baptism of Infants The Obligation upon Believers Concerning the Gospel Sign being wholly left unto the time of its Institution which determines both the Duties and the Subjects thereof to the Exclusion of Infants as hath been before abundantly proved § 2. But whereas it is Objected That since according to the Scope of the foregoing Discourse every Conditional Covenant is a Covenant of Works From whence 't is Inferred that such was the Nature of all the three forementioned Covenants both that at Sinai that in the Land of Moab and that made with Abraham also Gen. 17. 7 8 9. And Consequently that they are all of them now Repealed The Absurdity of this Conclusion say they is manifest Forasmuch as the Gospel Covenant it self that we are now under is a Conditional Covenant Since Faith and Repentance are therein plainly required as the Conditions of Life § 3. To this we Reply First Let the true state of the Case be duely Considered and it cannot justly be denyed but that every Conditional Covenant is a Covenant of Works that is if Faith Repentance and Good Works must be Required as the Conditions thereof Since it is not the greatness or goodness of the Promises that are the Substance of the Covenant or wherewith even the Gospel Covenant it self is Replenished that Excuse it from being a Covenant of Works if Works must be the Condition of Obtaining the Mercies therein promised For let Men distinguish as they please betwixt Perfect Works and those of Sincere Obedience onely though Imperfect which we are told the Gospel now Requires as the Conditions of Life This is Certain that to Impose New Conditions of Obedience though never so mild is a New Covenant of Works with some Mercy but not a Covenant of Grace properly so called or a Gospel Covenant For this was that wherein the very Essence of the Covenant of Works Consisted It required Obedience with a Promise of Life Annexed where Man should have but his Wages for his Work and Perish if he failed of Obedience Or thus The Covenant of Works Consisted in this That upon our Personal Obedience according unto the Law and the Rule of it we should be Accepted with God and Rewarded by him And indeed what else maketh or wherein else Consisteth the true Form or Nature of a Covenant of Works but that Works be the Condition of it This was the whole entire Nature of the First Covenant which alone renders it Essentially or Specifically different from the Promise of Grace or the Gospel Covenant And what ever Covenant proceedeth on these terms or hath the Nature of them in it however it may be varied or lenified with milder Conditions of Obedience than the first was so long as this Rule is retained Do this and live It is the same Covenant still and not another for the Substance or Essence of it If saith the Apostle Rom. 11. 6. it be by Grace then is it no more of Works Otherwise Grace is no more Grace But if it be of Works then is it no more Grace Otherwise Work is no more Work Works are Works still and Obedience is Obedience still whether Perfect or Imperfect And therefore if Imperfect Obedience will be Accepted of God as the Condition of Life the Covenant is to be denominated and hath it's Form from the Condition Perfection or Imperfection of Obedience are but Circumstances If then a Man be Justified by Gospel Obedience which is Sincere though Imperfect as the Compleat Condition of the Covenant then this Covenant is a Covenant of Works as well as the other Onely that of Perfect this of Imperfect Works Which being allowed though it seems more easie yet it doth indeed render our Condition and the Gospel Covenant we are now under as hath been before observed worse and harder than that made with Adam himself Since we have now no Strength to Obey nor Power to fulfil this Condition of Imperfect Obedience though in the least or lowest degree No not so much as to a thought Whereas our First Parent was furnished with a Capacity sufficient for the discharge of the most Perfect Obedience § 4. And if you say that God requireth nothing of us but what he giveth Strength and Grace to perform having to this purpose Promised to put his Laws in our Hearts and his fear in our Inward parts This doth but so much the more clearly evince the Freeness or Absoluteness of the Gospel Covenant since this Gospel Promise can depend on no Condition on our part For whatever is Antecedent thereunto being onely a Work or Act of Corrupted Nature can be no Condition whereon the Dispersation of Spiritual Grace is supperadded From whence it plainly follows that the Covenant of Grace is wholly free and Absolute Forasmuch as there is nothing that can be supposed as the Condition thereof whether it be Faith Repentance or New Obedience which is not therein Absolutely Promised § 5. But whatever may be Alledged for or against in these Respects as to the Gospel Covenant we are now under This is evident and cannot with any shadow of pretence be justly Contradicted That that Covenant that
requires Perfect and Universal Obedience to the whole Revealed Will and Law of God and Pronounceth a Curse upon the least Transgression or Dis-obedience must needs be a Covenant of Works or else there was never any such thing Extant in the World And of this Nature we have already proved the forementioned Covenants to be viz. that made with Israel at Mount Sinai that in the Land of Moab and that made with Abraham also Gen. 17. 7 8 9. Our present Question therefore whereon the Main Hinge of the Paedo-baptismal Controversy doth depend and which we would therefore drive to an Issue is onely this Whether that Covenant that will not admit of a Partial though Sincere Obedience but strictly requires that which is Perfect and Universal as the Condition of Salvation be not a plain Covenant of Works If so then it cannot be justly denyed but that the several forementioned Covenants are such And Consequently they are all of them now Repealed as hath been already proved From whence it plainly follows that no Just Argument can be drawn from either of these Covenants for the Establishment or Regulation of Gospel Worship For since the Law it self is changed and dis-annulled as the Scriptures do plainly affirm it is Heb. 7. 12 18. Chap. 8. 7 13. there follows of necessity a change of the whole Fabrick and Constitution of the Ordinances thereunto once belonging For so the Apostle himself Reasons Heb. 7. 12. The Priesthood saith he being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law And if the Law is changed there follows with an equal necessity a change also of the Ordinances thereon depending and that news ones take place suitable to the Nature of the Gospel Covenant that Succeeds it And Consequently the Plea for Infants Baptism as founded on either of those forementioned Covenants must of necessity fail Forasmuch as what ever Right Infants had to the Ordinance of Circumcision which you say was Analogous therewith the Right they then had was onely by vertue of those forementioned Covenants which being now Repealed it unavoidably follows that all the Arguments thence deduced for the Establishment of Infants Church Member-ship and Baptism under the Gospel must of necessity also vanish SECT XV. § 1. AS to what Concerns the Covenant of Grace or the Gospel Covenant before Insisted on We are told indeed by some that to affirm that it is wholly free and Absolute and to make that the Covenant of Grace properly so called which God made with Christ is to destroy the whole Tenor of the Gospel and to lay the Foundation of all Libertinism and Looseness of Conversation In Reference whereunto we shall take leave to Insert a Passage or two of the late Worthy Dr. Owen in his Third Volumn upon the Epistle to the Hebrews page 15. It cannot be denyed saith he but that some Men may and it is justly to be feared that some Men do abuse the Doctrine of the Gospel to Countenance themselves in a vain Expectation of Mercy and Pardon whilst they willingly live in a Course of Sin But as this in their Management is the principal means of their Ruine So in the Righteous Judgment of God it will be the greatest Aggravation of their Condemnation And whereas some have charged the Preachers of Gospel Grace as those who thereby give Countenance unto this Presumption It is an Accusation that hath more of the Hatred of Grace in it than of the Love of Holiness For none do or can press the Relinquishment of Sin and Repentance of it upon such Assured Grounds and with such Cogent Arguments as those by whom the Grace of Jesus Christ in the Gospel is fully opened and declared § 2. And as to what concerns the freeness or Absoluteness of the Gospel Covenant The Doctor in his-Exposition of the 12th Verse of Heb. 8. For I will be Merciful to their Vnrighteousness and their Sins and Iniquities will I Remember no more page 290. of his forementioned Discourse Observes That free and Soveraign and undeserved Grace in the Pardon of Sin is the Original Spring and Foundation of all New Covenant Mercies and Blessings Hereby saith he and hereby alone is the Glory of God and the safety of the Church provided for And those who like not Gods Covenant on those Terms will Eternally fall short of the Grace of it Hereby all Glorying and all Boasting in our selves is Excluded which was that which God aimed at in the contrivance and Establishment of this Covenant Rom. 3. 27. 1 Cor. 1. 29 30 31. For this could not be if the Fundamental Grace of it did depend on any Condition or Qualification in our selves Some speak of an Vniversal Conditional Covenant made with all Mankind If there be any such thing it is not that here Intended For they are all actually Pardoned with whom this Covenant is made And the Indefinite Declaration of the Nature and Terms of the Covenant is not the making a Covenant with any And what should be the Condition of this Grace here promised of the Pardon of Sin It is say they that Men Repent and Believe and turn to God and yield Obedience unto the Gospel If so then Men must do all these things before they Receive the Remission of Sins Yes Then must they do them whilst they are under the Law and the Curse of it For so are all Men whose Sins are not Pardoned This is to make Obedience unto the Law and that to be performed by Men whilst under the Curse of it to be the Condition of Gospel Mercy which is to overthrow both the Law and Gospel But then on the other hand it will follow they say that Men are Pardoned before they do Believe But then it must be considered 1. That the Communication and Donation of Faith unto us is an Effect of the same Grace whereby our Sins are Pardoned and they are both bestowed on us by vertue of the same Covenant 2. That though the Application of Pardoning Mercy unto our Souls is in order of Nature consequent unto Believing yet in time they go together 3. That Faith is not required unto the Procuring of the Pardon of our Sins but unto the Receiving of it § 3. To the same purpose He also speaks page 223. 224. of the same Discourse The Promises of the Covenant of Grace saith he are better than those of any other Covenant as for many other Resons so especially because the Grace of them prevents any Condition or Qualification on our part I do not say the Covenant of Grace is Absolute without Conditions if by Conditions we intend the Duties of Obedience which God requireth of us in and by vertue of thâ—t Covenant But this I say the Principal Promises thereof are not in the first place Remunerative of our Obedience in the Covenant but Efficaciously Assumptive of us into Covenant and Establishing or Confirming in the Covenant The Covenant of Works had its Promises but they were all Remunerative
respecting an Antecedent Obedience in us so were all those which were peculiar unto the Covenant of Sinai they were indeed also of Grace in that the Reward did infinitely exceed the Merit of our Obedience But yet they all supposed it and the Subject of them was formally Reward onely In the Covenant of Grace it is not so For sundry of the Promises thereof are the means of our being taken into Covenant of our entering into Covenant with God The First Covenant Absolute was Established on Promises in that when Men were actually taken into it they were encouraged unto Obedience by the Promise of a future Reward But these Promises namely of the Pardon of Sin and Writing of the Law in our Hearts which the Apostle expresly Insisteth on as the Peculiar Promises of this New Covenant do take place and are Effectual Antecedently unto our Covenant Obedience For although Faith be required in order of Nature Antecedently unto our actual Receiving of the Pardon of Sin yet is that Faith it self wrought in us by the Grace of the Promise and so its Precedency to Pardon respects onely the Order that God hath Appointed in the Communion of the Benefits of the Covenant and intends not that the Pardon of Sin i◠the Reward of our Faith § 4. We shall Conclude what concerns this Subject with another Passage of the Doctors to the same purpose with the former in his Acurate and Judicious Discourse Entituled The Doctrine of Justification through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ Explained Confirmed and Vindicated page 156. It is commonly said saith he that Faith and New Obedience are the Condition of the New Covenant But yet because of the Ambiguous Signification and various use of that Term Condition we cannot certainly understand what is Intended in the Assertion If no more be Intended but that these things though promised in the Covenant and wrought in us by the Grace of God are yet Duties indispensibly required of us in order unto the Participation and Enjoyment of the full end of the Covenant in Glory it is unquestionably true But if it be intended that they are such a Condition of the Covenant as to be by us performed Antecedently unto the Participation of any Grace Mercy or Priviledge of it so as that they should be the Consideration and Procuring Causes of them that they should be all of them as some speak the Reward of our Faith and Obedience it is most false and not onely contrary to Express Testimonies of Scripture but destructive of the Nature of the Covenant it self SECT XVI § 1. LAstly Whereas we do affirm That though according to the Law of Circumcision Infants were Admitted and Reckoned as Members of the Jewish Church yet that Old Constitution being now pulled down and all the Appurtenances and Priviledges thereunto belonging being now Repealed a New Church State according to the Nature of the Gospel Administration is now Erected into which none are Admitted a◠Members but Professing Believers onely By way of Reply hereunto we are told That Infants Relation to the Covenant and the Universal Church as Members was not Repealed by Christ because it was not founded onely on the Law of Moses which if it had say you it were as such Repealed But Infant Church-Membership taking place as an Ordinance of God before Circumcision was Enjoyned or the Ceremonial Law Instituted why then should it cease with it To the same purpose we are also further told That it was no part of the Typical Administration but a Moral Institution of God even from the Beginning of the World God ever having made a distinction between the Seed of the Faithful and the Seed of the Wicked as Visibly belonging to the several Kingdoms of God and of Satan § 2. To this we Reply First That this Notion of Infants Church-Membership before the Law of Circumcision is but a bare Affirmation without Proof For if it be so that Infant Church-Membership did indeed take place as an Ordinance of God before Circumcision where is that Ordinance Why are we not directed to some place of Scripture where we may find it Hath God Revealed it to some and to none else Or in what Antient Father shall we find it Did any one ever say so before now Therefore with what Confidence soever we are now told That it was no part of the Typical Administration but a Moral Institution of God even from the Beginning of the World unless we are directed where to find that Institution whatever others do we dare not presume to be Wise above what is Written Mal. 2. 15. is indeed alledged And wherefore one That he might seek a Godly Seed But that can be understood of no other than a Legitimate Seed in opposition to a Spurious Off-spring And thus the Assembly do in their Annotations carry the Sence of the place As likewise doth Calvin Camer and divers others § 3. Secondly Whereas we are told That God ever made a Distinction between the Seed of the Faithful and the Seed of the Wicked What Distinction is it that is Intended Did God single them out and Separate them by any Visible Sign or Character before the Law of Circumcision It is evident he did not Or did God distinguish them by his Providential Care of them or Provision for them more than others The Scripture is silent as to this also Or did God Love them with a saving Love more than the Children of Unbelievers as visibly belonging to the several Kingdoms of God and of Satan so as that all the Children of Believers from Adam to Abraham belonged to the Kingdom of God and all the Children of Unbelievers belonged unto the Kingdom of Satan This is indeed suggested by you but not proved But then if this was always the state of the Case between Believers and Unbelievers as to their Respective Seeds and that both before and since the Flood and that it so continues Then according to this Rule woe unto all the Children of Unbelievers most deplorable and desperate i◠their State without any ground of Comfort or Hope of Relief contrary to the Experience of all Ages whilst we are assured that Grace is now Extended to the Gentiles who were not the Children of Believers whilst the Natural Branches the Children of Believing Abraham are cut off But then we would willingly know when the Sons of God took the Daughters of Men and all Flesh had Corrupted it's way To what Kingdom did the Children of Believers belong then Did not the Seed of Believers grow prophane and wicked as well as others That is undeniable And did not the Seed of Unbelievers some of them prove Pious and Godly This also appears even in Abraham himself whose Father was an Idolater as is probably supposed he himself being bred up in Idolatry § 4. Thirdly Whereas it is suggested that there was always from the beginning a Lineal Successive Conveyance of Grace from the Parent to the Child If so
that the present Work is needless unless any thing further be produced than hath been by others already Urged and argued in this present Controversie By way of Answer unto which I have two things to offer First That though very much hath been already said by others that have Laboured in the same Province and that with that clearness of Evidence and Scripture Demonstration by way of Opposition unto Infant Sprinkling as cannot be refuted unless another Canon or Scripture Oracle can be produced for the Justification thereof than we have yet met with yet those several Works of their having their several Excellencies and some of them being Voluminous I judged it no needless or unprofitable Labour to Collect the Sum or Substance of what hath been already said in this Respect and to present it to thy View in one Intire Piece and that with as much Succinctness and Brevity as the Matter would well require The Second is this That peradventure thou may'st find upon a due Perusal of the ensuing Discourse an Improvement of several Considerable Scriptures and Arguments to this purpose in the present Essay that hath not yet been made publick that I know of by any other hand and in particular among diverse others as to what concerns the true Nature and Difference betwixt the two Covenants that of Works and that of Grace Wherein I think I have plainly proved that the Covenant which God made with Israel at Mount Sinai Exod. 20. That made with the same People in the Land of Moab Deut. 29. As also the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. 8. 9. Whereon so much stress is laid for the support of Infants Baptism were all of them no other than three several Repetitions of the Covenant of Works and that as contra-distinct or essentially different from the Covenant of Grace and consequently now Repealed Which I have the rather taken the pains distinctly to prove because upon this Hypothesis or Supposition that these were Gospel Covenants differing from the New Covenant only in the manner of Administration the greatest part of the most plausible Arguments for the support of Infants Baptism are founded But if I have substantially proved that neither of these forementioned Covenants were Gospel Covenants reaching Gentile Believers and their Seed but Essentially different therefrom and consequently now repealed no wonder if I have made an answerable Improvement thereof by way of Opposition to the forementioned Practice The Design therefore and Scope of the following Treatise Beside what concerns the Nature and Difference betwixt the two Covenants the true Knowledge and Understanding whereof is indeed of highest Importance to us is with all Humility to endeavour the Rectification of that which I cannot but apprehend to have been amiss and the promoting of that which I cannot but Judge to have been greatly defective among many that are right dear and precious in the sight of GOD And that is among other things in respect of the Purity of that Divine Worship which as the Servants of Christ we are obliged to offer up to Him in a due Susception and Administration of that Sacred and Solemn Ordinance of Baptism we are now contending about My Reasons why I so think I have now given you in this present Discourse And certainly the Purity of Divine Appointments is worthy pleading for it hath been the subject matter of many Prayers and should be of our joynt Endeavours We Read in the Prophecy of Zechary of a Candlestick all of Gold Zec. 4. 2. 3. And he said unto me What seest thou And I said I have looked and behold a Candlestick all of Gold with a Bowl upon the top of it and the Seven Lamps thereon and Seven Pipes to the Seven Lamps which were upon the top thereof and two Olive Trees by it one upon the right side of the Bowl and the other upon the left side thereof And Verse 12. I answered again and said unto him What be these two Olive Branches which through the two Golden Pipes empty the Golden Oyl out of themselves By the concurring consent of all Interpreters I suppose by this Candlestick all of Godl here spoken of we are to understand that pure Church State which God hath promised to erect unto Himself in Gospel Times And certainly that must be a blessed Day and a glorious Priviledge when we shall come to have a Candlestick all of Gold A Candlestick that hath a Golden Bowl Golden Lamps and Golden Pipes for the reception and conveyance of the Golden Oyl Will it not be a singular Favour to be the Children of that Church All whose Members are Golden Members whose Ministers and Ordinances also are All of Gold for the conveyance of the Golden Oyl of the Heavenly Blessing to the Comfort Enlightning and Satisfastion of the whole But alas So it is that for the most part of those that call themselves or that pretend to be the true Churches of Christ at this day in the World they are far from being a Candlestick all of Gold whether in respect of their Constitution and Ministry or in respect of that Purity of Ordinances which God requires For whilst men do content themselves rather as it were with Leaden Pipes that is with Ordinances of an Humane Invention the Golden Pipes or Ordinances of God's Appointment are thereby neglected and made void And then no wonder if such a Church have also many Leaden Members or such as are unsuitable unto the Gospel Characters All of Gold being rather ignorant prophane and scandalous who coming in or being admitted at the wrong Door are there suffered also to continue to the hardning and Soul ruine of themselves which is the case of Millions who without Christ's Appointment having been Sprinkled or as they call it Christned in their Infancy as having by vertue of their Natural Birth an Interest in the Covenant of Grace are Induced thereby to reckon themselves good Christians and in a State of Salvation without looking after the New Birth or being acquainted with the Mystery of the Spirit of Regeneration It is no way to be doubted but that where there is a pure Church there are pure Ordinances The Pipes are all of Gold as well as the Church or Candlestick it self that is it hath only such Ordinances as have the stamp of Heaven upon them even the things which Christ hath commanded and those observed as he hath commanded and not otherwise And it is equally as clear that where those Golden Pipes are wanting or where the purity of Gospel Ordinances is neglected and Pipes of a baser Alloy are substituted in the Room of those of Christ's Appointment and those also mis-applied about wrong Subjects there can be no true Church much less can it pretend to that Purity that Christ expects There can be no true Church but what hath a Golden Constitution Golden Lamps and Golden Pipes for the Conveyance of the Golden Oyl And if you say that you have not been
Baptism of Believers be the only Baptism which Christ hath appointed How comes it to pass that so many Learned and Pious Men should for so long a season and throughout so many Generations cleave to Infants Baptism whilst so few in Comparison do embrace the contrary Practise Answered from p. 73 to 79. Obj. 20. The Apostle tells us that neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor Uncircumcision but a New Creature It is our main business therefore to press after the Power of Godlyness And we are affraid that while there is so much stress laid upon the Circumstantials of Religion it tends to the losing the Substance Besides having been already Baptized in our Infancy what Necessity is there for the Repetition thereof Answered from p. 79 to 82. The Conclusion of the Second Part. 82 85. The Third Part. Containing Some Animadversions on Mr. Sidenham's Treatise of Baptism Wherein that of Infants is further disproved Together with some further Reflections on Mr. Allen's forementioned Discourse to the same purpose Whereunto is Annexed an Answer at large unto Mr. Baxter's chief Argument for the Church-membership of Infants from the Nature of the Covenant made with Israel in the Land of Moab Mentioned Deut. 29. where Children are Represented as fellow Covenanters with their Parents which saith he was a Covenant of Grace or a Gospel Covenant And therefore neither it nor the Church-membership of Infants which was built thereon Repealed The Fourth Part. Wherein the Baptism of Infants is further Disproved By way of Answer to the Arguments made use of by Dr. Burthogge and others for the Support of that Practise Wherein the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai Exod. 20. as also the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9. Whereon so much stress is laid for the Support of Infants Baptism are plainly proved to be no other than two Several Editions of the Covenant of Works And Consequently that no just Argument can thence be deduced for the Justification of that Practise Together with a clear and distinct Explanation of the true Nature and Difference between the two Covenants that of Works and that of Grace The Fifth Part. Containing a Description of that truly Evangelical Covenant God was pleased to make with Believing Abraham wherein lies the Sum of the Everlasting Gospel then Preached unto him Since Proclaimed by the Apostles And which now Remains to be yet further Published unto all Nations for the Obedience of Faith Rom. 16. 25. 26. Rev. 14. 6. 7. Wherein the true Nature and Difference between the two Covenants that of Works and that of Grace is further Explained Wherein Mr. Baxters Argument also concerning the Morality of Infants Church-membership is duly weighed and Answered The Conclusion Containing a Solemn Call unto all Gods People Speedily and Seriously to attend unto the Primitive Puritie of the Gospel Doctrine and Worship THE FIRST PART Containing some Animadversions and Reflections upon a Late Dicourse of Mr. William Allen Entituled A Perswasive to Unity or A Serious and Friendly Address to the Nonconformists And first in reference to his Arguments against the Antipaedobaptists MR. Allen's first Argument is That a known Anabaptistical Principle Condemns the Practice of Anabaptists themselves The Principle is That Christ's Commission is to be Interpreted as to the Extent of it only by Scripture Examples And it Condemns the Practice of Anabaptists because there is no Scripture Example for the Baptizing such Persons as they Baptize viz. those of grown Age whose Parents were Christians and who have been Educated from their Child-hood in the Christian Religion but only such as were newly Converted from Paganism or Judaism to Christianity To this we Reply First That though it should be granted that there is no express Example in the Scripture concerning the Baptizing Persons at Age whose Parents were Christians yet it is sufficient unto us that there are Examples enough in the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Believers So that let a Person be but a Believer and we have no reason to enquire into his Pedigree nor have we any Rule that so directs us in Order to his Admission to Baptism And as we have no Rule nor Reason to accept of a Person that Believes the rather because he had Christian Parents so neither to Reject him on that Ground Could the like Command or Examples be produced from the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Infants as can easily be produced concerning the Baptism of Believers for under that Notion only are we bound to take Cognizance of those Baptized by us the present Controversie would soon be concluded between us Secondly This Argument will easily fall to the Ground if we duly consider the Scope of the forementioned Commission concerning Baptism as it is Recorded Mat. 28. 19 20. Go ye therefore and Teach or Disciple all Nations Baptizing them c. Wherein as the Order to be observed is plainly Exclusive of Infants who are uncapable of Teaching or Discipleship by Instruction as the Rule here directs So it is as evident that it Includes all other sorts of Persons that are capable of Actual Teaching whether they be Jews or Gentiles or whether they be the Off-spring of Pagans or Believers there being therein no Exception of any it extending to all sorts of People in all Nations that are capable of being effectually taught or instructed in the Rudiments of the Christian Doctrine so as to make an Answerable Profession of the same which we hope it will not be denied but that the Off-spring of Christian Parents are as capable of as others if not more by the Advantage of their Education when coming to years of Understanding and therefore are plainly included in the Commission concerning Baptism as well as others which Infants are not because uncapable of being taught as the Commission directs But against this it is objected That if the Commission Mat. 28. 19. Excludes none from Baptism but such as are to be excluded by the Order therein to be observed And if Baptizing and Teaching are to precede or follow one the other as there named by Christ Then these two Conclusions will follow First That Infants are not there Excluded from Baptism Secondly That a Person may be Baptized before he is Taught And that these Propositions do follow from those before mentioned will appear from that Text in the Original where on a little Consideration it may be observed that the Order so much talk'd of and which so much stress is laid upon by the Anabaptists is clearly for the Paedobaptists and not for them We have there First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which will be easily allowed to signify Disciple all Nations Make them Disciples o◠Christians Secondly we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which litterally to translate is Baptizing Teaching Now then Discipling being a general Word that centains in it the two other that follow Baptizing and Teaching and being the Imparative Mood
was could not prevail with our Saviour to quit His Liberty of Eating with unwashed hands calls them Superstitious and Blind Guides who were offended at him And Justifies His Disciples non Compliance by 3 Arguments First that it was and Un-Scriptural Tradition ver 9. In vain do they Worship me Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. Secondly That the neglect of it Inferred no Moral Evil That these things did not defile a Man i. e. as to his Mind and Conscience v. 11. Thirdly That it being not of God's Appointing must be plucked up ver 13. Every Plant which my Heavenly Father hath not Planted shall be rooted up Whereby our Saviour intimates that as the Pharisees had no Divine Warrant to prescribe such a Toy as that was so God would at last declare His Indignation against their Supererogatory Worship by pulling it up Root and Branch From whence we gather this Rule That when once Humane Inventions become Impositions and lay a Necessity upon that which God hath left free then may we Lawfully reject them as Plants of Man's Setting and not of GOD's owning To Conclude The Apostles praised the Corinthians for that they had kept the Ordinances as he delivered them 1 Cor. 11. 1. 2. For surely GOD is more Jealous of His Honour and tender of His Worship than to leave it to our Pleasure to Invent or to Add what we shall Judge Decent thereunto beyond what Himself hath prescribed And though 't is true he hath not in so many Words Expressly forbidden the things in Controversie between us yet he hath in all Ages testified His Dislike yea Abhorrency of Will Worship and that for this very Reason because He had not Commanded it nor ever came it into His Mind So Jer. 7. 31. Chap. 19. 5. and 32 35. Deut. 12. 32. And so likewise in that fore-mentioned Scripture Ezek. 43. 8. Where God discovers His severe Displeasure against His People of Old not for neglecting any part of His Worship which He had Commanded them But for their Presumption in adding something to His Worship which He had not Commanded In setting their Threshold by GOD's Threshold and their Post by GOD's Posts It appears not that they justled out any thing that GOD required but only thought fit to Joyn something of their Own therewith But for this very Reason must they be Consumed in GOD's Anger as the following Words declare Certain it is that this very Principle is that which hath brought in all the Popish Ceremonies into the Romish Church It cannot be denied that those things which Christ or His Apostles have expresly Commanded we are to Receive and Practice as they have Comwanded them But if any others shall take upon them to appoint unto Mens Consciences any Rite or Ceremony on their own Conceived Reason because they are such things as themselves do reckon decent or comely in the Worship of God It is an high Presumption in such against Christ and against the Apostles Command to yield Obedience thereunto Col. 2. 20. Though it hath a shew of Wisdom ver 23. And not only doth the Apostles Example Gal. 2. 3 4 5. bind us to 〈◊〉 it but in the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ are we Commanded to with-draw our selves from such disorderly Walkers 2 Thess 3. 6. Now we Command you Brethren in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye with-draw your selves from every Brother that walketh Disorderly and not after the Tradition which he received of us THE SECOND PART Containing a Distinct and more Particular Consideration of the Arguments drawn from Rom. 11. 16 17. Together with all other the most Material Arguments which are usually urged for the Support of Infants Baptism WE shall begin with those Arguments which are drawn from Rom. 11. 16 17. Where the Apostle tells us That if the First Fruit be Holy the Lump is also Holy And if the Root be Holy so are the Branches And if some of the Branches be broken off and thou being a Wild Olive Tree wert graffed in among them and with them partakest of the Root and Fatness of the Olive Tree boast not against the Branches c. From whence 't is urged That We Gentiles have now the same Graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had and that our graffing is Answerable to their present Casting out Now when they were taken in they and their Children were taken in When they were broken off they and their Children were broken off And therefore if our graffing in be answerable to theirs We and our Children are graffed in together To this we Reply That the Incision or Ingraffing here Spoken of may be either into the Visible or Invisible Church The graffing in may be either by Faith or by Profession of Faith or by Some outward Ordinance Children may be either grown Men or Infants The graffing in may be either certain or probable Certain either by reason of Election the Covenant of Grace made unto them or their Natural birth being Children of Believers Probable as being likely either because frequently or for the most part it happens so though not necessary and so not certain The thing that is to be proved is That all the Infants of every Believer are in the Covenant of Free Grace in Christ and by Virtue thereof to be Baptized into the Communion of the Visible Church Now it may be granted that Infants of Believers are frequently or for the most part under the Election and Covenant of Grace and so in the Invisihle Church which whether it be so or no no meer Man can tell And yet it not follow that every Infant of a Believer in as much as he is the Child of a Believer is under the Covenant of Grace and therefore by Baptism is to be admitted into the visible Church Now let it be never so probable that God continues His Election in the Posterity of Believers and accordingly hath promised to be their God in the Covenant of Grace yet if this be the Rule of Baptizing then the Infants of Believers only and no other are to be Baptized For the Practice must agree with the Rule And so not all Infants of Believers neither are to be Baptized but the Elect in the Covenant of Grace only If it be said But we are to Judge all to be Elected and in the Covenant of Grace 'till the contrary appears We Answer That we are not to Judge all to be Elected or in the Covenant of Grace because we have the Declaration of GOD's Mind to the contrary Rom. 9. 6 7 8. And all Experience proves the contrary to be true Nor is the Administration of an Outward Ordinance Instituted by God according to such a Rule as is not possible to be known but according to that which is manifest to the Ministers of it And therefore since God conceals His Purpose of Election and the Covenant of Grace which is Congruous to it in respect of the Persons Elected It
