those Duties and Ordinances for Righteousness and Justification made it a Covenant of Works to themselves and Circumcision it self a Bond of that Covenant 6. Now for as much as Circumcision prefigured Christ who was to come of this Holy circumcised Seed of Abraham and his Death also was pointed at therein Heb. 2. 16. Col. 2. 11. of necessity this Ordinance must vanish at the Death of Christ and accordingly did so These things duly pondered how irrational is it to imagine this Covenant of Circumcision to be the very same with the Paradisical Covenant Did that Covenant discover native Corruption and direct to its remedy in Christ as this did Surely it gave not the least glimps of any such thing Did that Covenant separate and distinguish one Person from another as this did No no it left all under equal and common Misery Eph. 2. 3. Had Adam's Covenant a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith annexed to it as this had Rom. 4. 11. He received Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith The Righteousness of Faith is Evangelical Righteousness and this Circumcision sealed Say not it was to Abraham only that it sealed it for 't is an injurious Restriction put upon the Seal of a Covenant which extended to the Fathers as well as to Abraham Luke 1. 72. But you admit however that it sealed Evangelical Righteousness to Abraham but I hope you will not say that a Seal of the Covenant of Works ever did or could Seal Evangelical Righteousness to any individual Person in the World So then turn which way you will this truth still follows you and will fasten upon you That the Covenant of Circumcision was not a pure Covenant of Works but a Gospel-Covenant which I thus prove Argument I. If Circumcision be a part of the Ceremonial Law and the Ceremonial Law was dedicated by Blood and whatsoever is so dedicated is by you confessed to be no part of the Covenant of works then Circumcision is no part of the Covenant of works even by your own confession But it is so Ergo. That it is a part of the Ceremonial Law was never doubted or denied by any Man That it was dedicated by Blood and therefore no part of the Moral Law you your self not only acknowledge but vehemently plead for it Page 148. where you blame Mr. Sedgwick with some Sharpness and unbecoming Reflection for making no distinction betwixt the Ceremonial Covenant which was dedicated by Blood and the Law written in Tables of Stone which was not so dedicated and therefore could not be the same with the Moral Law which you make the Covenant of works telling him that this Dedication by Blood ought to distinguish it from the Moral Law or Sinai Covenant of works as you say it doth and ought to do how then can Circumcision be the same with and yet quite another thing from the Sinai Covenant was the Ceremonial Law dedicated by â—…lood Yes the Apostle â—…lainly asserts it from Exod. Heb. 9. 18 19. â—…4 7 8. Moses took the Book â—…f the Covenant and read it in the audience â—…f the people and took the blood and sprinkâ—…d it upon the people and said behold the â—…lood of the Covenant which the Lord hath â—…ade with you concerning these things But â—…hat kind of Covenant then was this Coâ—…enant that was sprinkled with Blood â—…ou tell us Page 147. it could not possiâ—…y be the Law written in Stones which â—…ou make the Covenant of works but â—…as indeed another Covenant delivered 〈◊〉 a distinct Season and in a distinct â—…ethod What Covenant then must this â—…e seeing it could not possibly as you â—…y be the Sinai Covenant written in â—…ones It must either be the Covenant â—…f Grace or none No say you that 〈◊〉 was not neither for it was of the same â—…ture with and is no other than a Coâ—…enant of works Page 151. it was the â—…me and yet could not possibly be the same Mr. Sedgwick that Learned-Grave Divine is check'd Page 148. for confounding the Ceremonial Law that waâ—… sprinkled with Blood with the Moraâ—… Law which you call the Covenant oâ—… works that was not sprinkled witâ—… Blood and say you Page 147. It coulâ—… not possibly be the same And then P. 151 you say It 's clear these two viz. thâ—… Moral and Ceremonial Law were both 〈◊〉 the same nature that is no other than 〈◊〉 Covenant of Works How doth this hanâ—… together Pray reconcile it if you caâ—… You say it is an ungrounded Supposition 〈◊〉 Mr. Sedgwick 's that that Covenant whiâ—… was so confirmed by Blood must of necessiâ—… be confirmed by the Blood of Christ alsâ—… Page 148. But Sir the truth you opposâ—… viz. That the Book of the Ceremoniâ—… Law was sprinkled by Typical Blooâ—… and therefore confirmed by the Bloâ—… of Christ for the time it was to continâ—… shines like a bright Sun-beam in yoâ—… Eyes from Heb. 9. 14 23. was not tâ—… Blood that sprinkled this Law the 〈◊〉 gure or Type of Christ's own Blood whose Blood was it then if not Christ'â—… How dare you call this an ungroundâ—… Supposition was not that Blood Typâ—… cal Blood And what I pray you was the Antitype but Christ's Blood And did not the Holy Ghost signifie the one by the other Heb. 9. 8. I stand amazed at these things You distinguish and confound all again You say it could not possibly be the same with the Law written in Stone and you say it 's clear both were of the same nature no other than a Covenant of works At this â—…ate you may say what you please for 〈◊〉 see Contradiction is no Crime in your Book Argument II. If Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith it did not perâ—…ain to the Covenant of works for the Righteousness of Faith and Works are Opposites and belong to two contrary Covenants But Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. He â—…i e. Abraham received the sign of Cirâ—…umcision a seal of the righteousness of Faith Therefore it pertains not to the Coveâ—…ant of Works but Grace A Man would think it impossible to evade so clear and Scripture an Argument as this is The Major Proposition is even self-evident and undeniable the Minor the plain words of the Apostle And what is your Reply to this certainly as strange a one as ever I met with Page 205. You say 'T is true Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham but it was so to him only in his extraordinary Circumstanceâ—… but it was not so to any of his natural Sâ—… in its ordinary use I cannot deny but I have met with such an Assertion before in Mr. Tombes and I can tell you too that Bellarmine invented it before Mr. Tombes was born and that Dr. Ames fully confuted it in his third Tome Page 27. proving that there was no extraordinary cause oâ—… Abraham's account why God should justifie or seal him more than any other
condition of the Covenant of works or being a sign of the same Covenant of Grace we are now under it be not sucâ—…eeded by the new Gospel-sign which is Baptism Mr. Cary affirms that it was 〈◊〉 it self a condition of the Covenant of Works and being annexed to Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. it made â—…hat a true Adam's Covenant of works â—…lso This I utterly deny and say Aâ—…raham's Covenant was a true Covenant â—…f Grace 2. That Circumcision was Seal of the righteousness of Faith and therefore could not possibly belong to the Covenant of Works 3. That as it was applied both to the ordinary and extraordinary Infant-seed of Abraham during that administration of the Covenant so it is the will of Christ that Baptism should take its place under the Gospel and be applyed now to the Infant-seed of all Abraham's Spiritual Children These are the things wherein we differ about the second Position And lastly as to the III Position That neither Moses's Law Exod. 2â—… nor God's Covenant with Abraham Geâ—… 17. can be any other than an Adam's Covâ—…nant of Works because they have each 〈◊〉 them conditions in them on Man's part 〈◊〉 the Gospel-Covenant hath none at all but 〈◊〉 altogether free and absolute The Controversie here betwixt us 〈◊〉 not 1. Whether the Gospel-Covenanâ—… requires no duties at all of them thaâ—… are under it nor 2. Whether it requires any such conditions as were 〈◊〉 Adam's Covenant namely perfect personal and perpetual obedience undeâ—… the severest Penalty of a Curse and admitting no place of Repentance Nor 3. Whether any condition required by it on our part have any thing in its own nature Meritorious of the Benefits promised Nor 4. Whether we be able in our own Strength and by the Power of our Free Will without the preventing as well as the assisting Grace of God to perform any