gave him the Covenant of Circumcision This they cannot deny nay and not only to himself but to be the God of all his true spiritual Seed and that also before he entered into the said Covenant of Circumcision with him and his natural Seed see Gen. 12.3 Gen. 15.1 I am thy shield and thy exceeding great Reward see ver 5. and then 't is said he believed in the Lord and it was accounted to him for righteousness ver 6. Therefore 2 dly 'T is for ever to be noted that this special Interest in God he obtained through Faith in the Free Promise which is the Covenant of Grace God made with him And the Apostle plainly shews in Rom. 4.9 10. That this Blessedness he in the Negative received not in the Covenant of Circumcision but in Uncircumcision How was it then reckoned when he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision ver 10. I cannot but wonder at the darkness of those Men who affirm That Abraham received special Interest in God in the Covenant of Circumcision whereas the Holy Ghost positively denies it or affirms the contrary His main Business being there to take them off of Circumcision and so to distinguish between Circumcison and the Covenant of Faith but in direct Opposition to the Apostle's Design these Men go about to magnifie Circumcision by ascribing it to that 3. And let it also be noted That the same Apostle excludes Abraham's natural Seed as such with whom the Covenant of Circumcision was made from this special Blessing of special Interest in God in Rom. 9.5 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect for they are not all Israel which are of Israel neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all Children that is by way of special Interest in God so as to have God to be their God by vertue of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham But in Isaac shall thy seed be called ver 7. That is they which are the children of the flâ—sh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed ver 8. None can deny but that those whom the Apostle calls the Children of the Flesh whom he denies to have any Interest in God as such the Covenant of Circumcision did belong unto and was made with as well as it was made with the true spiritual Seed therefore I may from hence with the greatest boldness imaginable affirm That in the Covenant of Circumcision God did not make over himself to be Abraham's God so as to give him or to his Seed special Interest in himself Obj. But 't is positively said That God did promise in the Covenant of Circumcision to be a God to him and to his seed after him in their Generations when he promised them the Land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 9 10. Answ. I do not deny it but not by way of special Interest that is the thing we differ in so he was not the God of his Seed as such according to the Nature of the Covenant of Grace and that for the Reasons before urged therefore it behoveth us to consider in what respect we are to understand the Holy Ghost I do not say neither that ever God made himself over to Men to be their God by way of special Interest upon the Terms of the Sinai Covenant that was impossible for them to Answer nor can I believe notwithstanding what Mr. Flavel has affirmed that my Reverend Brother Mr. Philip Cary will assert any such thing the Inheritance was not by the Law 1. Therefore we are to consider That God may be said to be the God of a People in a Covenant way Two manner of ways 1 st By the Free Promise or Covenant of Grace in a spiritual Gospel Sense which gives special and Soul-saving Interest in him as all Abraham's Spiritual Seed i. e. True Believers have or 2 d. God may be said to be the God of a People by entering into an external legal Covenant with them And thus he gave himself to be the God of Abraham and his natural or fleshly Seed i. e. He took them into a visible external Covenant Church-State and separated them from all other People and Nations in the World to be a peculiar People in that Covenant unto himself and in this sense he was said Foederally or by Covenant to be married to the whole House of Israel as so considered and to be an Husband to them See Ier. 21.31 God there makes a Promise to Israel and Iudah that he would make a New Covenant Not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt which covenant they break although I was an husband to them saith the Lord ver 32 In this Covenant God gave them their Church State and many external or earthly Blessings Laws and Ordinances and they formerly struck Hands as I may so say with God and promised Obedience Exod. 24.3 7 8. 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 will we do and be obedient And thus God became as an Husband to them i. e. He fed them and took special care of them and to lead them with great Bowels in the Wilderness and bestowed the Land of Canaan upon them with other Temporal Blessings according as it was promised to them in the Covenant of Circumcision Like as a Husband cares for and provides for the Wife so did God care and provide for them and preserved them so long as that Law I mean the Law of their Husband did continue But that Law is now dead Rom. 7.4 and God now is no longer such a Husband to them nor hath he Married in that Sense any other external Nation or People of the World but now God in the Gospel Covenant is an Husband indeed to them he was but a Typical Husband and their God in an external Faedoral Relation And thus he was the God of all Abraham's natural Off-spring for in him he first espoused them as a National Church and People and gave them the Covenant of Circumcision as the Sign or Token thereof with many Ecclesiastical and Civil Rites And this is further confirmed by a Reverend and Learned Writer Howbeit from the strict Connexion of this 7th verse with the 6th and the Assurance here given that God will establish his Covenant with Abraham's Seed to be their God It is evident saith he that the Number of Abraham's carnal Seed and the Grandeur of their Civil State is not all that is promised nor yet the Principal Blessing bestowed on them therein but rather the forming them into a Church State with the establishing of the Ordinances of publick Worship among them wherein they should walk in Covenant Relation to God as his peculiar People Understand it still saith he
the righteousness of the faith which he had them yet being uncircumcised that he might be the father of all men that believe though they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed to them also Rom. 4.11 First Observe Circumcision is directly here called a Sign and so it was in it self 1. A Sign or Token of God's making good his Covenant to Abraham's natural Seed that from his Loins Christ should come by Isaac 2. A Sign or Token that the promise of all these Blessings granted to them either Ecclesiastical respecting their National Church State and Civil State and Temporal Blessings with their Possessing of the Land of Canaan 3. Of the Circumcision of the Heart for that it was a Sign of 2. But it is not called any more a Seal to Abraham of the Righteousness of that Faith he had before he was Circumcised then it was of his being the Father of all them that believe Now since it was principally called a Seal to him of that peculiar Privilege and Prerogative of being the Father of all True Believers which none had ever granted to them besides himself Why should they suppose that Circumcision is here called a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to all as well as to Abraham himself I desire this may be considered for Mr. Flavel passes it by in silence and speaks nothing to it 3. But Thirdly To put the Matter out of doubt it could be a Seal to no other Person or Persons but to Abraham only Because it was a Seal of that Righteousness Abraham had being yet Uncircumcised and such a Righteousness none of his Seed ever had actually as he had it neither of his fleshly nor spiritual Seed for first Isaac had no such Faith before he was Circumcised because Circumcised when but Eight Days old and so were generally all his Seed except you will mention such who neglected to Circumcise their Children and so Transgressed the Command of God or mention Adult Proselites But that will not help the Matter they must carry it to be a Seal to all that the Covenant of Circumcision belonged to or else to none but to Abraham only but to all it could not be a Seal as it was to Abraham it being positively said not to be a Seal of the Righteousness of their Faith they should have after Circumcised but of that Faith Abraham particularly had being yet Uncircumcised 4. The Scope and Drift of the Holy Ghost proves it to be thus as we say for else there 's no need for the Apostle to mention it as a Seal of that Righteousness of Faith he had before Circumcision if others might have it in Circumcision viz. The Righteousness of God as 't is contained in the Covenant of Grace for that they must say or they say nothing And it farther appears by what the Apostle speaks viz. That he might be the Father of them that believe that were not Circumcised If it had been in Circumcision or after Circumcision What Argument would there have been in the Case i. e. That Abraham should be the Father of those that believe that are not Circumcised Therefore in direct Opposition to what Dr. Ames speaks as cited by Mr. Flavel I must say The main Drift and Scope of the Apostle's Argument from the Coherence of the Text is to take off the Jews from seeking any spiritual Benefit from Circumcision or the Law but by Faith only seeing Abraham was Justified and received the Righteousness of Christ by Faith before he was Circumcised or without Circumcision and his receiving Circumcision sealed not only the Righteousness of Faith to him which he had being Uncircumcised and so to none else but also his being the Father of all that Believe whether Circumcised or not Circumcised 5. But again it must be granted to belong to Abraham only as a Seal because St. Paul speaking of Circumcision Rom. 3.12 says The chief Advantage or Privilege they had thereby was because that unto them was committed the Oracles of God Certainly he would not have called that the Chief if Circumcision had been given in common as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith However when he is a treating of the Privileges that come by Circumcision surely he could not have forgotten this viz. that it was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith 6. Let not Men mistake themselves any more for evident it is that Circumcision as 't is called a Seal to Abraham so it did not seal to him something which he then had not but might have but it did seal really and truly the Righteousness of that Faith which he at that time had If therefore you Baptize Children who before they are Baptized do truly believe no body will be dispeased with you or if you can prove your Infants have really and truly such a Faith as Abraham had and that their Baptism doth seal that Faith to them for Righteousness which Circumcision sealed to Abraham you do your business But Sirs pray what Blessings of the Covenant of Grace doth Baptism now seal to your Infants O says one the Covenant is theirs it belongs to them and shall we deny them the Seal what not let them have a bit of Wax But stay a little you must first prove the Covenant of Grace doth indeed belong to Believers Children as such before you talk at such a rate as you do A Seal all Men know makes firm and sure all the Blessings to the Person to whom it is sealed which are contained in the same Covenant to which it is fixed Therefore take heed you do not blind the Minds of People and deceive them by making them think they are in Covenant when indeed it may be no such thing 7. Besides if Circumcision was the Seal of the Covenant of Grace then it would follow that the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham is Abrogated for the breaking off the Seal all Men know cancells the Covenant and makes it of none Effect And that Circumcision which you call the Seal of the Covenant of Grace that was made with Abraham is broke off or torn off by the Death of Jesus Christ is evident And this proves if it was a Seal of the Sinai Covenant which I say not but only a Sign that Covenant is gone because the Seal is broken off 8. Circumcision was so far from being a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to all to whom it did bâ—long that it sealed not all those outward Blessings to the Bond-men or such who were bought with Money and so were admitted to dwell in Abraham's Family for it did not seal to them all the outward and external Privileges of the Commonwealth of Israel for they only belonged to those who were natural Israelites Now from the whole it seems to me to be a strange Thing which is lately asserted viz. That the Infant Seed of Believers during their Infancy have all of them a certain Interest in the Covenant of Grace By vertue of which they are