is certain God would not have this the Rule according to which outward Ordinances are to be Administred But it is Urged That our Graffing into the Olive Tree the Church is Answerable to that of the Jews Now their Infants were Graffed in by Circumcision and therefore ours are to be Graffed in by Baptism Reply Can we indeed think that the Apostle here means by Graffing in Baptism or Circumcision or an Incision by an outward Ordinance If that were the meaning then breaking off must be meant of Vncircumcising or Vnbaptizing The whole Context speaks of the Election of some and the Rejection of others Of the Breaking off by Vnbelief and the Standing by Faith And therefore the Graffing must be meant of the Invisible Church by Election and Faith which Invisible Church was first among the Jews and therefore called the Olive out of Abraham the Root who is therefore said to bear them And because Abraham had a double Capacity one of a Natural Father and the other of the Father of the Faithful In respect of his former Capacity some are called Branches according to Nature In respect of his latter Capacity others are called Wild Olives by Nature yet Graffed in by Faith And therefore when it is said that some of the Natural Branches were broken off the meaning is not that some of the Branches in the Invisible Church may be broken off But it is plainly to be understood in reference to the Natural Branches only that is of such alone who had nothing but their Natural Pedigree or descent from Abraham as a Natural Father to insist upon And in this respect it is expresly told us that some of the Natural Branches only were broken off For some of them were Branches in both respects and accordingly were not broken off but we Believing Gentiles are said to be Graffed in amongst them and with them are partakers of the Root and Fatness of the Olive Tree If you say then that the Gentiles have now the same Graffing into the true Olive which tho Jews formerly had We must Remember that known and allowed Distinction Concerning the Substance of the Covenant and the Administration of it Now it is true that in respect of the Substance of the Covenant we have the same Graffing in to the Olive the Church of the Faithful of which Abraham is the Root that the Believing Jews had And so we by Faith are said to be made Partakers of the Root and Fatness of the Olive Tree Or in plainer Terms as the Apostle Phraseth it Eph. 3. 6. We are now made Fellow Heirs and of the same Body and partakers of his Promise in Christ through the Gospel In respect of which all Believing Gentiles are Abraham's Seed the Israel of God One in Christ But if you mean it of the Outward Administration of this Ingraffing by Circumcision or Baptism nothing is more untrue For indeed the Outward Administration which then was is utterly taken away removed and changed It being that which whilst it stood was the Ground of a Separation between the Jews and the Gentiles And it is therefore taken away on this very purpose that the Enmity betwixt Jews and Gentiles might be removed and they made One in Christ by his Death And if you say that our present Graffing In must be answerable to their present Casting Out It is true our present Graffing In is answerable to their or rather for their Casting out That is GOD would supply in His Olive Tree the Church the casting away of the Jews by the Calling of the Gentiles who are now by Faith Graffed in among the Remaining Believing Jews who continued as yet unbroken off But it doth not therefore follow that the Infants of Believing Gentiles are Graffed In together with themselves as the Jewish Infants were because uncapable of making that Profession of Faith which the Gospel now requires But it is further Urged that if the Fruit be Holy the Lump is also Holy And if the Root be Holy so are the Branches As for that of the Root it is variously Conceived by Interpreters some understanding thereby the Covenant to be meant some Abraham Isaac and Jacob and some Abraham only which last in its proper Sense I Conceive to be most Genuine Whereas therefore the Apostle tells us that the first Fruit is Holy the Lump Holy The Root Holy and the Branches Holy From whence some would Infer a derivative Holiness from the Parents to the Children that is the Father being Holy and accepted in Covenant with GOD the Children are so too being Beloved for the Fathers Sake The Truth is the Holiness the Apostle speaks of is First in respect of GOD's Election Holiness Personal and Inherent in GOD's Intention He hath chosen us that we should be Holy Eph. 1. 4. Secondly It is also Holiness derivative or descending but not from any Ancestors but from Abraham only and that not as a Natural but as a Spiritual Father or the Father of the Faithful wherein he was a Lively Image or Figure of Christ Himself and is derived from the Covenant of Grace which passed in his Name to him and to his Seed And Lastly It shall be Inherent being actually Communicated by the Spirit of GOD when they shall be actually Called And this is such a kind of Holiness as is more than a bare Adherent or Relative Holiness being also inherent by Faith whereby they are Holy as the Root is Holy Now whereas you understand it to be the Case of any Believers to be a Holy Root to their Posterity This is not true For in the Apostles Resemblance Abraham only is a Holy Root in whose Name the Covenant runs No other Man though a Believer being the Father of the Faithful but Abraham only And the whole Body of Believers is compared to the Olive and each Believer to a Branch that partakes of the Root and Fatness of the Olive Tree not in outward Dispensations only but in Saving Graces also which indeed is mainly here intended For it cannot rationally be Supposed that by the Fatness of the Olive Tree we are to understand any External Priviledge whatsoever in its self belonging to us or ours For that of it self would be but a dry a barren and a sapless Advantage But by the Fatness of the Olive Tree we are certainly to understand that Spiritual Benefit and Advantage that from Christ is to be Communicated or Derived unto us who was indeed herein Represented by Abraham who is to this purpose therefore called the Friend of God and the Father of the Faithful And whose Prerogative herein no other Man though a Believer whether before or since could ever justly pretend unto But whereas it is yet further Urged That the Church of the Jews and that of the Gentiles is still the same that is It is still the same Visible Church now that it was then And so much say you the Apostles Simile or Metaphor of Ingraffing will bear or it signifies nothing
And if the visible Church be the same Why should not the Subjects be the same viz. Children and the Priviledge be the same viz. an External Badge and Cognisance given to the Children of the Church now as well as under the Law We Answer That true it is the Church of the Jews and that of the Gentiles is one and the same in reference to the true Essence or Inward Substance of either In which respect as we have said before the Believing Gentiles according to the Apostles Metaphor are here said to be Graffed in amongst them and with them to be made Partakers of the Root and Fatness of the Olive Tree And in reference hereunto it is rightly added by the Apostle that the Gifts and Callings of God are without Repentance The Inward Substance of the Church and of the Covenant of Grace whereon 't is Founded being Invariable and that which shall remain for ever Immoveable But it doth not therefore follow that there should be no Alteration in respect of the Outward Form or Administration of either For in this Respect as hath been already proved there is a wide Difference between them For barely to be of the Natural Seed of Abraham was sufficient to be admitted a Member of the Jewish Church but not so under the Gospel unless we be of the Seed of Abraham according to the Spirit And till this be Evidenced neither therefore doth the External Badge or Cognisance belong unto us And thus it may appear that this Illustrious Scripture is very much darkened by applying that Holiness and Incision here spoken of to Outward Dispensations only in the visible Church which is meant of Saving Graces in the Invisible by Faith And whilst you make every Believer a like Root to his Posterity as Abraham the Father of the Faithful was to his Since no Believer in the World whether before or since had ever the like Priviledge or Prerogative conferred upon him to be Called the Father of the Faithful as Abraham was But for the further support of Infants Baptism It is Objected First That since Infants stood visible Members of the Church for 2000 Years under the Legal Administration It is unlikely they should be now Excluded To this we Answer First That they stood Excluded altogether as much above 2000 Years before Circumcision as they do now So that an Ordinance for their Church-member-ship was not so from the Beginning but came in by special Institution long since Secondly The other Administration in which they stood was Established with a Seed to be Propagated by Natural Generation according to express Command Gen. 17. 9 10. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations Verse 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep Every Man-Child among you shall be Circumcised But where have we Command for the like in this Administration For though it should be granted that the Believing Gentiles are intended as the proper Subjects of the general Obligation mentioned Verse 9. which yet cannot be for the Reasons given in the latter part of this Discourse upon that Subject Yet the Baptism of Infants cannot thence be justly Inferred For there God only saith Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and tby Seed after thee in their Generations It is true by the Seed there spoken of you understand the Spiritual Seed in the Gospel Day and by keeping the Covenant their keeping it in the proper Sign of it belonging to the Gospel that is Baptism But where lies the Ground for Infants Baptism in all this Is there a Syllable there concerning Infants that they also must be Signed To keep the Sign of GOD's Covenant say you is to wear it themselves and to put it upon all theirs The Believing Gentiles are to keep the Sign of GOD's Covenant Therefore the Believing Gentiles are to wear it themselves and to put it upon all theirs But who told you so Or what Scripture is there that proves that thus stands the Case with the Believing Gentiles That is that they are not only to wear the Sign of the Covenant themselves but to put it upon all theirs All that you can prove is that thus it was with Abraham and His under the former Administration and when you can also prove that thus it must be now you say something otherwise all you say is Impertinent The Covenant of Promise 't is true Gen. 12. 2 3. Gen. 22. 16 17 18. is one and the same to them and to us but the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. 7 8 9 was plainly Typical and Temporary and in a Figure it Ministred unto the ends of the Everlasting Covenant And therefore it sufficed as unto that Administration if the People the Children thereof were of the Natural Seed of Abraham because by that shadowy Covenant Young and Old Good and Bad were all alike Covenanters and all alike in a Capacity to be the Subjects of an Administration which was to serve unto the Example and Shadow of Heavenly things till the Seed should come to whome the Promise was made Gal. 3. 19. But the Gospel Administration that brings Christ and all the Mystery of His Grace in the Truth and Reality and not in the Figure and Example is not Receptive of Children as to the Principle upon which it stands any other way than upon some visible Demonstration of Faith whereby CHRIST comes to be received who are therefore called the Sons of God John 1. 12 13. As many as Received Him to them gave He Power that is the Right or Priviledge to become the Sons of GOD Even to them that Believe in His Name Born not of Blood nor of the Will of the Flesh nor of the Will of Man but of GOD. Thus the Apostle Gal. 4. 28. Calls the Saints of the Churches of Galatia Children of the Promise in Opposition to the Seed according to the Flesh Verse 7. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called that is they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of GOD but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed Whereunto many other Scriptures might be added yea the whole Stream of the New Testament witnesseth to a Seed ' according to Calling and as to the 〈◊〉 of their Admission all Living Stones for the Constitution of the Church of GOD and not one Word in Favour of a Seed according to the Flesh as to Admission into the Church upon that Principle of Birth Priviledge We are told indeed that the Believing Gentiles are now Graffed in not upon the Legal Branch but upon the Root Olive which affordeth all the Nourishment that either the Jews had or the Gentiles have Which Root Olive is the Covenant of Promise that was 430 Years before the Law Now into that State of things say you wherein not the Law but the Gospel Preached unto Abraham did Obtain God was a GOD
not only to the Father but to the Children yea to all his Family And the Father of the Family did not only give Himself but all his Children and even his Servants all His to GOD to take his Sign upon them and so it must be now To which We Reply that it is indeed the unspeakable Blessedness of the Believing Gentiles to be Graffed in upon such a Stock not upon the Legal Branch but upon the Root Olive which affordeth all the Nourishment that either the Jews had or the Gentiles have that Root Olive being no other than Christ Himself who was given for a Covenant of the People and a Light to Lighten the Gentiles The Gospel of whose Grace was indeed Preached to Abraham 430 Years at least before the Law was given But what then Doth it therefore follow that the Believing Gentiles are put into that very State of things as under Circumcision Where is that Scripture that affirms it Evident it is that though Circumcision was in use before as well as under the Law and though Jesus Christ Himself is by the Apostle Stiled the Minister of the Circumcision for the Truth of God to confirm the Promises made unto the Fathers yet as it cannot be denied but that it was adopted into the Legal Family And that it was also adopted unto the Nature and Quality of the Legal Dispensation So it is as evident that it is now Abolished And we can meet with no one Text in all the New Testament that tells us that Baptism is appointed to have the same Place and Vse in the Church of God that Circumcision had but rather much to the contrary as hath been already proved And it being manifest that the External Administration of the Covenant is changed to what it was in Abraham's Time it plainly follows that there is an Alteration of the Rule that must direct us in our Practice in that Respect Obj. 2. If this Interpretation hold good there would be a very great Change in the Extent of the Covenant narrower under the Gospel than it was under the Law and yet no notice in all the Book of God given of such a Change We Reply First That the Covenant of Grace hath one and the same Extent before under and since the Law in Respect of the Substance of it or considered singly in its self as hath been already declared In Respect of the Administration of it indeed it is Changedble and hath been often Changed Secondly we say that the Administration under the Gospel is not narrower than that under the Law because it admits not Infants Baptism The Administration under the Law was Circumscribed to a little Land and a small People the Bounds of the other are stretched from Sea to Sea and from the River to the ends of the Earth That was restrained to the Seed and Family of Abraham the other extends to the Seed and Family of Christ That had its Existence but 2000 Years upon an Occasional Temporary Principle the other is suited to Answer a Principle existing from Everlasting to Everlasting That Administration was the Shadow Figure and Example the other the Substance That was the Handmaid the other the Mistress And if the Case be thus between these two Administrations can we Reasonably Charge the Gospel Administration with more narrowness than the Law because of the Discontinuance of the Birth-Priviledge Thirdly Although the Grace of the Gospel be extended far beyond the Grace under the Law yet as to Persons the Children of the Gospel are formed to so strict and refined a Qualification that in that Respect we grant that the Law had a Latitude beyond the Gospel But yet with this Mark that the Indulgence of the Law was one of the great Imperfections which the Gospel came to Reform Mat. 3. 10 11 12. And of this Change the Book of God doth give abundant Notice Gen. 21. 10. Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son c. Shortly after the Institution of the Ordinance of Circumcision for the Priviledge of the Seed according to the Flesh The Lord brings forth a Prophetical Instance in the very Family of Abraham wherein this great Change of Church Priviledge was revealed viz. That it was to be taken from the Carnal Seed and that it should be given to the Seed according to Grace under the Gospel Administration And to put that matter out of Question we have the unvailing of this Prophetical Instance to the very same purpose in Gal. 4. 30. So also Isa 14. 1. Sing O Barren thou that bearest not What she was the Apostle tells us Gal. 4. 26 27. ver 5. Thy Maker is thy Husband the Lord of Hosts is his Name and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel At ver 13. We have the Refined Qualification of her Children and People And all thy Children shall be Taught of the Lord Where we have a Prophetical Description of the Gospel Church State which the People of a Fleshly Extraction only from the most sanctified Saints cannot possible compare unto It must therefore necessarily be understood of another Seed even of a Seed begotten of God by the Word of Truth Jam. 1. 18. the Gospel People And this was a fair Notice given of the Change in Question to wit narrower as to the Qualifications of the Persons but more extended in Grace Another fair warning for the Fleshly Seed is Isa 65. 15. For the Lord God shall slay thee and call his People by another Name In all which we find plain notice given of the Change of the Old Administration which gloried in the Seed of Abraham after the Flesh and as plainly foretelling the Cessation of that Propagation to give place to the New Administration and the true Seed of Abraham the Seed according to the Spirit And indeed the Change of the Administration necessarily removes the fleshly Seed because it hath a standing by no other Right than what it had under that Covenant As for the New Testament it every where abounds with Evidence to the Proof hereof as appears from the several Scriptures that have in part been already opened and discussed in the former part of this Discourse Wherein it hath been proved that though Infants were comprehended with their Parents in the Jewish Church yet none but such as are capable of making an Actual Profession of Faith and Repentance with some competent Measure of Fruitfulness answerable thereunto are to be admitted to the Priviledge of Church-Membership under the Gospel To this purpose we are told Mat. 3. 7. That when many of the Pharisees and Sadduces came to be Baptized of John Though their being of the Natural Seed of Abraham was a sufficient ground why they should be Circumcised yet it was no sufficient ground why they should be Baptized And therefore their Birth-Priviledge notwithstanding John rejects them as a Generation of Vipers and bids them bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance 'T is true those that John had now to deal with were Men at
Age and such also as were exceedingly Debauched and Vitious in their Conversations But then it must be withal considered that we Read of none at Age that were rejected upon any such Account from Corcumcision which is a clear Argument of the Change of the Administration and that the terms of Admission into the Gospel-Church were far stricter now than they were before And to take off their former Plea he deals therefore plainly with them upon that Account And tells them ver 9. Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father for God is able of Stones to raise up Children unto Abraham And now also the Ax is laid unto the Root of the Trees therefore every Tree which bringeth not forth good Fruit is hewn down which hath been already explained to be clearly Exclusive of a meer Carnal Seed or a Seed barely after the Flesh in respect of Gospel Church Ordinances For upon that Account the Ax is here said to be laid unto the Root of the Trees And as plainly doth the Spirit of God by the Apostle give us an Account of the Exclusion of the Fleshly Seed in that respect when he tells us as he doth 2 Cor. 5. 16 17. Wherefore henceforth know we no Man after the Flesh c. For if any Man be in Christ he is a New Creature Old things are past away all things are become New which hath been already distinctly explained to the same purpose Together with Rom. 11. 17. 24. Where he tells us that the Natural Branches are broken off And that the Gentiles have their Standing in the Church only by Faith And no where doth the New-Testament Countenance that conceit that our Posterity have any Right of standing as Members of the Christian Church by Vertue of our Faith But we our selves must stand by our Faith and they if they have any by their own Otherwise they are of course excluded The Natural Branches being now broken off and no others in their Room barely as such according to Gospel Rule to be admitted to Gospel Ordinances But against this it is Objected That as the same Church continued under the Gospel which did exist or was in being before So the very same Church Members kept their places and standing in it which were of it before except such as were broken off by Vnbelief which must not say you be understood in Reference to the Little Children of the Believing Jews unless it can be made out that their Little Children were guilty also of the same Sin of Vnbelief upon the Account of which others were thus broken off To this we Reply First that as it is Evident that the Children of the Vnbelieving Jews are to this day together with their Parents broken off and unchurched which can be upon no other Account than because of the Personal Vnbelief both of the Parents and Children For they have both of them Believing Abraham to their Father as much now as before So it is as Evident that the same Sin of Vnbelief was as justly Chargeable upon the Children of those of them that did believe until wrought upon as their Parents were by the Preaching of the Word And by Reason hereof it was that all sorts of Little Children as well as those at Age that were destitute of actual Faith were now to be broken off from the Gospel Church For though 't is true the Children of the Believing Jews and the Children of the Vnbelieving Jews also were upon the bare Account of their Relation to Abraham only by the Express Command of God under the former Administration admitted to a State of Church Membership their Vnbelief notwithstanding For whether they were Believers or no was not at all any Matter of Enquiry in Respect either of the Parents or the Children as to a State of Church-Membership then yet as hath been already proved the Case is now altered A New Law and a New Church-State in Respect of the External Administration thereof was now to take place in the World So that the terms of their former standing in the Church would not suffice for their standing now For nothing short of Actual Faith and Repentance or an External Profession thereof could be now sufficient which Qualifications not being to be found in Young Infants whether those of Believers or those of Vnbelievers they were therefore both broken off as well the one as the other of them Secondly In this Respect therefore it ought to be duly considered that the Holy Scripture doth conclude us all by Nature to be in a state of Vnbelief and Children of wrath as well as others and such we continue from our Infancy 'till converted and wrought upon by the Grace of the Gospel A vain thing it is therefore to pretend unto a Faith wrought in us from our Natural Birth as the Seed of Believers For Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Rom. 10. 17. As the ordinary means by which it is wrought in us And this way of Conveyance little Infants as well those of Believers as those of Vnbelievers being uncapable of they are therefore all of them till then to be reckoned as the Scripture concludes them in a state of Vnbelief Rom. 11. 32. And this being the true state of the Case No wonder if the Children of Believers as well as others were broken off from the Olive Tree the Church the terms of standing therein being now altered as hath been declared Mr. Allen indeed also tells us that since the Jewish Infants were under the former Administration at the Call Election and Appointment of God admitted with their Parents as Visible Members of the Jewish Church And since the Gifts and Callings of God are without Repentance Rom. 11. 29. We have Reason therefore to conclude that the Infants of Christian Parents have the same Right to a Visible Church-Membership now as theirs had then But then Mr. Allen should have considered that though the Gifts and Callings of God are indeed without Repentance in respect of the Inward Substance of the Covenant of Grace Or of an Invisible Membership in the Invisible Church yet it doth not therefore follow that they are without Repentance in Respect of an External Membership in the Visible Church but are and were Repealable as by sad Experience it is found to be too true by the main Body of the Jewish Nation Children and all who by Reason of their Vnbelief are actually and undeniably both Parents and Children also un-Church'd broken off and rejected to this very day True it is as the Apostle also tells us if they abide not still in Vnbelief they shall be graffed in again And he there also tells us God is both able and willing so to do But then we must also remember that as they and their Children were both broken off because of Vnbelief upon which very Account they do both still continue broken off to this very day So therefore as a Just and a Necessary
Consequence of the former it will also naturally follow that it is only by the Actual Faith of both Parents and Children as an Instrumental means by which either of them shall be blessed with that their desired Restauration And this may serve also for a Confutation of that Groundless and Unscriptural conceit of Mr. Allen when he affirms that the Infants of Believers are Abraham's Spiritual Seed and that upon this Account it was that they were admitted to the Priviledge of Church-Membership under the Law For thus he tells us If such Infants are as much of the Church and as much Abraham's Spiritual Seed as ever Infants in the Old Testament-Church were then they can be no more uncapable than they were of a solemn Admission into the Church by the Ordinance of Initiation for the time being as Baptism is now and as Circumcision was then But this which Mr. Allen takes here for granted and is indeed the Foundation of his Argument we utterly deny as not having been at all proved nor indeed can be proved by him or any other to wit That the Infants of Believers have any where in Scripture the Denomination of Abraham's Spiritual Seed This is a most certain Truth that as Abraham himself had a double Capacity one of a Natural Father the other the Father of the Faithful So he had a two-fold Seed For First he had a Seed that proceeded from him according to the Course of Natural Generation only And Secondly some were his Natural and Spiritual Seed also such as was Isaac and all the Faithful who proceeded from Abrahams Loyns To which we must add a Third sort and that is all true Believers or the Elect of God in all Nations who by Vertue of their Interest in Christ have also in Scripture the Denomination of Abraham's Seed who yet can lay no claim to Abraham as their Father according to the common Course of Nature And to imagine that Abraham hath any Seed in any other Religious or Spiritual Consideration whatsoever under the Gospel is to be wise above what is written For whatever the Jewish Children were to say that the Children of Christians are Relatively Holy that they are Church-Members and as much Christians externally as the Children of the Jews were Jews externally as some have suggested All these are but unproved Figments and Unscriptural Dictates And therefore from hence to infer their Relation to Abraham as his Spiritual Seed and thence that they are the proper Subjects of Baptism is no other than to build a lofty Structure upon a Sandy Foundation If then we shall affirm that the Infants of Believers now are Abraham's Seed they must of Necessity come under one or another of these Heads To say that they are so in either of the two former Respects cannot be at all pretended unto if in the latter neither can this with any shadow of Truth be affirmed For thus it was not with all the Natural Seed of Abraham himself as the Apostle expresly affirms Rom. 9. 7 8. Neither saith he because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called that is they that are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed So likewise Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christs then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise Therefore to affirm that all the Infants of Believers are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham as there is no Scripture that proves it so it is directly contrary to the Scripture and indeed contrary to our own most common and obvious Experience whilst we consider with all that as for many of Abraham's own Natural Posterity they are so far from being his Spiritual Seed that as hath been already observed together with their Children they are Unchurched broken off and rejected by God because of their Vnbelief to this very day Which yet had not been had they been the Spiritual as well as the Natural Seed of Abraham For sure it is altogether Inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of Grace the Gifts and Callings whereof are without Repentance that Abraham's Spiritual Seed or that such as are Members of the Invisible as well as the Visible Church should be at all cast off rejected and forsaken as the Jews now are Upon the whole therefore of our Answer to the forementioned Objection That if this Interpretation hold good there would be a great change in the extent of the Covenant narrower under the Gospel than it was under the Law and yet no notice in all the Book of God given of such a Change We say that there is abundant notice given unto us in the Book of God and that both in the Old and New Testament also concerning the change in question viz. the disfranchisement of Infants from their so long enjoyed Priviledge of Church-Membership We grant that under the Law they were admitted thereunto with their Parents But the Scriptures already alledged do abundantly prove their Exclusion under the Gospel Administration Unto which we shall only at present add Heb. 7. 12. For the Priesthood heing changed there is made of Necessity a change also of the Law which Change of the Law there spoken of must needs include Circumcision with all the Priviledges and Appurtenances belonging to it And therefore as Infants Church-Membership came in with the Law of Circumcision so it went out and was Repealed with it Objection 3. If this Interpretation be true the Believing Jews should have loss upon their Repentance and Belief of the Gospel if their Children formerly Church Members should now be Excluded upon the Faith and Repentance of their Parents To this we Answer First It is true that insome Sence a Jew converted to the Gospel should have loss and particularly in that point of Signing his Fleshly Seed by an Ordinance together with the Fall of all the Glory of their Sanctuary and pompous Priest-hood so much and so long the joy and boasting of that Nation Which the Spirit of GOD fore-saw and fore-told Isa 8. 14. And hence it came to pass that Christ became so great an Offence and the Gospel so sore a Stone of Stumbling and Rock of Offence to them all yea even to many of them after they had submitted to the Gospel yea the Gentile Churches were scarce if at all preserved from Stumbling hereat with the Jews But all this Loss well considered would amount to no more than what befals a Man who from the Priviledges of a Servant is Invested into the Priviledges of a Son And this was the very Case Gal. 4. 4. God sent forth His Son c. Verse 5. To redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons Verse 7. Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Son And the Reason of this Change the Apostle plainly sheweth us Verse 23. He that was after the Bond-Woman was Born after the