such Work or Duty as we call a Condition In these things we have no Controversie but the only Question betwixt us is Whether in the New Covenant some act of ours though it have no Merit in it nor can be done in our own single Strength be not required to be performed by us antecedently to a Blessing or Priviledge consequent by vertue of a Promise And whether such an Act or Duty being of a Suspending Nature to the Blessing promised it have not the true and proper Nature of a Gospel Condition This I affirm and he positively denies These three Positions being confuted and the contrary well confirmed viz. That the Law at Sinai was not set up by God as an Adam's Covenant to open the old way of Righteousness and Life by works but was added to the promise as subservient to Christ in its design and use and consequently can never be a pure Adam's Covenant of Works And secondly That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. is the very same Covenant of Grace we are now under and 2ly that Circumcision in the nature of the act did not oblige all men to keep the whole Law for Righteousness And 3ly That the New Covenant is not absolute and wholly unconditional though notwithstanding a most free and gracious Covenant the Pillars on which Mr. Cary sets his new Structure sink under it and the building falls into ruins I have not here taken Mr. Cary's two Syllogisms proving Abraham's Covenant to be a Covenant of Works because I find my self therein prevented by that ingenuous and learned man Mr. Whiston in his late Answer to Mr. Grantham Neither have I particularly spoken to his 23 Arguments to prove the Sinai Law to be a pure Adam's Covenant because frustra sit per plura quod sieri potest per pauciora I have overthrown them all together at one blow by evincing every Argument to have four terms in it and so proves nothing But I have spoken to all those Scriptures which concern our four Positions and fully vindicated them from the injurious senses to which Mr. Cary following Mr. Tombes had wrested them These things premised I shall only further add that if Mr. Cary shall attempt a Reply to my Answer and free his own Theses from the gross absurdities with which I have loaded them he must plainly and substantially prove against me 1. That the Sinai Law according to its true scope and end was promulged by God for man's Justification and Happiness in the way of personal Obedience and that the Jews that did accordingly endeavour after Righteousness by the works of the Law did not mistake its true end and meaning or if they did and thereby made it what God never intended it to be a Covenant of works to themselves that the Sinai Law ought rather to be denominated from their mistake and abuse of it than from its primary and proper use and God's design in its promulgation 2. He must prove against me with like evidence of truth that Circumcision discovered no more of Man's Native Corruption nor any more of his remedy by Christ nor sealed to any Person whatsoever the Righteousness of Faith than Adam's Covenant in Paradise did and that it did in its own nature oblige all upon whom it passed to the same terms of Obedience that Adam's Covenant obliged him And 3. That there is not to be found in the new Covenant any such Act or Duty of ours as hath been described and limited above which is of a suspending Nature to the Benefits therein granted And 4. That the respective Expositions he gives of the several Texts by me explained and vindicated are more congruous to the Scope and Grammar than mine are and more agreeable to the current Sense of Orthodox Expositors and then he shall be sure to receive an answerable return from me else 't is but labour lost to write again A REPLY TO Mr. Philip Cary's Solemn Call THE Book I have undertaken to animadvert briefly upon bears the Title of A Solemn Call but I am not so much concerned with the Solemnity as I am with the Authority of this Call Not how it is but whose it is If it be the Call of God it must be obey'd tho it be to part not only with the Priviledges but Lives of our dearest Children but then we had need be very well assur'd it is the Call of God else we are guilty at once of the highest Folly and basest Tâ—…eachery to part with so rich an Inheritance convey'd by God's Covenant with Abraham to us believing Gentiles and our Seed at Mr. Cary's Call You direct your Solemn Call to all that would be owned as Christs faithful Witnesses Here you are too obscure and general Do you mean all that would be owned by you or by Christ If you mean that we must not expect to be owned by you till we renounce Infants Baptism you tell us no news for you have long since turn'd your back upon our Ministry and Assemblies yet methinks 't is strange that we who were lately own'd as Christs faithful Witnesses under our late Sufferings must now be
a Righteousness of his own in the way of doing was pleased to revive the Law of Nature as to its matter in the Sinai Dispensation which was 430 Years after the first Promise had been renewed and further opened unto Abraham of whose Seed Christ should come and this he did not in opposition to the Promise but in subserviency thereto Gal. 3. 21. And though the matter and substance of the Law of Nature be found in the Sinai Covenant strictly taken for the Ten Commandments yet the Ends and Intentions of God in that terrible Sinai Dispensation were two-fold 1. To convince Fallen Man of the sinfulness and impotency of his Nature and the impossibility of obtaining Righteousness by the Law and so by a blessed necessity to shut him up to Christ his only Remedy And 2. To be a standing Rule of Duty both towards God and Man to the end of the World But if we take the Sinai Covenant more largely as inclusive of the Ceremonial with the Moral Law as it is often taken and is so by you in the New Testament then it did not only serve for a Conviction of Impotency and a Rule of Duty but exhibited and taught much of Christ and the Mysteries of the New Covenant in those its Ceremonies wherein he was prefigured to them 5. Whence it evidently appear that the Sinai Covenant was neither repugnant to the New Covenant in its scope and aim The law is not against the promise Gal. 3. 21. nor yet set up as co-ordinate with it with a design to open two different ways of Salvation to Fallen Man but was added to the Promise in respect of its Evangelical purposes and designs on which account it is call'd by some a Covenant of Faith or Grace in respect of its subserviency unto Christ who is the end of the Law for righteousness Rom. 10. 4. and by others a Subservient Covenant according to Gal. 3. 23 24. and accordingly we find both Tables of the Law put into the Ark Heb. 9. 4. which shews their Consistency and Subordination with and to the method of Salvation by Christ in the New Covenant 6. This design and intention of God was fatally mistaken by the Jews ever since God promulg'd that Law at Sinai and was by them notoriously perverted to a quite contrary end to that which God promulged it for even to give Righteousness and Life in the way of personal and perfect Obedience Rom. 10. 3. for they being ignorant of Gods righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God Hence Christ came to be slighted by them and his righteousness rejected for they rested in the Law Rom. 2. 17. were married to the Law as an Husband Rom. 7. 2 3. and so might have no Conjugal Communion with Christ. However Moses Abraham and all the Elect discerned Christ as the end of the Law for righteousness and were led to him thereby 7ly This fatal Mistake of the Use and Intent of the Law is the ground of those seeming Contradictions in Paul's Epistles Sometimes he magnifies the Law when he speaks of it according to Gods end and purpose in its Promulgation Rom. 7. 12 14 16. but as it was fatally mistaken by the Jews and set in opposition to Christ so he thunders against it calls it a ministration of Death and Condemnation and all its appendent Ceremonies weak and beggarly elements and by this distinction whatsoever seems repugnant in Paul's Epistles may be sweetly reconciled and 't is a distinction of his own making 1 Tim. 1. 