compleatly Justified before God from the Guilt of Original Sin both Originans and Originations and yet when they come to Years of Discretion may yea must by their actual closing with or refusing the Terms of the Covenant either obtain the continuation and confirmation of their Covenant Interest or be utterly and finally cut off from it and so perish Eternally in their Ignorance of God and Rebellion against him Answer To which I must say That they seem to make the Covenant of Grace such a Conditional Covenant that renders it in Nature and Quality like the Sinai Covenant or Covenant of Works i. e. If they perform the Righteousness required they shall live if they Obey not or make not Good this pretended Covenant of Grace they shall dye or be cut off Let our Brethren who are sound in the Doctrine of Free-Grace consider this 2. And as the Promises of the New Covenant will admit of no such partial Interest saith a Learned Author so neither can this Opinion consist with the Analogy of Faith in other Respects for either the stain of Original Sin in these Infanrs is purged and the dominion of Concupiscence in them destroyed when their Guilt is pardoned or it is not if it be then the Case of these Infants in point of Perseverance is the same with Adult Persons that are under Grace by actual Faith and then a final Apostacy from the Grace of the New Covenant must be allowed to befall the one as well as the other notwithstanding all Provisions of that Covenant and Engagement of God therein to make the Promise sure to all the Seed Rom. 4.16 But this the Author will not admit If he say That their Guilt is pardoned but their Natures are not changed or renewed nor the Power of Original Corruption destroyed so as that Sin shall not have Dominion over them it will be replyed That then notwithstanding their supposed Pardon they remain as an unclean Thing and so uncapable of admission into the Kingdom of God Thus this worthy Author 3. To which let me add Certainly if Divine Habits were in those Infants they would immediately be manifested or be sure when they are grown up would appear in them by gracious Operations flowing from thence But since those Acts or Products of such a gracious Habit appear not in them 't is evident they never had them infused 4. All that are in the Covenant of Grace if they live the Fruits of Faith and Holiness will flow naturally from those sacred Habits God hath by his spirit planted in them as heat and light doth from the Fire when 't is kindled on the Hearth The Truth is such who are united to Christ and have Faith in him and so are actually in the Covenant of Grace are also washed and purged from Sin and Pollution see Ezek. 16. Rom. 5.14 Act. 15.10 None can have Union with Christ but by the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit and wheresoever the Spirit of Christ is it applies The Blood of the Covenant not only for Pardon but also for the purging the Conscience from dead Works to serve the living God And therefore as the same Learned Author observes as certain as any derive a New Covenant Rite from Christ for Pardon they also receive a vital Influence from him for the renovation of their Natures and conforming their Souls to his Image Therefore to assert That the Grace of Christ is applied to some for remission of Sins only or that the guilt of any Sin can be pardoned to any Person and yet that Sin retains its Dominion over them is a Doctrine I understand not to be sound or agreeable to the Doctrine that is according to Godliness 5. To conclude with this 't is evident these Men must by their Notion make every believing Parent to be considered in respect of that Covenant made with Abraham a common Head and Father not only to his own natural Seed but to all Believers also as Abraham was and then it would follow that there are as many common Fathers like as Abraham was so called as there are believing Men in the World and so a knowing or knowledge of Men still after the Flesh which the Apostle disclaims 2 Cor. 5. 17. Besides the Thing is usurp'd in it self Therefore let all know That a Believers Right to the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham's or by vertue of that Promise made with him do relate to such a Seed as do believe and not as Co-ordinate with him in Covenant Interest they are not each one by this Covenant made the Father of a Blessed Seed as Abraham was the Father of the Faithful neither can they claim the Promise for themselves and their Seed according to the Tenour of Abraham's Covenant as he might as this Author observes but they must believe as Abraham did or have a Faith of their own For if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham 's seed and heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3 29. This the same Author notes Obj. 7. The Covenant of Circumcision was an Everlasting Covenant therefore it was the Covenant of Grace Answ. I Answer 'T is not unknown to our Opponants that the Hebrew Word for Everlasting sometimes signifies no more then a long continuance of time And so extensive was the Promise of God's peculiar Favours to the natural Seed of Abraham and the original of their Claim there-from that the severity of that Law afterwards given to them was so far restrained as that notwithstanding their manifold breach of Covenant with God and forfeiture of all legal Claim of their Right and Privileges in the Land of Canaan thereby that they were never utterly cut off from that good Land and ceased to be a peculiar People unto God untill the end or period of that time determined by the Almighty was fully come which was the Revealation of the Messiah and the setting up his spiritual Temple under the Dispensation of the Gospel and thus far the Word Everlasting doth extend 'T is said God promised to give the Land of Canaan to Abraham and to his Seed for ever and again Gen. 17.8 for an everlasting Inheritance whereas it is evident they have for many Ages been dispossessed of it Nor may this seem strange if we consult other Texts where the same Terms are used with the like Restriction for the Priesthood of Levi is called an Everlasting Priesthood Numb 25.13 And the Gates of the Temple Everlasting Doors Psal. 24.6 so the Statute to make an Atonement for the Holy Sanctuary and for the Tabernacle and for the Altar and for the Priests and for all the People of the Congregation is called an Everlasting Statute Levit. 16.34 And this shall be for an everlasting statute c. So that from hence 't is very clear that the Word Everlasting is to be taken sometimes with Restriction and referrs to the end of that Dispensation to which the Law Statute or Covenant did belong and when Christ came as
Mr. Cary as if it was impossible for the Saints to be under the Covenant of Works under the former Dispensation and yet in the Covenant of Grace for I would know Whether or not they were not at that time under the Ministration of that Covenant but what tho' no sooner did they believe in Christ the Promised Seed but they were delivered from the Curse of the Law Nor is this any strange Thing For are not all now in these Days under the Dispensation of the Gospel yet untill Men and Women believe in Christ they abide still under the Curse of the Law of the First Covenant for Christ is not the end of the Law to all the World so as some erroneously assert i. e. all are justified in God's sight from the Curse of the Law but he is only the end of the Law touching Righteousness to every one that beleiveth to them and to no other Adult Person Therefore Men might be under the outward Dispensation of the Law of Works and yet through Faith be Justified and also others may be and are now under the Dispensation of the Gospel and yet for not believing in Christ be Condemned and under the Curse of the Law For the Gospel is not the Cause of our Sickness but our Cure none believing is the refusal of the Medicine So that there 's no Reason for him to say because we assert this That the Godly under that Dispensation hung mid-way betwixt Life and Death Justification and Condemnation and after Death mid-way betwixt Heaven and Hell p. 180. Therefore as all that lived under the Dispensation of the Law or Covenant of Works were saved by Faith in the Promise of Christ or by the Covenant of Grace Abraham saith our Saviour saw my Day and was glad so without Faith or Interest in Christ such that live under the Dispensation of the Gospel cannot be saved nor are they delivered from the Curse of the Law or Covenant of Works Therefore to conclude with this 't is evident the Covenant of Works though but one as to the substance of it yet there was several Ministrations of it as it was given also upon different Ends and Designs by the Lord And therefore because the said Covenant of Works was first given to Adam by vertue of which he was accepted and justified in his Innocency Could not God give forth a Second Addition Ministration or Transcript of his Righteousness and Holy Law requiring perfect Obedience though not to Justification yet to aggravate their Sin and so to their just Condemnation And doth not the Apostle assert the same Thing Rom. 3.19 20. compared with Rom. 7.13 Gal. 3.19 But saith Bishop Usher Quest. Doth not God wrong to Men to require of him that he is not able to perform Answ. He Answers No for God made Man so that he might have performed it but he by Sin spoiled himself and Posterity of those Gifts Therefore To proceed I do affirm That always generally when the Apostle speaks of the Old Covenant or Covenant of Works he passes by in silence the Covenant made with Adam and more immediately and directly applies it unto the Sinai Covenant and to that of Circumcision as all careful Readers who read the Epistles to the Romans Galatians and to the Hebrews may clearly find And farther to evince the Truth we contend for 't is evident That although there is and ever was but one Covenant of Grace yet nothing is more plain then that there were several distinct Additions of it altho' we say the Promise or Gospel Covenant was one and the same in all Ages in respect of the Things promised with the Nature and Quality thereof which is a free and