granted by GOD in lieu of Circumcision Object 6. But Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to Believers and their Seed under the Law and therefore so is Baptism to the Seed of Christian Parents under the Gospel the denial therefore of Baptism to Infants is the denial of a great Priviledge which of right belongs unto them To this We Answer in the Negative That neither was Circumcision a Seal to them nor much less a Seal to them of the New Covenant for then they had been all Saved It is true it was a Seal Confirmation or Ratification of the Faith that Abraham had long before he was Circumcised But so it could not be said of Infants that had no Faith It was indeed a Sign put into the Flesh of the Infant but a Sign and Seal only to Abraham Witnessing to Him that he not only had a Justifying Faith but to the Truth of the Promises viz. That he should be the Father of many Nations Rom. 4. 17. Gen. 12. 2. 3. The Father of the Faithful Rom. 4. 11. Heir of the World Rom. 4. 13. Which was no way true of any Infant that ever was Circumcised for none had before their Circumcision such a Faith that entituled them to such singular Promises and Prerogatives The Scope of that place Rom. 4. being to shew that Abraham himself was not Justified by Works no not by Circumcision but by Faith which he had long before he was Circumcised and so but a Seal or Confirmation of that Faith which he had before and to assure him of the Truth of those special Promises then made to him So that though Circumcision is rightly termed by the Apostle A Seal of the Righteousness of Abraham 's Faith which he had yet being Vncircumcised of which see further p. 51. 52. 53. but more especially from p. 205 to p. 206. Yet the Scripture no where affirms that so it was to any others neither indeed could it be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Infants that had no Faith Besides diverse others who as it appears from the Scriptures were utterly destitute of that Saving Grace For some were Circumcised to whom no Promise in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong Of Ishmael GOD had said that His Covenant was not to be Established with him but with Isaac and yet he was Circumcised Gen. 17. 20 21 25. Rom. 9. 7 8 9. Gal. 4. 29 30. The like may be said of Esau Together with which it must be considered That all that were in Abraham's House whether Strangers bought with Money or Born in his House though not of his Seed were to be Circumcised To whom nevertheless none of the Promises of that Covenant were made as is plain from Gen. 17. 7 8 20 21 23 27. So that as far as appears to us from the Scriptures Circumcision was a Seal of the Rightcousness of Faith only to Abraham not so to the rest as all the Jews also were not called the Fathers of the Faithful or the Fathers of many Nations as Abraham was Secondly Neither is Baptism more than Circumcision called a Seal It is indeed called a Figure 1 Pet. 3. 21. And it is a Sign also but a Sign and Figure proper only to Men of Vnderstanding not as Circumcision which was a Sign not Improper for Infants because it left a signal Impression upon their Flesh to be remembred all their Days But so cannot Baptism be to any Infant To affirm Baptism therefore to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace is groundless for that is the peculiar Work and Office of the Holy Spirit Eph. 1. 13. and 4. 30. And since neither hath GOD any where Commanded Infants to be Baptized the denial therefore of Baptism to Infants cannot be the denial of any Priviledge due unto them Object 7. But Circumcision was Administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed after them as such to which Baptism was to correspond We Answer That Circumcision was an Ordinance which by the Institution belonged to all the Natural Lineage and Posterity of Abraham good or bad without any such Limitation as was put upon Baptism If thou Believest with all thine Heart thou mayst Acts 8. Or any such Qualification that an Infant capable to receive it must of necessity have a Believing Parent For we know that the Servants Born in Abraham's House and Strangers Bought with Money were also to be Circumcised as well as those proceeding from Abraham's Loins who yet surely could not pretend to be all of them the Off-spring of Believing Parents Which clearly shews that Circumcision was not Administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed after them as such But though the Natural Posterity of Abraham whether they were Believers or no were to be Circumcised because God had so Commanded it yet this was not sufficient for their Admission to Baptism The main Plea indeed of the Jews in John's time was That they had Abraham to their Father But notwithstanding this he rejects them and bids them bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance as that which alone would give them Admission to the Baptism of Repentance And if you say that this concerns the Adult only We say that it concerns Infants as much who are uncapable of that Faith and Repentance which the Gospel every where requires in those to be Baptized From what hath been already said therefore it clearly appears that the not Baptizing Infants makes not our Priviledge under the Gospel less than theirs under the Law to which Circumcision was annexed inasmuch as they were not Circumcised because they were the Children of Believers but because GOD had Commanded it neither were they by Circumcision Sealed with a New Covenant Seal as being thereby Interessed in the Mercies of God's New and Everlasting Covenant many being then Circumcised as Ishmael and others who had no right or title at all thereunto But they were Circumcised by the Command of God to distinguish them from the Nations and to keep that Line clear from whence Christ according to the Flesh should come and to oblige them to keep the Law c. but no such thing in the Gospel The Body and Substance being come the shadow was to vanish and pass away No common Father now but Christ and if Christâ— then Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise No Birth Priviledge but the New Birth therefore to go back to the National Birth Priviledge is so far from being a Priviledge that it is a Bondage rather and no other than to rtâ—urn to the Type and Shadow the Anti-type and Substance being come Neither ought such a thing to be any more esteemed the loss of a Priviledge than our not enjoying litterally a Holy Land City Temple a Succession of a High Priest and a Priest-hood by Generation or Lineal Descent as it was with them since all these Types are Spiritualized to us the Believers under the Gospel who are now the Holy Nation City Temple and Royal Priest-hood
Infants in the Days of the Gospel many of them are in the Covenant of Grace and so Saved by Virtue of the Free Promise But yet not to be Baptized if they do not Live to the time of Believing and Repenting the only time appointed for Baptism So that the Administration of Ordinances to Infants depends upon the Law of Institution only and not upon their being in Covenant Fourthly In this respect therefore it ought to be duly considered as hath been before Observed That the Covenant of Grace or the Gospel Covenant which Believers are now under whereof Christ is the alone and only Mediator was not made with Believers and their Seed but with Abraham and his Seed that is Christ For so the Apostle tells us expresly That to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made He saith not unto Seeds as many but as of one And to thy Seed which is Christ So that all Gospel Promises run to Christ the Inheriting Seed To Him they are made In Him do they all center and from Him alone are all the Blessings in Promise to be derived unto all His Members 'T is true In the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 27. 7 8 9. which was a Legal Bondage Covenant and therefore now repealed as shall be afterward shewn God doth indeed therein promise to be a GOD to Abraham and his Fleshly Seed and to give them the Land of Canaan for an Inheritance And their Obedience to Circumcision is expresly called the Covenant on their Part. Gen. 17. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between Me and you and thy Seed after thee Every Man-Child among you shall be Circumcised So Acts 7. 8. And he gave them the Covenant of Circumcision and so Abraham begat Isaac and Circumcised him the Eighth Day By which they stood engaged to keep all those other Additional Ordinances which Moses gave them when they were about to enter their Promised Inheritance Gal. 5 3. For I testifie that whosoever is Circumcised he is a Debtor to do the whole Law But the Covenant of Grace which God shade with Believing Abraham before his departure out of his own Countrey and therefore long before the Covenant of Circumcision was in being runs in another strain For therein as GOD freely Promiseth to Bless Abraham himself so he doth as freely Promise to make him a Blessing For that in him that is in his Seed Christ should all the Families of the Earth be Blessed Gen. 12. 2 3. And this was a Covenant of Grace indeed a Covenant that was purely Evangelical every way Extensive and Absolute and therefore unchangeable For therein God hath freely Promised a Blessing unto all sorts of true Believers whether Jews or Gentiles in giving unto them an Eternal Inheritance Heb. 9. 15. Incorruptible and Vndefiled that fadeth not away Purchased by the Blood of Jesus and reserved in Heaven for them of which the Earthly Inheritance in the Land of Canaan was a Type So that as there was a two-fold Covenant made with Abraham a Covenant of Grace and a Covenant of Works So there is a two-fold Seed of Abraham a Fleshly and a Spiritual Typed out by Ishmael and Isaac and a two-fold Inheritance an Earthly and a Heavenly But the Heavenly Inheritance was not given to the Fleshly Seed but only in Types offered to them and confirmed only to the Spiritual Seed whether Jews or Gentiles who in that respect are called the Heirs of Promise yet not immediately or at first hand rate but through the Mediation of Christ alone in whom all the Families of the Earth are Blessed For as Ishmael the Child of the Flesh had no right with Isaac in the outward Typical Promise so Isaac himself by vertue of his fleshly descent had no right nor interest in the Heavenly Inheritance Rom. 9. 7. any otherwise than as he came to have an Interest in Christ And therefore we find the Apostle expounding the Word of Promise sheweth that the Evangelical Promises made to Abraham were not made to any one Fleshly Seed no not with the meer Fleshly Seed of Believing Abraham himself but these Promises did all run to Christ the Inheriting Seed to whom they were made and when Christ was come they all centre in Him Now to Abraham and his Seed saith the Text were the Promises made He saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of One and to thy Seed which is Christ In whom all the Promises of the Gospel are Tea and Amen Fifthly Having thus followed the Promises down from Abraham unto CHRIST let us now see to whom they come forth again and it is not to any ones Fleshly Seed whatsoever but from Christ they all Flow forth again to Believers and only to Believers and that by vertue of their union with Christ To this purpose the Apostle tells us That if we be CHRIST's then are we Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise There being no way to partake of the Promise but by Faith in Christ Gal. 3. 22. The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe So that all the Promises run to Christ and from Him Flow forth again only to Believers not to them and their Natural Off-spring as is Suggested further than they are Believers also in their own Persons For no otherwise was it with the Fleshly Seed of Believing Abraham himself Which being Impartially Consider'd is a full Answer to all Arguments drawn from the Covenant and the the Promises made to Abraham and certainly and unavoidably cuts off Infants Church-member ship in the Days of the Gospel unless you can find a new Institution for it and consequently it leaves no room for Infants Baptism unless it can be proved that all the Infants of Believers are Heirs of Abraham's Faith Believing as he did and that the Promises are theirs not by Application or Analogy but directly and properly and by their own Personal Faith Which the Scriptures do no where Affirm And indeed so to Assert would be not only contradictory to the Scriptures which tell us that we are all Children of Wrath by Nature But to all former and latter Experience Then would Grace be a Birth Priviledge and Regeneration tied to a Natural Generation Then must all the Posterity of Believers be Saved unless that Doctrine be true that Men may fall from Grace Then must we tie up and restrain the Grace of God's Covenant to the Children of Believers only and then what Hope for the Posterity of Vnbelievers Contrary to the Experience of all Ages whilst Grace was extended to the Gentiles who were not the Off-spring of Believers when the Natural Branches the Children of Believing Abraham were cut off Sixthly Whereas you tell us That all those that were Faederati were to be Signati that is all those that were in the Covenant were to have the Seal thereof Gen. 17. 10. And that therefore it naturally follows that
being the peculiar Work or Office of the Holy Spirit as hath been already proved 'T is true Abraham's Circumcision in his own Person is by the Apostle Rom 4. 11. Termed A Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Vncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe But so it cannot be said of Infants that had no Faith much less could any of them pretend to that Prerogative that Abraham had Indeed from hence to conclude that Circumcision was appointed by God as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith or of the Covenant of Grace to the Generality that were the Subjects thereof is groundless For neither Isaac nor Jacob nor any besides had before or after their Circision such a Faith which Entituled them to such singular Promises It cannot be justly affirmed of Isaac Jacob David or any of the other Patriarchs That they received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which they had yet being Vncircumcised that they might be the Fathers of all them that believe as it is of Abraham This being a peculiar Honour that is by the Spirit of God conferred on Abraham alone and is indeed Incommunicable to any else how famous soever for Faith and Holiness much less can it be affirmed of the Generality of the Jewish Infants that were the ordinary Subjects of Circumcision We deny not that the Circumcision of others than Abraham was a Token as the Spirit of God himself expresly terms it of the Covenant then made with Abraham But it doth not therefore follow that every ones Circumcision was to him a Seal of his Right to any of the Promises thereof as is evident in the Case of Ishmael and many others the Servants born and bred in Abraham's Family and Strangers bought with Money who were all to be Circumcised to whom nevertheless none of the Promises in that Covenant were made as is plain from Gen. 17. 7 8 20 21 23 27. Much less was Circumcision a Seal to all that received it of their Interest in the Righteousness of that Faith that Abraham had for then they had been all saved It was therefore intended only as the Restipulation of the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed after him on their Part or as a Sign or Token of their Duty to God not as a Seal of God's Promise to them Gen. â—7 9. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations Ver. 10. This is my Covenant or this is the sign of my Covenant which ye shall keep every Man Child among you shall be Circumcised Besides it is evident that by Circumcision they were obliged unto a perfect and universal Obedience to the whole Revealed Will and Law of God Gal. 5. 3. For I testifie to every Man that is Circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law And that under the Penalty of the Curse upon the least Transgression or Disobedience Gal. 3. 10. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them which perfect Obedience was yet impossible to be performed Gal. 3. 11. Rom. 3. 19 20. So that Circumcision was so far from being a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith or of the Gospel Covenant to the Generality that were under it that it was rather a Token of Servitude and Bondage and such a Yoke that as the Apostles tell the Jews Neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear it Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. Which yet it had not been had it been to them as well as to Abraham himself a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith For that brings with it true Christian Liberty and Freedom Notwithstanding the Promises made in the Covenant of Circumcision faith Mr. Cox in his Discourse of the Covenants p. 152 153 154. and the Separation of Israel to be the peculiar People of God in pursuance of them yet that Covenant did not confine the solemn Worship of God by Sacrifices or otherwise to Abraham's Family Nor were other Holy Men then living under any Obligation to Incorporate themselves thereinto by Circumcision or at all to take upon them that Sign or token of that Covenant that God then made with Abraham which yet without doubt they should have done if it had been a Seal of the Covenant of Grace For then by reason of their Interest in that Covenant both in point of Duty and Priviledge it had equally belonged unto them as to the Seed and Family of Abraham But from the sacred History it is evident that the command by vertue of which Circumcision was Administred extended no further than to Abraham and his Family And therefore we have no ground to conclude that Lot though nearly Allied to Abraham was Circumcised Seeing there is nothing in the Command of God or first Institution of Circumcision that obliged him thereunto or interested him therein and yet there is no doubt to be made of his Interest in the Covenant of Grace Neither was Lot the only Righteous Man then living in the World besides those of Abraham's Family For of the Patriarchs Heber Salah and Shem were then living and as they had their distinct Families and Interests so there is no question but the pure Worship of God was maintained in them and they promoted the Interest of true Religion to the utmost of their Power while they lived Yea Melchisedeck was in being about this time whether he were Shem before named or another it concerns not us to determine but this is certain that it was he who was the Priest of the most High God and King of Salem and in both these Respects the most Eminent Type of Jesus Christ that ever was in the World a Person greater than Abraham For Abraham paid Tythes to him and was blessed by him Now considering that he was both King and Priest there is no doubt but there was a Society of Men that were ruled by him and for whom he Ministred For a Priest is ordained for Men in things pertaining to God And this Society was at this time as much a Church of God as Abraham's Family was and as truly interested in the Covenant of Grace as any therein yet were they not concerned as Parties in the Covenant of Circumcision nor to be signed thereby From whence it is manifest that Circumcision was not applied as a Seal of the Covenant of Grace nor did an Interest therein render a man the proper subject of it Again It is no ways difficult saith he to conceive that Circumcision might have a different Respect according to the differing Circumstances and Capacity of its Subject It was to Abraham a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had c. But this arose from the peculiar and extraordinary Circumstances and Capacity that he was in For it is not possible to conceive that Circumcision should be a Seal
concerning Infants Baptism from the Covenant of Evangelical Blessings which you say was there made with Abraham and his Seed after him And from the Interest which as you say the Children of Believers have together with themselves in that Covenant you thence Argue they are to be Baptized Because all that are in the Covenant ought to have the Seal thereof When the invalidity of this Plea is made manifest you then fly to a Covenant of outward Priviledges which you say the Children of Believers are concerned in with themselves But then we would willingly know what Scripture is it that makes mention of this Covenant of outward Priviledges Gen. 17. 7. makes not mention of it For that you have often told us is to be understood of the Covenant of Grace containing purely Spiritual and Everlasting Blessings and therefore cannot be understood of outward Priviledges or concerning the bare Administration or Susception of an outward Ordinance which is the thing driven at Where then shall we find this Covenant of outward Priviledges mentioned or Recorded Besides both Circumcision and Baptism also according to your former Reckoning are but Seals of the Covenant and not the Covenant it self All that are in Covenant say you must have the Seal thereof that is ought to be Baptized Whereas after this Rate the Seals and the Covenant it self are strangely confounded together The Children of Believers say you are in Covenant equally with themselves not in the Inward but in the Outward part of it in respect of External Priviledges that is Baptism But then what becomes of the Seal so much contended about Unless we must take it for granted that the Seals of the Covenant and the Covenant it self are the same thing and no Distinction at all to be made between them So that upon the whole it clearly appears that your Arguments from the Covenant however set forth or managed by you are no other than a darkning of Counsel by Words without Knowledge And therefore while you do Labour to fasten such Dismal Consequences on our Doctrine who deny the Children of Believers to be taken into Covenant with themselves in the sense expounded We say they are unduly charged on us forasmuch as we do not exclude the Infants of Believers from the ordinary way of Salvation For though we say not that they are in Covenant by their Parents Faith And though we deny that they have any Right to Church Priviledges till they are capable of making an Actual Profession of Faith and Repentance according to the Gospel Rule yet we say they may be by Gods Election saved and may be sanctified by the Spirit of God and Parents may have ground of Comfort in their Death as much or more than according to your Doctrine which tells them that their Children are in the Covenant only in respect of outward Priviledges the Enjoyment of which nevertheless can give us no undoubted Assurance of their Salvation Ninthly And Lastly as to this whereas you tell us that Christian Baptism is come in the Room Place and Use of Jewish Circumcision So as that the Institution of that should be our Rule about Baptism To answer this doubt let us consider the great difference between Circumcision and Baptism Circumcision was a Legal Ordinance appointed to the Jewish Males Reprobate as well as Elect by a positive Command to distinguish them from the rest of the World as a Token of the Covenant God made with Abraham and signified that the Messiah should come of his Loins according to the Flesh But Baptism is an Evangelical Ordinance whereby Jew or Gentile Male or Female upon a Profession of Faith and Repentance is Baptized in Water in token of Regeneration and to signifie the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ the Messiah already come and so added to the Visible Church and admitted to all the Priviledges thereof The Consideration of the great difference in their Institution illustrates this also For when Christ instituted Baptism he says Go Teach and Baptize and in the Administration they confessed and were Baptized not a Word of Infants And in the Precept of Circumcision not a Word of Teaching or Faith but of Infants the command expresly notes the Time Age and Sex And therefore since things become Ordinances to us by Vertue of a Word of Institution and no such Word is to be found to make out that Baptism succeeds Circumcision in its Room Place and Use We think it safe to be sober and advance no further than the Scripture guides And indeed to make Circumcision Institutive of Baptism is no other than to send us to School to the Law and that First Old Vanishing Covenant as it is stiled Heb. 8. 13. as if the Lawgiver in the New Testament had not by a positive Institution establish'd his Ordinances nor left us any warrant for our Gospel Duties without that Retrogression to Moses and assimulating them to the Paedagoggy and similitude of Types Besides when you tell us that Christian Baptism is come in the Room Place and Vse of Jewish Circumcision so as that the Institution of that should be our Rule about Baptism This is not right For First then Infant Females should not be Baptized as hath been already noted And to say that Females were Virtually and Reputatively Circumcised in the Circumcision of the Males is frivolous For if so by Analogy the Females should be only Virtually and Reputatively and not Actually Baptized And if Infants out of Abraham's Family were not Circumcised though the Parent believed in God as a Proselyte of the Gate e. g. Cornelius Then neither should an Infant of a Believer in Christ not in a National or other Constituted Church be Baptized And if Circumcision were of the Use of Baptism the Circumcised Infant needed not to be Baptized Secondly it appears from Col. 2. 17. That a Principal Use of Circumcision was to signifie Christ to come of Abraham which Baptism not doing hath not a Principal Use of Circumcision Thirdly though Baptism distinguish between Believer and Unbeliever yet it doth not make a Partition Wall between Nation and Nation as Circumcision did which was not to be imparted to all Believing Males of the Gentiles as is manifest in the Case of Cornelius who though fearing God was not Circumcised nor to be Circumcised unless joyned as a Member of the Jewish People Fourthly Circumcision bound Men to keep the whole Law of Moses or else was Unprofitable Rom. 2. 25. Gal. 5. 3. But Baptism Witnesseth that the whole Ceremonial Law of Moses is now made void and only Christ's Law is to be kept Fifthly Circumcision was Administred to Abraham's Natural Seed without any Profession of Faith Repentance or Regeneration whereas Baptism is only to be Administred to the Spiritual Seed of Abraham upon an Actual Profession of Faith Repentance and Regeneration Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. 36 37. It is granted that in some things there is an Analogy betwixt them both signifying Heart Circumcision and
Blessings and the Eternal Inheritance were first made to Christ Personal and in Him they are made over to his Mystical Body the Church who are united to Him by Faith And in this respect therefore it still lies upon you to prove that God hath made the Natural Birth Priviledge a way under the Gospel Administration to be Ingraffed into Christ Mystical So that upon the whole as to this you may see to how little purpose the Promise in Gen. 17. 7. is alleadged to Prove the thing in Question to wit the Baptism of Infants now under the Gospel That Text speaks of a Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed It doth not say with all Believers and their Seed or all Church Members and their Seed Neither doth it follow by any necessary Consequence that because GOD made a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed therefore He hath made a Covenant with Believers and their Seed Certain it is the Apostle was of another Mind who when he Expounds the Covenant of Grace understands it to be made to Abraham not as a Natural Father but as the Father of the Faithful both Jews and Gentiles Rom. 4. 11. 12. He received the Sign of Circumcision that he might be the Father of all them that Believe and walk in his Steps So Gal. 3. 7. Know ye therefore that they which are of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham And those only are the Seed to whom the Gospel Covenant was made and not to the Natural Seed either of Abraham or any other Believers Which hath been already made appear and that beyond any just Contradiction Object 13. But then it is yet again Objected That in the Commission Mat. 28. The Apostles are there commanded to Teach or Disciple all Nations Baptizing them But Infants are Disciples and therefore to be Baptized To this we Answer That by that very Commission Mat. 28. The Lord hath plainly given a Caution for the leaving out of Infants in this Administration according to ordinary Rule For in that he directs them to Baptize Disciples upon Preaching he doth exclude Infants who are not such Disciples nor according to ordinary Providence can be Infants after an ordinary rate are uncapable of understanding the Gospel when Preached and therefore are uncapable of being made Disciples thereby And there is no other way according to an ordinary Rule of being at all made Disciples but by that means And this the Apostles could easily understand as knowing that under the term Disciple in common Speech and in the whole New Testament those only are meant who being taught Professed the Doctrine Preached by such a one As John's Disciples Christ's Disciples the Disciples of the Pharisees and the Disciples of the Perverters Acts 20. 30. And accordingly they Administred Baptism And in that Christ appoints these to be Baptized he Excludes others For the appointment of Christ is most certainly the Rule according to which we are to Administer Holy things and they that do otherwise follow their own Inventions and are guilty of Will Worship If you say that Infants are Disciples Seminally in and by their Parents as if Believers could beget Believers or Disciples of Christ by natural Generation this hath been already at large disproved The Christian Church being not made up of Persons by meer humane Birth but Spiritual Regeneration And to say that Infants are Born Disciples by a Relation to the Covenant and so may have the Seal set on rhem without any precedent Teaching is but an unproved Dictate as if a Title to Baptism were by a Relation to the Covenant and Baptism were in its Nature a Seal of the Covenant which the Scripture no where Affirms nor is there any Rule for the Baptizing of Persons because of Relation to the Covenant But it is further Urged to this purpose that Infants are called Disciples by the Apostle Acts 15. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples Which being spoken of Circumcision must needs say you refer to Infants as the Disciples there spoken of as well as others To this we Answer That there is no necessity nor colour of giving to Infants the Name of Disciples from that Text For though it is true that they are called Disciples upon whose Necks the false Brethren would have put the Yoke of Circumcision yet this proves not Infants to be certainly meant by Disciples since adult Believers of the Gentiles also were required by the Jews to be Circumcised as Timothy Acts 13. 20. And again though it is true that they would have had Infants as well as the converted Gentiles to be Circumcised yet the putting the Yoke of Circumcision is not Actual Circumcision in their Flesh For that the Jews were able to bear for many Ages and that both before and since also to this day But the Yoke of Circumcision is the Necessity of it on Men's Consciences and therewith the whole Law of Moses ver 5. and that as Necessary to Salvation ver 1. And therefore Peter having said ver 10. Why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Necks of the Disciples Adds ver 11. But we believe that through the Grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved even as they Plainly implying that the Yoke he meant was the necessity of Circumcision and keeping Moses his Law to Salvation Now this Yoke was not put upon Infants but upon Brethren taught the necessity of it So that upon the whole to insist upon a Command by virtual Consequence from hence for the Baptizing the Infants of Believers according to ordinary Rule is so far from being right and genuine that on the contrary this Text Mat. 28. 19. clearly proves Infants are not by ordinary Rule to be Baptized because Disciples of all Nations and no other are Appointed thereunto Whence it follows that the Baptism of Infants is beside the Institution and Rule of Christ and therefore no other than Will Worship and a Humane Invention Obj. 14. But the Infants of Believers even while they are Infants are capable of being made Partakers of the Inward Grace of Baptism as well as grown Men And therefore they ought to receive the outward Sign of Baptism Reply The Question between us is Whether the Infants of Believers universally or indifferently are to be admitted to the Ordinance of Baptism according to ordinary Rule Now it cannot be supposed that the Infants of Believers indifferently or vniversally have actually the thing signified by Baptism that is the Holy Ghost Vnion with Christ Adoption Forgiveness of Sins Regeneration and Eternal Life For then they are all Sanctified and all Believers And if this could be proved there would be no Question about Padobaptism Those Texts Acts 8. 37. Acts 10. 47. Acts 11. 17. would undeniably prove it And there is no Antipaedobaptist but will grant that all those concerning whom there is any tollerable Evidence given that they are Regenerated Persons Vnited to Christ whose Sins are
forgiven and that have received the Holy Ghost are to be Baptized Now to affirm that all Infants of Believers either Actually or Imputatively are Sanctified Regenerated Justified is quite contrary to Rom. 9. 6. c. as also to daily Experience To Baptize them all therefore is most certainly a Preposterous and Irregular Practice The outward Sign according to your own Reckoning of right belonging to none but such as have the Inward Grace And who they are among them that have or have not this Inward Grace is not determinable according to ordinary Rule 'till discovered by an answerable Profession when coming to Years of Vnderstanding And then indeed when such a Profession is made we are bound according to a Judgment of Charity to reckon them as such as are made partakers of the Inward Grace whether so in realty or no. And according to this Rule only are we to proceed in our admission unto Baptism Obj. 15. But doth not our Saviour tell us that unto such belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven If Children therefore are capable of the greater then they are capable of the lesser If capable of a Membership in the Kingdom then of the Sign and Cognisance thereof But the First is true Ergo the Latter To this We Answer First That that which you are to prove is that all the Infants of Believers or the Infants of Believers in as much as they are the Infants of Believers are Actually partakers of the Inward Grace of Baptism and consequently such to whom appertains the Heavenly Kingdom Now neither doth the Apostle's Speech 1 Cor. 7. 14. prove it as hath been already shewed Nor doth this Text Mat. 19. 14. prove it And as neither of these prove it So Rom 9 6 7 8 9. Positively disproves it For first it is doubtful whether those were Infants or no of whom Christ here speaketh There being several Learned Men as Piscator and others that do maintain that the Speech of Christ Mat. 19. 14. is not of Infants but of Children that were capable of Instruction Which they gather from this that Christ called them Luke 18. 16. And elsewhere He saith Whoso shall offend one of these little Ones that Believe in Me. Mat. 18. 6. Mark 9. 42. Which after an ordinary rate of Speech cannot be intended of Infants And whereas it is said in Mark He took them up in His Arms. The Word so Translated is used Mark 9. 36. for the Imbracing of those that were of some growth whom He placed in the midst and of whose Scandalizing He there warns Nor doth the Greek Word used Luke 18. 15. Translated in English Infants prove it For the Greek Word there Translated Infants as Piscator himself tells us signifies a Child capable of Teaching As when it is said Timothy knew the Sacred Scriptures from a Child that is ever since he was a Boy not an infant It being the same Greek Word that is used in both places Secondly Though it should be granted that those were Infants yet there is no Certainty only Conjecture that they were Believers Infants which yet ought to be proved if you say any thing from hence to the purpose For though Christ was then in the Coasts of Judea yet it might as well be that the Children were brought by others as Parents and that without Faith in Christ as the Messiah upon the Fame of his Miracles and the conceit that â—e was a Prophet And so they might bring Children to him to be Blessed as Jacob and Esau by Isaac and Joseph's Children by Jacob. Thirdly Let it be granted they were the Infants of Believers of whom our Saviour here speaketh that of such is the Kingdom of God It may be as Piscator also observes referred not to their present state as if for the present they were in the Kingdom of God that is Believers and Justified but that they were Elect Persons and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God Now that which gives right to Baptism is the present Estate of a Person Fourthly Though it should be granted that the little Children Christ here speaketh of are indeed young Sucking Infants that they are also the Infants of Believers and that unto them also belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven yet this is no sufficient Ground or Warrant for us therefore to Administer Baptism to Infants It being only the ground laid down in the Institution that can justly warrant the same That a Profession of Faith and Repentance is a sufficient ground is undeniably to be proved from the Scriptures But because some of our Infants are or may be in a state of Salvation or because for ought as we know unto all of them belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven that therefore they must all be Baptized whether capable of making an Answerable Profession or no Neither doth the present Scripture prove it which speaks nothing at all of Baptism nor doth any other that we can meet with give any Warrant or Countenance at all unto such a Practice Obj. 16. But the Gospel took place just as the Old Administration did by bringing in whole Families together When Abraham was taken in his whole Family was taken in So in this New Administration usually if the Master of the House turned Christian the whole Family came in and were Baptized with him The whole Houshold of Cornelius the first Converted Gentile Acts 11. 14. The Houshold of Stephanus The Houshold of Lydia The Houshold of the Jaylor Reply Whereas you say the Gospel took place just as the Old Administration by bringing in whole Families together By the Old Administration you mean Circumcision But we do not find the Gospel or Baptism took place just in the manner that Circumcision did For Circumcision was but in one Family singled out from all the Families of the Earth of the Males only whether in the Covenant of Grace or no Children or Servants Elder or Younger by the Master of the Family or others in his stead But in Baptism it is clean otherwise And as to the bringing in oâ— whole Families together it was but contingently so not always so nor constantly so according to any Promise or Prophecy And when it did so happen we find not any â—nfant Baptized nor any Intimation of Baptizing Housholds in Conformâ—â—y to the Administration of Circumcâ—â—ion but rather the contrary Express notice being given of the Faith and Repentance of those Admitted unto Baptism in the several Housholds recorded to have been Baptized whereas all were to be Circumcised that were of Abraham's Family both Children Servants Slaves and all whether making a Profession of Faith and Repentance or no. And this may appear by taking a view of the several Examples of Baptizing recorded in the New Testament Concerning John the Baptist it is said Mat. 3. 5. There went out to him all Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Region about Jordan and were Baptized of him in Jordan Confessing their Sins In which the practice of Baptizing