8. We know that the Law is good if we use it lawfully There is a good and an evil use of the Law Had you attended these things you had not so confidently and inconsiderately pronounced it a pure Covenant of Works II Position Secondly you affirm with like Confidence That the Covenant of Circumcision is also the same viz. The Covenant of Works made with Adam in Paradise This I utterly deny and will try whether you have any better Success in the Proof of your second than you had in your first Position and to convince you of your mistake let us consider what the general nature of this Ordinance of Circumcision was what its ends were and then prove that it cannot be what you affirm it to be the very same Covenant God made with Adam before the Fall but must needs be a Covenant of Grace 1. Circumcision in its general Nature was 1. an Ordinance of God's own Institution in the 99th year of Abraham's Age at which time of its Institution God renewed the Covenant with him Gen. 17. 9 10. 2. That it consisted as all Sacraments do of an external Sign and a Spiritual Mystery signified thereby The external part of it which we call the Sign was the cutting off the Foreskin of the Genital part of the Hebrew Males on the eighth Day from their Birth The Spiritual Mystery thereby signified and represented was the cutting off the Filth and Guilt of Sin from their Souls by Regeneration and Justification called the Circumcision of the heart Deut. 10. 16. And though this was laid upon them by the Command as their Duty yet a gracious Promise of Power from God to perform that Duty was added to the Command Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart to love him c. just as Promises of Grace in the New Testament are added to commands of Duty 3. Betwixt this outward visible Sign and Spiritual Mystery there was a Sacramental Relation from which Relation it is called the Token of the Covenant Gen. 17. 12. The Sign and Seal of the Covenant Rom. 4. 11. yea the Covenant it self Acts 7. 8. 2. Next let us consider the ends for which Circumcision was instituted and ordained of God of which these were the Principal 1. It was instituted to be a convictive Sign of their natural Corruption propagated by the way of natural Generation For which reason this natural Corruption goes in Scripture under the name of the Uncircumcision of the heart 〈◊〉 9. 26. 2. It also signified the putting off of this Body of Sin in the vertue of Christ's Death Col. 2. 11. 3. It was appointed to be the initiating Sign of the Covenant or a token of their Matriculation and Admission into the Church and Covenant of God Gen. 17. 9 10 11. 4. It was ordained to be a discriminating Mark betwixt God's Covenanted People and the Pagan World who were Strangers to the Covenant and without God in the World And accordingly both Parties were from this Ordinance denominated the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision Col. 3. 11. 5. It was also an obliging Sign to Abraham and his Seed to walk with God in the Uprightness and Sincerity of their Hearts in the performance of all covenanted Duties in which Duties Abraham and the Faithful waâ—…ked Obedientially with God looking to Christ for Righteousness but the carnal Jews resting in and trusting to
To imâ—…ose new Conditions though never so â—…ild is a New Covenant of Works with me Mercy but not a Covenant of race properly so called Sol. T 's true if those Works or Acts ours which God requires be underâ—…od of meritorious Works in our own Strength and Power to perform it destroys the Free Grace of the Covenant but this we utterly reject and speak only of Faith wrought in us by the Spirit of God which receives all from God and gives the entire Glory to God Ephes. 2. 5 8. Obj. But you will say If Faith be the Condition and that Faith be not of our selves then both the Promise and the Condition are on Gods part if you will call Faith a Condition and so still on our part the Covenant is absolute Sol. This is a mistake and the mistake in this leads you into all the rest though Faith which we call the Condition on our Part â—…e the Gift of God and the power of Believing be derived from God yet the act of believing is properly our act though the power by which we believe be of God else iâ—… would follow when we act any Grace as Faith Repentance or Obedience thaâ—… God believes repents and obeys in us and it is not we but God that doth alâ—… these This I hope you will not darâ—… to assert They are truly our Works though wrought in Gods Strength Isâ—… 26. 12. Lord thou hast wrought all oâ—… works in us i. e. Though they be our Works yet they are wrought in us by thy Grace or Strength As for Dr. Owen 't is plain from the place you cite in the Doctrine of Justification pag. 156. he only excludes Conditions as we do in respect of the dignity of the Act and is more plain in his Treatise of Redemption pag. 103 104. in which he allows Conditions in both the Covenants and makes this the difference That the Old required them but the New effects them in all the Federates I know no Orthodox Divine in the World that presumes to thrust in any Work of Mans into the Covenant of Grace as a Condition which in the Arminian Sense he may or may not perform according to the power and pleasure of his own Free-will without the preventing or determining Grace of God which preventing Grace is contained in those Promises Ezek. 36. 25 26 27. c. Nor yet that there is any meritorious Worth either of Condignity or Congruity in the Popish Sense in the very justifying Act of Faith for the which God justifies and saves us But we say That though God in the way of preventing Grace works Faith in us and when it is so wrought we need his assisting Grace to act it yet neither this assisting nor preventing Grace makes the act of Faith no more to be our Act 'T is we that believe still tho in Gods Strength and that upon our believing or not believing we have or have not the Benefits of Gods Promises which is the very proper Notion of a Condition Argument IV. If all the Promises of the New Covenant be absolute and unconditional having no respect nor relation to any Grace wrought in us nor Duty done by us then the Trial of our Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs of Grace is not our Duty nor can we take comfort in Sanctification as an Evidence of Justification But it is a Christians Duty to try his Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs and he may take comfort in Sanctification as an evidence of Justification Ergo. The Sequel of the Major is undeniably clear for that can never be a Sign or Evidence of an Interest in Christ which that Interest may be without yea and as Dr. Crispe asserts according to his Antinomian Principles Christ is ours saith he before we have gracious Qualifications Every true Mark and Sign must be inseparable from that it signifies Now if the works of the Spirit in us be not so but an Interest in Christ may be where these are not then they are no proper Marks or Signs and if they are not it cannot be our Duty to make use of them as such and consequently if we should they can yield us no Comfort The Minor is plain in Scripture 1 John 2. 3. Hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his Commandments The meaning is we perceive and discern our selves to be sincere Believers and consequently that Christ is our Propitiation when Obedience to his Commands is become habitual and easie to us So 1 John 3. 19. Hereby we know that we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts before him i. e. by our sincere cordial love to Christ and his Members as v. 18. this shall demonstrate to us that we are the Children of Truth and again 1 John 3. 14. We know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren With Multitudes more to the same purpose which plainly teach Christians to fetch the Evidences of their Justification out of their Sanctification and to prove their Interest in Christ by the works of his Spirit found in their own Hearts And this is not only a Christians Liberty but his commanded duty to bring his Interest in Christ to this Touch-stone and Test 2 Cor. 13. 5. Examine your selves prove your selves c. 2 Pet. 1. 10. Give all diligence to make your calling and election sure i. e. your Election by your calling No Man can make his Election sure a priori nor can any Man make it surer than it is in se therefore it is only capable of being made sure to us a posteriori arguing from the work of Sanctification in us to God's eternal choice of us And as the Saints in all Ages have taken this course so they have taken great and lawful Comfort in the use of these Marks and Signs of Grace 2 Kings 20. 3. 2 Cor. 1. 12. I am sensible how vehemently the Antinomian Party Dr. Crispe Mr. Eyre and some others do oppugn this truth representing it as legal and impracticable for they are for the absolute and unconditional Nature of the new Covenant as well as you but by your espousing their Principle you have even run Anabaptism into Antinomianism and must by this Principle of yours renounce all Marks and Tryals of an Interest in Christ by any work of the Spirit wrought in us You must only stick to the immediate Sealings of the Spirit which if such a thing be at all it is but rare and extraordinary I will not deny but there may be an immediate Testimony of the Spirit but sure I am his mediate Testimony by his Graces in us is his usual way of sealing Believers We do not affirm any of these his works to be meritorious causes of our Justification or that considered abstractedly from the Spirit they can of themselves Seal or evidence our Interest in Christ. Neither do we affirm that any of them are compleat and perfect Works but this we say that