absolute Covenant without Works or Conditions of foreseen Acts of Obedience or Righteousness done by the Creature whatsoever Rom. 4.5 The Substance and Essential Part of this Gospel Covenant as to the Promises of it is Christ Faith a New Heart Regeneration Remission of Sins Sanctification Perseverance and everlasting Life Yet this Evangelical Covenant had divers Forms Additions or Transcripts of it which signified those Things and the various Sanctions by which it was given forth and confirmed To Adam the Promise of it was under the Name Of the Seed of the Woman bruising the Head of the Serpent To Enoch Noah c. in other Terms To Abraham under the Name of His Seed in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed To Moses by the Name of A great Prophet among his Brethren and it was signified also unto him under dark Shadows and Sacrifices Unto David under the Name of A Successour in his Kingdom To other Prophets more clearer still made known Unto as a Child is born a Woman shall compass a Man a New Covenant I will make c In the New Testament in plain Words We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord 2 Cor. 3.18 But now because there were so many Additions or Ministrations of the Gospel or New Covenant Doth it follow there are so many New Covenants This being so Mr. Flavel hath done nothing to remove Mr. Cary's Arguments but they stand firm For he says not That the Sinai Ministration of the Covenant of Works was ordained to justifie Mankind nor was it possible it could after a Man had sinned and yet in its Nature an absolute Covenant of Works or do for Life or Perish The Man that doeth these Things shall live in them Obj. 9. Circumcision could not oblige the Iews in its own Nature to keep the whole Law because Paul Circumcised Timothy If in the very Nature of the Act it had bound Timothy to keep the Law for Iustification how could it have been Paul's Liberty so to do saith Mr. Flavel which he asserts it was Gal. 2.3 4. p. 226. Answ. 1. That Circumcision did oblige the Jews to keep the whole Law is evident Gal. 5.3 and as I hinted before our Learned Annotators on the said place speak the same Thing positively Take more largely their very Words They were obliged to one Part of the Law they must be obliged to all other Parts of it besides that Circumcision was an owning and professing Subjection to the whole Law c. Obj. But did not the Fathers then by being Circumcised acknowledge themselves Debtors to the Law he Answers Yes they did acknowledge themselves bound to the observation of it and to endure upon the breaking of it the Curse of it but they were discharged from that Obligation by believing in Christ who was made a Curse for them that he might redeem them from the Curse of the Law Thus Pool's Annotations 2. But as to Paul's Circumcising Timothy it was when he knew Circumcision was abolished and therefore it could not oblige him Paul well knew to keep the Law Sith no Law in its own Nature can oblige any Person according to the Nature and Quality of it when 't is abrogated and in no force tho' he saw
to it since they are forced to fly to such an Argument as this to prove Circumcision to be a Gospel Covenant I shall not now enter upon the Debate Whether the Ceremonial Law was a part of the Covenant of Works or not tho' I must say I judge it was an Appendix to it and that it appertained to the First Covenant the Apostle affirms Heb. 9.1 They are to clear up this viz. How the Ceremonial Law is part of the First Covenant and yet no part of the Covenant of Works 2. Yet their Work lies not so much in that neither as it doth in this Respect viz. They are to prove That the Ceremonial Law was part of the Covenant of Grace which as yet none of them that I ever heard of have attempted to do tho' we grant it was a Shadow of it when they have proved that they have in the 3. Third Place another Task viz. To prove that Circumcision was â— part of the Ceremonial Law for tho' it was a Figure or a Sign yet it may be doubted of Whether it was a part of that Law or not Yet 4. It might be a part of or appertain unto the Sinai Covenant for 1 t is called a Covenant that 's evident but Where is the Ceremonial Law â—o called 2. It gave the Children of Israel an Assurance of the Sinai â—ovenant and that the Apostle calls The great and chiefest Advâ—ntage â—hey had by it 3. It also was of the same nature and quality and had â—e like Promises annexed to it upon their Obedience and the same â—hreatning upon their Disobedience 4. It obliged those who were Cirâ—umcised to keep the said Law Gal. 5.3 It was I have proved of the â—â—me Nature and Quality i. e. a Conditional Covenant and like Promise â—f Earthly Blessings and like Threatnings annexed to it Secondly Was not the Ceremonial Law a Part of that Law St. Paul â—alls The Hand-Writing of Ordinances that was against us which was contrary 〈◊〉 us and took it out of the way nailing it to his Cross Col. 2.14 If Cirâ—â—mcision was part of this Law sure it did not appertain to the Gospel or â—ew Covenant much less the Seal of it for then it could not be against us but for us not contrary to us but agreeable to us as a Choice Blessing 2. And if the Covenant of Circumcision was a Part of the Ceremonial Law 't is evident that Covenant is abolished and if the Covenant be cancelled or abolished What good will the Seal do them 3. That the Ceremonial Law was part of the First Covenant 't is evident Heb. 9.1 2. Then verily the First Covenant had also Ordinances of Divine Service and Worldly Sanctuary The Old Covenant comprehended not only the Sinai ministration as a Covenant of Works do this and live but also the whole Mosaical Oeconomy and Aronical Priesthood Sacrifices and all manner of shadowing Rites and Ordinances whatsoever amongst which Old Covenant Rites or Legal Ordinances Circumcision was one of the chief so that this makes against them 4. All the Holiness and Sanctification of the Ceremonial Law only appertained to the Flesh and therefore no part of the New Covenant Heb. 9.13 What tho' it was dedicated by Blood it was but Typical Blood Blood of Bulls and Goats that could not take away Sin purge the Conscience nor make any thing perfect Mr. Elton on Colossians speaking of Col. 2. ver 14. puts forth this Question viz. Quest. How were the Legal Ceremonies of the Jews a Hand-Writing of Ordinances Answ. I answer saith he they were so in regard of their Use to the Jews who in using them as it were Subscribed to their own Guiltiness of Death and Damnation In using Circumcision they made known they had ordinal Sin and were guilty of it their Washings shewed they were exceeding filthy in God's sight and so guilty of the Curse of the Law and so did their Sacrifices Hence God in infinite Mercy sent his Son to pay our Debts and he has satisfied Divine Justice and so has cancelled this Hand-Writing that witnessed our Guiltiness and bound us over to Punishment What good will it do them to grant That Circumcision was part of the Law I know not these Things considered For they evident it is were bound exactly to keep all the Laws Statutes and Ordinances of that Law which I think a Learned Man says were more then 300 nay and if they continued not in doing all these Things they were Cursed when they sate down and when they rose up wheâ— they went abroad and when they came home see Deut 27.20 to 26. Gal. â—â— 10. Cursed is he that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of tâ—â— Law to do them Mind it well all Things in the whole Book of the Lawâ— not only the Ten Precepts but all things contained in the Ceremonial Laâ— also 6. Therefore tho' the Blood of Bulls Goats and Heifers are called thâ— Blood of the Covenant yet it was not the Blood of the New Covenanâ— but of the Old neither the First Covenant was dedicated without Blood Heb. 9.18 True the Blood of the Old Covenant figured the Blood of the New yet that doth no more prove the Ceremonial Law was part of the New Covenant then the Shadow can be proved to be the Substance and therefore tho' those Sacrifices pointed to Christ yet that Law was part of the Covenant of Works i. e. no Life by it In those Sacrifices God's Soul had no Pleasure 7. Nor could they see or look beyond those things which are abolished see 2 Cor. 3.13 From hence I argue If the Ceremonial Law was a Hand-Writing i. e. a Bond or Obligation of Conviction Accusation and Condemnation to the Jews binding them farther to the Curse of the Moral Law it was no part of the Covenant of Grace but the former is true Ergo Therefore whatever gracious Design God had in it or however useful to the Elect yet in it self it was a Law of Works tho' given in Subserviency to the Gospel Law as the Sinai Law was 6. Obj. God gave himself to Abraham to be his God and the God of his Seed in the Covenant of Circumcision or made over himself by way of special Interest to them in it so Mr. Flavell positively affirms Therefore it was the Covenant of Grace Answ. I Answer This I am persuaded is the grand Cause of their great boldness and mistake in affirming the Covenant of Circumcision was the Covenant of Grace and therefore ought the more carefully to be Examined Considered and Answered for if Mr. Flavel and the rest of our Brethren are right in this Assertion i. e. That God gave himself in Circumcision to Abraham and to all his Seed to be their God by way of special Interest they say a great deal but this we deny 1. As to Abraham God gave himself to him to be his God yea gave him special Interest in himself but it was before he
of the Old Covenant wherein they had their peculiar Right and Privilege no less can be intended in this I will be a God unto them in their Generations and it is also made more evident by the following Account that is given of this Transaction with respect to Isaac and Ishmael Gen. 17.18 21. When the Lord had promised unto Abraham a Son by Sarah whose Name should be called Isaac he thus prayed O that Ishmael might live before thee which the Chaldee Paraphraseth thus i. e. Might live and worship before thee No doubt his Prayer was that Ishmael might also be an Heir of the Blessing of this Covenant but that was not granted to him for the Lord would have his Covenant Seed called by Isaac only With him God would establish his Covenant having appointed and chosen him alone to be the Heir thereof who was to be the Child of the Promise and Son of the Free woman and yet for Ishmael in special Favour with Abraham whose Seed he was Thus much he obtained i. e. That he should be made Fruitful and multiply exceedingly Twelve Princes or Heads of great Families should spring of him which imports some Analogy to the Twelve Tribes of Israel after the Flesh and God would make him a great Nation and yet all this fell short of the Blessings of Abraham's natural Off-spring by Isaac from which Ishmael was now excluded It is plain therefore that the Privilege of the Ecclesiastical as well as the flourishing of the Civil States of Israel did arise unto them out of the Covenant of Circumcision We conclude therefore saith he That notwithstanding the carnal Seed of Abraham could not as such claim a Right in the spiritual and eternal Blessings of the New Covenant because of their Interest in the Covenant of Circumcision yet their Privileges and Advantages in their Church-State tho' immediately consisting in things outward and typical were of far greater Value and Use than any meer Worldly or Earthly Blessings as to giving them choice means of the Knowledge of God and setting them nearer to him than any Nation in the World