of Duty Choice and Sanctity is joined with it in order to the Production of the end so mentioned p. 243. Thirdly They that Baptize Children make Baptism to be wholly an Outward Duty a Work of the Law a Carnal Ordinance It makes us adhere to the Letter without regard to the Spirit and to Relinquish the Mysteriousness the Substance the Spirituality of the Gospel Which Argument is of so much the more Consideration because under the Spiritual Covenant of the Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goes not before the Symbole which it doth when the Symboles are Cognations of Grace as the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in Order of Time and is clear in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture Fourthly That the words mentioned in St. Peter's Sermon Act. 2. which are the only Records of the Promises are interpreted upon a weak mistake The Promise belongs to you and your Children Therefore Infants are actually Receptive of it in that Capacity That is the Argument But the Reason of it is not yet discovered nor ever will For to you and your Children is to you and your Posterity to you and your Children when they are of the same Capacity in which you are receptive of the Promise But he that whenever the Word Children is Exprest understands Infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no Men but all were Infants And if that had been true it had been the greater wonder that they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab and March so far and Discourse so well for they were all called the Children of Israel p. 233. Fifthly Whereas 't is Argued from the Commission Mark 16. 6. He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved Infants are Believers and therefore according to the Commission they are to be Baptized Whether Infants saith he have Faith or no is a Question to be disputed by Persons that Care not how much they say and how little they prove First Personal and Actual Faith they have none For they have no Acts of Understanding And besides how can any Man know that they have since he never saw any sign of it neither was he told so by any that could tell Secondly Some say they have Imputative but then so let the Sacrament be to that is if they have the Parents Faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by Derivation from them And as in their Mothers Womb and while they hung on their Mothers Breasts they live upon their Mothers Nourishment So they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church For since Faith is necessary to Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new Kinds of Faith to dawb the matter up such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no Proportion between an Actual Sacrament and an Imputative Faith this being an immediate and necessary Order to that And whatsoever can be said to take off from the necessity of Actual Faith all that and much more may be said to excuse from the Actual Susception of Baptism The first of these Devices was that of Luther and his Scholars the second of Calvin and his And yet there is a Third Device which the Church of Rome Teaches and that is that Infants have Habitual Faith but who told them so How can they prove it What Revelation or Reason teacheth any such thing Are they by this Habit so much as disposed to an Actual Belief without a Miracle Can an Infant sent into a Mahometan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a Man than if he had not been Baptized Are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended Habit This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority but the Men are to be excused unless there were a better p. 240. To which saith he This Consideration may be added that if Baptism be necessary to the Salvation of Infants as the Fathers of Old and the Church of Rome and England since upon whom is the Imposition laid To whom is the Command given To the Parents or the Children Not to the Parents for then God hath put the Salvation of Innocent Babes into the Power of others and Infants may be damned for their Fathers Carelessness or Malice It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done to them to whom it cannot be prescribed as a Law and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably entrusted to others with the Apendant Necessity And if it be not necessary it is certain it is not Reasonable and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed and therefore it is presumed that Baptism ought to be understood and administred according as other Precepts are with Reference to the Capacity of the Subject and the Reasonableness of the thing And again p. 242. If any Man runs for Succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have Faith or any other inspired Habit of I know not what or how we desire no more Advantage in the World than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common Sense and all the Experience in the World Sixthly But Tradition saith he by all means must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical that Infants were Baptized But at this saith he we are not much moved for we who rely upon the written Word of God as suffcient to establish all true Religion do not value the Allegation of Tradition And however the World goes none of the Resormed Churches can pretend this Argument for this Opinion Because they who reject Tradition when it is against them must not pretend it in the least for them But if we will allow the Topick to be good yet how will it be verified For so far as can yet appear it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen for from him Austin had it Now a Tradition Apostolical if it be not consigned with a fuller Testimony than of one Person whom all other Ages have condemned of other Errors and whose Works saith â—rasmus are so spurious that he that reads them is uncertain whether he read Origen or Ruffinus therefore will obtain so little Reputation amongst those who know that things have upon greater Authority been pretended to be received from the Apostles but falsly that it will be a great Argument that he is Ridiculous and Weak that shall be determined by so weak Probation in matters of so great Concernment But besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good Evidence from Antiquity that it was the Opinion of the Primitive Church that Infants ought not to be Baptized which saith he is clear in the Canon of Neocaesarea which he mentions at large in the Original Greek determining that none ought to be Baptized without giving an Account of their Faith and desiring the same And
Decency of the Practice will find Cause sufficiently to Vindicate it from the Reproach of Unseemliness and be able to convince Gainsayers of their Unchristian Slauders in that Respect So as for the hazarding of Health to the Weak the constant and known Experience of Thousands doth amply refute it as a groundless Suggestion THE THIRD PART Containing some Animadversions on Mr. Sidenham 's Treatise of Baptism wherein that of Infants is further Disproved Together with some further Reflections on Mr. Allen 's forementioned Discourse to the same Purpose Whereunto is Annexed an Answer at large unto Mr. Baxter 's chief Argument for the Church-membership of Infants from the Nature of the Covenant made with Israel in the Land of Moab Deut. 29. where Children are Represented as Fellow-Covenanters with their Parents which saith he was a Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant And therefore neither it nor the Church-membership of Infants which was built thereon Repealed SECT I. WE shall begin with Mr. Sidenham's Treatise And First Whereas Mr. Sidenham pretending to Answer that Argument of ours That there is no express Command nor any positive Example in all the New Testament concerning the Baptism of Infants For the Refutation thereof He tells us That this Argument is built on this false Principle That no direct Consequences from Scripture are Mandatory and so obliging and of Divine Authority Whereas we affirm no such thing but only say That in all Positive or Instituted Worship such as Baptism is which hath no other Rule nor Reason than the meer will of the Law-giver there must be either an express Command or an express Example to enforce it In all other Respects we justly allow such proper Consequences as are deducible from the Scriptures for the enforcing of Duty or for the Comfort of God's People For therefore is Preaching Expounding and Searching the Scripture appointed unto us But as it would have been a Sin for Abraham upon bare Consequences only and without an express Warrant to have Circumcised his Children So it would be no less to us without the same Divine Warrant in respect of Baptism And therefore Mr. Sidenham doth not well to say That we may as well argue That because Abraham was Circumcised when 99 Years old Therefore old Persons are to be Circumcised and none else As because grown Persons were Baptized therefore not Infants Whereas he knew Abraham had an express Command as for the Circumcision of himself so for his Infants also Which is that which we justly affirm to be wanting under the Gospel in respect of Baptism SECT II. § 1. BUT then Mr. Sidenham doth also tell us That it is to be considered that there is nothing in all the New Testament against the Baptizing of Infants no hint from any express Word dropt from Christ or his Apostles nor any Phrase which doth forbid such an Act. p. 1. And this Argument both he and others do lay very much stress upon But then Mr. Sidenham should have considered That it is the Opinion of divers able and godly Divines That what is not commanded in the Worship of God is forbidden And that every Affirmative command of Christ includes a Negative For saith Tertullian This is a certain Rule if it be said 't is lawful because the Scripture doth not forbid it It may equally be Retorted It is therefore not lawful because the Scripture doth not command it And herein therefore consisted the Sin of Nadab and Abihu Lev. 10. who were destroyed for offering strange Fire which God had not Commanded They might have said Lord 't is true Thou hast not commanded this strange Fire But as thou hast not Commanded it so neither hast thou Forbidden it And by the same Reason might Abraham have Circumcised his Children on the seventh day as well as on the eighth because God had not forbidden it For though God had commanded it to be done on the eighth day yet he had no where expresly forbidden the seventh But since the eighth day was expresly appointed and not the seventh though the seventh was no where expresly forbidden therefore Abraham was bound to the former and not to the latter and it would have been his Sin to have varied from the Rule prescribed him In like manner we say The Baptism of Believers is expresly commanded That of Infants is not commanded and therefore though it be not forbidden yet since 't is not commanded it would be our Sin to practise it And so in the Passeover Whereas God commanded a Lamb a Male of the first year to be eaten they might as well have made use of an Ewe or a Ram of the second or third Year because not forbidden no express Word of God had forbidden it So when David and the People of Israel had made a new Cart for the Carriage of the Ark which was to have been born on the Priests Shoulders only and when God smote Vzzah for holding the Ark they might as well have Pleaded that neither of these was expresly forbidden But yet nevertheless For this Cause the Lord made a Breach upon them for that they did not seek him after the due order that he had expresly appointed 1 Chron. 15. 13. § 2. We find no where in all the Scriptures That ever any express Word dropt from Christ or his Apostles to the Prohibiting or Forbidding of Crucifixes Beads Altars Praying to Saints Pictures in Churches Pilgrimages Which things are still in use among Papists but disowned by Protestants because not commanded though not expresly forbidden The like may be said concerning Bowing at the Name of Jesus the Cross in Baptism Surplices in Preaching Kneeling at the Sacrament set Forms of Prayer In respect of which it is no proper Argument that therefore these things are lawful to be used in the Divine Service because not forbidden For as they are not forbidden so neither are they commanded Which is the very Argument made use of by the Generality of Dissenters for their Justification in Opposition to Prelatical Incroachments And therefore thou art Inexcusable O Man For wherein thou Judgest another thou Condemnest thy self Rom. 2. 1. There is no express Word of God against the Communicating of Infants in the Lord's Supper And yet you your selves do not therefore count it lawful to admit them to that Ordinance without an express Word to that purpose And lastly Bells are not expresly forbidden to be Baptized and yet we do not reckon that a sufficient Argument for such a Practise And whereas it is Objected as to this That Bells are not Subjectum Capax A fit or capable Subject for such an Ordinance we would then ask wherein lies their Incapacity Cannot a Minister sprinkle a little Water upon a Bell and use the Words of the Institution in as solemn a manner as he does when he Baptizes a Child Or are they incapable for want of an Institution We say the same of Infants And if you say they are not capable of the uses and ends of
bring the Lord of Hosts to War against them It was the Calves that wounded Israel and laid their Cities waste Hâ—sea 10. 5. The Inhabitants of Samaria shall fear because of the Calves of Bethaven 'T is highly probable Jeroboam might plead that he kept still to the Articles of Faith and Fundamentals of Religion worshipping with Reverence the God of his Fathers Making Alterations in things meerly Ceremonial whereof no Express Law forbidding and being variable as time place and person gave occasion But however he might mince the Matter as others do in like Circumstances yet God being a Jealous God would not admit such Innovation and Varying from his pure Worship but Rejects it And in particular he is Rebuked For Offering upon the Altar which he had made in Bethel the 15th day of the 8th month even in the Month which he had devised of his own Heart 1 Kings 12. 33. So Isa 24. 5 6. Because they have transgressed the Laws and changed the Ordinance therefore hath the Curse devoured the Earth and they that dwell therein are desolate therefore the Inhabitants of the Earth are burned and few Men left Fourthly Will Worship Grieves God Ezek. 6. 9. I am broken with their Whorish Heart Their Superstitious and Corrupt Mixtures did not simply displease God but Oppressed Afflicted and Broke his Heart Great Injuries enter deep and eat up the Spirits of any they are done unto And what greater wrong can be done unto God than to Invent and Impose that he never commanded in the Matters of his Worship Yea it draws away the Heart of Men from God and therefore they are said to go a Whoring from God by their Inventons Fifthly Will Worship is a Work of Darkness Ezek. 8. 12. See what the Antients of the House of Israel are doing in the dark Sixthly Will Worship is that which God will not Honour with his presence Neither Christ nor the Angels will be present at it Teach them saith Christ to Observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and lo I am with you alway If we step out of Christ's way and go a whoring after our own Devices neither can we groundedly expect the blessing of Christ's Preserce Seventhly and Lastly Will Worship such as Infants Baptism is having no Institution in the Word of God is not only Evil in its self but stands aggravated with this Circumstance that it makes void the Commandment of God For Will Worship doth usually oppose or justle out some part of God's true Worship as Infants Baptism doth that of Believers And so Christ told the Pharisees upon another like Occasion That they made void the Commandments of God by their Tradition SECT III. § 1. WHereas Mr. Sidenham affirms that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9. was a pure Gospel Covenant to which the Seal of Circumcision was annexed From hence he draws this Inference That if that Covenant were a pure Gospel Covenant reaching Gentile Believers and their Children as well as Abraham and his then we cannot be denied the External Sign and Seal of the same Covenant For saith he though the Outward Signs may be changed yet there is no Change of the Priviledges if the Covenant Remain entire p. 9 10. § 2. We Answer First There is no Evidence in all the New Testament of any Seal which God intended should be annexed unto the Gospel Covenant but that of the Holy Spirit only Much less are we left at Liberty to put what Mark Sign or Cognizance we please upon our Infant Seed under the Notion of an Ordinance of Christ or as a Gospel Seal without his Special Direction and Appointment § 3. Secondly It cannot be denied but that Circumcision which was at first the Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham and which was afterward annexed to the Covenant made at Sinai is now Abolished And it is as plain that the Covenant both the one and the other which Circumcision was Annexed unto was a Bondage Covenant For so the Apostle assures us Gal. 4. 24. So likewise Gal. 5. 1 2 3. Stand fast therefore in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and be not intangled again with the Yoke of Bondage Behold I Paul say unto you that if ye be Circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie again to every Man that is Circumcised that he is a debtour to do the whole Law Now Circumcision being Abolished and the Covenants also whereunto it was Annexed Heb. 8. 7. 13. there can be no just Inference drawn from the manner of God's dealing with them to conclude that thus it must be now it being an undue Supposition to conceive that the Proposition between Abraham and his Fleshly Seed in the time when Circumcision was in date should be the same to Abraham in the Spirit which is Christ and the Carnal Seed of every Believer in that Season when Circumcision is out of date Thirdly Though it is Evident that the Church of the Jews and Gentiles in Respect of the Inward and Spititual part of either are both the same without any Variation as is also the Covenant of Grace on which both are founded yet it doth not therefore follow that there is no Variation or Change in Respect of External Administrations It being Evident that the External Priviledges the Jews once boasted of are now Repealed their former Pretentions to Church-Ordinances upon the Account of their Birth-Priviledge being now broken down Else why doth John the Baptist tell them as he doth Mat. 3. 8 9. Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father They had Abraham to their Father as much now as before But now it was too late for them to use that Plea any longer And there was good Reason why For now saith he the Axe is laid at the Root of the Trees Every Tree therefore that bringeth not forth good Fruit must be hewn down Now the Axe is laid c. It seems then that the Axe was not laid at the Root of the Trees till now But now the Axe must do its Work of that Kind and so must the Gospel Fan also at an other-guess Rate than formerly they had Experienc'd inasmuch as Jesus Christ was now Resolved throughly to purge his Floor and to gather the Wheat only into his Garner the Church So that from hence it plainly appears that though the Church for the inward Substance of it is still the same that ever it was yet as the Signs are changed so there is as manifest a Change in Respect of the External Priviledges belonging to the one and the other of them SECT IV. § 1. MR. Sidenham doth indeed tell us That the forementioned Scripture Mat. 3. 7 8 9. Concerns only the Adult or Men at Age the Scribes and Pharisees who were degenerated from Abraham 's Faith a Generation of Vipers And therefore rejected by John when they Desired to be Baptized of him So that saith he John did not Refuse them because
Spiritual We say not For it is plain there was no such Inquisition concerning the good or bad qualities the Fruitfulness or Unfruitfulness of the Members of the former Church in 〈◊〉 to Admission thereinto It was enough barely to be of Abraham's Seed or Family to be so esteemed But now saith John the Axe is laid unto the Root of the Trees And they must all be hewn down under the Gospel that have nothing else to pretend unto but that of a Godly Parentage which plainly excludes Infants as well as all other unfruitful Branches from the Gospel Church And to this same purpose is it that he doth further assure them ver 12. That Jesus Christ was now resolved with the Gospel Fan to Purge thoroghly the Floor of the Gospel Church and to gather the Wheat into His Garner Under the Law and before also even in Abrahmam's time the Chaff and the Wheat remained together unsevered but now the Fan must go to Work We read of no such Fanning Work in the former Church state And to what purpose is it else that Christ told the Woman of Samaria as he doth Jo. 4. 23. The Hour cometh and now is when the true Worshippers shall Worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth For the Father seeketh such to Worship Him Which plainly sheweth that God expecteth now greater Purity Exactness and Spirituality in such as were to approach His Presence in the Celebration of Gospel Worship And indeed of this the whole fifth of Mat. is a sufficient and convincing Proof giving clear evidence concerning the refinedness and spirituality of the Gospel Administration above and beyond that of the Law For then saith our Saviour it was thus and thus but I am come to tell you a New Doctrine and do call you up to greater Purity and Strictness § 4. Secondly We Answer That that Holiness which was ascribed unto the whole Body of the Jewish Nation was a Typical Ceremonial Holiness and was no other than was ascribed to the whole Land City Temple Altar and divers other things and is therefore now Abolished For if all things under the Law were but a Figure and Shadow of good things to come then such was the Holiness of the Jewish Nation and People also Now this the Apostle in the 9th and 10th Chapters to the Hebrews proves at large shewing that all things under the Law all the Priviledges of the Old Covenà nt with all the Perquisites Dependancies and Appurtenances thereunto belonging are called by such Names as make them evidently appear to be Typical As First they are called a Figure Heb. 9. 9. Which was a Figure for the time then present So verse 24. For Christ is not Entered into the Holy Place made with Hands which are the Figures of the true Secondly They are called a Pattern Heb. 9. 23. It was necessary that the Pattern of things in the Heavens c. Thirdly They are called a Shadow Heb. 10. 1. For the Law having a Shadow of good things to come and not the very Image of the thing◠c. Now the Holiness of the Jewish Nation being an Appurtenance belonging to the Law or the Old Covenant It was but a Figure Pattern or Shadow of all good things to come and was therefore Typical and is now Abolished And if we will know what the Holiness of the Jewish Nation did serve to Typifie or Represent unto us It is evident that as it Typified the Holiness of Christ himself So of all Abraham's Spiritual Seed who are made Holy by Believing in Christ § 5. The Time of Reformation therefore spoken of in the forementioned Scripture Heb. 9. 8 9 10. being come wherein those Imperfect Gifts and Sacrifices with all those Carnal Ordinances which were for a Season Imposed on the Jewish Nation were to be done away and the Gospel-Church taking place in the Room thereof It cannot rationally be supposed but the one doth far exceed the other at least in Purity and Inward Glory For by how much Christ hath now obtained a more excellent Ministry than that of Moses and by how much also he is the Mediatour of a better Covenant Which is Established upon better Promises as the Apostle affirmes Heb. 8. 6. By so much of necessity must the gospell Church exceed in lustre beauty Refinedness and Spirituality the former Administration SECT VIII THE Second Argument in Mr. Allen's Book remaining to be Answered is this That all Persons and so little Children that were of the Legal Church must needs in one Respect or other have been Persons of a Religious or Spiritual Consideration And this considered saith he I know not upon what better to place the Visible Church-Membership of Infants or to Attribute it to than God's Electing and Calling them to his People and their Parents Dedicating and Devoting them to God and his Service And the Scripture useth to reckon little Children as having begun to do this or that when they are but placed in Circumstances that will bring them to it Actually in the Issue And thus the Children of the Kohathites of a Month Old were numbred with their Fathers as with them keeping the charge of the Sanctuary when they were but in a way of being trained up to it And for the same Reason little Children were said to enter into Covenant with God when their Parents did so Deut. 29. 11 12 § 2. To this we Answer First By granting that it was in a Religious Consideration that Children were then Admitted Members of the Legal Church But yet it doth not therefore follow that they are to be admitted Members of the Gospel-Church for the Reasons before rendered The Terms of Admission into that being far more strict and Spiritual than were those under the Law Secondly Whereas he tells us That the Reason of their Admission into the Legal Church was God's Electing and Calling them to that Priviledge This we also grant But then we also say that though the Call and Election of God in Reference to the Inward Substance of the Covenant of Grace or to an Invisible Membership in the Invisible Church is Invariable It doth not follow that the Gifts and Callings of God in Reference to External Membership are therefore also Invariable or Irrevokable as is afterward by Mr. Allen Asserted and unto which we have already in the Second Part of this Discourse given a sufficient Answer For we find by undeniable Evidence that those External Gifts and Priviledges that the Natural Posterity of Abraham were once Invested with are now Rescinded Repealed and Repented of and it cannot be affirmed that in any Religious Capacity whatsoever they are now at all owned by God as his Church and People as once they were neither Parents nor Children But for the most part remain broken off and Unchurched to this Day And if you say That they and their Children being broken off We and our Children are Ingraffed in their Room This is that which remains to be proved and indeed the
contrary is manifest as hath been already with abundant Evidence Demonstrated in the foregoing Parts of this Discourse since the Axe of the Gospel is now laid unto the Root of the Trees and every Tree that bringeth not forth good Fruit is hewn down in respect of any further Church Priviledge which before was Indulged unto them which clearly cuts off the pretence of Children unto any such Priviledge under the Gospel as well as all other Vnfruitful Branches Thirdly Whereas he tells us of their Parents Dedicating and Devoting them to God and his Service And that the Children of the Roathites of a Month Old were numbred with their Fathers as keeping the charge of the Sanctuary And that for the same Reason little Children were said to enter into Covenant with God when their Parents did so Deut. 29. 11 12. To this we Answer That it is indeed a very Pious and Commendable thing for Parents to Dedicate and Devote their Children to God and his Service and to this Purpose to train them up as soon as they are capable in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. But it doth not therefore follow that they can justly be Reputed Church-Members now till Converted and wrought upon by the Preaching of the Gospel unto them whatever they were under the Law as hath been before demonstrated § 3. And though the Kohathites of a Month Old were numbred with their Fathers as keeping the charge of the Sanctuary Evident it is that this was the proper Work of the Kohathites by God's special Direction in their several Generations and as they became to grow up to the Competency of Years an Actual discharge of that Duty was required of them This being an External Service which by God's special Direction was peculiarly Incumbent on all that were of that Lineage But what signifies this to prove the Church-Membership of Infants under the Gospel § 4. And as little signifies that which follows when he tells us That for the same Reason little Children were said to enter into Covenant with God when their Parents did so Deut. 29. 11 12. For though 't is true thus it was under the Law yet this proves not the Point in dispute For as we have already said That Covenant which God made with his People when he took them by the Hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt because of the Faultiness of it is now Abolished That Covenant saith God they brake they continued not it and I regarded them not So that though Infants were Visible Members of the Legal Church yet that was by a Positive Law and that which is now Abolished Shew us the like now or you say nothing SECT IX MR. Baxter indeed tells us in his Book called Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism p. 57 58. That the Covenant mentioned in the fore-cited Text Deut. 29. 10 11 12. Where Children are Represented as Fellow-Covenanters with their Parents was a Covenant of Grace or a Gospel-Covenant and that therefore neither it nor the Church-Membership of Infants which saith he was built thereon or inseparably Conjunct is repealed For thus runs his Argument My 12th Argument saith he is from the forementioned Text in Deut. 29. 10 11 12. where all the Jews with all their little ones were entred into Covenant with God From whence I argue thus if the Covenant which those Infants who were then Church-Members were entred into with God was a Covenant of Grace or a gospel-Gospel-Covenant then it is not Repealed and consequently their Churchs Membership is not Repealed as being built on the Covenant or inseparably Conjunct But the said Covenant which the Infants who were then Church-Members did pass into was a Covenant of Grace as distinct from the Law which is Repealed Where by the way it may be observed that though Mr. Baxter affirms the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. to be a Covenant of Grace or a Gospel-Covenant yet he doth here seem plainly to grant that the Law or Sinai Covenant was no other than a Covenant of Works and accordingly now Repealed Wherein Mr. Baxter is undoubtedly in the right though he therein directly câ—â—tâ—adicteth Mr. Roberts his Notion who affirms the Law or Sinai Covenant it self to be a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus The unsoundness whereof we shall have Occasion to discover in the following parts of this Discourse Therefore neither it nor their Church-Membership is Repealed So that if we can substantially prove that the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. 10 11 12. was not a Covenant of Grace nor a Gospel 〈◊〉 but a legal Covenant and that which is now Repealed from hence it will unavoidably follow and that according to Mr. Baxter's own Concession that the Church-Membership of Infants which as himself affirms was built thereon or inseparably Conjunct is also Repealed with it § 3. Now that the Covenant there mentioned though there was Grace in it as there was in all the Covenants that God ever made with Men is not a Covenant of Grace properly so called whereof Christ is the Mediatour nor a Gospel but a Legal Covenant is Evident forasmuch as it is no other than a Repetition or Renewal of the Covenant made with that People in Horeb or at Mount Sinai when God took them by the Hand to lead them out of Egypt which was first mentioned Exod. 19. and that in the very Words and Terms as it is there Expressed That Covenant being now again solemnly Repeated and afresh Transacted between God and them in Deut. 29. as is manifest by comparing Exod. 19. 4 5. with Deut. 29. from the 1st to the 13th Verse As also the 24th and 25th verses of that Chapter And accordingly whereas in the first verse of this 29th of Deut. We are there told These are the Words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. Mr. Pool in his Annotations upon this Text paraphraseth the words thus These are the Terms or Conditions upon which God hath made that is renewed Covenant with you The Covenant saith he was but one in Substance but various in the time and manner of its Administration And indeed as it is Evident that it is the same Covenant for Substance that was first made with them in Horeb So it is as Evident from the words themselves in this forecited text Deut 29. 1. That it was not a Covenant of Grace properly so caled but a Covenant of Works or a Legal Covenant which God renewed with the Israelites in the Land of Moab since Moses was the Mediator of it In which respect we are there expresly told that these are the words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel beside the Covenant he made with them in Horeb. Whereas the Covenant of Grace properly so called hath no other Mediator than Christ himself 1 Tim. 2 5. Who is