these three Principles or Positions on which the other parts of his Discourse are superstructed and these being destroyed his other Discourses are but arenae sine calce I properly therefore begin with the Foundation Next I shall shew how far we are greed in the matters here controvertâ—…d and where it is in each of these that â—…he Controversie indeed lies betwixt us â—…nd as to I Position viz. That the Sinai-Law is the same with Aâ—…am's Covenant of Works made in Paraâ—…ice The difference betwixt us here is not 〈◊〉 Whether both these be called Coâ—…enants in Scripture nor 2. Whether there were no Grace at all in both or either of them For we are agreed it is Grace in God to enter into Covenant with Man whatever that Covenant be nor 3. Whether the Sinai-law be not a Covenant of Works to some Men by their own fault and occasion nor 4. Whether the Scriptures do not many times speak of it in that very sense and notion wherein Carnal Justiciaries apprehend and take it and by rejecting Christ make it so to themselves nor 5. Whether the very matter of the Law of Nature be not reviv'd and represented in the Sinai Law These are not the Points we contend about But the Question is Whether the Sinai Law do in its own nature and according to Gods purpose and design in the promulgation of it revive the Law of Nature to the same ends and uses it served to in Adam's Covenant and so be properly and truly a Covenant of Works Or whether God had not gracious and evangelical ends and purposes viz. by such a dreadful representation of the severe and impracticable terms of the first Covenant instead of obliging them to the personal and punctual observance of them foâ—… righteousness and life he did not rather design to convince them of the impossibility of legal righteousness humble proud Nature and shew them the necessity of betaking themselves to Christ now exhibited in the New Covenant as the only refuge to Fallen Sinners The latter I defend according to the Scriptures the former Mr. Cary seems to assert and vehemently argue for 2ly In this Controversie about the Sinai Law I do not find Mr. Cary distinguishing as he ought betwixt the Law considered more largely and complexly as containing both the Moral and Ceremonial Law for both which it is often taken in Scripture and more strictly for the Moral Law only as it is sometimes used in Scripture These two he makes one and the same Covenant of Works though there be some that doubt whether the meer Moral Law may not be a Covenant of Works yet I never met with any Man before that durst affirm the Ceremonial Law which is so full of Christ to be so and to this Law it is that Circumcision appertains 3ly The Moral Law strictly taken for the Ten Commandments is not by him distinguished as it ought to be and as the Scripture frequently doth according to Gods intention and design in the promulgation of it which was to add it as an Appendix to the promise Gal. 3. 19. and not to set it up as an opposite Covenant Gal. 3. 21. and the carnal Jews mistaking and perverting the use and end of the Law and making it to themselves a Covenant of Works by making it the very rule and reason of their Justification before God Rom. 9. 32 33. Rom. 10. 3. these things ought carefully to have been distinguished forasmuch as the whole Controversie depends on this double sense and intention of the Law yea the very denomination of that Law depends hereon For I affirm it ought not to be denominated from the abused and mistaken end of it amongst carnal men but from the true scope design and end for which God published it after the Fall And though we find such expressions as these in Scripture The man that doth them shall live in them And cursed is every one that continueth not in all things c. yet these respecting the Law not according to Gods intention but Mans corruption and abuse of it the Law is not thereby to be denominated a Covenant of Works Gods end was not to justifie them but to try them by that terrible dispensation Ezod 20. 20. whether they would still hanker after that natural way of self-righteousness for this end God propounded the terms of the first Covenant to them on Sinai not to open the way of self-justification to them but to convince them and shut them up to Christ just as our Saviour Matth. 19. 17. puts the young man upon keeping the Commandments not to drive him from but necessitate him to himself in the way of Faith The Law in both these Senses is excellently described Gal. 4. in that Allegory of Hagar and Sarah the figures of the two Covenants Hagar in her first and proper Station was but a serviceable Hand-maid to Sarah as the Law is a Schoolmaster to Christ but when Hagar the Hand-maid is taken into Sarah's Bed and brings forth Children that aspire to the Inheritance then saith the Scripture Cast out the bond-woman with her son So it is here take the Law in its primary use as God designed it as a School-master or Hand-maid to Christ and the promise so it is consistent with them and excellently subservient to them but if we marry this Hand-maid and espouse it as a Covenant of Works then are we bound to it for life Rom. 7. and must have nothing to do with Christ. The Believers of the Old Testament had true apprehensions of the right end and use of the Law which directed them to Christ and so they became Children of the Free-woman The carnal Jews trusted to the works of the Law for righteousness and so became Children of the Bond-woman but neither could be Children of both at once no more than the same Man can naturally be born of two Mothers This is the difference betwixt us about the first Position and as to the II Position That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. is an Adam's Covenant of Works also because Circumcision was annexed to it which obliged Men to keep the whole Law The Controversie betwixt us in this point is not whether Circumcision were an Ordinance of God annexed by him to his Covenant with Abraham nor 2. Whether Abraham's ordinary and extraordinary Seed ought to be and actually were signed by it nor 3. Whether it were a Seal of the righteousness of Faith to any individual Person for he allows â—…t to be so to Abraham nor 4. Wheâ—…he it pertain'd to the Ceremonial Law and so must cease at the death of Christ But the difference betwixt us is Whether â—…1 it was a Seal of the Covenant to â—…one but Abraham and 2. Whether â—…n the very nature of the Act or only from the intention of the Agent it did oblige men to keep the whole Law as Adam was obliged to keep it in innoâ—…ency 3. Whether it were utterly â—…bolished at the death of Christ as a