besides Thus far this Learned Author Dr. Bates also in his Sermon preach'd at Mr. Baxter's Funeral shews That God may be said to be the God of a People several manner of ways 1. Upon the Account of Creation Thus he is our God and Father O Lord thou art our father we are the clay and thou art our potter and we all are the work of thy hands Isa. 64.8 2. Upon the Account of external Calling and Profession there is an intercurrent Relation of the Father and Son between God and his People Thus the Posterity of Seth are called the Sons of God Gen. 6. and the entire Nation of the Jews are so styled When Israel was young I called my son from Egypt Hos. 11. And all that have received Baptism the Seal of the Holy Covenant and profess Christianity in this general Sense may be called the Children of God Thus he clearly confirms what I have said but observe in this Sense God is not said to be the God of a People by way of special Interest But 't is not saith he the outward Dedication entitles Men to saving Interest in God unless they live according to that Dedication There are Baptised Infidels as well as Unbaptised c. Then say I some Infants Baptised are in his Opinion but in an external Covenant with God and so have no special Inteâ—est Moreover Sure none can deny but by gross Idolatry the Israelites broke this Covenant and yet when they in Ezekiel's time became guilty of vile Abominations the Lord still claimed an Interest in their Children by vertue of this Covenant Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters whom thou hast born unto me and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter That thou hast slain my children Ezek. 16.20 12. The Children they begat in a natural way when by cursed Idolatry they had Apostatized from God by vertue of this Covenant God calls his Children which could not have been if their Covenant Interest had been as our Brethren affirm i. e. suspended on the good abearing or Faith of immediate Parents But as the Apostacy of Parents could not hinder their Children from that external Covenant Interest they had in God and God in them so the Faith and Holiness of Parents could not Interest their Children in the special Blessings of the Covenant of Grace Lastly 'T is remarkable that when God gave the Sinai Covenant Exod. 20.1 2. where he pleads Interest in them as his People he mentions expresly upon what account he so owned them read the Text I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt out of the House of Bondage Thou shalt have no other Gods before me I am Jehovah and thy God having chosen you to be a People to my self above all People as 't is said elsewhere not that as they were thus his People and a chosen Nation they had special Interest in God by eternal Election and peculiar Adoption no but a few of them as it appears were in that sence his People But their God by vertue of that legal and external Covenant he made with their Fathers and now again with them and so bestowed temporal Blessings upon them therefore 't is added That brought thee out of the land of Egypt not Land of spiritual Darkness nor house of spiritual Bondage but literal Bondage c. In the Covenant of Works saith Reverend Mr. Cotton the Lord offered himself upon a Condition of Works he bid them obey his Voice and provoke him not for I will not pardon your Transgressions But in the Covenant of Grace he will do this but not in the Covenant of Works all is given upon Condition of Obedience The Lord giving himself c. tho' it be but to work yet he is pleased to receive them into some kind of relative Union expressed Ier. 32.32 Which my Covenant they break as though I was an Husband unto them He was married to them in Church-Covenant he was their God and they were his peculiar People and yet the Lord cast them off from this Marriage-Covenant from this Union Thus Mr. Cotton on the Covenant P. 39.40 So much shall serve to the answering this grand Objection Obj. 6. Sixthly Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith If Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith saith Mr. Flavell it did not appertain to the Covenant of Works For the Righteousness of Faith and Works are opposite but Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4.11 Ergo pag. 220. 1 Answ. We Answer first That the Text they bring doth not call Circumcision the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith As 't is such or in common to all that were Circumcised pray let us read the Words And he received the sign of circumcision a seal of
all Mosaical Rites ended so did the Covenant of Circumcision also God never said he would be the God of Abraham's natural Seed as such as he gave himself to him and to all his true spiritual Seed for to them he gives himself or an Interest in all God is or has so far as communicative even for ever and ever or to all Eternity the Covenant of Grace being ordered in all things and sure 2 Sam. 23.5 'T is impossible this Covenant and Covenant Blessings which is comprehensive of all Grace here and Glory hereafter should referr to a certain Period of time and since he was not thus in Covenant with Abraham's carnal Seed as such 't is evident the Covenant of Circumcision tho' called an Everlasting Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace And so much to this Objection 8. Obj. There was never but one Covenant of Works and that God made with Adam and in him with all his Postâ—rity therefore the Covenant of Circumcision did not appertain in the Covenant of Works See Mr. Flavel Answ. First Our Controversie lies not so much about the Covenant of Works as given to Adam but about the Nature of Sinai Covenant since Circumcision appears to be of the same Nature with that I do not say in every respect there is no difference between the Covenant of Works made with Adam and that made with the Peopâ—e of Israel though theâ— differ not Essentially in Substance 't is all one and the same Covenant viz. Requiring compleat and perfect Righteousness 2. Therefore tho' there is but one Covenant of Works yet there was more than one Addition or Administration of the said Covenant This is evident although given upon a different end purpose and design by the Lord. Adam's Covenant I grant had one end and design and the Sinai Covenant of Works had another yet may be both as to the Essence and Substance of them but one and the same Covenant Which doubtless is all Mr. Cary intends 1. Adam's Covenant had Happiness and Justification in it by his perfect Obedience thereto and he being able in the time of his Innocency to keep it he was thereby Justified 2. But the Second Edition or Ministration of the Covenant of Works given to the People of Israel tho' in its Nature and Quality it was a Covenant of Works and one with the former yet it was not given for Life or to Justifie them nor was it able so to do by reason of their Weakness through the Flesh Rom. 8.3 But it was added because of Transgression 1. To restrain Sin or as I said before to regulate their Lives under those external Covenant Transactions of God with them as his People as before expressed 2. To make Sin appear exceeding sinful 3. To discover to them what Righteousness it is God doth require in order to the Justification of the Soul in his Sight 4. To make known to them thereby what a Righteousness Man originally in the First Adam had and lost and 5 thly It did discover their woefull Condition to them and might put â—hem upon seeking Relief and Justification by the promised Seed and so be as a School-Master to bring them to Christ. 6. That in their Conformity to it to their utmost Power to continue â—ll those outward Blessings and Privileges to the House or Church of Israel as God promised to Abraham upon that Account for 't is evident the Promises made to them upon their Obedience were Earthly and Temporal Promises and not Spiritual Hence the Apostle saith the New Covenant is established upon better Promises And Now that the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Works as considered â—n it self notwithstanding the end and design of God therein I find many of our sound Protestant Divines do affirm tho' given with a merciful and gracious intention or in subserviency to the Gospel 1. It commanded or did require perfect or compleat Obedience 2. On these Terms Do and Live 3. It gave no strength nevertheless to perform what its just Demands were Hence the strength of Sin is called the Law it did Condemn but could not Save 4. Nor was there any Pardon or Remission of Sin by that Covenant for any Soul that broke it for He that despised against Moses's Law dyed without mercy under two or three witnesses Heb. 10.28 Moreover 5. It cursed all that did not continue in all Things that were contained in the whole Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 6. The Holy Ghost calls it the Old Covenant in contra distinction and direct Opposition to the Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant The law is not of faitâ— but the man that doth those things them shall live in them Gal. 3.12 And tho' Moses was the Mediator of that Covenant yet he was but a Typical Mediator and stood between God and them to plead for the Blessings of that Covenant and to prevent the Threatnings of Temporal Judgments for there was never but one Mediator between God and us upon a spiritual Account i. e. To stand between eternal Wrath and us or to make Peace with God for our Souls Take what the Learned Bishop Usher hath said about the Law as a Covenant of Works viz. Quest. How doth this Covenant i. e. The Covenant of Grace differ from that of Works Answ. His Answer is much every way for first in many Points the Law may be conceived by Reason but the Gospel in all Points is far above the reach of Man's Reason Secondly the Law commandeth to do good and giveth no strength the Gospel enableth us to do good the Holy Ghost writing the Law in our Hearts Thirdly The Law promised Life only the Gospel Righteousness also Fourthly The Law required perfect Obedience the Gospel the Righteousness of Faith Fifthly The Law revealeth Sin rebuketh us for Sin and leaves us in it but the Gospel doth reveal unto us Remission of Sins and freeth us from the Punishment belonging thereunto Sixthly The Law is the ministration of Wrath Condemnation and Death the Gospel is a ministry of Grace Justification and Life Seventhly The Law was grounded on Man's own Righteousness requiring of every Man in his own Person perfect Obedience Deut. 27.26 And in default for satisfaction everlasting Punishment Gal. 3.10 12. But the Gospel is grounded on the Righteousness of Christ admitting Payment and Performance in another in behalf of so many as receive it Gal. 3.13.14 Bishop Usher's Summ and Substance of Christian Religion p. 159. A multitude of Protestant Writers I might produce who all assert the same Doctrine And if the Sinai Covenant was not a Covenant of Works Why do all our Brethren say as it was a Covenant of Works 't is done away and Why doth the Apostle say Christ is the end of the Law as touching Righteousness It is not abolished or done away as 't is a Rule of Righteousness for as so it abides as a perpetual Rule and Law to us Therefore I wonder at Mr. Flavel's Out-crys against