be Referred the several Passages that lie dispersed up and down the Scriptures concerning the Blessedness of the Seed of the Righteous For though no doubt God hath a Gracious Respect unto many that are the Natural Descendants of Believers now and we may probably hope that the Grace of Election is for the most part continued in their Race yet as God hath made no such Covenant with us That he will be a God unto us and to all our Natural Off spring during the present Administration of things in the Heavens and the Earth that now are So whatever Blessedness of that kind God hath designed for his People we have no Scripture ground to expect the Accomplishment thereof nor the Jews neither till the time of the New Heavens and the New Earth before spoken off wherein as Peter tells us Righteousness shall dwell For then indeed the People or Subjects of that state shall be all Righteous the Branch of Gods planting that he may be glorified both they and their Off-spring also And therefore then and not till then may we expect the fulfilling of those Gospel Promises before mentioned concerning the Circumcising of the Heart both of them and their Seed also to Love the Lord their God with all their Heart and with all their Soul Which bespeaks no other than a time and state of Perfection when they shall have no need any more to Teach every Man his Neighbour nor every Man his Brother as now we must and therefore not to be understood of the present state of things Saying Know the Lord for they shall all know him from the least unto the greatest of them § 16. From all which it clearly appears that the Promises mentioned Deut. 30. 6. are of a vastly different Nature from what they have been generally imagined to be And indeed are so far from being a part of the Legal Covenant at Mount Sinai or of that Covenant which the Israelites with their little ones were entred into Deut. 29. That they remain as yet to be fulfilled They might be Fulfilled saith Mr. Baxter in the time of the Judges But why then were they so oft Captivated in the time of the Judges as well as afterward by the Philistiues Ammonites c And why were the Ten Tribes after carried away Captive by Salmanazer King of Assyria So as that they have never since been hear'd of in the World that we can understand And why were the two Tribes afterward also carried away Captive by the Babylonians and since Dispersed by the Roman and Turkish Powers and so still remain in a State of Dispersion as also in a State of Impenitency and Opposition to the Gospel unto this day A few indeed were Converted by John the Baptist and Christ in the day of his first Appearance But the Generality of the Jews were in Blindness after that in Paul's time Rom. 11. and still so rémain And what was the Conversion of a few to the Fulfilling of the All of these Promises to the All of the Jews But as sure as God is True and his Word most Faithful there must be a time when the forementioned Promises shall be Accomplished When as the Fulness of the Gentiles shall come in and be brought under the Obedience of Christ So the Jews also must be Called and the Fulness of them by that Deliverer whom God hath promised shall yet come out of Zion to turn away Vngodliness from Jacob. For this is my Covenant unto them saith God when I shall take away their Sins § 17. And therefore though Mr. Baxter saith true when he tells us p. 58. That Deut. 3◠is a Gospel Covenant since the Apostle Rom. 10. 5 6 7 8 9. shews it in Express Words For saith he when the Apostle had shewed that the Righteousness of the Law lieth in Perfect Obedience He that doeth these things shall live by them He then sheweth the Difference thus But the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise Say not in thine Heart who shall Ascend up to Heaven to bring down Christ from Above c. But what saith it The Word is nigh thee even in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that is the Word of Faith which we Preach Now these words of Faith saith he the Apoststle Citeth out of this very Covenant Deut. 30. 11 12 13 14. But then it doth not therefore follow that the Covenant mentioned Deut. 30. and that Chap. 29. is one and the same Covenant Mr. Baxter indeed takes it for granted that they are one and the same And therefore to prove that that mentioned in the 29th Chapter is a Covenant of Grace or a Gopel Covenant he Alledgeth these words in the 6th ver of the 30th Chapter for the Confirmation thereof and hereon Bottoms his Argument That because the Jews with their little Ones were entred into Covenant with God in the 29th Chapter and consequently were all Church-members and forasmuch as the Covenant which the Infants who were then Church-members did pass into was a Covenant of Grace or a Gospel Covenant as distinct from the Law which is Repealed therefore neither it nor their Church-membership is Repealed § 18. It cannot be denied but this is a Principal Argument which Mr. Baxter urgeth for the support of his New Doctrine of the Church membership of Infants and consequently their Baptism under the Gospel But how unjustly Urged and how little it signifies to the Proof of what he intends it for may by this time be easily Discerned since by what hath been said it plainly appears that the forementioned Scriptures in Deuteronomy which he Bottoms it on are by him greatly Abused and Mis-represented contrary to the plain Scope of the Spirit of God in them The Covenant mentioned in the 29th Chapter and that in the 30th being not one and the same as he would have it but two Distinct and Essentially differrent Covenants The one being a Covenant of Works as hath been plainly proved from Rom. 10. 5. which had Moses for the Mediator of it Deut. 29. 1. For the Faultiness whereof it is now Abolished Heb. 8. 13. The other a Covenant of Grace Rom. 10. 6 7 8. Deut. 30. 11 12 13 14. which hath Christ alone for the Mediator of it Heb. 8. 6 7 8 9. And shall therefore never be Abolished Psal 89. 34 35 36. The one being plainly of a Legal Stamp the other Evangelical The one Conditional the other Absolute The one having its Existence but for a time upon an Occasional Temporary Principle the other suited to answer a Principle Existing from Everlasting to Everlasting The one being appointed only for the time then present till the Incarnation of Christ the other respecting a time that is as yet to come From all which it plainly follows that the Covenant spoken of Deut. 30. 6. is Essentinlly different from that which the Jews with their Little Ones were then entered into Chap. 29. as being Established upon better Promises So that there can
be no just Inferrence drawn that because Infants were Fellow Covenanters with their Parents under the Legal Administration that thus it is now under the Gospel For since it is Evident that the Law or Covenant it self is changed as the Apostle Expresly affirms it is Heb. 7. 12. It doth as plainly follow that the Seed is changed The Gospel Covenant that Believers are now under requiring other manner of Subjects than the Legal did as hath been already proved in the foregoing parts of this Discourse § 19. 'T is true in the time of the New Heavens and the New Earth before spoken of God hath promised not only to Circumcise the Heart of his People but of their Seed also to love the Lord their God with all their Heart and with all their Soul That they shall teach no more every Man his Neighbour and every Man his Brother saying know the Lord For they shall all know him from the least of them to the greatest of them That they shall be all Righteous they and their Offspring also the Branch of God's Planting that he may be Glorified But that will be such a time and state of Perfection as we cannot now pretend unto And therefore as the State and Condition of God's People now is vastly different from what it was with them under the Law so it is no less vastly different from that State of Blessedness which both they and their Offspring also shall be Advanced unto at the time before mentioned So that what ever Priviledge the Off-spring of God's People shall then be Invested with It hath been already proved that God hath now appointed that such only as are Capable of making a Profession of Faith and Repentance are to be accounted as Visible Members of the Gospel Church according to the present Frame and Constitution thereof § 20. To conclude the present Point Since it hath been now so plainly proved That the Covenant which the Infants who were then Church-members did pass into was not a Covenant of Grace properly so called whereof Christ is Mediator nor a Gospel but a Legal Covenant or a Covenant of Works and that which is now Repealed From hence it unavoidably follows and that according to Mr. Baxter's own Grant that the Church-membership of Infants which was built upon it or as he saith Inseparably Conjunct is also Repealed with it And since the main Pillar for the support of this new Doctrine of the Church-membership of Infants under the Gospel fails as it doth it of necessity follows that all the other Arguments which Mr. Baxter hath mustered up to the same purpose to the number of no less than 26. and those again Multiplied and Sub-divided into a great many more are all of them wholly Insignificant also Since no other consideration whatsoever can sufficiently demonstrate the continuance of it under the Gospel unless it could have been proved that in its 〈◊〉 Institution it had a Gospel Covenant for the Foundation theâ— But the Contrary having been so plainly proved it follows with an equal necessity and that according to Mr. Baxter's own Concession that there is no shadow of pretence left to assert the Church-membership of Infants under the Gospel Administration that now is And if the Arguments for their Church-membership do all of them fail as we cannot but see they do From hence it also plainly follows that the Practice of Infants Baptism which is Built thereon must of necessity fall to the Ground as having no Scripture Foundation left it for the Support thereof And consequently it is as Evident that Mr. Baxter's Book called Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-membership and Baptism carries with it nothing else but an empty Title Vox praeterea nihil SECT X. FRom what hath been already said it appears that Mr. Baxter and others have much to Answer for that 〈◊〉 are guilty of such gross Mis-applications of the word of Truth for the uphold ing of Infants Baptism besides the unrighteous charges of Murder and Adultery which he and they have so strongly Laboured to fasten upon those of a contrary Practice from themselves in respect of Baptism as is Evident in reference to the foregoing Argument and as hath been already also manifested in respect of his and their Corrupt Glosses upon Acts 15. 10. concerning the Discâ—pleshâ—p of Infants Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples which neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear As if Infants were intended by the Disciples there mentioned when not only in that Chapter but in the whole New Testament besides those only are meant by Disciples who being taught professed the Doctrine Preached by such a one As John's Disciples Christ's Disciples the Disciples of the Pharises and the Disciples of the Perverters And accordingly Baptism was Administred unto such as were made the Disciples of Christ by Instruction and unto none other pursuant of the Commission Mat. 28. 19 20. as hath been sufficiently opened and Explained in the foregoing parts of this Discourse And no less Blameworthy is he and they in respect of their Corrupt Interpretations of those Scriptures Luke 9. 47 48. Mat. 18. 5. â—nd Mark 9. 41. which speak of the Receiving little Children â—â— Christ's Name c. As if all those Scriptures were intended of Young Sucking Infants whereas they are plainly spoken of such little Children only as were capable of Believing in Christ which tender Sucking Infants after an ordinary rate are utterly uncapable of And therefore when Mat. 18. 2. we are told that Jesus called a little Child and set him in the midst of them and tells them ver 5. Who so shall Receive one such little Child in my Name Receiveth me It is Expressly Added ver 6. Who so shall offend one of these little ones that believeth in me c. Whereby we may easily perceive what kind of little Children Christ would have us Receive in his Name or under the Notion of his Disciples not Infants that are uncapable of Faith or of Discâ—pleshâ—p by Instruction without which it is impossible after an ordinary rate to be a Disciple according to the true and proper acceptation of the Word But such little Children as did actually Believe in Christ And who can deny but that such are Christ's Disciples Church-members and the proper Subjects of Baptism And the very same Expression with that in Mat. 18. 6. we meet with Mark 9. 42. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that Believe in me c. Upon the very same occasion ver 37. the like Abuse hath been put upon those Words 1. Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean but now are they Holy As hath been already also Manifested in the foregoing parts of this Discourse which needs not here to be repeated § 2. As for Mr. Baxter's Argument for the Church-membership of Infants under the Gospel from Rev. 11. 15. where we are told that upon the Sounding of the Seventh
Angel there were great Voices in Heaven saying the Kingdoms of this World are become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ Which saith he Includes Infants as well as others that were to be the Members of Christ's Church or Kingdom To this we shall only give this brief Reply That this Scripture hath a plain reference to the time of the New Heavens and the New Earth which we have before spoken of wherein all the Kingdoms of the World shall become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ and all the Dominions of the Earth shall actually Serve and Obey him For then indeed God hath promised that his People shall be all Righteous they and their Offspring also the Branch of his Planting that he may be Glorified Isa 60. 21. which cannot be applied unto the present Administration of things in the Heavens and Earth that now are wherein we cannot say that one of a Hundred much less that the whole Race of Believers are subject unto the Scepter of Christ and consequently far from the true Gospel Characters of Church-membership in the Gospel Church § 3. As for Mr Allen's other Instance concerning the Covenant of the Rechabites wherein the Infants as well as those of Age were Included It is altogether as Insignificant in our present Case as the former concerning the Kohathites or his other Instance concerning those little Children who were said to enter into Covenant with God when their Parents did so Deut 29. 11 12 which hath been already Discussed For doth it follow that be-because the Children of the Rechahites were Engaged in a severe Ceremonial Covenant together with their Parents that therefore the Children of Believers are comprehended with themselves in the Covenant of Grace This would be indeed to make Christianity to be Hereditary But certain it is that Grace doth not now run in a Blood what ever it shall do neither is the Grace of God now Tied or Entailed unto any Lineage of Men whtsoever Though if it could be proved that all the Children of Believers were really and absolutely Included in the same Covenant of Grace with their Parents yet it follows not therefore that Baptism belongs unto them till capable of making an Actual Profession of their Faith in Christ as hath been already proved For it cannot justly be denied but that the Administration of Ordinances depends meerly upon the Law of Institution and hath varied in several Ages From Adam to Abraham there was no Ordinance to be Administred to Infants In Abraham's time indeed Circumcision was Instituted which belongs peculiarly to the old Testament Administration and was part of Moses his Law which is now Abolished and done away This was the first Ordinance that was Administred to Infants and not to all Infants but only to Male Infants living in Abraham's Family if they did Live to the Eighth day otherwise they had no Right to it though many of them doubtless in the Covenant of Grace and so Saved For want of an Institution the like may be said of Infants now many of whom are in the Covenant of Grace and so Saved by virtue of the Free-Promise yet not to be Baptized if they do not live to the time of Repenting and Believing the only time appointed for Baptism For none ever had a Right to the Administrations of the Covenant any otherwise than by virtue of a Positive Law Now if the Natural Branches the Seed of Abraham had no Priviledge to be Circumcised though in Covenant with their Father but by virtue of a Divine Law Expresly requiring the same neither can we expect that our Infants should have any Right to Baptism without the same Divine Warrant THE FOURTH PART Wherein the Baptism of Infants is further Disproved By way of Answer to the Arguments made use of by Dr. Burthogge and others for the Support of that Practice Wherein the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai Exod. 20. As also the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9. Whereon so much Stress is laid for the Support of Infants Baptism are plainly proved to be no other than two several Editions of the Covenant of Works And consequently that no just Argument can thence be deduced for the Justification of that Practice Together with a clear and distinct Explanation of the true Nature and Difference betwixt the Two Covenants that of Works and that of Grace SECT I. WE should here have put a Period to the present Discourse but that there remains yet something further of great Importance which requires a Solemn Discussion and Determination according to the Light that shall be afforded unto us from the Holy Scriptures And that is Whereas Dr. Burthogge in his late Printed Discourse upon the Subject of Infants Baptism Asserts as many others have done before him that the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed Gen. 17. 7 8 9. is the Covenant of Grace or that Original Grant and Great Charter by which Believing Gentiles always did and do claim Heaven and Earth and all the Promises they have Title to From whence he infers that they are to keep God's Covenant in the Gospel Sign of it that is Baptism and that both by wearing of it themselves and also by putting it on all theirs as Abraham was commanded to do in respect of Circumcision And forasmuch as the Mistakes which the Generality of the World hath for some season Laboured under in reference to the true Nature of the Covenant made with Abraham in the fore-cited Text have been the very Ground and Foundation of most of the Arguments which have of late at least been insisted on in order to the Justification of Infants Baptism We shall therefore the more Solemnly apply our selves toward a Substantial Discovery or Detection threof additional unto what hath been already offered in that respect in the foregoing parts of this Discourse And if it can be Substantially proved that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9. was not a Covenant of Grace nor a Gospel but a Legal Covenant or a Covenant of Works and consequently that the Gentiles are not concerned therein From hence it will unavoidably follow that all the Arguments thence deduced for the support of the fore-mentioned Practice howsoever they may be formed or framed do of themselves fall to the Ground § 2. In the first place then though we do acknowledge that God did indeed make a Covenant of Grace with Believing Abraham Which is the Great Charter by which Believing Gentiles always did and do claim both Heaven and Earth and all the Promises they have Title to yet that the Covenant of Circumcision for so it is called by Stephen Acts. 7. 8. which God made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. 8 9 10. though there was Grace in it as there was in all the Covenants that God ever made with Men as hath been before noted is not a Covenant of Grace properly so called nor a Gospel Covenant whereof Christ is
the Mediator And consequently that the Gentiles are not concerned therein is thus proved If that Covenant was as much a Covenant of Works as the Covenant of Mount Sinai mentioned Exod. 19. 4 5. and Edod 20. and the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. 9 10 11. Nay as much as the Covenant made with Adam before his Fall Gen. 2. 16. 17. where God tells him Of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not Eat For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely Die All which Were but several Editions of the same Covenant of Works then it is not a Gospel Covenant nor a Covenant of Grace properly so called whereof Christ is the Mediator But it was as much a Covenant of Works as either of the co-Co-Covenants before mentioned were therefore it is not a Covenant of Grace nor a Gospel Covenant properly so called whereof Christ alone is Mediator § 3. That the Covenant last mentioned Gen. 2. 16 17. was a Covenant of Works We suppose none will or can at least Rationally deny Forasmuch as Life was Implicitely promised unto our First Parent upon his Obedience and Death was Explicitely threatned or denounced upon him in case of his Disobedience And upon these terms he was to Stand or Fall which was plainly and undeniably a Covenant of Works whereof Christ was not the Mediator That the Covenant mentioned Exod. 19. 4 5. and Ch. 20. which God made with the Israelites at Mount Sinai was of the same Stamp the Scriptures are every where full in the Proof thereof And as clear it is that the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. 9 10 11. is but a Repetition of that made Exod. 19. c. As hath been already proved In respect of both which it is Evident that as Blessings were therein pronounced and promised to the Obedient upon Condition of their Obedience So a Curse was pronounced upon the Disobedient And thus Paul tells us Rom. 10. 5. Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man which doeth these things shall live by them Which is a plain description of a Covenant of Works which he Citeth from Lev. 18. 5. You shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgments which if a Man do he shall live in them And accordingly the Apostle doth also tell us Gal. 3. 10. That as many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse For it is Written saith he Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are contained in the Book of the Law to do them And so likewise ver 11 12. That no man is Justified by the Law in the fight of God is evident for the Just shall Live by Faith And the Law is not of Faith but the Man that doeth them shall live in them Those therefore that tell us that the Lavv is a Covenant of Faith do plainly contradict the Apostle vvho Expresly tells us that the Law is not of Faith but the man that doeth them shall live in them And therefore plainly and undeniably a Covenant of Works Thus it was with Adam in Paradice when God gave him the Command before mentioned Gen 2. 16. and denounced the Sentence of Death upon him in case of Disobedience upon the Account of which it is generally Acknowledged that he was then under a Covenant of Works It is Evident therefore that the Covenant mentioned Exod. 19. and Chap. 20. and that mentioned Deut. 29. were but two several Repetitions of the same Covenant of Works made with our First Parent and are frequently therefore in the Scripture Represented unto us under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant Heb. 8. 7. 13. Ch. 9. 15. 18. there being therein a clear and a plain Manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the First § 4. Now that the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham and his Seed Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. is of the same stamp or tenor with the three fore-mentioned Covenants in Gen. Exod. and Deut. is also as Evident For though 't is true God there promiseth to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed yet still it was upon Condition of Obedience with an answerable threatning in case of Disobedience As it was with Adam before the Fall In the day that thou Eatest thereof thou shalt surely Die. And as it was with them in the Wilderness Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them So here ver 9. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations ver 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee every Man-Child among you shall be Circumcised And ver 14. The Vncircumcised Man-child whose Flesh of his Fore-skin is not Circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his People He hath broken my Covenant The same terms with the former Besides it is Evident that Circumcision indispensibly Obliged all that were under it to a Perfect and Universal Obedience to the whole Revealed Will and Law of God Gal. 5. 3. For I testifie to every man that is Circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law If it was so in Paul's time it was so in Moses's time And then it cannot be justly denied but it was so in Abrahams also according to what of the Law Mind or Will of God was then Revealed unto them So that in this Covenant which God made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. 14. As Blessings are pronounced upon the Obedient upon Condition of their Obedience so as great a Curse is pronounced upon the Disobedient And as we have already said is therefore of the same tenor with the Three fore-mentioned Covenants in Genesis Exodus and Deuteronomy For did God tell our First Parent in the Garden of Eden concerning the Forbidden Fruit. In the day that thou Eatest thereof thou shalt surely Die and so in the rest we have the like Threatning here He that is Vncircumcised that Soul shall be Cut off from his People He hath broken my Covenant And if that were a Covenant of Works why not this § ◠And therefore though 't is true God promised to Establish his Covenant betwixt himself and Abraham and his Seed after him in their Generations for an Everlasting Covenant to be a God unto him and to his Seed after him ver 7 c. Yet still it was provided they kept his Covenant and fulfilled the Condition thereof on their parts ver 9. 10. Else they were to be Cut off And indeed the same Promises for the Substance of them were made unto the same People at Mount Sinai and upon the same Condition Exod. 19. 4. 5. You have seen saith God there what I did unto the Aegyptians and how I bear you on Eagles Wings and brought you unto my self Now therefore if ye will Obey my Voice indeed and keep my Covenant then ye
24. For so it vvas to the Jevvs that is to shevv them the Nature of Sin and the Holiness and Righteousness of God to convince them of their Sin and Misery vvithout Christ and their necessity therefore of a Saviour Rom. 7. 7 12. 13. And for this purpose it still serves to all Men in an unregenerate State Rom. 3. 19. But though the Lavv doth indeed shevv us our Necessity of Christ and our Misery vvithout him yet it doth not bring us to Christ as our Translation hath it for that is the Work of the Covenant of Faith only Rom. 10. 6 7 8 9. And that as it stands opposed unto the Legal Covenant ver 5 6 c. § 4. There is a double Enquiry made by the Apostle saith Dr. Owen on Gal. 3. vvith respect unto the Law or the Covenant of Sinai 1. Vnto what end in General it served 2 Whether it were not contrary to the Promise of God Unto both these the Apostle ansvvereth from the Nature Office and Work of that Covenant For there vvere tvvo things in it First a Revival and Representation of the first Covenant of Works vvith its Sanction and Curse Secondly A Direction of the Church unto the Accomplishment of the Promise From these tvvo doth the Apostle frame his Ansvver unto the double Enquiry laid dovvn And unto the first Enquiry Vnto what â—nd it served He Ansvvers It was added because of Transgressions The Promise being given there seems to have been no need of it Why then vvas it added to it at that Season It was added because of Transgressions The fulness of time vvas not yet come vvherein the Promise vvas to be Fulfilled Accomplished and Established as the only Covenant wherein the Church was to Walk with God or the Seed was not yet come as the Apostle here speaks to whom the Promise vvas made In the mean time some Order must be taken about Sin and Transgression that all the Order of things appointed of God vvere not Overflovved by them And this vvas done tvvo vvays by the Lavv. 1. By Reviving the Commands of the Covenant of Works vvith the Sanction of Death it put an Avve on the minds of Men and set Bounds unto their Lusts that they should not dare to run forth into that Excess vvhich they vvere Naturally inclined unto It vvas therefore added because of Transgressions that in the Declaration of God's Severity against them some Bounds might be fixed unto them For the knowledge of Sin is by the Law 2. To shut up Vnbelievers and such as vvould not seek for Righteousness Life and Salvation by the Promise under the Povver of the Covenant of Works and Curse attending it It concluded or shut up all under Sin saith the Apostle ver 20. This vvas the end of the Lavv for this end vvas it Added as it gave a Reviveal unto the Covenant of Works Dr. Owen's Exposition on the Hebrews 3 d. Vol. p. 231. § 5. It is true that Scripture Gal. 3. 24. vvhere the Apostle tells us that the Law was our School-Master to Christ that we might be Justified by Faith is strongly urged by some to prove that the Law must needs be therefore a Covenant of Faith But it is Evident that the School mastership of the Lavv and the Covenant of Faith are tvvo quite different things as appears by the Words before and after ver 23. Before Faith came saith he we were kept under the Law shut up unto the Faith which should afterward be Revealed ver 24. Wherefore the Law was our School-master to Christ that we might be justified by Faith ver 25. But after that Faith is come we are no longer under a School-master So that the Schol mastership of the Lavv is one thing and the Covenant of Faith another For vvhen the one cometh the other ceaseth When the one takes place the other vanisheth The Lavv therefore could not be a Covenant of Faith it being here so plainly Opposed or Contra distinguished thereunto Accordingly the Apostle elsevvhere assures us that the Law Written and Engraven in Stones was a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2. Cor. 3. 6. 7. 9. And consequently gave no hopes of Relief to the Miserable Sinner as the Covenant of Faith doth It convinc'd him indeed of the dreadful Nature of Sin and of the Infinite Purity and Holiness of Gods Nature and Being against whom it had Sinned but it left no Room for Repentance For Cursed is every one saith the Law that Continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them Therefore it is calld the Hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us which Christ took out of the way nailing it to his Cross Col. 2. 14. So that the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith It being constantly represented to us in the Scripture as being of a vastly different Nature therefrom and that in the very Essence or Substance thereof The one being a Ministration of Death and Condemnation the other a Ministration of Life and Peace SECT III. WE are told indeed by Mr. Obadiah Segdwick in his Discourse upon the Covenant of Grace p. 175. That the Covenant made with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai was at least subserviently the Covenant of Grace a Covenant of Grace for the Substance of it though propounded in a more dark way and in a manner fitting for the State of that People and that present time and condition of the Church § 2. But this is but an Evasion and serves for no other purpose than to darken the Truth For the thing is plain that the Law was as much a Covenant of Works as that made with our First Parent The Jewish Legal Covenant saith Dr. Annesly in his Sermon upon the Covenant of Grace Morning Exercise p. 122 Neither admitted of Faith in the Redeemer nor Repentance of Sin For Pardon of sin and Curse for Sin are Inconsistent Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse For it is Written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them As many as depend upon the Works of the Law for Justification are under the Curse And the Law saith he discovered no other way of Justification but by Works Mr. Cooper also in the same Morning Exercise p. 117. tells us That Moses his Law is opposed to the Covenant of Grace as another Covenant upon this very distinguishing account of Obedience and Faith Works and Grace as you may see saith he at large among other Places Heb. 8. 6 7 8 9 10 c. § 3. The Law therefore was not so much as Subserviently a Covenant of Faith much less for the Substance of it so for it is quite another thing and is constantly so represented unto us in the Scriptures The Apostle saith indeed The Law was our School-master to Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He doth
not say to bring us to Christ as our Translation hath it For as we have already said that is the Work of the Covenant of Faith only And therefore that Notion that the Law was Subserviently a Covenant of Faith hath no Foundation Those Words to bring us being unduly added to the Original Text and are accordingly put in a Different Character in our Translation thereof But saith the Apostle in the words immediately following After that Faith is come we are no longer under a School-master But how can that be if the Law was a Covenant of Faith Must the Covenant of Faith cease at least in this World Must the Covenant of Faith Vanish be Blotted out taken out of the way and done away as the Apostle speaks of the Law Or was the Covenant of Faith against us and contrary to us as he speaks of the Hand-writing of Ordinances that is now Blotted out And indeed therefore neither could the Law be so much as Subserviently a Covenant of Faith For if it had the Apostle would never have described it as hath been now declared § 4. And 't is in vain to say That the Law was a Covenant of Faith though propunded in a more dark way and in a manner fitting for the State of that People and that present Time and Condition of the Church as Mr. Sedgwick speaks For the Apostle Expresly affirms that the Law is not of Faith It is not of Faith Absolutely not Comparatively but the man that doth them shall live in them Gal. 3. 12. The Law therefore was no other than a Covenant of Works since not only the Apostle doth here assure us that it is not of Faith but also the same Rule Do this and Live is that still retained therein as at first And it is therefore different from the Covenant of Faith not barely in respect of the Degrees or clearness of the Revelation of gospel-Gospel-Grace as is commonly Suggested For the Law as hath been already proved discovers none at all but leaves the guilty Sinner wholly Remediless without the least glimps of Light or Comfort The Law therefore differs from the Covenant of Faith Specifically in respect of the whole Nature or Essence of it In which respect the Law could never be appointed as a School-master to bring us to Christ Well it may convince us of our Necessity of him but bring us to him it cannot § 5. So that then these are the Reasons which the Holy Spirit himself Suggesteth why the Law was added Or why the Covenant of Works was Revived after Man's Fall and even after the Proclaiming of the first Promise concerning the Womans Seed Gen 3. 15. which was renewed to Abraham Gen. 22. 18. It was added saith the Apostle because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made And it entered that the Offence might abound It being appointed as a School-master to Christ to convince the Jews of their necessity of a Saviour And since it cannot be denied but that all the Sons and Daughters of Adam must of Necessity be under one or another of the two Covenants either that of Works or that of Grace And since all Men by Nature are Children of Wrath Eph. 2 3. And since it would be utterly absurd to affirm that such are under a Covenant of Grace till-Converted It of necessity follows that unto such the Covenant of Works is still in force and under it they are till wrought upon by the Grace of the Gospel the Law abating nothing but still exacting the utmost Farthing Neither from the Impossibility of Man's yielding that perfect Obedience which that Covenant requires can we justly conclude that therefore it is not still in Force For God hath not forfeited or lost his Right of Dominion though we have lost our Strength or Capacity of Obedience So that it is evident that the Law given upon Mount Sinai to the People of the Wilderness or the Law written in Stones which was a plain and clear Manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the first was no other than a Covenant of Works Thus it was to the Jews and thus it still continues in its full Power Force and Virtue to all Men in an Unregenerate State For what things soever the Law saith it saith to them that are under the Law that every Month may be stopped and all the World may become Guilty before God Rom. 3. 19. SECT IV. NEither was the Law by the Jews only Interpreted as a Covenant of Works but as it is evident by Moses himself and by Paul also We are told indeed by Mr. Sedgwick in his fore-mentioned Discourse upon the Covenants p. 173. That we must distinguish between the intention of God in giving the Law and the Abuse or Perverting of the Law We grant saith he that many of the Jews did set up a Legal Righteousness for their Justifications and rested upon the Works of the Law as if Life came by them against which Paul doth notably Argue in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians But this saith he was not the intention of God in the Sanction of Law They could never find a justifying Righteousness by the Law or Works of the Law under the Notion of a Covenant of Works nor did God ever propound it for that end § 2. For Answer hereunto we say That since by Mr. Sedgwicks own confession the Jews could never find a Justifying Righteousness by the Law or by the Works of it From hence it inevitably follows that it could not be a Covenant of Faith Sure it is that the Covenant of Faith Justifies all that are under it For being Justified by Faith we have Peace with God c. Rom. 5. 1. That Covenant therefore that could never Justifie any that were under it could never be a Covenant of Faith But the Scripture is Express that by the deeds of the Law there shall no Flesh be Justified in God's sight Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith And yet again that Covenant under which though many were Justified yet none were ever Justified by it or by virtue of it could never be a Covenant of Faith But such was the nature of the Law that though many were Justified under it yet none were ever Justified by it or by virtue of it Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith And if the Law was not a Covenant of Faith then â—t must of necessity follow that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works And indeed so it was appointed and declared by God himself Lev. 18. 5. Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgments which if a man do he shall live in them And this the Spirit of God by the Apostle Paul takes special notice of Rom. 10. 5. For Moses saith he describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law That the man that doth these things shall live by them And what