disown'd by you when we have liberty to amplifie and confirm our Testimony in the peaceful improvement of our common Liberty But if your meaning be as I strongly suspect it is that we must not expect to be own'd by Christ except we give up Infants Baptism then I say it is the most uncharitable as well as unwarrantable and dangerous Censure that ever dropt from the Pen of a sober Christian 'T is certainly your great evil to lay Salvation it self on such a point as the proper Subject of Baptism and to make it Articulus Stantis vel cadentis Religionis the very Basis on which the whole Christian Religion and its Professors Salvation must stand I hope the rest of your Brethren are more charitable than your self but however it be I do openly profess that I ever have and still do own you and many more of your Perswasion for my Brethren in Christ and am perswaded Christ will own you too notwithstanding your many Errors and Mistakes about the lesser and lower matters of Religion Nor need your Censure much to affect us as long as we are satisfied you have neither a Faculty nor Commission thus solemnly to pronounce it upon us But what 's the condition upon which this dreadful Sentence depends why it is our attendance or non-attendance to the primitive purity of the Gospel Doctrine Sir I hope we do attend it and in some respects better than some greater Pretenders to primitive Purity who have cast off not only the initiating Sign of Gods Covenant this did not Abraham but also that most comfortable and ancient Ordinance of singing Psalms and what other primitive Ordinance of God may be cashier'd next who can tell We have a Witness in your Bosom that the Defence of Christs pure Worship and Institutions hath cost us something and as for me were I convinced by all that you have here said or any of your Friends that in baptizing the Infants of Believers we did really depart from the Primitive purity I would renounce it and turn Anabaptist the same day But really Sir this Discourse of yours hath very much convinc'd me of the weakness and sickliness of your Cause which is forc'd to seek a new Foundation and is here laid by you upon such a Foundation as must inevitably ruin it if your Party as well as your self have but resolution enough to venture it thereupon And it appears to me very probable that they intend to fight us upon the new ground you have here chosen and mark'd out for them by the high Encomiums they give your Book in their Epistles to it wherein they tell us Your Notions are of so rare a nature that you are not beholding to any other for them and it is a wonder if you should for I think it never entred into any sober Christians Head before you that Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. was the very same with Adam's Covenant made in Paradise or that Moses Abraham and all the Elect of God in those days were absolutely under the very rigour and tyranny of the Covenant of Works and at the same time under the Covenant of Grace and all the Blessings and Priviledges thereof with many other such rare Notions of which it is pity but you should have the sole propriety I am particularly concern'd to detect your dangerous mistakes both in love to your own Soul and care of my Peoples amongst whom you have dispersed them though I foresee by M. E's Epistle to your Book what measure I am like to have for my plain and faithful dealing with you For if that Gentleman upon a meer surmise and presumption that one or other would oppose your Book dare adventure to call your unknown Answerer before ever he put Pen to Paper a Man-pleaser a Quarreller at Reformation and rank him with the Papists which opposed the Faithful for their non-conformity to their Inventions What must I expect from such rash Censurers for my sober plain and rational confutation of your Errors As to the Controversie betwixt us you truly say in your Title Page and many parts of your Book and your Brethren comprobate it in their Epistles that the main Arguments made use of by the Paedo-Baptists for the support of their practice are taken from the Covenant of God with Abraham Gen. 17. You call this the very hinge of the Controversie and therefore if you can but prove this to be the very same Covenant of Works with that made with Adam in Paradise we shall then see what improvements you will quickly make of it Ay Sir You are sensible of the Advantage no less than a compleat Victory you shall obtain by it and therefore being a more hardy and adventurous Man than others put desperately upon it which never any before you durst attempt to prove Abraham's Covenant which stands so much in the way of your Cause to be a meer Covenant of Works and therefore now abolished My proper Province is to discover here that part of the Foundation I mean Abraham's Covenant whence our Divines with great Strength and Evidence deduce the Right of Believers Infants to Baptism now Next to evince the Absurdity of your Assertions and Arguments you bring to destroy it And lastly To reflect briefly upon the Answers you give in the beginning of your Book to those several Texts of Scripture pleaded by the learned and judicious Divines you oppose for the Justification of Infants Baptism 1. Those that plead God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. as a Scripture Foundation for Baptizing Believers Infants under the Gospel proceed generally upon these four Grounds or Principles 1. That God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. was the same Covenant for substance we Gentile Believers are now under and they substantially prove it from Luke 1. from the 54. to the 74. Verse which place evidently shews the sameness of the Covenant of Grace they were and we are now under and from Matt. 21. 41 43. the same Vineyard and Kingdom the Jews then had is now let out to us Gentiles and from Rom. 11. that the Gentile-Christians are grafted into the same Olive-Tree from which the Jews were broken off for their Unbelief and that the Blessing of Abraham cometh now upon the Gentiles Gal. 3. 8 14 16. and in a word that the Partition Wall betwixt them and us is now pulled down and that we through Faith are let into the self-same Covenant and all the Priviledges they then enjoy'd Ephes. 2. 13. 2. They assert and prove That in Abraham's Covenant the Infant-Seed were taken in with their Parents and that in token thereof they were to have the Sign of the Covenant applied to them Gen. 17. 9. 3. They affirm and prove That the Promise of God to Abraham and his Seed with the Priviledges thereof to his Children do for the Substance of them descend to Believers now and their Seed Acts 2. 38 39. and though the external Sign viz. Circumcision be changed yet Baptism takes its place under
the Gospel Col. 2. 11 12. 4. They constantly affirm That none of those Grants or Priviledges made to the Infant-Seed of Abraham's Family were ever repealed or revoked by Christ or his Apostles and therefore Believers Children now are in the rightful Possession of them and that therefore there needed no new Command or Promise in Abraham's Command we find our Duty to Sign our Children with the Sign of the Covenant and in Abraham's Promise we find God's gracious Grant to our Children as well as his especially since the Apostle directs us in this very respect to the Covenant of God with Abraham Acts 2. 38 39. These Sir are the Principles on which we lay as you say great Stress and which to this day you have never been able to shake down here therefore you attempt a new Method to do it by proving this Covenant is now abolished and this is your Method in which you promise your self great Success Three things you pretend to prove 1. That the Sinai Covenant Exod. 20. 2. That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. are no Gospel-Covenants and that because 3. The Gospel-Covenant is Absolute and Unconditional How you come to hook in the Mosaick Covenant into this Controversie is not very evident unless you think it were easie for you to prove that to be a Covenant of Works and then Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. being an Old Testament Covenant were the more easily proved to be of the same nature I am obliged to examine your three Positions above noted and if I evidence to the World the Falsity of them the Cause you manage is so far lost and the right of Believers Infants to Baptism stands firm upon its old and sure Foundation I begin therefore with your I Position That the Covenant made with Israel on Mount Sinai is the very same Covenant of Works made with Adam in Innocency P. 122. and divers other places of your Book the very same Now if I prove that this Assertion of yours doth naturally and regularly draw many false and absurd Consequents upon you which you are and must be forced to own then this your Position cannot be true for from true Premisses nothing but truth can naturally and regularly follow but I shall make it plain to you that this your Position regularly draws many false Conclusions and gross Absurdities upon you some of which you own expresly and others you as good as own being able to return nothing rational or satisfactory in your own defence against them 1. From this Assertion that the Sinai Covenant was a pure Covenant of Works the very same with Adam's Covenant it regularly and necessarily