it was his Liberty for some Reasons to do it But those Christians corrupted by false Teachers did not believe That Circumcision and other Legal Rites were abolished but that they were in full Force as ever and therefore he tells them granting it was as they believed if they were Circumcised they were obliged to keep the whole Law tho' his great Design was to take them off from seeking Justification by Works Therefore 3. 'T is evident Paul did not Circumcise Timothy in Obedience to the Law given by the Lord but for other Politick Reasons in complying with the weakness of some Jewish Christians After the same manner he submitted to some other Rites also of the Ceremonial Law as shaving the head and purifying himself which was then also abolished tho' not deadly say Expositors then though those Ceremonies were dead and so nothing in them Act. 21.24 Circumcision was alas dead and this Paul knew therefore could not hurt Timothy But those to whom he wrote thought it was alive and therefore it would not only hurt but destroy them or be destructive to them upon the Account of the Obligation it lay them under if it was as they conceived This being so What is become of Mr. Flavel's Argument which he makes such boast of as if unanswerable pag. 231. Obj. 10. The Root is Holy therefore the Branches that is as Abraham was Holy so were all his Seed and as Believers are Holy so are all their Children and as the natural Branches of Abraham was broken off for their Unbelief so the Gentiles are grafted in in their stead and succeed in their Privileges and so their Seed are Holy with an external relative Covenant Holiness Rom. 11.16 and therefore may be Baptized and have Right to Church Membership Answ. There is a Two fold Holiness spoken of 1 st An external foederal Holiness 2 d. A True spiritual inherent Holiness Now the Children of Believing Gentiles are not Holy with an external relative foederal Holiness nor have they a Right to Baptism nor Church Membership for Two Reasons First Because Baptism is of mere positive Right nothing but a Command Example or some well grounded Authority from Christ that can give them a Right thereto Secondly Because the Gospel Church is not constituted as the Jewish Church was 't is not National but Congregational it consisteth not of the carnal Seed as such but only of the spiritual Seed i. e. Adult Persons who believe Where do we find in all the New Testament That the Children of Believers as such were Baptised and taken into the Church as being in an external relative Covenant Holy Mr. Tho. Goodwin as I find him quoted by a Learned Writer in a Book called Two Treatises p. 6â— saith In the New Testament there is no other Holiness spoken of but Personal or Real by Regeneration about which he challenged all the World to shew to the contrary I have shewed you The Ax is laid at the Root of all external relative foederal Holiness which qualified under the Law for Jewish Ordinances and Church Membership But 3 We will now come to examine this Text of Holy Scripture Rom. 11.16 There are various Interpretations of what is meant by the Root in this place 1. Some understand it of the Covenant 2. Some of Christ. 3. Some of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. 4. Some of Abraham only I now agree with the last and say Abraham is the Root spoken of here But pray observe as he was a Two-fold Father so he was a Two-fold Root First The Father or Root of all that believe Secondly The Father or Root of all his Natural Seed as such but this place referrs to him as he was the Root of all his True spiritual Seed and if so the Holiness of the Branches is real spiritual and internal and not external foederal Holiness for such as is the Holiness of the Root as meant here such is the Holiness of the Branches but Abraham was believingly personally spiritually and internally Holy Ergo such are all the Branches spoken of here And indeed for want of Faith and spiritual Holiness that was in the Root were many of the Natural Branches broken of from being any more a People in an external Covenant Relation with God for this is the Covenant I have shewed The Ax is now laid at the Root of viz. the External Covenant The Jews were broken off or cut down by their Unbelief their Old Church State and Covenant being gone they not believing in Christ and so united to the True Olive and the Gentiles by Faith were grafted in they having obtained the Fatness of the Root oâ— Faith and Righteousness of Abraham and of the Covenant of Grace made with him who is called The Father of all that believe A Learned Writer says 1. The Holiness here meant is First in respect of God's Election i. e. Holiness personal and inherent in God's intention 2. It is also a Holiness derivative not from any Ancestors but Abraham not as a natural Father but as a spiritual Father or Father of the faithfull and so derived from the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham From hence it appears There is nothing in this illustrious Scripture for what these Men bring it who think hereby to prove a Holiness which the New Testament knows nothing of applying the Holiness and Insection to outward Dispensation only in the visible Church which is meant of Saving Grace in the invisible and make every believing Parent like Root to his Posterity with Abraham to his Seed which we deny Let therefore the Jews Covenant standing before they were broken off from being any more a Covenant People be what it would I am sure no Gentile is graften into Christ nor Jew neither but by Faith nor can any be grafted into the Gospel Church without the Profession of such a Faith The Jews 't is true were broken off by their Unbelief and were also now no more a Church nor is there as I said once before any such kind of Church constituted under the Gospel Dispensation as theirs was viz. A National one For they amongst the Jews who were True Believers or the spiritual Seed of Abraham who receiving Jesus Christ by Faith were planted a new into the Gospel Church and between them and Gentile Believers there is no difference since the middle Wall of Partition is broken down Eph. 2.14 Jew and Gentile stand now by Faith and not by external relative Covenant Holiness Thou standeth saith Paul by Faith O Believer mark it not by Birth Privileges but by by Faith as worthy Mr. Gary observes Thy standing is by Faith yet not thy Seed by thy Faith But thou thy self by thine and they by their own Faith Faith is that by which thou standing and not thy Seed hast Right to stand in the Church and not thy Seed but if thy Seed have Faith and thou hast none then they have Right in this Church and thou shalt be excluded And although
under the Law we deny not but that the natural Seed or Progeny of Abraham were all Holy with an External Ceremonial Typical Holiness and consequently they were then admitted to an external Participation of Church Privileges yet now 't is otherwise Old things are passed away and all things are become new now we know no Man after the Flesh 2. Cor. 5.16 17. That Old Church State is dissolved and manner of Admission into it by external Birth Privileges or â—â—â—â—â—ive Covenant Holiness and 't is very evident this was effected by the Death of Christ See Eph. 2.14 For he is our peace who hath made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us Having abolished in his flesh even the law of commandments contained in ordinances for to make in himself of twain one new man so making Peace vers 15. The Legal External Covenant made with the Jews whilst it abode was a Wall of Separation or Partition between them and the Gentiles and caused Enmity in them both in the Jews because they contemned the Gentiles as a People Unclean and Abominable not being Circumcised they Hated them And the poor Gentiles they seeing themselves out of the Covenant and so deemed Strangers and Foreigners and without God in the World they envied the Jews But now Jesus Christ has broken down this Wall of Partition and slain the Enmity that was between them which was the Ceremonial Law and Covenant of Circumcision and all other external Privileges as they were God's peculiar Covenant People and these being abolished and gone now both Jew and Gentile are made one in Christ and become one new Body or Church viz. A Christian Gospel Church And hence he adds And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the Cross ver 16. That is The outward Wall of Jewish Rites and Privileges being gone Christ thereby designed to bring both Jew and Gentile viz. all the Elect unto God and both into one Church State no Person nor People now having any external Privilege above others by the Gospel Covenant And if the Jews external Birth-Privileges were a Wall of Partition between them and the Gentiles let Men take heed how they set up another like Wall of Partition among them who are Believers and their Seed and Unbelieving Gentiles and their Seed lest that prove a ground and cause of like Enmity between believing and unbelieving Gentiles as the Old Rites and Covenant Privileges did between Jews and Gentiles But to open that Text Rom. 11.16 a little more fully as I have formerly done 't is evident the Apostle in the 9th and 10th Chapters to the Romans is treating of the Election of Grace and of the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham These were his People which he had not cast away chap. 10.1 And of this sort God had 7000 in Elias's Days ver 4. Even so saith he at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace ver 5. Hence he says What then Israel hath not obtained c. but the Election hath obtained and the rest were blinded ver 7. He farther shews That abundance of the natural Seed of Abraham were broken off How were they broken off Why for their Unbelief they not Receiving Christ but Rejected Him and the Gospel And the New Church State were broken off but that the Gentiles might not boast over them the Apostle shews There is ground left to believe all those that belong to the Election of Grace shall in God's due time be brought in again and so partake of the Blessings of the Gospel Covenant or Promise of Grace made to Abraham's spiritual Seed and to prove this he in ver 16. lays down an Argument For if the First-fruits be Holy the Lump is also Holy and if the Root be Holy so are the Branches By the Root I understand as I said before Abraham is meant Root and Father signifying here the same thing Abraham being counted the Root or Father as God represents him not only of his own natural Off-spring but of all that believe or the Root of all his true holy and spiritual Seed and so intended here By the First-fruits may be meant Isaac Iacob and all the Holy Patriarchs for they were given to Abraham as the First-fruits of the Covenant of Grace or Free Promise of God to him and these were Holy with a true spiritual personal and inherent Holiness Also Thirdly By the Lump may be meant and doubtless is the whole Body of the Elect or spiritual Seed of Abraham from the time the First fruits were given to him untill the Gospel Days or whole Lump of God's true Israel who also were all Holy as the Root and First-fruits were Holy Fourthly by the Branches he means the true spiritual Seed of Abraham or the Elect Seed that then were living at that present time as ver 5. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the Election of Grace And these were Holy likewise even as all the rest both as the Root First-fruits and Lump or whole Body were Holy that is all the the spiritual Seed of Abraham were like himself viz. Holy in a Gospel Sense with a personal and inherent Holiness Now observe he speaks of some Branches that were broken off these seemed to be Branches or Children of Abraham And so they were according to the Flesh but were like those Branches in Christ who bear no Fruit Joh. 15.2 3 4. and therefore taken away he alludes to the natural Seed of Abraham to whom he stood not as a spiritual Father or Root but as a natural and legal Father as they were a National Church and sprang from him as such to whom the external legal Covenant was made and these as such for rejecting of Christ were broken off 1. Not broken off from the Election of Grace for to that they did not belong 2. Nor were they broken off of the Gospel Church for they never were grafted into that but 3 dly they were broken off from being any more a Church or People in Covenant with God the whole Old Church State and Constitution being gone by the coming in of the Gospel Dispensation and they not closing in with Christ in the Covenant of Grace and Gospel Church but utterly rejected him and the New Church State For this they were broken off as a lost People because not re-planted or implanted into Jesus Christ and the true Gospel Church the Old being gone quite rased and taken away They have now no Root to stand upon having lost their Legal standing and Privileges as Abraham was their Father upon that very Foot of Account and they not appearing to be the true Branches or Seed of Abraham as he was the Father of all the Faithful or of all the Elect Seed they must of necessity from hence be broken off from being the People of God or belonging to any Common Head or Root in any