but God gave it to Abraham by Promise So that it clearly appears by the scope of the Apostle's Argument that the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith For if it had it would have been honoured as an Instrument for the conveyance of Abraham's Inheritance But saith he God gave it to Abraham by Promise not by the Law therefore the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith But is the Law then against the Promises God forbid saith he For if there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law but the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise of Faith by Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe So that the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith since the Apostle doth here so plainly distinguish between them setting forth the Weakness of the one and the Strength and Perfection of the other The Law saith he Could not give Life but the Covenant of Faith doth The Law indeed would but could not It promiseth Life but it could not perform it through the Weakness of the Flesh So there is no Repugnancy in the Law against the Promises but what the Law could not do the Covenant of Faith performeth For it not only promiseth Life but accomplisheth what it hath promised and sets the Soul in Safety § 4. According to the plain and clear Scope of the Apostle's Reasoning therefore the Law is so far from being a Covenant of Faith that it is quite another thing For if it had been a Covenant of Faith it would have given Life as the Covenant of Faith doth But it could not give Life therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works But is the Law then against the Promises God forbid saith Paul and so say we For supposing the Law to be as it is indeed a pure Covenant of Works yet through the Satisfaction of Christ there is no Repugnancy or Hostile Contrariety betwixt the Law and the Promises or between the Law and Faith which hath respect to the Promises There is only a difference of Deficiency in respect of that Strength that there is in the one to what there was in the other The one being Weak through the Flesh the other Strong and Powerful and goes through-stitch with its Work But what the Law could not do through our Weakness that Christ hath performed by fulfilling its Commands and submitting to its Curse on our behalf whereby God's Justice is satisfied and Everlasting Righteousness obtained for the Salvation of Sinners And indeed herein consisteth the Covenant of Faith here is the Object of it and in this path is the very Law and Justice of God it self most highly Glorified Shall we say then that because the Law is a Covenant of Works that it is therefore against the Promises God forbid For who shall lay any thing to the Charge of God's Elect so as to hinder the accomplishment of the Promises upon them The Law it self doth not cannot Impeach them since it is God that Justifieth Or Who shall Condemn them The Law it self cannot since it is Christ that Died. It is true the Law saith That the man that doth these things shall Live by them And indeed herein the very Essence of the Covenant of Works consisteth But the Covenant of Faith leads us to what Christ hath done and performed for us which the Covenant of Works doth not But though the Law leads us not to Christ yet Christ being made under it and giving it its due honour on our behalf hence it follows that the Law it self that was before our Enemy stands up as our Friend Even that Law that was before against us which was Contrary to us and which was in it self no other than the Ministration of Death and Condemnation even that Law stands up as our Friend through the Mediation of Christ whom God therefore hath set forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood to declare his Righteousness that he might be Just and the Justifier of him that Believeth in Jesus Rom. 3. 24 25 26. So that the Law through the Satisfaction of Christ though it be as it is indeed a Covenant of Works yet is not against the Promises there is no Real Repugnancy or Contrariety between them whatever there seems to be Which made the Apostle Propound the Question as he doth § 5. Besides the same Apostle that tells us The Law is not against the Promises doth also expresly Assure us That the Law is not of Faith but the Man that doth them shall live by them Gal. 3. 12. So that though it is true the Law is not against the Promises Since Mercy and Truth Righteousness and Peace are met together in Christ yet it is as true that the Law is not of Faith And if the Law is not of Faith then neither can it be a Covenant of Faith but of Works as the same Apostle doth plainly affirm it is Rom. 3. 27 28. And therefore neither could it give Life For if it could Righteousness should have been by it But saith he The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe The Law therefore was not a Covenant of Faith For if it had it would have given Life and so Righteousness should have been by the Law But it could not give Life and so Righteousness was not by the Law therefore it was not a Covenant of Faith The like Inference may be clearly drawn from Rom. 10. 5 6 c. Moses saith the Apostle Describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man which doth these things shall live by them But the Righteousness which is of Faith or Gospel Covenant speaketh on this wise c. If thou Believest thou shalt be Saved Wherein we cannot but observe that the Apostle maketh a plain difference betwixt the Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of Faith The one saith he speaketh after this sort the other speaketh after quite another rate From whence also it plainly follows that the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith since the Righteousness of the one is here so plainly Opposed to the Righteousness of the other which yet it would not be had the Law been a Covenant of Faith nay though it had been so only more Darkly and not with that clearness of Demonstration as the Gospel Reveals it had it been so Subserviently only much more if it had been such for the Substance of it as it Affirmed For it cannot be imagined that if it had been a Covenant of Grace or a Covenant of Faith Subserviently much more if it had been such for the Substance of it that ever it would have been set in point blank Opposition to it as quite another thing as it is When the Apostle tells us therefore that the Righteousness which is of the Law saith Do this and Live but the Righteousness of Faith speaketh
in quite another Dialect It is plain there is a difference between them toto Genere or in the whole Kind or Substance thereof and not barely in the several Degrees of Manifestation as is suggested For as the Apostle Reasoneth concerning Election Rom. 11. 6. So it is here If it be of Works then it is no more Grace otherwise Work is no more Work And if by Grace then it is no more of Works otherwise Grace is no more Grace Either therefore the Law was a Covenant of Grace or it was a Covenant of Works If it was a Covenant of Grace then according to the scope of the Apostle's Reasoning it was not a Covenant of Works or it is no more of Works that is it is not of Works at all And consequently Moses doth not describe the Righteousness which is of the Law as he doth that the Man that doth these things shall live by them But if this be absurd and it be evident that it is as it is indeed a Covenant of Works For the same Reason therefore neither can it in any Sence be a Covenant of gospel-Gospel-Grace otherwise as the Apostle speaks Work is no more Work For these two Grace and Works or Faith and Works are constantly in the Scripture opposed the one unto the other in point of our Justification before God's Presence which is our present case and admit of no Mixture § 6. So that though the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works is not against the Promises that is there is no Repugnancy between them there being a sweet Harmony and Conjunction of all the Blessed Attributes of God in Christ in the way of the Salvation of Sinners yet the Law is constantly in the Scripture represented in a way of Contradistinction to the Promises and so it is in the words foregoing as hath been already observed ver 18. If saith the Apostle the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise And which is yet clearer the same Apostle doth also assure us Rom. 4. 14. That if they which are of the Law be heirs Faith is made void and the Promise made of none Effect Therefore the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works SECT VI. ANd whereas the Apostle doth also tell us Rom. 3. 31. That we do not make Void the Law through Faith but Establish it This also is true and no way Contradicteth but is Consistent enough with what hath been Asserted viz. That the Law is no other than a Covenant of Works Forasmuch as Christ our surety hath fulfilled it for us given it its due Honour and satisfied its Penalty on our behalf So that we are so far from making void the Law through Faith that it is rather thereby Established as having received greater Honour by the obedience and Sufferings of Christ than ever could have been given it by us § 2. And yet further which is also Objected to the same purpole as before whereas the Apostle doth also tell us Rom. 10. 4. That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth The Sence is Evident Forasmuch as what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the Flesh God sending his own Son in the likeness of Sinful Flesh and for Sin or by a Sacrifice for Sin Condemned Sin in the Flesh that the Righteousness of the Law might be fullfilled in us that is in the Person of our surety for us Rom. 8 3 4. And thus Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth by fulfilling its Commands and answering its Penalty on our behalf But doth it therefore follow that the Law is a Covenant of Faith It is Evident that Christ Submitted to it as a Covenant of Works And if it was so to Christ it was so to us and would have been so and the Curse thereof had accordingly lighted on us had not Christ Interposed for our Relief But saith the Apostle when the Fulness of time was come God sent forth his Son made of a Woman made under the Law to Redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons Gal. 4. 4 5. From whence it clearly appears that the Law was not a Covenant of Faith For if it had what necessity was there for Christ to have Redeemed us from under it Can we imagine that Christ ever shed his Blood to Redeem us from being under a Covenant of Faith or from being under a Gospel Covenant The Law was therefore no other than a Covenant of Works from which Christ hath now Redeemed us by his Blood and Sufferings for us The Law indeed shews us our Sin and Misery without Christ but Relieves us not Rom. 7. 7 8 9 10. which the Covenant of Faith doth Rom. 10. 6 7 8 9. Nay the Law instead of Relieving or Curing us it brings us under the Curse which the Covenant of Faith delivers us from Gal. 3. 8 9 10. But though we are delivered from the Law as a Covenant of Life Do this and live yet it is also as true that All true Believers are still under the Law to Christ as a Rule of Life 1 Cor. 9. 21. SECT VII MR. Sedgwick doth indeed also tell us in his forementioned Discourse upon the Covenants p. 174. That that Covenant which God made with Moses and under which Moses stood was no Covenant of Works But Moses and the People of Israel were both under the same Covenant Exod. 34. 27. I have made a Covenant with thee and with Israel If any doubt under what Covenant Moses stood whether of Works or Grace let him peruse Heb. 11. 26. What a Description he shall there find of Moses He shall there find him to be a Choice and Eminent Believer in Christ Esteeming the Reproach of Christ greater Riches than the Treasures in Aegypt and having respect to the Recompence of Reward c. Now certainly such a Choice Believer in Christ was not under a Covenant of Works And p. 175 176. speaking of the immediate Introduction unto the giving of the Law Exod. 20. 2. I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt Why saith he there is the very Covenant of Grace Here is God as our God And Blessed are the People who have the Lord to be their God And here is Jesus Christ the Mediator of the Covenant implied for in Christ doth God become our God And there is our Redemption from Sin and Satan intimated by their Deliverance out of Aegypt And presently there is the Worship of God Instituted and Appointed which if Acceptable to God must be performed with Faith For without Faith it is impossible to please God And saith he upon the Breaking of the Tables of the Covenant before they were Written again there is such a Preface made by God as can no way fit any Covenant but that of
Grace as you may see in Exod. 34. 7. The Lord the Lord Gracious and Merciful Long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth keeping mercy for thousands forgiving Iniquities Transgressions and Sin § 2. To this we Reply that it is indeed most certain and undeniable that both Moses and all the Elect among that People of Old were under the same Covenant of Grace with Abraham Isaac and Jacob and all the rest of the Holy Patriarchs before and by that they were Saved and without it there had been no Salvation for them And accordingly we are told Exod. 33. That upon Moses his earnest request unto God that he might see his Glory and that he would afford unto him his Gracious Presence for the more comfortable Conduct of that great and mighty People through that vast and howling Wilderness The Lord is pleased ver 17. to Promise that he would do this thing that Moses had spoken For saith he thou hast found grace in my sight and I know thee by name And he said I will make all my goodness pass before thee and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious and will shew Mercy to whom I will shew Mercy And accordingly Chap. 34. 5 6 7. The Lord descended in the Cloud and stood with him there and proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before him and Proclaimed the Lord the Lord God merciful and Gracious Long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth keeping mercy for thousands forgiving iniquity transgression and sin Which was absolutely and undeniably a Covenant of Grace which God then made and confirmed unto Moses by Name and unto all that were Elected among that People for it was not to all since God expresly tells Moses that he would be gracious to whom he would be gracious and would shew mercy to whom he would shew mercy And accordingly this was that that God's People then lived upon and were saved by For if there had been no other Covenant made with them than that that was contained in the two Tables of Stone it had been utterly impossible that either Moses or any of the rest could ever have been Saved And this Gospel Cordial seems to have been purposely afforded unto Moses and the rest of the Faithful with him for the Relief of their sinking Spirits under the dread and terror of that Fiery Burning Law Deut. 33 2. The Lord came from Sinai and rose up from Seir unto them he shined forth from Mount Paran and he came with ten thousands of Saints From his right-hand went a Fierâ—e Law that had been before proclaimed by the Mouth of God himself and had been also written with God's own Finger and was now about to be renewed upon the breaking of the first Tables of Stone Which discovery of Gods Infinite Holiness Justice and Righteousness proclaimed with so much Majesty and Glory attended with such Thunderings Blackness Darkness and Tempest was so dreadful and terrible that Moses himself exceedingly fears and quakes at the Sight and Hearing thereof And is accordingly taken Notice of and represented by the Apostle as a Discriminating or Distinguishing Character between that and the Gospel Covenant Heb. 12. 18. c. You are not come saith he to the Mount that might be touched and that Burned with Fire nor unto Blackness and Darkness and Tempest and the sound of a Trumpet and the voice of Words which Voice they that heard intreated that the Word should not be spoken to them any more And so terrible was the Sight that Moses himself said I exceedingly fear and quake But ye are come unto Mount Sion to the City of the Living God to the Heavenly Jerusalem to God the Judge of all to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant c. From whence it is evident that there is an Essential difference between these two the Law and the Gospel so as that what the one is the other is not the Law is not the Gospel nor the Gospel the Law You are not come saith he unto the Legal but unto the Gospel Covenant The Legal Covenant discover'd nothing but Blackness and Darkness and Tempest and a voice of Words that could not be endured For according to the Apostle's own present Description or Character thereof it made no discovery of the least glimps of Gospel Grace at all The Legal Covenant therefore could not be a Covenant of Grace or a Covenant of Faith that made no discovery of any such thing but rather the contrary so as that it makes Moses himself exceedingly Quake and Tremble § 3. However it is certain that both Moses and all the Elect among that People of Old were under the Covenant of Grace as we have already said and by that were saved And accordingly we are told that they did all that is all the Elect among them Eat the same spiritual Meat and did all Drink the same spiritual Drink For they Drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. And it is as Evident that it was no other than Christ himself that was the Angel of Gods presence that was to go before them and Conduct them in the way they were to go But yet all this notwithstanding it is plain that the Law was a Covenant of Works still and it is also as Evident that it was a distinct Covenant and Essentially different from the Covenant of Grace And was accordingly made with Moses and the whole Body of the Congregation and not with Moses and those that were Elected among them only as the Covenant of Grace was And therefore Exod. 19. 5 6. Saith God there to the whole Body of the Congregation of Israel at the foot of Mount Sinai Now therefore if ye will Obey my voice indeed and keep my Covenant then ye shall be a Peculiar Treasure unto me above all People for all the Earth is mine And ye shall be to me a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation These are the Words that thou shalt speak unto the Children of Israel Mark it These are the words that thou shalt speak unto the Children of Israel that is unto the whole Body of that People without Exception of any as being of Universal Concernment unto them all And these are the Words that is these are the Terms on which thou shalt propound these my Promises to them viz. If you will Obey my Voice indeed and keep my Covenant with all your Heart and with all your Soul so as not in the least to vary or step aside from what I have now Commanded you then I will do thus and thus unto and for you and I will give you a Convincing Discovery that I am indeed the Lord your God which have brought you out of the Land of Egypt For upon these and no other terms do I now enter into Covenant with you And Cursed shall he be that Confirmeth not all
the words of this Law to do them The promises I now make you are full and Glorious enough But these are the Terms on which you must Expect if ever you come to the Fruition of them This is the Substance of the Preface and after Explication that God himself makes unto and concerning the Covenant which he now made with Moses and with Israel even with the whole Body of that People which was by the Finger of God himself Written and Ingraven in Stones And is accordingly mentioned at large Exod. 20. In the several ten Branches Commandments or main Heads thereof § 4. In the next place if we Enquire into the Nature of this Covenant What sort of Covenant it was Whether a Covenant of Grace or a Covenant of Works As it is Evident that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works since we see it required perfect Obedience as the condition of obtaning the mercies therein promis'd wherein the very Essence of that Covenant Consisted So in order to a further discovery of the true nature of the Covenant in question We must compare some passages in Exod. 34. with 2 Cor. 3. and Col. 2. 14. In Exod. 34. 1. The Lord said unto Moses hew the two Tables of Stone like unto the first And I will Write upon these Tables the words that were in the first Tables ver 4. And he hewed two Tables of Stone like unto the first And Moses went up unto the Mount Sinai as the Lord Commanded him and took in his hand the two Tables of Stone ver 28. And he was there with the Lord 40 days and 40 nights and he Wrote upon the Tables the words of the Covenant the ten Commandments And it came to pass when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two Tables of Testimony in Moses's hand when he came down from the Mount that Moses Wist not that the Skin of his Face shone while he talked with him And when Aaron and all the Children of Israel saw Moses behold the Skin of his Face shone and they were afraid to come nigh him If we will know therefore the true Nature of the Covenant we shall find that the Spirit of God by the Apostle doth give us a clear determination thereof in the fore-mentioned 2. Cor. 3. 5 6. Our Sufficiency saith he is of God who hath also made us able Ministers of the New Testament not of the Letter but of the Spirit that is not of the Law but of the Gospel For the Letter Killeth but the Spirit giveth Life But saith he ver 7. If the Ministration of Death Written and Engraven in Stones was Glorious so that the Children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the Face of Moses for the Glory of his Countenance which Glory was to be done away how shall not the Ministration of the Spirit be rather Glorious So again ver 9. If the Ministration of Condemnation be Glory much more doth the Ministration of Righteousness exceed in Glory Wherein we cannot but observe that the Apostle doth evidently Reflect upon the fore mentioned Passage in Exod. 34 28 29 c. Where we are told that Moses Received from God the two Tables of Stone wherein the words of the Covenant even the Ten Commandments were Written and Engraven by the Finger of God himself and this Expresly under the Denomination of the Covenant which God then made with Israel Deut. 4. 13. Which made Moses his Face to shine so that Aaron and all the Children of Israel were afraid to come nigh him 'T is clear then that this is the Covenant that Paul hear speaks of And what Character or Description doth he give thereof Why saith he The Law Written and Engraven in Stones how Glorious soever it was in it self was of a Killing Nature it was the Ministration of Death and Condemnation and that which was to be done away To which same purpose the same Apostle also tells us Col. 2. 14. That Christ hath Blotted out the Hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us and hath took it out of the way nailing it to his Cross Where the Apostle speaks plainly of the same thing and to the same purpose as he doth to the Corinthians for there he speaks of the Law Written in Stones which saith he was a Ministration of Death and Condemnation And hereof the Hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us and contrary to us as the Law must needs be if it was indeed no other than a Ministration of Death and Condemnation as the Apostle describes it But is the Covenant of Faith of this Nature Or was the Covenant of Grace a Ministration of Death and Condemnation as the Apostle Affirms the Law written in Stones to be Was the Covenant of Grace against us Contrary to us and therefore now Blotted out done away taken out of the way and Nailed to the Cross of Christ as the Apostle speaks of the Hand-writing of Ordinances or the Law written in Stones These are Solâ—cisms too strong for Digestion It can never be imagined And yet all this must needs follow if the Law was a Covenant of Grace as is Affirmed 'T is true there was a Covenant of Grace that ran Current therewith as hath been before declared whereby Moses and all the Elect among that People were delivered from the Curse of that Fiery Burning Law that was thus given them But shall we therefore call the Ministration of Death a Ministration of Grace Or the ministration of Condemnation a Ministration of Life and Righteousness which the Apostle doth so plainly set in Opposition thereunto Or shall we say that that which was against us and contrary to us was a Covenant of Grace or for the Substance of it such The Apostle as we have already seen tells us the quite contrary And so he doth Rom. 7. 9 10. When the Commandment came saith he Sin Revived and I Died And the Commandment which was Ordained to Life I found to be unto Death And how then can it be justly Affirmed that the Law was a Covenant of gospel-Gospel-Grace or that it was such for the Substance thereof when the Apostle found it by Experience to be a Ministration of Death § 5. Indeed the World Groans under the Burthen of such Subtile Sophistical Distinctions whereby the Truths of the Gospel have been so long Obscured as they have been and are in respect of the present Point a Point of such vast Consequence and Concernment to the Church of God For what can be of greater Moment than the Two Covenants the Truths concerning which are as the two Master Veins that branch themselves forth and lye dispersed up and down throughout the whole Body of the Scriptures If therefore it shall be found that we have been all this while Mistaken in our Notion about the Covenants what they are and which they be or that we have given the Appellation of the Covenant of Grace to a Covenant of Works and hereon
of Faith must of necessity according to the Apostles Reckoning be desirous of Returning to that old Bondage which Christ hath deliver'd us from and which the Apostle doth so earnestly Exhort us to avoid Gal. 5. 1. Stand fast therefore in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and be not Intangled again with the Yoke of Bondage § 8. But though Mount Sinai Covenant which answered to Jerusalem that then was is a Bondage Covenant The Gospel Covenant saith the Apostle which answereth to Jerusalem that is above is free which is the Mother of us all The Gospel Covenant therefore being a free Covenant It must not it ought not to be Blended or Mixt with that from Mount Sinai as if the one were the other and no difference at all to be made betwixt them onely in Respect of the different Degrees of the Discovery of Gospel Grace No saith the Apostle What saith the Scripture Cast out the Bond-Woman and her Son For the Son of the Bond-Woman shall not be Heir with the Son of the Free-Woman So then Brethren we are not Children of the Bond-Woman but of the Free In the 30. and 31. Verses of the forementioned 4th to the Galatians And this we must be And thus we must do as the Apostle here adviseth us unless we shall mingle Law and Gospel together Bondage and Liberty Works and Grace Death and Life And a ministration of Condemnation with that of Righteousness and Peace Which would be no other than as much as in us lies to overthrow the whole Gospel and to obscure darken and confound those truths that are of highest Importance And which ought therefore to be carefully and distinctly handled by us according to the different Services they are designed and appointed for SECT VIII BUT then we are yet further told by Mr. Sedgwick in his forementioned Discourse pag. 174. That that Covenant which was Confirmed by Bloud and Sprinkling which Typified the Bloud of Christ Gonfirming and Ratifying the Covenant was no Covenant of Works But the Covenant which God made then with the Israelites was Confirmed by Blood Exod. 24. 7. Moses took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the Audience of the People And they said All that the Lord hath said we will do and be Obedient Vers 8. And Moses took the Blood and Sprinkled it on the People And said Behold the Bloud of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words Now this very place is quoted by the Apostle Heb. 9. 19. He Sprinkled both the Book and the People Vers 20. Saying This is the Bloud of the Testament which God hath Enjoyned you And expresly Interprets it and applies it to the Blood of Christ Vers 14. and Vers 23. And therefore that Covenant with that People was not a Covenant of Works which never was nor shall be Confirmed by the Bloud of Christ § 2. To which we Reply First That it is Evident that the Covenant the Bloud whereof Moses Sprinkled on the People in the forementioned Exod. 24. 7 8. Could not possibly be the Law Written in Stones which will appear in a diligent Examination of the words before and after Vers 3 4. Moses came and told the People all the words of the Lord and all the Judgments And all the People Answerd with one Voice and said All the words which the Lord hath spoken we will do And Moses Wrote all the words of the Lord and rose up early in the Morning and builded an Altar c. Vers 5. And be sent Young Men of the Children of Israel which offered burnt offerings and Sacrificed Peace offerings of Oxen unto the Lord Vers 6. And Moses took half of the Bloud and put it in Basons And half of the Bloud be Sprinkled on the Altar Vers 7. And he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the Audience of the People And they said All that the Lord hath said we will do and be Obedient Vers 8. And Moses took the Bloud and Sprinkled it on the People and said behold the Bloud of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words Now that the Book of the Covenant here spoken of the Bloud whereof was thus Sprinkled on the People could not be the Law Written in Stones appears most evidently from the following words Vers 9. Then went up Moses and Aaron Nadab and Abihu and Seventy of the Elders of Israel And they saw the God of Israel c. Vers 12. And the Lord said unto Moses Come up to me into the Mount and be there And I will give thee Tables of Stone and a Law and Commandments which I have Written that thou mayst teach them Wherein first we cannot but observe That whereas the words of the Covenant the Bloud whereof was Sprinkled on the People Vers 8. are expresly said Vers 4. to be Written by Moses So on the other hand the Law Written in Stones is here expresly said to be Written by God himself And Secondly It is also as evident that Moses had not as yet so much as received the Law Written in Stones from God till after he had Sprinkled the Bloud of the forementioned Covenant wherein the Statutes and Judgments were contained upon the People So that the Law Written in Stones therefore could not possibly be the Covenant the Bloud whereof was so sprinkled but was indeed another Covenant and delivered at a distinct Season and in a distinct Method the one uttered and declared by â—he Mouth of God himself in the Audience of all the People the other delivered unto them by the Mouth and Ministration of Moses onely The one Written with Gods own Finger in the two Tables of Stone the other Written in a Book by the Hand of Moses which is accordingly here called the Book of the Covenant by way of distinction from the Tables of Stone From whence by the way it clearly appears That that Covenant which as Moses elsewhere assures us God himself with his own Immediate Mouth and Voice declared unto Israel and that in the Audience of all the People Deut. 4. 10 11 12 13. was in this as well as in other respects as much a Covenant of Works as that made with our first Parent For if the Covenant made with Adam had no Mediator so neither had this 'T is plain indeed that God made use of the Ministration of Moses in the delivery of the Ceremonial Covenant but not so in the Promulgation of this For this was both Written and declared Immediately by the Hand and Mouth of God himself § 3. But to return Whereas Mr. Sedgwick tells us That that Covenant with that People which was Confirmed by Bloud and Sprinkling which Typified the Blood of Christ Confirming and Ratifying the Covenant was not a Covenant of Works which never was nor shall be Confirmed by the Blood of Christ and makes no distinction thereon between the Ceremonial Covenant that was Dedicated with Bloud