follows that either Moses and all Israel were Damned there being no Salvation possible to be attained by that first Covenant or else that there was a Covenant of Grace at the same time running parallel with that Covenant of Works and so the Elect People of God were at one and the same time under the first as a Covenant of Death and Condemnation and under the second as a Covenant of Grace and Justification This Dilemma pinches you to assert that Moses and all the Elect of God under that Dispensation were damned you dare not and if you had you must have expunged the 11th Chapter to the Hebrews and a great part of the New Testament together with all your hopes of sitting down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven The latter therefore seeing you cannot avoid you are forc'd upon and in plain words yield it p. 174 175. That Moses and the whole body of the Children of Israel without exception of any were under yea absolutely under the severest penalties of a dreadful Curse That the Covenant they were under could be no other than a Covenant of Works a ministration of Death and Condemnation when yet it is also evident from the same Holy Scriptures of Truth that at the same time both Moses and all the Elect among that People were under a pure Covenant of gospel-Gospel-grace and that these two Covenants were just opposite the one to the other but to this you have nothing to say but with the Apostle in another case O the depth Here Sir you father a pure and perfect contradiction upon the Holy Scriptures that it speaks things just opposite and contradictory the one to the other and of necessity one part or member of a contradiction must be false this all the rational World knows but so it is say you and fly to the infinite Wisdom to reconcile them for you say you know not what to say to it Just so the Papists serve us in the Controversie about Transubstantiation when they cannot reconcile one thing with another they fly to the Omnipotent Power to do it But Sir I wonder how you hold and hug a Principle that runs naturally into such gross absurdities Do you see what follows from hence by unavoidable consequence you must according to this Principle hold That Moses and all Gods peculiar elect People in Israel must during their Life hang mid-way between Justification and Condemnation and after Death between Heaven and Hell 1. During Life they must hang mid-way between Justification and Condemnation justify'd they could not be for Justification is the Souls passing from Death to Life 1 John 3. 14. John 5. 24. This they could not possibly do for the ministration of Death and Condemnation hindred He that is under Condemnation by the Law cannot during that state pass into Life And yet to be under Condemnation is as impossible on the other side for he that is justified cannot at the same time be under Condemnation Rom. 8. 1. John 5. 24. What remains then but that during Life they must stick mid-way betwixt both neither justify'd nor condemned and yet both so and so Justification is our Life and Condemnation our Death in Law Betwixt these two which are privatively oppos'd there can be no Medium of participation and yet such a Medium you here fancy 2. And then after Death they must necessarily hang betwixt Heaven and Hell to Heaven none can go that are under the very rigour and tyranny of the Law a pure Covenant of Works as you say they were To Hell they could not go being under the pure Covenant of Grace What remains then but some third state must be assigned them and so at last we have found the Limbus Patrum and your Position leads us right to Purgatory a Conclusion which I believe you your self abhor as much as I. 2ly This Hypothesis pinches you with another Dilemma viz. Either there was pardon on Repentance in Moses his Covenant and the Sinai Dispensation of the Law or there was none if you say â—…one you directly contradict Lev. 26. 40 46. If there were then it cannot be Adam's Covenant of Works You answer pag. 179. That God promiseth pardon for the Breach of Moses his Covenant and of Adam 's Covenant too but neither Adam 's Covenant nor the Jewish legal Covenant promised any
pardon upon repentance but rather threatens and inflicts the contrary Reply Either this is a direct Answer to my Argument to prove the Law at Sinai cannot be a pure Adam's Covenant because it had a promise of pardon annexed to it Lev. 26. 40. but Adam's Covenant had none If your Answer be direct then 't is a plain contradiction in saying it had and it had not a promise of pardon belonging to it or else it is a meer Evasion and an eluding of the Argument and your only meaning is That the Relief I speak of is not to be found in any promise belonging to the Sinai Dispensation but in some other gospel-Gospel-Covenant or Promise But Sir this will not serve your turn you see I cite the very promise of Grace made to the Israelites on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses wherein God promiseth upon their humiliation to remember his Covenant for their good Now Sir you had as good have stood to your first Answer which is self-contradictory as to this which is no less so as will evidently appear by a nearer and more particular view of the place and gathering up your own Concessions about it that this Text Lev. 26. 40. hath the nature of a gracious Gospel-promise in it no Man can deny except he that will deny that Gods remembring of his Covenant for the relief of poor broken-hearted Sinners is no Gospel-promise pertaining to the Covenant of Grace That it was made to the penitent Israelites upon Mount Sinai and there delivered them by the hand of Moses for their relief is as visible and plain as the Words and Syllables of the 46th Verse are to him that reads them Let the Promise then be considered both ways 1. In your Sense as a plain direction to the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham for their relief for so you say it was p. 180. Or let it be considered absolutely as that which contained relief in it self for the penitent Israelites that should live towards the end of the World after they should be gathered from all their Dispersions and Captivities as you there speak and more fully explicate in your accommodation of a Parallel Promise p. 111 112 113. First let us view it in your sense as a relative promise to the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham Gen. 12. to which say you it plainly directs them and then this legal Dispensation can never be the same with Adam's Covenant for to that Covenant no such Promise was ever annexed which should guide and plainly direct them to Christ and Pardon as that Star which appeared to the Wise Men directed their way to Christ. If there be any such relative promise belonging to Adam's Covenant in Paradise as this which I plainly shew you was made on Mount Sinai be pleased to produce it and you end the Controversie but if you cannot as you know you can not then never say the legal Dispensation at Sinai and the Covenant of Work with Adam in Paradise are the very same Covenant Secondly Let us consider this Promise absolutely in it self anâ—… then I demand was there Mercy Relieâ—… and Pardon contained in it for any penâ—… tent Sinner present or to come Yeâ—… say you it extends Relief to Penitentâ—… after God shall gather them from aâ—… their Captivities at the end of thâ—… World very Good Then 't is a verâ—… vigorous Promise of Grace which noâ—… only reaches 430 years backward as faâ—… as the first Promise to Abraham bâ—… also extends its Reliefs and Comfortâ—… many thousand years forwards even tâ—… the purest times of the Gospel just before Christ's coming to Judgment anâ—… can such a Promise as this be denieâ—… to be in it self a Gospel-Promise Suâ—… it can neither be denied to be such nor yet to be made upon Mount Sinai bâ—… the Hand of Moses This Dilemma is aâ—… pinching as the former Perhaps you will say this Promise did not belong to the Moral Law given at Sinai but to the Ceremonial Law if so then I should reasonably conclude that you take the Ceremonial Law of which you seem to make this a Branch Page 181. to be a Covenant of Grace seeing one of its Branches bears such a gracious Promise upon it No that must not be so neither for say you Page 151. the Ceremonial Covenant is of the same nature with the Covenant of Works or Law written in Tables of Stone whither then shall we send this Promise To the Covenant of Grace we must not send it unless only as an Index or Finger to point to it because it was made upon Mount Sinai and delivered to Israel by the Hand of Moses to the Gospel-Govenant we must not therefore annex it and to the legal Dispensation at Sinai you are as loath to annex it because it contains so much Relief and Grace in it for poor Penitents and that will prove that neither the Moral nor Ceremonial Law place it in which you please can be a pure Covenant of Works as Adam's was Moreover In making this the Promise which must Relieve and Comfort the distressed Israelites in the purest Gospel-times towards the end of the World you as palpably contradict your self in another respect for we shall find you by and by stoutly denying that the Gospel-Promises have any Conditions or Qualifications annexed to them but so hath this which you say relates to them that shall live at the end of the World If their uncircumcised Hearts be humbled and if they accept the punishment of their Iniquities then will I remember my Covenant c. But be this Promise Conditional or Absolute two things are undeniably clear 1. That it is a Promise full of Grace for the relief of Law-Transgressors ver 40. 