Covenant Relation to God at all The Dispensation being changed the Old House pulled down Agar and her Son cast out Old things past away and all things being now become New But this New State New Blessings and New Church Privileges they rejected and so were the natural Branches broken off and the Gentiles who were wild by Nature that is never were in any visible Covenant State with God nor in any sense related to Abraham as a Root were grafted into the True Olive Jesus Christ and into the Gospel Church and so Partakers of the sap and fatness of the Root and of the Olive that is of the spiritual Blessings of Christ and of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and Privileges of the Gospel Church and this they received and partook of us as being first grafted by saving Faith in Christ and so united to his Mystical Body But since there are a great Number of the natural Branches that are beloved for their Father's sake that is for their Father Abraham's sake as the Root and Father of all the Elect Seed they shall in due time be grafted in again and so become a People visibly owned of God and in Covenant with him as the True Seed now actually are and formerly were And if this be considered What doth this Text do to prove the natural Seed of Believers are in the Gospel Covenant or are externally relatively and foederally Holy for if the natural Seed of Abraham can lay no claim nor have any Right to Gospel Precepts or Privileges as such but are broken off What ground is there for us to think within our selves that we or our natural Off-spring as such should be taken in and so another Wall of Partition and cause of Enmity set up between believing and unbelieving Gentiles and their Seed as such The Apostle speaks not of Branches or of being Holy with an external relative Covenant Holiness but of such a spiritual Gospel Holiness that was in the Root viz. Abraham who believed in God and it was counted to him for Righteousness And thus all his true spiritual Seed who are actual Branches and in Covenant are Holy and also all the Elect of Abraham not yet called are discretively Holy or in God's sight so who calls things that are not as if they were they are all Holy in his Account and beleved for their Father's sake with whom the Covenant of Grace was made for himself and all his spiritual Seed And 't is from this Argument the Apostle argues for the calling of the Iews and grafting them in who belong to the Election of Grace Therefore there is no ground for Infants Church Membership or Baptism from hence and those who make every Believer a common Head or Root of their natural Off-spring as Abraham was either way know not what they affirm nor what they say see Rector Rectified Moreover the Jews who were broken off are still the natural Seed of Abraham and if therefore this Holiness was an external relative foederal Holiness they are still in that Sense Holy as far forth as any Child of believing Gentiles as such can be said to be but 't is evident this is not that Holiness of which the Apostle speaks nor is there any such Holiness under the Gospel Dispensation spoken of as to that Text in 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children unclean but now are they Holy this is so fully answered in that late Treatise Entituled The Rector Rectify'd c. that I shall speak nothing now to it for from the Scope of the place 't is evident the Apostle speaks of Matrimonial Sanctification and of the Holiness of Legitimation see pag. 134. to 140. so that there Mr. Rothwell hath his Arguments answered touching Infants faedoral Holiness under the Law c. Obj. 11. If the Children of Believers as such are not now under the Gospeâ— in Covenant with them and so to be admitted Members of the Church as formerly then the Privileges of the Gospel Covenant and Membership are straitned and fewer than they were under the Law Mr. R's Paedo-Baptismus pag. 2.3 Answ. 'T is not once to be supposed but that the External or Temporal Privileges of the Iews under the Law were more and larger as well as Church-Membership than those we have under the Gospel Dispensation since their Church was national and their Promises and Privileges consisting in earthly Blessings as they were a People considered in that old Covenant Relation for the Jewish Teachers or Priests of God had many external Privileges which no Gospel Minister can once pretend unto Minister's Sons had all a Right to the Ministry they had a Right to the Tenths of all their Brethren's Increase and first Fruits and a multitude of other Advantages besides viz. they had a Civil Government of their own Power to punish Capital Offenders with Death their Temporal Rulers were among themselves but Christ hath not set up such a Gospel political Church-State nor given such Power and such a Government to his Church under the Gospel what will be in the Kingdom of Christ in the last days we know not They had a lovely and fruitful Land given to them for their Inheritance that flowed with Milk and Honey they were promised outward Peace Riches and gathering of much Wealth so are not we they had a glorious external Temple and what not also all their natural Off-spring were born Members of their Church But none of these Privileges can we lay claim unto all that are to be admitted into the Gospel-Church have only a Right by Regeneration by the second Birth and not by the first Birth we are to expect Persecution and trouble in the World and not Peace and Prosperity Poverty and Want and not Riches or earthly Fulness yet our Privileges are better and greater under the Gospel than theirs were under the Law the Gospel Covenant being established upon better Promises Our Children when grown up sit under the clear and glorious Light and Preaching of the Gospel which they and theirs had then held forth but in dark shadows moreover the Parâ—ition Wall being now broken down the Gospel Church is not confin'd to the one People or Nation only but now all in all Nations of the World who believe and embrace Christ by saving Faith whether Iews or Gentiles are Joint-heirs together and have Interest in like spiritual Blessings now greater Infusions of the Spirit Alas what Privileges had the poor Gentiles under the Law and their Children Is not the matter well amended with us Sir this being so what is become of your Rational Arguments for Infant Baptism p. 2 3. Obj. 12. Circumcision in the very direct and primary End of it teached Man the Corruption of his Nature by sin and the Mortification of sin therefore 〈◊〉 Covenant of Works or Condition of it to this purpose Mr. Flavel speaks pag. 231. Answ. I answer though it should be granted that Circumcision had such an End yet that that was the direct
and primary End of it he proves not for the direct and more immediate End and Design thereof we have proved was something else although we grant it was a dark Sign Type or Figure of that they speak of viz. to discover the Corruption of Nature by sin and the Mortification thereof and so also did most of the Ceremonies of the Law but doth it therefore follow those Ceremonies and so Circumcision did not appertain to that Ministration of the Covenant of Works God gave by Moses to the People of Israel which is abrogated and done away Must the Shadow or Sign be part of the Substance or belong or appertain to the Substance Wherefore as Mr. Cary well saith until they can prove the Sinai Covenant and Ceremonial Law c. not to be in their own Nature a Covenant of Works this which they object here has nothing in it since Sacrifices the Passover c. as well as Circumcision were Types of Christ and other Gospel-Mysteries likewise and indeed Mr. Flavel seems to me to run upon a Mistake all along in his Answer to Mr. Cary as if the latter makes no distinction between Adam's Covenant of Works and those after Administrations of the same Old Covenant for Mr. Cary I am satisfied means no more than what I have said viz. That they agree in Nature and Quality tho' Adam had Life and Justification by his own perfect Obedience unto that Law or Covenant while he stood and it was given to him to that end yet God gave not the Sinai Covenant which required perfect Obedience to the end Man might be thereby justified nor was it possible he could since he had sinned and lost his power to obey but that Law contains a clear Transcript of the first Law and so of the Holiness of God and of that Righteousness Man originally had and lost and of the Impossibility of his being justified without such a compleat and perfect Righteousness but the Law as written in the two Tables was given in Mercy upon the Score or Account I have mentioned to Israel in Subserviency to the Gospel and to it was annexed the Ceremonies to shew that a plenary Satisfaction must be made for the breach of God's Holy Law and that this must be by Blood tho' not by blood of Bulls or Goats but they might have understood that by them the Sacrifice and Blood of Christ was figured could they have seen to the end or purport of them Therefore the true Distinction lies here viz. Both are the first Covenant of Works both shew Man must live and sin not if he would be justified in God's sight the first in Man's Innocency answered the end of a Covenant of Works the second Administration thereof could not give Life nor was it given to that end but it answered the end for which God gave it and so much to this Objection Obj. 13. You cannot deny but Circumcision sealed the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham and how can you prove a Seal of the Covenant of Works can be applied to such a use and service Thus Mr. Flavel p. 234. Answ. 1. I answer first who of us say that Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Works there is a great difference between a Seal of a Covenant and that which was given as a Sign or Token of that legal and external Covenant God made with all Abraham's natural Seed as such aâ—d that Circumcision was such a Sign we have before shewed as also of their having the Covenant or Law of Mount Sinai and Land of Canaan given to them c. 2. But that Circumcision was a Seal of that Faith Abraham himself had not being yet Circumcised and that he should be the Father of all that believe Paul possibly affirms Rom. 4.16 and yet it might well be of use to him also as a Sign or Token of those other Covenant Rights and Blessings granted to his natural Off-spring is evident 3. And from hence we have proved that Circumcision could not be so a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to any other Person or Persons none having the like Faith before they were Circumcised as Abraham had nor were they made common Fathers to all true Believers whether Iews or Gentiles Obj. 14. Where the Covenant of Circumcision is by the Apostle contra-distinguished to the Covenant of Faith Rom. 4.13 the Law in that place is put strictly for the pure Law of Nature and metatypically signified the Works of the Law p. 235. Answ. 1. I suppose no Man besides Mr. Flavel ever asserted such a thing as this is I would know how Circumcision a meer positive Precept came to be a part of the Pure Law of Nature for 't is evident that the Law Paul contra-distinguisheth from the Righteousness of Faith had Circumcision in it or else the same Apostle needed not to have taken such pains to have distinguished between Circumcision and the Righteousness of Faith and had Circumcision appertained to the Righteousness of Faith or been a Gospel Covenant why doth he exclude it with the Law from being so counted read v. 10 11 12 13. 