and the Law Written in Stones that was not so Dedicated How strangely doth he Confound and Obscure the word and truth of God which ought to have been cleared and distinctly to have been declared to those he had Preached or Written unto For first he seems to take it for granted that there was no other Covenant made with Israel at Sinai but what was Confirmed by Bloud And Secondly That that Covenant which waâ— so Confirmed must of necessity have been Confirmed also by the Blood of Christ Typified thereby and therefore not a Covenant of Works But both these are no other than ungrounded suppositions that want a Foundation § 4. For first It hath been already proved That the Law Written in Stones had not been so much as received from God when the Ceremonial Covenant was so Confirmed And accordingly it was so far from being Confirmed by the Bloud of Christ that we do not read that it was ever Dedicated with any other sort of Bloud whatsoever It is indeed suggested that the Law Written in Stones by Gods own Finger had been also Written by Moses in the Book of the Covenant wherein the Statutes and Judgments were contained when the Bloud thereof was sprinkled on the People Since we are told Exod. 24. 3 4. That Moses came and told the People all the Words of the Lord and all the Judgments And Moses Wrote all the Words of the Lord and took the Book of the Covenant and Read in the Audience of the People and took the Blood and Sprinkled it on the People saying Behold the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these Words But if we duly attend unto the Scope of the Spirit of God in these passages we shall find it utterly Improbable that the Ten Commandments that had been Written in Stones with Gods own Finger were at all contained in the Book of the Covenant when the Blood thereof was Sprinkled on the People Forasmuch as God afterwards calls up Moses into the Mount saying I will give thee Tables of Stone and a Law and Commandments which I have Written that thou mayest teach them Ver. 12. Which clearly Implies that the Ten Commandments which was the only matter contained in the two Tables of Stone had not been Written by Moses in the Book of the Covenant wherein the Statutes and Judgments were contained and which he had accordingly Read in the Audience of the People For then it had been altogether Improper to say I will give thee Tables of Stone and a Law and Commandments that thou mayest teach them Since according to this Reckoning Moses had already done it When we are told therefore that Moses came and told the People all the Words of the Lord and all the Judgments c. We are plainly to understand it according to Deut. 4. 13. 14. where having Informed us that the Lord himself declared unto them his Covenant which he commanded them to perform even Ten Commandments and he Wrote them upon two Tables of Stone He Expresly adds The Lord Commanded me saith he at that time to teach you Statutes and Judgments And accordingly Exod. 24. 3. Moses came and told the People all the Words of thâ— Lord and all the Judgments That is all the Statutes and all â—he Judgments not the Ten Commandments For that God himself had already declared unto them with his own Mouth So that it is evident that it was the Statutes and Judgments only that Moses had then in Commission to declare unto the People And accordingly it is as evident that it was the Statutes and Judgments only that were contained in the Book of the Covenant when the Blood thereof was sprinkled on the People Though afterwards it is plain that upon the Receiving of the two Tables of Stone wherein â—he Ten Commandments were Inserted he had a fresh Commission to teach them the Ten Commandments also as appears by Verse 12. And which we find was accordingly performed by him Deut. 5. in the Several Ten Branches or Particulars thereof § 5. It is therefore a great mistake for any to affirm that the Law written in Stones was not a Covenant of Works because confirmed by Blood and Sprinkling whereas when it comes to be duly examined there appears no such matter but instead of being proved thereby to be a Covenant of Grace it is the more convincingly proved to be as it is indeed no other than a Covenant of Works In which respect Mr. Sedgwick's forementioned Argument may more justly and truly be thus formed That Covenant that was not confirmed by the Blood of Christ which alone can cleanse us from all unrighteousness no nor so much as by the Blood of Bulls or Goats or Calves which was plainly typical thereof could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Works But the Law written in Stones was so far from being confirmed by the Blood of Christ that it was never that we read of confirmed by any other sort of Blood whatsoever Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Worlds § 6. Secondly Whereas the Apostle Heb. 9. speaking of the Ceremonial Covenant which was dedicated by Blood and Sprinkling doth plainly represent it unto us under the denomination of the first Covenant that had a Worldly Sanctuary vers 1. Opposing it to Christ as the Figure to the Substance vers 9. Calling the Statutes and Judgments therein contained by the name of Carnal Ordinances and such as could not make him that did the Service Perfect as pertaining to the Conscience vers 10. Another Building vers 11. And the First Testament as it 's Contradistinguish'd from the New-Testament and Christ the true and only Sacrifice thereof vers 18 19. Besides what he had told us in the 8th Chap. concerning this same First or Old-Testament that it was of a faulty decaying vanishing nature vers 7 13. From all this it plainly appears that even the Ceremonial Covenant it self could be no other than a Covenant of Works as well as that written in Stones And accordingly the Apostle informs us Gal. 3. 10. That as many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse For it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Which Book of the Law here spoken of must of necessity be the Book of the Covenant written by Moses himself wherein the Statutes and Judgments or the Ceremonial Precepts were contained In respect whereof it is evident that though the Sacrifices and other things thereunto belonging pointed at Christ and the way of Salvation by him yet such was the severity of the Divine Sanction thereunto annexed that if those under that Administration had wrought never so hard and kept themselves in a Path of perfect and Universal Obedience to the multitude of those Ceremonial Precepts all their days which was impossible yet if at last cast there happened
to be never so small a transgression though in the least Circumstance the Curse of the Law presently took hold upon them and that without mercy For as James saith Whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one Point he is guilty of all And accordingly the Curse of the Law was pronounced upon every one that continued not in all things therein contained to do them This is the true Scope and Tenor even of the Ceremonial Covenant it self to all under it that were not relieved by the Grace of the Gospel § 7. Wherefore though it is plain that the Law written in Stones and the Book wherein the Statutes and Judgments were contained were two distinct Covenants and delivered at distinct Seasons and in a distinct Method the one with the other without a Mediator the one dedicated with Blood and Sprinkling the other that we read of not so dedicated yet it is as clear from the Premises that they were both of the same Nature that is no other than a Covenant of Works and accordingly both now Repealed and that under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant which was of a decaying vanishing nature Heb. 8. ult And accordingly though the Blood of the Legal Sacrifices wherewith the Ceremonial Covenant was dedicated was plainly Typical of the Blood of Christ yet forasmuch as the Apostle informs us it could not take away sins nor make the Comers thereunto perfect as pertaining to the Conscience Heb. 9. 9. Chap. 10. 1 4. That Covenant therefore which was dedicated only by the Blood of such Sacrifices could never be a Covenant of Grace properly so called which hath Christ alone for the Mediator thereof and was confirmed only by his Blood and Sufferings for us but of Works § 8. Besides If the Ceremonial Covenant which was thus dedicated by Blood and Sprinkling had been indeed a Covenant of Grace and confirmed also by the Blood of Christ why should it be Repealed as we know it was as well as the Law written in Stones which is said to be now done away Is it possible that a Covenant of Grace confirmed by the Blood of Christ should ever be Repealed Or why did God appoint the New Covenant to succeed it which was Really so Confirmed and which is also opposed thereunto as another Covenant and of a quite different Nature Unless we shall say that there were two Covenants of Grace Confirmed by the Blood of Christ the one whereof was of a faulty accaying vanishing Nature as the First Covenant is by the Spirit of God himself described which to affirm would be perfectly to Contradict the whole Scope of the Scriptures § 9. The Blood of those Sacrifices therefore wherewith the Ceremonial Covenant was dedicated together with the rest of the Types that were then afforded served only as an Example Figure and Shadow of Heavenly things They were not as the Apostle speaks The Heavenly things themselves Heb. 9. 23. For the Law saith he Heb. 10. 1 c. having a shadow of good things to come and not the very Image of the things can never with those Sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the Commers thereunto perfect For then they should not have ceased to be Offered because that the Worshippers once purged should have had no more Conscience of Sins But in these Sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of Sins every year For it is not possible that the Blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away Sins All those Sacrifices therefore could never amount to the value of the Blood of Christ And accordingly that Covenant though dedicated by Blood and Sprinkling was no other than a Covenant of Works for as much as it was not confirmed by the Blood of Christ For if it had it would have made the Commers thereunto Perfect as pertaining to the Conscience which it did not § 10. Besides the Apostle expresly tells us That Christ hath obtained a more Excellent Ministry than that of Moses by how much also he is the Mediator of a Better Covenant which was Established upon better Promises Heb. 8. 6. Which Better Covenant the Apostle doth plainly oppose unto the First or Old Covenant vers 7 8 9 13. From whence it plainly follows that Christ was not the Mediator of the First or Old Covenant unless we shall say that he was the Mediator of two Covenants a Better and a Worse And consequently it doth as plainly follow that the First Covenant was no other than a Covenant of Works since neither was Christ the Mediator of it nor did he ever shed his Blood for the Confirmation thereof SECT IX HAving thus far considered Mr. Obadiah Sedgwick's Arguments wherewith he labours to prove that the Sinai Covenant was not a Covenant of Works but of Grace We should next have considered Mr. Francis Roberts his Arguments also to the same purpose in his large Discourse upon the Covenants But that the most substantial part of them have been already dispatcht in the Answers we have returned to Mr. Sedgwick's Arguments Onely we cannot but take notice of two grand Absurdities which Mr. Roberts and all others who Assert that the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Faith do and cannot but unavoidably run into and fasten upon the Scriptures on that Hypothesis The first is this Whereas Mr. Roberts pretending to Answer several Objections which are urged by way of opposition to his forementioned Doctrine the Fourth Objection which he mentions pag. 769. of his forementioned Discourse runs thus § 2. Object 4. The Sinai Covenant is opposed by the Prophet Jeremy and by the Apostle Paul to the New Covenant and is said to be broken by the People of Israel Jer. 31. 31 32 c. Heb. 8. 8 9 10. Therefore it is not a Covenant of Faith which is everlasting and cannot be broken But a Covenant of works which is but Temporary and liable to be broken This is indeed a substantial Argument or Objection against what he Asserts But how substantially answered may appear by what follows For thus he returns thereunto These Premises saith he will not bear this Conclusion for first though the Sinai Covenant made with Israel when God brought them out of the Land of Egypt is said to be unlike or not according to the New Covenant yet it is not said either by the Prophet or Apostle to be unlike to the Covenant of Faith § 3. Reply But what a strange Evasion is this And whither will not Men run when left to themselves For is not the New Covenant a Covenant of Faith And therefore when the Sinai Covenant is opposed to the New Covenant is it not plainly opposed to the Covenant of Faith Or shall we make the New-Covenant and the Covenant of Faith opposite and Contradistinct the one from the other as Mr. Roberts plainly doth when he saith that though the Sinai Covenant is opposed to the New Covenant yet it is not opposed to the Covenant of Faith
As if the New Covenant and the Covenant of Faith were not one and the same thing But certainly the New Covenant to which the Sinai Covenant is opposed must needs be a Covenant of Faith or there is no Covenant of Faith mentioned in the Scriptures And consequently since the Sinai Covenant is both by the Prophet and Apostle so plainly opposed to the New Covenant from hence it plainly follows that it was never designed by God â—s a Covenant of Faith For else why is it opposed thereunto § 4. But saith Mr. Roberts the Dissmilitude or Difference here Intimated betwixt the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant is not in substance or kind For in both the Lord saith I will be their God and they shall be my People But onely in the manner of Administration or Degree God promising in the New Covenant a greater fuller and clearer Measure of Grace unto his People than under the Sinai Covenant Whereof he gives Three Instances in point of Sanctification Illumination and Remission And then Concludes Thus saith he the Sinai Covenant gradually not specifically differs from the New Covenant They are both Covenants of Faith But the New Covenant every way more Excellent Compleat and Perfect § 5. To this we reply That as the Dissimilitude or Difference here Intimated betwixt the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant iâ— not in Substance Since in both the Lord saith I will be their God and they shall be my People So neither in the manner of Administration that is If by the manner of Administration we understand the Measure or Degrees of the Divine Blessedness therein Promised For what can be a greater or more Comprehensive Blessedness than for God to be their God and they to be his People For this Comprehends Justification Sanctification and Illumination in the heighth and Perfection of them And indeed what is not promised where God is promised And accordingly this is the Blessedness promised in both Covenants The Difference or Dissimilitude therefore betwixt the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant upon the Account whereof they are here opposed the one unto the other must of necessity Consist in the terms of either and in that alone For Moses saith the Apostle Rom. 10. 5. describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man which doth these things shall live by them Whereas Life and happiness is promised in the Gospel Covenant in the way of believing onely from Vers 6. to 12. And indeed nothing short of this can be duely supposed as the ground of such an opposition as here Insisted on For can it be rationally imagined that a bare difference in the Extent or Degrees of the Divine Blessedness promised in either could be a sufficient ground for the Prophet or Apostle to speak as they do that the New Covenant was not like or not according to the Sinai Covenant For if the Substance be the same there is still a likeness between them though in Respect of Degrees Circumstantially different A Child hath the likeness of a Man though not grown up to a Perfect Stature But if the Difference or Dissimilitude lie in the terms of either and those terms Essentially different Then though the Promises are the same for the Substance of them and the Degrees of the Mercy promised also yet it may be justly and properly said that the one is not like or not according to the other For as Covenants they are Essentially different because the terms are so And accordingly it is evident both from the forementioned Rom. 10. 5 6 c. as also from Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. Where the Sinai Covenant is opposed to the New Covenant that whereas the Promises of the Sinai Covenant run all upon condition of Vniversal and Perfect Obedience to whatsoever the Law requireth the Promises of the New Covenant are all of them Absolute and therefore onely to be received by Faith For as therein God promiseth that he will put his Laws in their Mind and write them in their Hearts So he doth also freely Promise that he will be Merciful to their Vnrighteousness and their Sins and Iniquities will he remember no more All which promises of Grace were plainly wanting in the Sinai Covenant For that required Obedience as the Condition of Life but gave no strength to perform it And not onely so but pronounced a dreadful Curse upon every Transgression and Disobedience leaving no room for Repentance So that it is plain that the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant differ Specifically the One being a Covenant of Faith the Otherâ— of Works And on this Account onely are they opposed the one unto the other both by Paul and Jeremy In which Respect though the Promises in both are the same for Substance I will be their God and they shall be my People As also in respect of the Degrees of the Divine Blessedness promised in either yet the terms of Enjoyment being Essentially different hence it plainly follows that so are the Covenants themselves that â—â— Essentially or Specifically different § 6. Secondly Whereas 't is justly urged That since the Sinai Covenant is said to be broken by the people of Israel Jer. 31. Heb. 8. Therefore it is not a Covenant of Faith which is Everlasting and cannot be broken but a Covenant of Works which is but temporary and liable to be broken To this Mr. Roberts returns thus Though saith he Israel brake the Sinai Covenant by their Idolatry yet they brake it not utterly and Irreparably as Adam brake the Covenant of Works by his first Transgression For God admitted them to Repentance upon their Repentance Pardons them and renews the Sinai Covenant again with them Therefore this Breach of Covenant doth no way prove the Sinai Covenant to be a Covenant of Works not of Faith Temporary not Everlasting § 7. Reply But why should any part of the truth of God be concealed which was so necessary here to have been discovered For though the Sinai Covenant was renewed in the Second Tables after the first were broken upon the Idolatry of the Israelites about the Golden Calf Exod. 34. Yet it clearly appears and we cannot be Ignorant that afterward it was utterly broken and they Rejected as they are to this Day Else why doth God say which my Covenant they brake they continued not in it and I regarded them not Jer. 31. 32. Heb. 8. 9. which plainly looks further than the first Breach For it is clear that after the first Breach they were regarded by God since upon Moses his Intercession they were admitted to Repentance and it is evident that upon their Repentance the Lord Pardons them and Renews the Sinai Covenant again with them But it is as Evident that at length having broken it again and again God plainly tells them that he Regarded them not So that though t is true the first Breach doth no way prove the Sinai Covenant to be a Covenant of Works not of Faith Temporary not Everlasting yet the
then according to the scope of the Apostles Reasoning it is no more of Works And if so whence is it that Works are so plainly required as the Condition of obtaining the mercies therein promised and which the forementioned Objection doth give such a full demonstration concerning that it shines with a clear and convincing Evidence in the faces of those that assert it to be a Covenant of Grace If therefore it be as indeed it is a Covenant of Works and purposely so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon Condition of Doing which Mr. Roberts himself grants How comes it to be a Covenant of Grace since the Apostle assures us that if it be of Works then it is no more Grace otherwise Work is no more Work So that we see the Scripture allows of no such Mixture and shews us 't is impossible that the same Covenant should be so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two such Opposite and Contrary Conditions as Faith and Works And yet this Absurdity all those must of necessity run into that affirm the Sinai Covenant to be a Covenant of Faith Since it is evident and cannot be denied but that Life and Happiness are therein frequently and plainly tendred upon Condition of Doing § 10. But saith Mr. Roberts in this Sinai Covenant those Opposite Conditions of Perfect Doing under pain of Curse and Death and of Believing in Christ are very differently Required and Revealed Believing in Christ is revealed very Sparingly and Obscurely Perfect Doing very frequently and plainly that by the way is well granted But saith he though these two Conditions of Perfect Doing and Believing he thus differently Revealed and Required in the Sinai Covenant yet Believing in Christ unto Life and Reighteousness was therein chiefly and ultimately intended and Perfect Doing only urged in subordination and tendency to Believing And that Believing in Christ unto Righteousness is chiefly and ultimately intended in the Sinai Covenant is plain from Moses himself drawing the Righteousness of Faith from that Covenant Deut. 30. 11 to 15. Compared with Rom. 10. 6 to 11. § 11. Reply But if Believing in Christ unto Life and Righteousness was chiefly and ultimately intended in the Sinai Covenant and Perfect Doing only urged in subordination and tendencie to Believing How comes it to pass that the Apostle doth so directly oppose the Righteousness of that Covenant to the Righteousness of Faith in the forementioned Rom. 10. 5 6. For Moses saith he describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law that the man which doth these things shall live by them But the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise c. in a quite different strain and stile Wherein when he tells us that the Law saith Do this and Live How can it be understood but that his Meaning is that this is the Only Righteousness which the Law requireth in order to Life and Salvation Or this is that which it ultimately intends and no other way doth it propound in order thereunto For otherwise we cannot rationally understand him especially since he doth elsewhere assure us that the Law is not of Faith Gal. 3. 12. The Objection against which from Deut. 30. 11 c. Compared with Rom. 10. 6. c. from whence it is inferred that the Law requireth Faith in Christ in order to Life and Righteousness as well as the Gospel hath been already Answered in the foregoing parts of this Discourse where it hath been plainly proved that the 30th of Deuteronomy is taken up with the Description not of the Covenant at Sinai but of that New and Evangelical Covenant that God intended to Establish with Israel in after-times and is accordingly represented as a quite different Covenant from that at Sinai as plainly appears by the manner of Paul's allegation thereof Rom. 10. 6. And that chiefly for as much as it required faith in Christ in order to Life and Righteousness as the Apostle there interprets it Whereas the Sinai Covenant as both Paul and Moses himself describes it insists on Works onely that the Man which doth these things shall live by them And to say that these two opposite Conditions may be Required in one and the same Sinai Covenant is plainly to Contradict the Apostle who in his Interpretation thereof sets the Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of Faith in direct Opposition the one unto the other as Inconsistent in one and the same Covenant Moses saith be describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law that the Man which doth these things shall live by them But the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise c. If thou shalt believe thou shalt be saved Whereby he would have us plainly to understand that these are two opposite Covenants Whereas had it been his meaning that the Law or Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two such opposite and contrary Conditions he would not have said that the Law requireth one thing and the Righteousness of Faith another But that the Law requireth both And therefore it must of necessity follow that the Apostle speaks of two contrary Covenants requiring two opposite Conditions It being indeed Impossible that one and the same Covenant should be so dispensed § 12. And here by the way it may be observed that though Mr. Baxter as hath been already noted in the foregoing part of this Discourse seems plainly to grant that the Law or Sinai Covenant was no other then a Covenant of Works requiring perfect Obedience as the Condition of Life unto which the Righteousness of Faith or the Gospel Covenant is opposed by the Apostle Rom. 10. 5 6. Which Gospel Covenant he supposeth to be insisted on both in the 29th and 30th Chapters of Deuteronomy and that from both the Apostle draws that Description of the Righteousness of Faith he speaketh of making no difference between the Covenants or Promises mentioned in those two Chapters Mr. Roberts on the other hand we see makes the Sinai Covenant and the Covenant of Faith to be all one For saith he that believing in Christ unto Righteousness is chiefly and ultimately intended in the Sinai Covenant is plain from Moses himself drawing the Righteousness of Faith from that Covenant Deut. 30. 11 to 15. compared with Rom. 10. 6 to 11. So that in thâ—s Respect Mr. Roberts or Mr. Baxter most of necessity be out of the way either the one or the other or both of them For to say as Mr. Baxter doth that though the Righteousness of Faith is by the Apostle opposed unto the Law or Sinai Covenant yet not unto the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. reckoning that in the 30th Chapter to be all one with that in the 29th is widely different from the Truth Since it hath been already plainly proved that the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. is of the same Stamp and Tenour with the Sinai Covenant and that both are Essentially different from the Covenant
oâ— Intended that any should obtain Life and Righteousness by their Personal Obedience to it yet even in this Respect also it was aâ— much a Covenant of Works as that made with our first Parent For God never intended that Adam himself should obtain Life and Righteousness by his Obedience to that Covenant For if he had the purpose or intention of God in that respect must of necessity have been accomplished And accordingly Adam should have stood and Life and Righteousness should that way have been derived unto him and not only unto him but unto all his Off-spring also But it is evident that Man that was in Honour abode not but fell and we all in him and accordingly a New Covenant takes place whereby Life and Righteousness was to be derived both unto him and all his Elect Offspring § 3. So that if that Covenant at Sinai was materially a Cove-of Works though God intended not that Life should be that way derived unto us so it was in respect of Adam's Covenant also For as in the Legal Covenant God doth now plainly tell sinners That the Man that doth these things shall live by them that is if you can perform a steady perfect Obedience Life and Salvation shall be your Reward thus and no otherwise was our first Parent himself dealt withal For this was all the stipulation or agreement that we find God made with him Gen. 2. 16. The Lord God commanded the man saying of every Tree of the Garden thou maist freely eat But of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die Carrying with it an implicite conditional Promise that if he forbore it both Himself and Posterity should live For God never that we can find made any absolute Promise of Life to him only implicit and conditional And since it cannot with any shadow of truth be affirmed that God ever made any absolute Promise of this nature unto him Neither therefore can it be justly affirmed that God ever intended that Life and Righteousness should be conveyed unto him by his Obedience unto that Covenant Nay rather it is clear that God foresaw he would fall and consequently designed that Life and Righteousness should not that way be derived unto HIm or to any of his Offspring From whence it plainly follows the Sinai Covenant was as much a Covenant of Works as that made with our first Parent not only since it is materially the saine but in this respect intentionally also SECT XI BUt whereas it is further objected That if God never since the Fall published the Covenant of Works with a design to justifie any man by it and yet in the Sinai Covenant hath given it materially Considered a Second Edition and Promulgation It must needs follow that it was done in Subserviency to Christ and the Covenant of Grace or done in vain as to the Elect. To set it forth in opposition to the Covenant of Grace can never be imagined To make it a Co-ordinate way of Salvation with Christ is proved impossible Therefore it must be subordinate or not at all there being nothing else left us And this say they the Scriptures fully assert and confirm Rom. 10. 4. Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth Are the End and Means contrariant Or must not the means be always subordinate to the end This is plain and clear Reasoning not easily Answered So Gal. 3. 24. The Law it as our School-master to bring us to Christ that is to bring us to a Conviction of his Necessity as it did Paul Rom. 7. after Christ was come and thousands more since Paul Again Gal. 3. 23. It shut us up to Christ or Faith as our only Remedy This was and still is its use and design and will be so to the end to all that come to Christ As to others it hath another end even to Judge and Condemn them that continue under it as a Covenant of Works Rom. 2. 12. But to Believers it is subservient to Christ both to bring them to him at first and regulate their Lives as a Moral Rule ever after And therefore the two Tables are put into the Ark Heb. 9. 4. to shew their subserviencie to him and in this sense its consistence with him § 2. For Answer whereunto We do indeed acknowledge the subserviencie of the Law to Christ and the Covenant of Grace in which respect it is also true That the Means is not Contrariant to the End but is always subordinate thereunto But it doth not therefore follow that the Law is a Covenant of gospel-Gospel-Grace for that is the only Point we are Contending about or Enquiring after It hath indeed a plain subserviencie or subordination thereunto as Hagar the type of the Bondage Covenant had unto Sarah the type of the Gospel Covenant But yet neither is the Handmaid the Mistress nor the Mistress the Handmaid These two are still distinct The Law is not the Gospel nor the Gospel the Law And therefore though the one of them is plainly subservient to the other yet they ought not to be mixed â—â—ended or confounded the one with the other as if they were but one and the same Covenant and no difference to be made between them only in respect of the Different Degrees of the Discovery of Gospel Grace as hath been suggested § 3. 'T is true the Law is appointed as our School-master to Christ for so the words run in the Original Text as your selves have acknowledged that is to shew us the Nature of Sin together with the Holiness and Righteousness of God's Nature and Being to Convince us of our Sin and Misery without Christ and our Necessity therefore of a Saviour And in all these respects it hath Indeed a plain subserviency to drive us to Christ and to induce us to fly with the more earnestness to lay hold upon New-Covenant-Grace wherein Christ is plainly exhibited unto us for our Relief But then it doth not therefore follow that the Law it self is subserviently a Covenant of gospel-Gospel-Grace or that it is such for the substance of it as both Mr. Sedgwick Mr. Roberts and many other worthy Divines affirm it is A subserviency in any thing to promote the Ends of something else doth not make it to be the thing it self the Ends whereof are promoted thereby The temptations of Satan and the persecutions of Wicked Men have a plain subserviency and that by God's own appointment through his Over-ruling Providence to promote the Ends of the Covenant of Grace and to make us fly the more earnestly thereunto for Succour yet it would be too absurd to affirm that either of these are the Covenant of Grace or subserviently such So it is in our present Case For though the Law is in it self against us and contrary to us as being a Ministration of Death and Condemnation as the Apostle witnesses it is
in which respect the Legal Covenant is directly opposite to the gospel-Gospel-Covenant as in our 23d Argument following is more plainly and particularly demonstrated yet through the over-ruling Grace and Mercy of God the Law with all its thundring Curses and Menacies upon every Transgression and Disobedience instead of destroying us it is converted to a notable subserviency toward our Everlasting Comfort by forcing us with the more speed to Christ and the Covenant of Grace for Relief and Succour So as that out of the Eater comes Meat and out of the strong Sweetness But shall we say therefore that the Law it self is a Covenant of gospel-Gospel-Grace which is constantly in the Scripture represented unto us as quite another thing because it hath a subserviency to drive us thither for shelter § 4. So that to allow that there is indeed a subserviency in the Law to drive us to Jesus Christ and the Covenant of Grace for Succour and yet to deny that the Law it self is therefore a Covenant of Grace is Harmonious enough and implies no Contradiction at all as it hath been suggested it doth for as much as it is impossible and therefore it must rather of necessity be a plain contradiction on the other hand to affirm that any thing can be subservient to the Ends of another and at the same time to be the same thing it self which it is thus subservient unto For if it be the same how is it subservient to something else as to another The Law therefore being a Distinct Covenant from the Gospel it must of necessity be a Covenant of Works unless we shall say there are two Covenants of gospel-Gospel-Grace the one perfect the other faulty the one to endure for ever the other to be Repealed and Blotted out as being against us and contrary to us a Ministration of Death and Condemnation as the Legal Covenant hath been proved to be which in any sence can never be applied to the Covenant of Grace according to the Scripture Dialect § 5. It is certain therefore as hath been before hinted that the Law shuts us up to Christ or Faith as our only Remedy and indeed this was and still is its use and design and will be so to the end to all that come to Christ that is it precludes or shuts us up from all other ways and Expectations of Comfort by shewing us our utter incapacity to attain unto Life by our own Righteousness and therefore forces us if ever we will be saved to have recourse to the only Remedy Accordingly the two Tables were put into the Ark Heb. 9. 4. to shew their subserviency to Christ and in this sense its consistence with him typically demonstrating that though the Covenant of Works could not be kept or performed by us yet it should be perfectly fulfilled in Christ for us In which respect he is said to be the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth But then it doth not therefore follow that the Law that thus shuts us up is the Remedy it self or that the School-masters-Rod that drives us to Christ is Christ himself or the Covenant of Grace it self since the Means cannot be the End nor the end the Means though the Means is indeed subservient or subordinate thereunto SECT XII BUT then we are also told That the Intention and Design of God in the Promulgation of the Law at Sinai was fatally mistaken by the Jews and perverted to a quite contrary end namely to obtain Righteousness by their own Works of Obedience to it and so to slight and oppose the Righteousness of Christ not considering that Christ was the end or scope of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth Nor that the Law was their School-master to convince them of Sin and Impotency and so drive them to Christ their only Remedy Now this mistake of God's Intention in giving the Law is the true Reason and Ground of those Seeming Contradictions which we find in the New-Testament For when the Apostle speaks of the Law according to the true end and use of it which God designed it for then he magnifies the Law and calls it Holy Just and Good a Spiritual Law a Good Law Our School-master to Christ tells us that Christ is the end of it for Righteousness to every one that believeth With many more high Encomiums of its Excellency and Usefulness But when he considers it as perverted by men and reduced again to its Primitive Intention to give Life and Righteousness by our Obedience to it then he as much decries and thunders against it calling it a Ministration of Death and Condemnation a weak and beggarly thing with many other Notes of Disparagement Nor can it be enough decried when instead of Subordination it 's put in Competition yea in Opposition to Christ And that this is no Fiction or Groundless Distinction which Obscures and Confounds Law and Gospel appears not only by the Impossibility of Reconciling the Apostle with himself but by this means As also by that plain Text in which it is grounded Rom. 10. 3 4. And 1 Tim. 1. 8. The Law is good if a Man use it lawfully That is i'ts good or bad according to the use men make of i◠If they take it according to those Excellent Ends for which God Promulged it viz. to prepare them by Convictions for Christ And afterward when in him as a moral Rule of Duty and Obedience then it is Good and Excellent But if it be made the Ground and Matter of our Righteousness and so set in opposition to Christ then nothing more fatal and pernitious So that this Distinction is the Apostles own Distinction given us as a Key to open this Controversie by § 2. Reply But can weindeed think that when the Apostle thunders as he doth against the Law Calling it a Ministration of Diatb and Condemnation a weak and beggarly thing that which was against us contrary to us and that which is therefore now blotted out and taken out of the way being nailed to the Cross of Christ c. That he utter◠and declares all this only because men had perverted the Law and reduced it as they thought to its Primitive Intention to give Life and Righteousness by their Obedience to it 'T is true the Jews did plainly pervert and misunderstood God's Design and Intention in giving the Law as a Covenant of Works unto them which was not that any Person whatsoever should ever attain unto Life and Righteousness thereby but only to Convince them of their Necessity of a Saviour But doth it therefore follow that all those thundring Expressions before mentioned concerning the Law were uttered by the Apostle only because the Jews had perverted it Doth not Moses himself call it a Fiery Law that proceeded from God's right Hand Deut. 33. 2. And doth not God himself pronounce a Curse upon every one that continueth not in all things therein contained to do them Deut. 27. 26 Gal.