2. That it was a Mount Sinai Promise ver 46. and such a Promise as you can never shew in Adam's Covenant Besides It is to me an unaccountable thing that a Promise which hath a double comfortable Aspect 430 years back and some thousands of years forward should not cast one comfortable glance upon the Penitents of the present Age when it was made nor upon any till near the end of the World What think you Sir of the 3000 Jews prick'd at the Heart Acts 2. had they no Relief from it because their Lot fell not late enough in time Were the Penitent Jews in Moses and Peter's days all born out of due time for this Promise to relieve O what Shifting and Shuffling is here Who can think a Man that twists and winds every way to avoid the dint of an Argument can possibly have a Moral Assurance of the truth of his own Opinion 3. You say Page 134. That through Christ's satisfaction there is no repugnancy or hostile contrariety betwixt the Law and Promise but an Agreement betwixt them and that they differ only in respect of Strength and Weakness the Gospel is able to go through stitch with it which the Law cannot do Reply Well then the Law considered as a
Covenant of Works whose Terms or Condition is do this and live and the Promise or Gospel whose Condition is Believe and thou shalt be saved are not specifically different but only gradually in point of Strength and Weakness and the Reason you give is as strange that this comes to pass through the satisfaction of Christ. Good Sir enlighten us in this rare Notion Did Christ die to purchase a Reconciliation betwixt the Covenant of Works as such and the Covenant of Grace as if both were now by the Death of Christ agreed and to be justified by Works and by Faith should after Christ's Death make no Odds or Disserence between them If it be so why have you kept such a coil to prove Moses's and Adam's Covenant yea Abraham's too being Covenant of Works can never consist or mingle with the gospel-Gospel-Covenant And then I say you contradict the Apostle who so directly opposes the Covenant of Works as such to the Covenant of Grace and tells us they are utterly inconsistent and exclusive of each other and this he spake after Christ's Death and actual satisfaction But 4. That which more amazes me is the strange Answer you give to Mr. Sedgwick Page 132 133. in your return to his Argument That if the Law and the Promise can consist then the Law cannot be set up as a Covenant of Works You answer That the Law and the Promise having divers ends it doth not thence follow that there is an inconsistence betwixt them and that the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works instead of being against the Promise tends to the Establishment of it And Page 133. That by convincing Men of the Impossibility of obtaining Rest and Peace in themselves and the necessity of betaking themselves to the Promise c. the Law is not against the Promise having so Blessed a Subserviency towards the Establishment thereof Here you own a Subserviency yea a Blessed Subserviency of the Law to the Promise which is that Mr. Sedgwick and my self have urged to prove it cannot be so as it is a pure Adam's Covenant but that therefore it must come under another Consideration only here we differ you say it hath a Blessed Subserviency to the Promise as it is the same with Adam's Covenant we say it can never be so as such but as it is either a Covenant of Grace though more obscure as he speaks or though the matter of it should be the same with Adam's Covenant yet it is subserviently a Covenant of Grace as others speak and under no other Consideration can it be reconciled to the Promise But will you stand to this that the Law hath no Hostile Contradiction to the Promise but a Blessed Subserviency to it as you speak Page 173. where you say That if we preach up the Law as a Covenant of Life or a Covenant of Faith and Grace which are equipollent Terms let us distinguish as we please between a Covenant of Grace Absolutely aud Subserviently such then we make an ill use of the Law by perverting it to such a Service as God never intended it for and are guilty of mingling Law and Gospel Life and Death together Reply Here Sir my Understanding is perfectly posed and I know not how to make any tolerable Orthodox Sense out of this Position Is the Law preached up as a pure Covenant of Works that is pressing Men to the personal and punctual Obedience of it in order to their Justification by Works no way repugnant to the Promise but altogether so when preached in Subserviency to Christ and Faith This is new Divinity with me and I believe must be so to every Intelligent Reader Don't I oppose the Promise when I preach up the Law as a pure Covenant of Works which therefore as such must be Exclusive of Christ and the Promise and do I oppose either when I tell Sinners the Terrors of the Law serve only to drive them to Christ their only Remedy who is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that Believeth Rom. 10. 4. are Works and Grace more consistent than Grace with Grace Explain your meaning in this Paradoxical Expression and leave not your self and others in such a Maze I read Gal. 3. 19. for what end God published the Law 430 years after the Promise was made to Abraham and find it was added because of Transgression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was put to not set up by it self alone as a distinct Covâ—… nant but added as an Appendix to the Covenant of Grace whence it is plain that God added the Sinai Law to the Promise with Evangelical ends and Purposes If then I preach the Law to the very same Evangelical Uses and Purposes for which God added it to the Promise do I therein make an ill use of the Law and mingle Life and Death together But preaching it as a pure Covenant of Works as it holds forth Justification to Sinners by Obedience to its Precepts do I then make it blessedly subservient as you speak to the Promise or Covenant of Grace The Law was added because of Transgression that is to restrain Sin in the World and to convince Sinners under guilt of the necessity of another Righteousness than their own even that of Christ and for the same ends God added it to the Promise I always did and still shall Preach it and I am perswaded without the least danger of mingling Law and Gospel Life and Death together in your Sense 'T is plain to me that in the Publication of the Law on Sinai God did not in the least intend to give them so much 〈◊〉 a Direction how to obtain Justification â—…y their most punctual Obedience to its Precepts that being to Fallen Man utterly impossible and beside had he promulged the Law to that end and purpose he had not added it but directly opposed it to the Promise which its manifest he did not Gal. 3. 21. Is the law then against the promise of God God forbid And ver 18. makes it appear that had it been set up to that end and purpose it had utterly disannulled the Promise for if the inheritance be of the law it is no more by promise What then can be clearer than that the Law at Sinai was published with gracious Gospel-ends and purposes to lead Men to Christ which Adam's Covenant had no respect nor reference to and therefore it can never be a pure Adam's Covenant as you falsly call it neither is it capable of becoming a pure Covenant of Works to any Man but by his own Fault in rejecting the Righteousness of Christ and seeking Justification by the works of the Law as the mistaken carnal Jews did Rom. 10. 3. and other legal Justiciaries now do And upon this account only it is that Paul who so highly praises the Law in its subserviency to Christ thunders so dreadfully against it as it is thus set by ignorant mistaken Souls in direct Opposition to Christ. 5ly And