2. The Law therefore of which the Apostle speaks is that Ministration of the Law given to Israel of which Circumcision was part and so of the like Nature and Quality with it and both contra-distinguished to the Covenant of Grace or to the Righteousness of Faith And that the Law here is put strictly for the pure Law of Nature is wholly without Reason Proof or Demonstration what Law doth the Apostle speak of in the preceding Chapters and also in this see chap. 3.1 2. is it not that he calls the Oracles of God or Lively Oracles Act. 7.38 given on Mount Sinai The Law of Nature and the written Law contained in the two Tables are all one and the same Law as to the Substance of them they are materially the same tho' not formally both convinced of Sin both bring Sinners under Guilt and Condemnation and so that all Mouths may be stopped and all the World become guilty before God Rom. 3 19. both are a Rule to walk by both Witnesses for God but neither of them can give Life nor justifie the Sinner in the sight of God v. 20. Therefore neither of them are any part of the Covenant of Grace for if one of them is a part of it both of them are if the Law of Nature be not so the Law written in the Tables of Stone was not so yet the Iews had the Advantage of the Gentiles because their Law was wrote in far more legible Characters than the dimm Law of Nature Rom. 3.2 as well as in many other respects Obj. The denying Baptism to Infants hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion 1. That Principle which hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion can be no Christian Doctrine but the denying Baptism to Infants hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion therefore such a Principle can be no Christian Doctrine this is Mr. Rothwell's
main Argument pag. 2 3. to prove the Minor thus he argues viz. 2. That Principle which makes the Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works hinders the Propagation of the Christian Religion but the former Principle does so Ergo To prove the Minor of this Argument he adds another viz. That Principle which allows not as great Immunities Benefits and Privileges to the Covenant of Grace as to the Covenant of Works makes the Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works but the Principle that denies Baptism to Infants does so Ergo. Answ. 1. This Gentleman calls these Rational Arguments but I have nothing but his own word for it but to proceed he should have shewed what those Immunities and Benefits were in the Covenant oâ— Works which we by denying Infants Baptism render the Privileges of the Covenant of Grace to be less than those were but do you not intimate hereby that Circumcision belonged to the Covenant of Works and if so in vain do you urge Circumcision as a Privilege and also since the Covenant of Works is abrogated what is there in your Arguments for the baptizing of Infants For all Iewish Rites and Privileges may be forced upon the Christian World by this Argument of yours or else we may say the Privileges of the Gospel are less than the Privileges of the Iews under the Covenant of Works which I have already answered 2. His mentioning that Passage of Calvin is remote to his purpose he speaks of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham not of the Covenant of Works which we say is not curtail'd by Christ's coming but is every way as extensive now as it was from the beginning but we have proved that there was a Two-fold Covenant made with Abraham and that Circumcision did appertain to his Natural Seed as such and so part of the legal Covenant Obj But the Commission Mat. 28.19 you say is as full or rather more beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works and consequently that the baptizing of Infants is a Christian Duty for had there been as general a Commission given by Moses to Twelve Elders of Israel as the Blessed Iesus gave to his Disciples and it had been said to them Go teach all Nations Circumcising them this had been no Prohibition to Circumcise the Iewish Children c. Ans. 1. Is this that the Mountains have brought forth we were big in Expectation by your Title Page wondering what new Notion or Arguments you had found out from the Commission Mat. 28.19 20. or what your different Method should be to prove Infant Baptism But truly Sir the Log is still too heavy you cannot lift it up I see nothing new in your whole Tract nor any thing but what has been answered but this being the main Pin upon which all hangs I shall give a brief Reply to you 1. I thank you for your plain and just Concession I see you conclude and grant Circumcision did belong to the Covenants or Works I doubt not but you are right so far and with that your Cause is gone and Calvin and all that came after him have said nothing in calling Circumcision a Gospel Covenant 2. But Sir suppose the People of Israel had never been commanded by the Lord to Circumcise their Children till Moses came and Moses had given such a Commission that you mention viz. to teach all Nations Circumcising them do you think they would have had ground from thence to have circumcised their Infants whereas his Circumcision required the teaching of all Nations first before they were circumcised of which Infants were not capable 3. 'T is evident that our Saviour in his Great Commission enjoineth no more to be baptized but such who are first taught or made Disciples and this agrees with his own Practice Joh. 4.1 he made and baptized more Disciples than John he first made them Disciples and then baptized them nor were there any baptized in the New Testament but such who first professed Faith in the Lord Jesus See our Answer to Mr. Burkit which I sent you Also our Answer to the Athenian Society this is there fully spoken unto 4. If the Commission be so extensive as you intimate Why do you not go or stir up some Ministers to go into all Heathen and Pagan Nations and Baptise them and their Children and so that way make them all Christians You may teach them the Christian Doctrine i. e. Faith and Repentance afterwards as you do your Children but the Truth is there is no need to teach them afterwards the way of Faith and Regeneration if your Doctrine be true because the chief Thing they received in Baptism you say is divine Grace viz. Regeneration Adoption and a Title to the Inheritance of eternal Life p. 20. Sure those divine Habits can never be lost Reader take what this Man says farther on this Respect Obj. But you say we neither regard nor consider the chief Thing in Baptism viz. The Testification or Witness of the divine Benevolence taking them into Covenant Protection and Patronage and conferring and bestowing Grace upon them for in Baptism the chief Thing is divine Grace which consists and stands in the remission pardon and forgiveness of Sins in Adoption or Sonship and in a Right and Title to the Inheritance of Eternal Life of which Grace Infants stand in need and are as capable as the Adult c. p. 20. Answ. This is such Doctrine that few Paedo-Baptists besides your self do assert or believe but What Proof do you give us to confirm it from God's Word You say right we do not regard it indeed Doth Baptism do all this 'T is wonderful How conferr Grace and give Pardon and Eternal Life You Ministers of the Church of England if this be so can do as strange things as the Popish Priests in Transubstantiation you can by sprinkling a little Water on the Face of a Babe it appears change the evil and vitious Habits form Christ in the Soul raise the Dead to Life and of a Child of Wrath make a Child of God It grieves me to think a Man called a Minister of the Gospel should teach such corrupt Doctrine and deceive the Ignorant For as it is without Scripture-Evidence nay contrary to it for God's Word that tells us Baptism washes not away the Filth of the Flesh that is the Corruption of depraved Nature so 't is contrary to Reason and without any rational Demonstration as Reverend Stephen Charnock tho' a Paedo-Baptist shews Many Men saith he take Baptism for Regeneration The Ancients usually give it this Term one calls our Saviour's Baptism his Regeneration This conferrs not Grace but engageth to it outward Water cannot convey inward Life How can Water an external Thing work upon the Soul in a Physical manner neither can it be proved That ever the Spirit of God is tyed by any Promise to apply himself to the Soul in gracious Opperations when
have you from God's Word to affirm such things you give no more proof for what you assert than the Papists do for their vain Traditions and Popish Ceremonies Grace must be implanted in the Soul before Baptism or the Person has no Right to it 't is an outward Sign of an inward spiritual Grace as your Church asserts Baptism is not Grace nor conveys Grace if you can prove it does I will say no more but submit and acknowledge my mistake but if you err in saying it does do not go about to deceive your People any more You plead for making false Christian nominal Christians Christianity is another thing than what you seem to imagine The Way is narrow and the Gate is straight Regeneration is a difficult Work it requires the Mighty Power of God to be put forth on the Soul nay the same Power that God wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead Ephes. 