in God that he will have to do with Men at any Rate yet that the Covenant from Mount Sinai was in any Sense or is by vertue of any proper Scripture Distinction to be understood as a Covenant of Gospel Grace whereof Christ alone is the Mediator This is that which for all those forementioned Reasons we utterly deny And this is the Point the onely Point which in the beginning of this Discourse we undertook to disprove And that as being of no small Consequence to the Church of God For upon this Hypothesis or Supposition That the Covenant at Sinai was indeed a Covenant of Grace or a Gospel Covenant for any other Notion of it will not serve the turn and consequently that the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9. is of the same Nature the greatest part of the most plausible Arguments for the support of Infants Baptism are founded But if we have or câ—â— substantially prove that neither of these forementioned Covenants were Gospel Covenants no wonder if we make an Answerable Improvement thereof in its proper place by way of opposition to the forementioned Practice § 6 As for the Scripture before alledged 1 Tim. 1. 8. We know that the Law is good if a Man use it Lawfully It is indeed highly observable For as much as there is a Lawful as well as an unlawful use that Men may make thereof that is if we make use of it as the Rule of our Obedience then we make that Right Just Proper and Lawful use thereof which God requires For we know that in this Respect we are still under the Law to Christ And in this Respect it is true enough as the Apostle tells us that thâ— Law is Holy Just and Good For there is therein a Spiritual Discovery of the Holiness and Righteousness of Gods Nature and Being whose Image must be Ingraven upon us if ever we arrive unto true Blessedness But if we Preach it up or endeavour to Establish it as a Covenant of Life or as a Covenant of Faith and Grace which are Equipollent terms Let us distinguish as we please between a Covenant of Grace Absolutely and subserviently such and consequently are desirous in that Respect to be under it as the Apostle tells the Gallatians and which we cannot avoid if we reckon it to be a Covenant of Grace then according to the Apostles plain Scope in the whole Epistles to the Romans and Gallatians instead of using it lawfully we make an unlawful use thereof by perverting it to such a service as God never Intended it for And are guilty of mingling Law and Gospel together Life and Death and as we have said before a Ministration of Condemnation with that of Righteousness and Peace which would be no other than to overthrow both the Law and Gospel And this is the Apostles own Distinction given us as a Key to open this Controversie by Gal. 1. 6 7. SECT XIII BUT whereas it is yet further Objected That after this Rate both Moses and Abraham and all the Old Testament Saints were under two contrary Covenants at one and the same time from whence many Absurdites do follow As to this we dare not Impeach or Controle Infinite Wisdom We have onely declared plain matter of Fact so far as the Scriptures themselves do inform us For therein it is Evident as hath been already proved that both Moses and the whole Body of that People of Israel in the Wildernest were under the forementioned Covenant from Mount Sinai and that expresly as the Covenant which the Lord Commanded them to perform Deut. 4. 13. And that under the severest Penalties of a dreadful Curse upon every one that Confirmed not all the Words of this Law to do them unto which all the People were to say Amen Deut. 27. 26. This Covenant therefore they were absolutely under as being expresly made both with Moses and the whole Body of the Children of Israel without Exception of any Exod. 34. 27. which we have already argued at large could be no other than a Covenant of Works A Ministration of Death and Condemnation A hand writing of Ordinances that was against us contrary to us And therefore now Blotted out and taken out of the way being Nailed to the Cross of Christ When yet it is also as Evident from the same Holy Scriptures of Truth That at the same time both Moses and all the Elect among that People were under a pure Covenant of Gospel Grace as we have already proved when the Lord told Moses that he had found Grace in his Sight and that he knew him by Name and would make all his Goodness to pass before him and would Proclaim the Name of the Lord before him Saying I will be Gracious to whom I will be Gracious And I will shew Mercy to whom I will shew Mercy And when accordingly the Lord descended in the Cloud and stood with Moses there And Proclaimed the Name of the Lord The Lord God Merciful and Gracious Long-suffering and Abundant in Goodness and in Truth keeping Mercy for Thousands forgiving Iniquity Transgression and Sin Now we have already proved that these were two Distinct Covenants The one made with Moses and the whole Body of that People The other with Moses and those that were Elected among them onely And if these were two contrary Covenants and in themselves just opposite the one unto the other of them â—s indeed they were we have nothing to say but to Conclude with the Apostle in another case concerning the Call of the Gentiles and Rejection of the Jews that were once Gods onely Beloved People to whom pertained the Adoption and the Glory and the Covenants and the giving of the Law and the Service of God and the Promises O the depth of the Riches both of the Wisdom and Knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his Judgments and his Ways pâ—st finding â—ut Rom. 11. 33 34. § 2. However though 't is true New Testament Saints are absolutely freed from the Law as a Covenant of Works by the Sacrifice of Christ yet it is Evident that during the time thereunto appointed by the Father those before were under the Power and Tyranny thereof notwithstanding those Discoveries of Gospel Grace that were otherwise Revealed unto them To this purpose the Apostle tells us Expresly Gal. 3. 23. c. Before Faith came we saith he that is we Jews not we Gentiles for thess passages agree not with the Gentiles at all but we Jews were kept under the Law shut up unto the Faith which should afterward be revealed â—or as he had said before The Law was added because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise 〈◊〉 made Wherefore the Law was our School-master to Christ that we might be Justified by Faith But after that Faith is come we are no longer under a School-master So again Chap. 4. 1 2 3. c. Now I say that the Heir as long as he is a Child
may be made in or Additions unto the Dispensation of the First Covenant so long as this Rule is retained Do this and Live it is still the same Covenant for the Substance and Essence of it Arg. 3. Those Covenants which vastly differ in the Priviledges contained in them are not just the same but far different Covenants But so doth the Covenant with Adam and that with Israel differ In Adam 's Covenant no Pardon was admitted or accepted upon Repentance But so it is in Moses Covenant God proclaimed himself at the Promulgation of it a Sin Pardoning God Exod. 34. And promiseth Pardon on Repentance for the Breach of it Lev. 26. from vers 40. to vers 46. If you say this was the Covenant with Abraham not with Moses then Abraham's Covenant was the Covenant of Grace But see vers 46. and all is ended Reply The Answer we have returned to the foregoing Argument may very well serve for this also For if the Sinai Covenant which was delivered by Gods own immediate Mouth and Voice and which was also written with God's own Finger upon the two Tables of Stone was not dedicated with Blood and Sprinkling which shewed Remission of Sins as the Ceremonial Covenant was then it plainly follows that in this respect also there is no difference between this and the Covenant made with Adam For if in Adams Covenant no Pardon of Sin was admitted or accepted upon Repentance as wanting that which shewed the Expiation thereof so it was in this But whereas you say that at the Promulgation of Moses Covenant God proclaimed himself a Sin Pardoning God Exod. 34. We freely acknowledge he did so for else none had been saved But then we have also proved that the Covenant of Grace there mentioned was vastly distinct and essencially different from that mentioned Exod. 20. The one being made with Moses and the Elect only the other with the whole Body of the Congregation of Israel And not only were they two distinct Covenants in respect of their different Subjects but in respect of their vastly different nature also For though the Covenant or Promises mentioned in the 33d and 34th Chapters of Exodus expresly declared God to be a Sin Pardoning God A God Merciful and Gratious forgiving Iniquity Transgression and Sin yet there is nothing that can be more evident than this that the other discovered no such thing but rather the contrary The Jewish Legal Covenant saith Dr. Annesley neither admitted of Faith in the Redeemer nor Repentance of Sin For Pardon of Sin and Curse for Sin are inconsistent Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse For it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them As many as depend upon the Works of the Law for Justification are under the Curse And the Law discovered no other way of Justification but by Works Morn Exercise p. 122. § 2. But say you God promiseth Pardon on Repentance for the Breach of Moses Covenant Lev. 26. 40 c. And say we so he did in respect of Adam's Covenant for otherwise we had all been undone for ever But as Adam's Covenant promised no Pardon on Repentance so neither did the Jewish Legal Covenant For indeed it rather threatens and inflicts the contrary viz. a dreadful Curse upon every Transgression and Disobedience and as the Doct. well observes admits of no Repentance For as it is evident that the Law written in Stones neither discovered nor admits of any such thing So as for the Ceremonial Covenant it self the Apostle expresly tells us Heb. 9. 9. that the Sacrifices thereof could not make him that did the Service perfect as pertaining to the Conscience For saith he Chap. 10. 1 4. the the Law having a shadow of good things to come and not the very Image of the things can never with those Sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the Comers thereunto perfect For it is not possible that the Blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away Sins Other Covenants 't is true there were wherein God plainly discovered the mercifulness of his nature in that respect And among the rest the Covenant made with Abraham which in the forementioned Lev. 26. God doth plainly direct them to for their Relief But say you if you say This was the Covenant with Abraham not with Moses then Abraham's Covenant was the Covenant of Grace But yet say we neither will this do the business you alledge it for For having diligently examined Lev. 26. 40 c. We find recorded to this purpose that in the latter days after that the People of Israel should have been scattered into all Nations and had all sorts of Plagues inflicted on them for their sins If saith God they shall confess their sins and the iniquities of their Fathers c. Then will I remember my Covenant with Jacob and also my Covenant with Isaac and also my Covenant with Abraham will I Remember From whence First It may be plainly collected that there was no Pardon to be expected by them from the Sinai Covenant For God doth not direct them to apply themselves thither for Relief nor doth he in the least suggest that that way any thing of Pardon could be justly expected by them But he directs them rather to have recourse unto the Covenant made with Abraham Isaac and Jacob for that is the Covenant saith God that I will Remember And Secondly It ought also to be duly observed that though the Covenant of Circumcision which God made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. was indeed of the same nature with the Sinai Covenant as we have already proved yet it is evident that God had long before the Covenant of Circumcision was in being entred into a Covenant of Grace or a Covenant that was truly Evangelical with Believing Abraham wherein God freely promised That in him that is in his Seed all the Nations of the earth should be blessed Gen. 12. 2 3. And accordingly this is the Covenant that Peter directs the Bleeding Jews unto in his time Act. 3. 25. Ye are the Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers saying unto Abraham and in thy Seed shall all the Kindreds of the Earth be blessed Which free Gospel Promise doth plainly comprehend both Jews and Gentiles And this therefore undoubtedly is the Covenant that God tells them in Leviticus he will Remember for the future Comfort of Distressed and dispersed Israel For as Peter refers the Jews thereunto and unto that alone so this very Covenant and that in these very terms had not onely been made with Abraham but as God here speaks with Isaac Gen. 24. 4. and with Jacob also Gen. 28. 14. Whereas the Covenant of Circumcision had not been so Renewed or Repeated And therefore this must be the onely Covenant that God here speaks of And whereas God
tells them Vers 45. That he would for their sakes remember the Covenant of their Ancestors whom he brought forth out of the Land of Egypt This must of necessity have Reference either to the forementioned Covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob Or the Promises mentioned Exod. 33. 34. And cannot possibly have any Reference to the Sinai Covenant For that was a Bondage Covenant Gal. 4. 21 22 c. A Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 7 8 9. Against us and contrary to us And therefore now Blotted out Col. 2. 14. And is accordingly by Moses himself represented as a fiery Law that Proceeded from Gods Right Hand Deut. 33. â—â— So that that could not possibly yield any comfort unto them Whereas the forementioned Covenants did plainly give them hopes of Relief and Pardon But say you see Vers 46. and all is ended We have therefore accordingly Examined that Text But cannot discern that it speaks any thing by way of opposition to what we have Asserted For thus run the words These are the Statutes and Judgments and Laws which the Lord made between him and the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai by the Hand of Moses which can have no other Sense than this That this being the last Verse of the last Chapte save one of Leviticus wherein the Statutes and Judgments or the several branches of the Ceremonial Law had been particularly Rehearsed unto them These words in this 46th Verse contains therefore onely the general Sum thereof So that we cannot discern that it makes off or on as to the present Argument Arg. 4. The Fourth and last Argument runs thus Those Covenants which have Seals annexed of vastly different Nature are not Absolutely or just the same but widely different Covenants But so have these two Covenants Ergo not the same The Tree of Life was the onely Sacrament Annext to the first but the Passover and Circumcision to the last Both holding forth Christ and Salvation by him The first a plain Type of Christ in the Paschal Lamb. The other a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Reply First as to what concerns the Tree of Life which you say was the onely Sacrament annext to Adams Covenant That it was either a Sacrament or a Seal annext to that Covenant the Scripture gives us no Account thereof that we can find And as the Passover and Circumcision which you make to be the Seals of the Sinai Covenant the Scripture is as silent even in that Respect also As for the Passover it was indeed as you say a plain Type of Christ as many other things then were But we do not find that it is ever called a Seal of the Sinai Covenant Nor do we find that Circumcision is ever called the Seal thereof It is indeed called a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith that Abraham had yet being uncircumcized Rom. 4. 11. But the same Apostle expresly tells us Gal. 3. 12. That the Law is not of Faith And if the Law is not of Faith then neither can it be a Covenant of Faith And then it doth also as plainly follow that Circumcision which is by the Apostle termed a Seal of the Righteousness of Abrahams Faith could not be the Seal thereof And in this Respect therefore it is highly observable That though Circumcision is frequently called a Token of the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8 9. to the generality that were under it yet the Scripture no where tells us That it was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith but unto Abraham onely For indeed none else had ever before or after their Circumcision such a Faith that Entituled them to such Singular Promises and Prerogatives as Abraham had But of this we have already said so much toward the Resolution of the present Point in the Seventh Branch of our Answer to the Eleventh Objection in the Second Part of this Discourse foregoing and have yet so much to say in what follows where we shall have a further occasion purposely to handle this Argument that we shall need to say the less of it here SECT XV. FOR a Conclusion of the present Point we shall onely Collect the sum of the foregoing Arguments already Insisted on proving that the Legal Covenant was not a Covenant of Faith But was indeed and in truth no other than a Covenant of Works For First That Covenant that is not of Faith cannot possibly be a Covenant of Faith But the Apostle doth expresly affirm that the Law is not of Faith Gal. 3. 11 12. Therefore neither can it be a Covenant of Faith Secondly That Covenant which is now Repealed could not be a Covenant of Faith But the Apostle doth plainly affirm that the first Covenant for the faultiness thereof is now Repealed Heb. 8. 7 13. 2 Cor. 3. 7 11. Col. 2. 14. Heb. 7. 18. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Faith Thirdly That Covenant that could not give Life could not be a Covenant of Faith But the Law could not give Life Gal. 3. 21. 22. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Faith Fourthly That Covenant that is opposed to the Covenant of Faith as quite another thing could not be a Covenant of Faith But the School-mastership of the Law is by the Apostle plainly opposed and contradistinguished unto the Covenant of Faith as quite another thing Gal. 3. 23 24 25. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Faith Fifthly That Covenant the Righteousness whereof is opposed to the Righteousness of Faith cannot be a Covenant of Faith But the Righteousness of the Law is plainly by the Apostle opposed to the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 10. 5 6 c. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Faith Sixthly That Covenant that could never Justifie any that were under it could never be a Covenant of Faith For being Justified by Faith we have Peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Rom. 5. 1. But the Scripture doth expresly Testifie That by the Deeds of the Law there shall no Flesh be Justified in his Sight Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith Seventhly That Covenant under which though many were Justified yet none were ever Justified by it or by vertue of it could never be a Covenant of Faith But such is the Nature of the Law that though many were Justified under it yet none were ever Justified by it or by Vertue of it Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith Eighthly That Covenant that saith Do this and Live Or that the Man that doth these things shall Live by them cannot possibly be a Covenant of gospel-Gospel-Grace but of Works Since the Apostle Informs us That to him that worketh is the Reward reckoned not of Grace but of Debt Rom. 4. 4. But the same Apostle doth expresly tell us That Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man which doth these things shall live by them Rom. 10. 5.
Therefore that Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works Ninthly That Covenant that is plainly and in direct terms opposed unto Grace cannot be a Covenant of Grace But the Law is by the Apostle directly opposed unto Grace Rom. 6. 14. Sin shall not have Dominion over you For ye are not under the Law but under Grace Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Grace Tenthly That Covenant that was not onely by the Jews Estimated as a Covenant of Works but was so by Gods own Appointment must needs be a Covenant of Works But the Law was not onely by the Jews so Reckoned but by Gods own Appointment it was expresly so designed Lev. 18. 4 5. Deut. 27. 26. Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 10 12. Therefore that Covenant must needs be a Covenant of Works Eleventhly That Covenant through which Abrahams Inheritance was not derived could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle doth expresly tell us That if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise But God gave it to Abraham by Promise Gal. 3. 18. Therefore the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twelfthly That Covenant through which had the Inheritance been conveyed would have made void Faith and made the Promise of none effect could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith But the Apostle doth expresly tell us That if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise made of none effect Rom. 4. 14. Therefore the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith Thirteenthly That Covenant from the Curse whereof we were Redeemed by Christ could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works But the Apostle Informs us That Christ hath Redeemed us from the Curse of the Law himself being made a Curse for us Gal. 3. 13. chap. 4. 4 5. Therefore the Law could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Fourteenthly That Covenant that is set forth by the Apostle as a Ministration of Death and Condemnation could be no other than a Covenant of Works But the Apostle doth assure us that the Law Written in Stones was a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 7 9. Therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works Fifteenthly That Covenant in which 〈◊〉 the Hand writing of Ordinances contained was against us and contrary to us which is therefore now Blotted out and taken out of the way being Nailed to the Cross of Christ could be no other than a Covenant of Works But such is the Nature of the Law Col. 2. 14. 2 Cor. 3. 6 7 8 9. Therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works Sixteenthly That Covenant which when it comes Revives Sin and kills the Sinner And which though it was Ordained to Life is by Experience found to be unto Death could not be a Covenant of Grace But Paul doth expresly tell us That when the Commandment came Sin Revived and he died And the Commandment which was Ordained to Life he found to be unto Death Rom. 7. 9 10. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Seventeenthly That Covenant that is a Bondage Covenant which gendereth to Bondage all whose Children also are in Bondage cannot possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle doth Expresly Inform us that Mount Sinai Covenant is a Bondage Covenant that is gendereth to Bondage and that her Children also are in Bondage Gal. 4. 21 22 23 24 26. Therefore Mount Sinai Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works Eighteenthly That Covenant that admitted not of Faith in the Redeemer nor Repentance of Sin Since Pardon of Sin and Curse for Sin are Inconsistent could not be a Covenant of Grace But the Scripture doth expresly assure us That as many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse For it is Written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Nineteenthly That Covenant that had not Christ for the Mediator of it could never be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle speaking of the Legal Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai tells us That Christ hath obtained a more Excellent Ministry by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant which was Established upon better Promises Heb. 8. 6 7 8. 9. From whence it plainly follows that Christ was not the Mediator of the Legal Covenant Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twentiethly That Covenant that was not Confirmed by the Blood of Christ which alone can cleanse us from all unrighteousness but onely by the Bloud of Bulls and Goats and Calves and the Ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean which onely Sanctified to the Purifying of the Flesh and could never take away Sins nor make him that did the Service perfect as pertaining to the Conscience could not be a Covenant of Faith But the Ceremonial Law was of this Nature and the Sacrifices thereof wherewith alone it was Dedicated Heb. 9. 9 10. 11 12 13 14. Chap. 10. 1 2 3 4 c. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twenty first That Covenant that was not confirmed by the Bloud of Christ No nor so much as by the Bloud of Bulls or Goats or Calves which was plainly Typical thereof could never be a Covenant of Grace but of Works But the Law Written in Stones was so far from being confirmed by the Bloud of Christ that it was never that we read of Dedicated with any other sort of Bloud whatsoever Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Twenty second That Covenant that is Represented to us in the Scripture as a Fiery Burning Law the Proclamation also whereof was attended with dreadful Thunderings and Lightenings with Blackness and Darkness and Tempest And such a Voice of Words as could not be endured which made Moses himself exceedingly to quake and tremble could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But such was the Nature and Quality of the Legal Covenant at Mount Sinai Exod. 20. 18. 19. Deut. 33. 2. Heb. 12. 18 19 20 21. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twenty third That Covenant that is just opposite to the Gospel Covenant which the Scripture represents unto us as a Covenant of Peace and Liberty making a Joyful found and speaking with a small still comfortable and alluring Voice in the Ears and to the Hearts of Sinners that hath also Jesus for the Mediator thereof and speaketh better things than the Bloud of Abel Proclaiming the Lord the Lord God Gracious and Merciful Abundant in Goodness and in Truth forgiving Iniquity
Transgression and Sin That Covenant can never be a Covenant of Grace but of Works But the Legal Covenant is plainly in Scripture opposed unto the Gospel Covenant in all these Respects Heb. 12. from the 18th to the 24th Gal. 3. 10 11 12 13 14. Gal. 4. 21 c. Therefore the Legal Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Works § So that notwithstanding all the most plausible Arguments which are usually urged by way of opposition to what we have now Asserted unless we must shut our Eyes there can be nothing more plain than this That the Law given by Moses to the Seed of Abraham at Mount Sinai instead of being a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus or a Covenant of Gospel Grace as many Divines famous for Learning and Piety do confidently affirm it is was no other than a Covenant of Works and that which is therefore now done away 2 Cor. 3. 7 8 9 11. Col. 2. 14. Heb. 8. 7 13. From whence it plainly and undeniably follows that the Covenant of Circumcision mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. which God there promised to Establish betwixt Himself Abraham and his Seed after him in their Generations being the same thing and of the same nature as hath been already proved is therefore now also Repealed and done away therewith Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 3 4 5. Col. 2. 14. And consequently all the Arguments thence deduced howsoever or by whomsoever formed for the support of Infants Baptism do of themselves vanish THE FIFTH PART Containing a Description of that truly Evangelical Covenant God was pleased to make with Believing Abraham Wherein lies the Sum of the Everlasting Gospel then Preached unto him since Proclaimed by the Apostles and which now remains to be yet further Published unto all Nations for the Obedience of Faith Rom. 16. 25 26. Rev. 14. 6 7 Wherein the true Nature and Difference betwixt the two Covenants that of Works and that of Grace is further Explained Rev. 11. 19. And the Temple of God was opened in Heaven and there was seen in his Temple the Ark of his Testament and there were Lightnings and Voices and Thundrings and an Earth-quake and Great Hail SECT I. § 1. BUT though the Covenant of Circumcision which God was pleased to make with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. was no other than a Covenant of Works as the Covenant at Sinai was and are both therefore now done away yet as we have already declared it is evident and undeniable that God was also pleased to enter into a Covenant of Grace with Believing Abraham even such a Covenant as was purely Evengelical and that which never shall be abolished And it is also as evident that this Gospel Covenant had been Established and Preached unto Abraham long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him For both Abraham and all true Believers in that Age were in the Covenant of Grace long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made and would have been so if that had never been which Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant which God was thus pleased to make with Believing Abraham is indeed the great Charter by which the Believing Gentiles always did and do claim Heaven and Earth and all the Promises they have title to For in this respect it is that the Apostle tells us as he doth Gal. 3. 8. That the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through Faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying in thee shall all Nations be Blessed Which he quoteth not from Gen. 17. 7 8. but from Gen. 12. 2 3. Where before Abraham's removal out of his own Country and therefore long before the Covenant of Circumcision was in being God enters into a solemn Covenant with Abraham saying I will make of thee a great Nation and I will bless thee and make thy Name great and thou shalt be a Blessing And I will Bless them that Bless thee and Curse him that Curseth thee and in thee shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed § 2. If we are to seek therefore of the Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham which is the Great Charter of the Gentiles hope behold and see lo here it is a Covenant of Grace indeed A Covenant truly Evangelical as being every way Extensive Full Free Absolute and without those Conditions that the Covenant of Circumcision was manifestly clogged withal And therefore called the Covenant of Promise in the forementioned 3d of the Galatians for having told us vers 8. of the Promise that God had made unto Abraham that in Him should all Nations be Blessed And having also told us vers 14. 16. that the blessing of Abraham was to come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ that we might receive the Promise of the Spirit through Faith He adds vers 17 18. And this I say that the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430 years after cannot disanul that it should make the Promise of none Effect For if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise Which clearly argues the Absoluteness of this Gospel Covenant For if it had not been Free and Absolute but Conditional as the Covenant of Circumcision was and as the Legal Covenant at Mount Sinai was then according to the Scope of the Apostles Reasoning it had not properly been a Covenant of Promise but a Legal Covenant and so the Inheritance had been of the Law For wherein differs the Law from a free Promise but that the one is Conditional the other Absolute The one promiseth Life upon condition of Obedience the other without Mony and without Price Isa 55. 1. And therefore the Covenant which God made with the Israelites at Mount Sinai though it had many Glorious Promises in it that God would be their God and they should be his peculiar People and Treasure c. Yet these Promises being clogged with Conditions of Obedience impossible to be performed That Covenant therefore is never presented to us in the Scripture under the Notion or Denomination of a Covenant of Promise but under the Denomination of the Law or as a Covenant of Works only For Moses saith the Apostle describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the man that doth these things shall live by them Rom. 10. 5 And so likewise Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse For it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law to do them And vers 12. The Law is not of Faith but the man that doth them shall live in them And for the same Reason therefore is the Covenant of Circumcision represented to us also under the same Denomination of the Law Rom. 4. 13. as shall be afterward shewn because though it is true it had Promises in it that were
small Dissention among them For to this same purpose he expresly tells the Galatians Chap. 5. 2 3 4. Behold I Paul say unto you That if you be Circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie again to every man that is Circumcised That he is a Debtor to do the whole Law Christ is become of no Effect unto you whosoever of you are justified by the Law you are fallen from Grace From whence as we may clearly discern the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision that it was no other than a Covenant of Works or a Legal Covenant which he doth herein so plainly declare unto them to be now Repealed So it doth as plainly appear that from hence it came to pass that Christ became so great an Offence unto the Jews and the Gospel so sore a Stone of Stumbling and Rock of Offence unto them all yea to many of them after they had submitted to the Gospel Yea the Gentile-Churches themselves were scarce if at all preserved from stumbling hereat with the Jews as appears from what the Apostle writes to the Galatians upon this Subject though all this loss and change of State and Priviledges which they so much repined at well considered would amount to no more than what befalls a man who from the Priviledges of a Servant is Invested into the Priviledges of a Son And this was the very Case Gal. 4. 4. God hath sent forth his Son c. vers 5. to Redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons vers 7. Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Son as hath been before at large explained Neither indeed doth the present Alteration or Change of State occasion any Real or Substantial Loss unto the Children of Believers any more than to themselves but much of Spiritual Advantage rather to both as hath been already discovered in the foregoing part of this Discourse § 2. And indeed what needed the Jews to have been so much startled or offended at the Abollishing of Circumcision as they were if they had not plainly discerned that it toucht their Main Copy hold or the Covenant it self they so much Gloried in and Boasted of Mat. 3. 9. Joh. 8. 33. to which Circumcision was annexed and that the taking away of the One was a plain Sign of the Abrogation of the Other also Else they had no Pretence or Shadow of Reason to make the Clamours they did For if they had understood that the Covenant it self had remained entire and only the Signs changed Or had Paul told them their Children should be Baptized and that Baptism was come into the room of Circumcision which had been absolutely necessary if it had been so In all likelihood they had quietly submitted to the present Alteration But this was plainly therefore the ground of their Quarrel for that the Covenant it self was now broken down which they could not but understand by the Removal of the very Sign and Token thereof from whence they could not but conclude that their so long enjoyed Priviledge of Church-membership for themselves and Children also upon the bare account that Abraham was their Father was now Abollished Mat. 3. 9. SECT XI MOreover That the Gospel Covenant before mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. and Gen. 22. 16 17 18. is the only ground of the Gentiles hope and indeed of the Jews also The Apostle Peter likewise doth plainly declare unto us when he tells the Jews that were pricked in their Hearts for their Crucifying of Christ as he doth Acts 2. 38 39. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins and you shall Receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost For the Promise is unto you and to your Children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God sholl call Where by the Promise unto them and to their Children we are not to understand the Covenant of Circumcision For though God did therein promise to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed which was indeed a most Blessed and Comfortable Promise in it self considered and contains in it the Sum of all our Blessedness But how should they come at it It is senced about with a Flaming Sword or a Fiery Burning Law that turneth every Way to keep the Way to the Tree of Life To insist therefore upon that Covenant or that Promise as it is thus Bounded will afford no Relief For according to that Covenant they must be Circumcised and keep the Whole Law Act. 15. 1. 5. Gal. 5. 3. which is impossible to be performed Gal. 3. 10 11 12. And therefore how Sweet or Full or Glorious soever the Promise is in it self Considered yet it is impossible bounded as it is that ever they should come to obtain the Benefit of it Which therefore could be no Proper Remedy for the Ease of their present Misery or the Removal of their present Perplexity And therefore instead of directing them to that Covenant he plainly directs them to another full of Grace and Truth even the Gospel Covenant before-mentioned For the Promise saith he is unto you and to your Children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call Plainly pointing to the Covenant which God made with Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. long before the Covenant of Circumcision was in being and which was afterward renewed unto him Gen. 22. 16 17 18. Even that Ratified Covenant That Free and Absolute Covenant which had been confirmed both by Word and Oath that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie there might be strong Consolation afforded unto all the Heirs of Promise And that this is the Covenant that he directs them to and not the Covenant of Circumcision is evident from the words themselves For the Promise he speaks of was not only unto them and to their Children But unto all that are afar off as Paul tells the Ephesians Chap. 2. 12. Even unto the Gentiles also as many as the Lord our God shall call Which Promise unto the Gentiles is not to be found in the Covenant of Circumcision For that was made unto Abraham and his Natural Posterity only whereby they were Obliged unto Circumcision and to keep the whole Law and not a word of the Gentiles there For it is plain that as God there promiseth to be a God unto Abraham and to his Seed So the same Seed that are concerned in the Promises there mentioned were also Commanded to be Circumcised Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations vers 9. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee Every man-child among you shall be Circumcised Gen. 17. 10. The same Seed therefore that is the Subject of the Promises vers 7 8. is the Subject of the Obligation vers 9 10. So that it is evident that the
Gentiles are not at all concerned in that Covenant as being no way concerned in Circumcision the Condition thereof The Promise therefore that Peter intends must needs be the Free Promise or the Gospel Covenant before mentioned Whereof as Christ is the Alone and Only Mediator So he is also the only Seed therein immediately concerned From and by whom all Gospel Blessings must be derived unto all his Spiritual Offspring And in this Covenant the Gentiles are indeed concerned as well as the Jews For therein all the Kindreds Families and Nations of the Earth are promised to be Blessed even in Christ the Promised Seed And therefore well might the Apostle tell them as he doth That the Promise he now spake of to them was not only to them and to their Children but to all that were afar off also even as many as the Lord our God shall call For so Paul tells the Galatians also That Christ hath Redeemed us from the Curse of the Law that the Blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ Gal. 3. 13 14. Not upon the Jews only but the Gentiles also § 2. And that this is the Gospel Covenant that Peter here Preacheth unto these Bleeding Jews is yet further evident from what he tells them in Chap. 3. 25 26. You saith he there are the Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers saying unto Abraham And in thy Seed shall all the Kindreds of the Earth be blessed unto you first God having raised up his Son Jesus sent him to bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities Where we have the very Words and Terms of the Gospel Covenant recited as it was at first made with Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. and Gen. 22. 16 17 18. You saith he are the Children of the Covenant What Covenant Doth he mean the Covenant of Circumcision in which God Promised Abraham saying I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee upon Condition that thou and they be Circumcised c. No saith Peter I do not mean that Covenant but the Covenant which God made with our Fathers saying unto Abraham And in thy Seed shall all the Kindreds of the Earth be Blessed The Covenant of Circumcision concerned your selves alone and was plainly Conditional and therefore failable But the Covenant that I speak to you of is a Free Covenant Sure and Certain and that which concerns not you alone but all the Kindreds of the Earth Wherein we are duly to observe that instead of directing them to the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8. whereof there is not the least Word or Syllable expressed in Peters present words to the Jews nor in all the New Testament besides that being no other than a Bondage Covenant Gal. 5. 1 2 3 4 Acts 15. 1 5 10. as the Covenant at Sinai was and so no Proper Remedy for the Removal of their Present Miserie he rather directs them to that most Comfortable Promise first mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. And afterward by Solemn Oath Confirmed Gen. 22. 16 17 18. That in Abrahams Seed should all the Kindreds of the Earth be Blessed And this was home to the Point it being botâ— a free and a full Promise and therefore an Answerable Remedy for their present Malady For if God hath freely promised that in Christ who is Abraham's Seed all the Kindreds of the Earth shall be Blessed Why then there is ground of hope for you even for you also though you have been the Betrayers and Murderers of the Lord of Glory And not only is there ground of hope for you but even for your Children also on whom as well as on your selves you have wished his Blood to be And accordingly he Preaches Christ unto them in the very next words Vnto you first God having raised up his Son Jesus sent him to bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities wherein we are to note That as the Gospel Covenant is a Covenant of Blessing full of Blessings Heaps upon Heaps of Blessings Innumerable Blessings I will Bless thee saith God to Abraham and thou shalt be a Blessing I will Bless them that Bless thee And again Surely in Blessing I will Bless thee and in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed So in pursuance of the same Evangelical Promise and Covenant of Blessing saith Peter here God having raised up his Son Jesus sent him to Bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities Wherein that which was required before as a Condition is now become a Main Branch of the Promised Blessing For before the Promise was unto them that turn from Transgression in Jacob But God saith he hath sent his Son Jesus to Bless you by turning away ungodliness fom Jacob even in turning away every one of you from his iniquities § 3. It is undeniaby evident therefore that Peter instead of directing them to the Covenant of Circumcision for their present Relief He rather directs both them and theirs to have recourse to that Evangelical Covenant which God had made with their Fathers saying unto Abraham And in thy Seed shall all the Kindreds of the Earth be Blessed For this as it was every way full and extensive so it was as free and absolute And therefore the most Proper Remedy for the Relief of their Wounded Spirits Whereas had he directed them to the Promises contained in the Covenant of Circumcision that had left them still in Despair for that obliged them to Perfect Obedience as the Condition of obtaining the Mercies therein Promised which was impossible to be Performed To tell them therefore of the Promises contained in that Covenant was altogether beside his present Design which was to give I â—elief to their Wounded Spirits which the Promises of that Covenant thus Bounded as they were could never Accomplish SECT XII AND whereas Peter tells the Jews That the Promise was unto them and to their Children We are not to understand it as if the Gospel Covenant that Believers are now under was at all made with Abraham and his Natural Seed and consequently with them and their Natural Seed Or that any of the Promises thereof were immediately made unto him as the Promises contained in the Covenant of Circumcision were In which respect it is highly observable that aâ— the Spirit of God himself doth plainly inform us of a twofold Covenant made with Abraham the one a Covenant of Grace and the other of Works So he is pleased accordingly also to make a plain distinction between them as to the Persons or Parties therein respectively concerned For if we look into Gen. 12. We shall there find that the former is made between God and Abraham only and that with respect unto his Seed Christ and his Spiritual Offering Whereas the latter is plainly made between God and Abraham and his Natural Posterity The first account