1.19 20. As to Infants being capable of the Blessings of the Gospel so are Heathens and Pagans when God calls them and infuses Grace into their Souls I have answered all you say upon that Account in my Answer to Mr. Burkit The Commission in the largest Extent comprehends no more than such that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciplized by the Preaching of the Gospel in all Nations the Parents must be discipled and the Children must themselves in their own Persons be discipled as well as their Parents and as their Parents were before baptized and when a whole Nation both Parents and Children are by the Word and Spirit made Christ's true and holy Disciples and as such baptized then all the Nation may be look'd upon to be Christians but we know what sort of Christians you make and your national Church does consist of that are made so by Baptism to our trouble if God does not make your Members better Christians than your Sprinkling or baptizing them as you call it hath done none of them as it appears from Christ's own words Ioh. 3.3 can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven In my former Books you may read Mr. Perkin's and Mr. Baxter's Expositions of the Commission they talk not at such a rate as you do tho' Pedo-Baptists And tho' in your late Letter to me you seem to boast as if some admire your Book and that your Arguments are invincible or unanswerable Yet that is not my Conceptions concerning it and had your Antagonist so judged of it I doubt not but he would attempted your strongest Fort before this time for I know very well his Ability to defend this Cause indeed I wonder at his silence But if you do proceed to provoke a farther Answer you may have it This which I have done was occasioned by my Preaching on this Text not intending a particular Reply to every thing you have said nor is there any need for you are fully answered already in our late Treatises yet I think the Controversie much concerns you of the Church of England and such who are for a National Church As for our Brethren called Congregational I cannot tell what they mean by contending for the Practice of Paedo-Baptism nor do I well know what their Sentiments are about it they agree as I do understand with us and other Christians that Baptism is an initiating Rite or Ordinance now if their Infants are in Covenant with themselves and are made visible Church-Members by Baptism in Infancy and until by actual Sins they violate their Rite and Privilege abide Members thereof 1. Then I would know whether they have their Names in their Church-Book or Register as Members And 2 dly Whether they ever Excommunicate or bring under any Church Censure such of their Children who fall into scandalous Sins or actual Transgressions or not 3 dly If not what kind of polluted Churches must thir's be who have not purged out such corrupt Members The truth is I see not how Infant Baptism is consistent with any Church State unless it be National and no doubt the first Contrivers or Founders of it devised that way for the Progress of that they call the Christian Religion and so opened a Door that Christ shut when he put an end to the National Church of the Iews Therefore I wonder at our strict Independants considering their Notions knowing how their Principles differ from and their Understanding or Knowledge of Gospel-Church Constitution exceeds others for Baptism does not initiate into their Churches it seems by their Practice unless their Children when baptized were thereby made Members with them It is evident that under the Law when Infants were Members of the Jewish Church they were born Members thereof tho' the Males were to be Circumcised on the Eighth day nor was the case difficult to know the Right Infants had to Circumcision it was not from the Faith of immediate Parents but it was their being the true Natural Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh or being Proselytes c. which gave them a Right to Circumcision by Vertue of God's positive Command to Abraham But now if the Infant 's Rite arises only from the True and Real Faith of their Parents the Child when grown up may doubt if its Parents or Father or Mother were not true Believers whether they had a Right to it or not or may see cause to question whether either of them were in truth in the Covenant of Grace or no for who knows who are in a true spiritual Sence in Covenant with God especially if their Parents should fall away or Apostatize and become vicious which may demonstrate they were not true Believers and so not the Elect of God themselves and if so their Children had no more Right to Baptism than the Children of open and prophane unbelievers Children have The truth is what I have said in these Sermons may serve to reprove such who set up a new Wall of Partition like that which Christ Abolished by the Blood of his Cross and so cause Enmity to rise between the Seed of Believing Gentiles and the Seed of unbelieving Gentiles by making the Children of ungodly Ones to say Our Parents were wicked and not in Covenant with God and tho' we were baptized yet had no Right to it we cannot but envy your Privilege you are the Children of believing Parents and are in Covenant c. nay and it may cause too to trust to that Birth-Privilege and so destroy their Souls by looking out for no other Regeneration but that which they had in Baptism in their Infancy Some Reflections on Mr. Exell's new Treatise Entituled A serious Enquiry into and containing plain and express Scripture-Proofs that John Baptist did as certainly Baptize Infants as the Adult REader just as I had closed with all I intended to have added to this short Tract a Gentleman brought me another Book newly Published called Plain Scripture-Proof that John Baptist did certainly Baptize Infants as the Adult This Book is written by one Mr. Exell who calls himself
be baptized for no doubt there were many Thousand Families that lived either in Ierusalem Iudea or in the Regions round about that were not Jews broad is the Way to Heaven if this Man's Doctrine be true or into the Church at least The Man's mistake lies here i. e. because great Multitudes went out either to see or hear Iohn Baptist he therefore concludes Iohn baptized them all because 't is said he baptized them not observing the severe Doctrine he Preached and what a holy Sight and Sence of Sin and godly Repentance he enjoyned on all those he admitted to Baptism for they he baptized confessed their Sins i. e. their hearty Sorrow for Sin and were turned to the Lord for that was his Work and the grand Purport of his Ministry and evident it is that there were but a few comparatively baptized by Iohn because Christ by the hands of his Disciples baptized more Disciples than he Ioh. 4.1 and 't is said Christ's Flock was but a little Flock and after Christ's Resurrection the whole Number of his Disciples were about One hundred and Twenty Act. 1.15 tho' may be some few more there might be in some orher places Mr. Baxter tho' a great Asserter of Paedo-Baptism contradicts this Man Iohn Baptist saith he received and judged of the Profession of his Penitents before he did baptize them Baxt. Confirmat Restor p. 68. It was such a Confession that Iohn required of those that he baptized that gave him Ground to believe they had Right to Remission of Sin for he baptized with the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of Sin Read the late Annotators on Luk. 3.3 The Summ of Iohn's Doctrine say they was the necessity of Repentance and Faith in Christ in order to the Remission of Sin his pressing Faith in Christ is most clearly declared by the Evangelist Iohn Matthew Mark and Luke insist more upon his Preaching the Doctrine of Repentance for the Remission of Sins Baptism was an Evidence of it Iohn did not Preach that Baptism was Repentance or that Remission of Sin was infallibly annexed to it but that the way to obtain the Remission of Sins was by Repentance and Baptism was an External Sign and Symbol of it It was no doubt such a Confession that Philip required of the Eunoch Act. 8.37 See here is Water what doth hinder me to be baptized Philip answered If thou believest withal thine Heart thou mayest This Man would render Iohn Baptist less Faithful than any ordinary pious Minister I believe saith Gullespy No consciencious Minister would adventure to baptize any who hath manifested infallible Signs of unregenerations Gil's Aaron's Rod. blossom Obj. But saith Mr. Exell to conclude that this Confession mentioned Mat. 3.5 was a Confession with the Mouth or Tongue without considering any thing of the words when there is no such discovery in the Text is somewhat too quick and too bold for what is expressed is expresly asserted of all the Regions and all Judea and Jerusalem and those called Multitudes and these general Expressions contain and comprehend Men Women and Children c. Answ. I must needs say 't is a hard case you dare so boldly affirm all both Men Women and Children were baptized by Iohn whereas 't is positively said that they he baptized confessed their Sins You conclude against the express Words of the Text and assert plain Scripture proof that Iohn Baptist did certainly baptize Infants and yet give neither Scripture nor Reason to demonstrate what you say is true you can draw Consequences to build an Ordinance upon that which naturally rises not from the Texts you refer to nay which is more when the Text is expresly against such a Conclusion 't is said They that gladly receive the Word were baptized You may say that some of them were Infants as well as to affirm some of these Iohn baptized were such for Infants are as capable to receive the Word as to confess their Sins nay when 't is said Acts 20. The Disciples came together to break Bread you may affirm that Infants came then with others together to break Bread or to eat the Lord's Supper for you know how to prove them to be Disciples no doubt on 't if you have not been too quick in asserting what you with boldness have asserted I am greatly mistaken You make Baptism a very insignificant Sign what good can Baptism do that Parson that has no Grace If you can prove what your Brother Rothwell affirms do viz. That Baptism does regenerate Infants or is a Converting Ordinance Certaintly but very few of that great Multitude you suppose Iohn baptized received any Spiritual benefit by their Baptism and I challenge all the World to prove if they can that ever one Infant received any kind of Internals Spiritual or Eternal Advantage by being baptized as you call it or External either by the Word of God He adds an Induction of Twenty particulars to shew what a Confession it was not that those Iohn Baptist baptized made but they need no further Reply being all remote to the Purpose brought for Then he proceeds into ten more to shew it could not be a verbal Confession of Actual Faith and Repentance the most of them follow here Obj. There is nothing of a Command requiring such a Confession neither declared by John nor revealed by any other Messenger of God This contains his two First Answ. Did not Iohn require it when he said bring forth Fruits meet for Râ—pentance c A Confession is a Fruit of Repentance And did not Philip require it of the Eunuch Is not Faith required and as a Man believes with his Heart so a Confession is required with the Mouth to make known that Faith unto Salvation Obj. If such a Confession was commanded it must be gained by their own personal Obediâ—cence and so the Gospel is a Covenant of Works 2. If commanded then it was not voluntary 3. If commanded then it must not be to shew the Grâ—ce they had but their Obedience these are three more of them Pag. 44. 1. Answ. I answer if what God commands us to do those Vertues so commanded are gained or merited by our own personal Obedience then all our Evangelical Duties must be meritorious and the Gospel is a Covenant of Works indeed For that the Gospel doth command many Duties is evident Can't God give Grace and then command us by the Assistance of his Spirit to cause those Graces to appear in exercise to the Praise of his own Glory 2. Or cannot that which God commands us to do be done freely and voluntary by us Or doth free Grace destroy the Noble Faculty of the Will because it over-powers its vitious Habits and strongly inclines it to that which is good Do not Saints freely and voluntarily by the help of the Spirit and Grace of Christ will that which is good and well-pleasing to him Or is a Confession of Sin not good or an Evangelical Duty 3. Do we