further to clear this Point the Apostle tells us Rom. 10. 4. That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth Whence I argue That if Adam's Covenant had one End namely the Justification of Men by their own personal Obedience and the Law at Sinai had a quite contrary End namely To bring Sinners to Christ by Faith for their Righteousness the one to keep him within himself the other to take him quite out of himself and bring him for his Justification to the Righteousness of another even that of Christ then the Sinai Law cannot possibly be the same thing with Adam's Covenant of Works but the Antecedent is true and plain in the forecited Text therefore so is the Consequent Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness Take the Law here either more strictly for the Moral Law or more largely as it comprehends the Ceremonial Law still Christ is the end of the Law The Moral Law shuts up every Man to Christ for Righteousness by convincing him according to Gods design in the Publication of it of the impossibility of obtaining Justification in the way of Works And the Ceremonial Law many ways prefigured Christ his Death and Satisfaction by Blood in our room and so led Men to Christ their true Propitiation and all its Types were fulfilled and ended in Christ. Was there any such thing in Adam's Covenant You must prove there was else you will never be able to make them one and the same Covenant 6ly It seems exceeding probable from Acts 7. 37 38. That the Sinai Covenant was delivered to Moses by Jesus Christ there called the Angel This is he that was in the Church in the Wilderness with the Angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai and with our Fathers who received the lively Oracles to give unto us Now if Christ himself were the Angel and the Precepts of the Law delivered by him to Moses were the Lively Oracles of God as they are there expresly affirm'd to be then the Law delivered on Mount Sinai cannot be a pure Adam's Covenant of Works For it is never to be imagined that Jesus Christ himself should deliver to Moses such a Covenant directly opposite to all the ends of his future Incarnation and that those Precepts which if they were of the same nature and revived to the same end at which Adam's Covenant directly aimed should be called the Lively Oracles of God When contrarywise upon your Supposition they could be no other than a Ministration of Condemnation and Death But that they were Lively Oracles viz. in their Design and Intention is plain in the Text and that they were delivered to Moses by Jesus Christ the Angel of the Covenant seems more than probable by comparing it with the former Verses 7ly Neither is it easie to imagin how such a Covenant which by the Fall of Adam had utterly lost all its Promises Priviledges and Blessings and could retain nothing but the Curses and Punishments annexed to it in case of the least Failure could possibly be numbred among the chief Priviledges in which Gods Israel gloried as it apparently was Rom. 9. 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises These things considered with many more which the intended Brevity of this Discourse will not now admit I am fully satisfy'd of the Falsity of your Position and so may you too when you shall review the many gross and palpable Absurdities with which I have clogg'd and loaded it with many more regularly and fairly deducible from it which I could easily produce did I not suspect these I have produced have already pressed your Patience a littly too far But if ever I shall see which I never expect a fair and Scriptural Solution of these weighty Objections you may expect from me more Arguments against your unsound Position which at the present I judge needless to add To conclude Those Premises as before I noted can never be true from whence such and so many gross and notorious Absurdities are regularly and unavoidably deducible For Ex veris nil nisi verum from true Premises nothing but Truth can regularly follow Had you minded those things which I seasonably sent you you had avoided all those Boggs into which you are now sunk and been able fairly to reconcile all those seeming Contradictions in Paul's Epistles with respect to the Law at Sinai But however by what hath been said your first Position That the Sinai Covenant is the same Covenant of Works with Adam 's in Paradise vanishes before the Evidence of Scripture-truth and sound Reason But yet though what I have said destroys your false Position I am not willing to leave you or the Reader ignorant wherein the Truth lies in this controverted Point betwixt us and that will appear by a due consideration of the following Particulars 1. 'T is plain and uncontroverted That Adam's Covenant in Paradise contained in it a perfect Law and Rule of natural Righteousness founded both in God's Nature and in Mans which in its perfect state of Innocency was every way enabled perfectly to comply therewith For the Scripture tells us Eccles. 7. 29. That God made Man upright and his punctual complying therewith was the Righteousness by which he stood 2. This Covenant of Works being once broken can never more be available to the Justification and Salvation of any Fallen Man There was not now a Law found that could give Righteousness the broken Covenant of Works lost immediately all the Blessings and Priviledges which before it contain'd and retain'd only the Curse and Punishment in token whereof Cherubims with flaming Swords turning every way were set to keep the way of the Tree of Life Gen. 3. 24. 3. Soon after the Violation of the Covenant of Works God was graciously pleased to publish for the relief of Mankind now miserable and hopeless the Second Covenant which we call the Covenant of Grace Gen. 3. 15. which is the first opening of the Grace of God in Christ to Fallen Man and though this first Promise of Christ was but short and obscure yet it was in every Age to be opened clearer and clearer until the promised Seed should come After the first opening of this new Covenant in the first Promise of Christ the first Covenant is shut up for ever as a Covenant of Life and Salvation and all the World are shut up to the only way of Salvation by Christ Gal. 3. 23. it being contrary to the Will of God that two ways of Salvation should stand open to Man at once and they so opposite one to another as the way of Works and the way of Faith are Acts 4. 12. John 14. 6. Gal. 2. 21. 4. 'T is evident however that after the first opening of the Promise of Christ Gen. 3. 15. God foreseeing the Pride of Fallen Man who naturally inclines to
Believer and that Abraham had nothing to glory in before God But to restrain as you do the publick Seal of a Covenant that comprehended and equally concerned the whole Church and People of God to one single Person so thaâ—… neither Isaac nor Jacob who were bâ—… name enrolled in that great Charter â—…hould have any right to the Seal of it â—…s such a Conceit as amazes an intelligent Reader We know Abraham was the â—…rst that received it but utterly deny â—…hat he received only for himself but â—…e received it as the Father of all them â—…hat Believe whether Jews or Gentiles â—…s the very next words tell us he reâ—…eived it that he might be the Father of â—…ll that Believe that is for himself and â—…ll his Spiritual Children One half of his Sacrament of Circumcision you allow â—…age 205. to the rest that were under 〈◊〉 viz. to be a sign of the Covenant but â—…e other half you cut off and say it â—…as only a Seal to him What good â—…ouchers have you for this Exposition â—…f the Text Have you the Concurrence 〈◊〉 Orthodox Expositors Or is it the rash â—…d bold Adventure of your own head â—…am sure it no ways agrees with the drift â—…d scope of the Apostles Argument â—…hich evidently is to prove that both â—…ws and Gentiles are justified by Faith as â—…braham was and that the Ground of â—…stification and Blessedness is common â—…th to the uncircumcised Gentiles and â—…cumcised Jews and that Abraham and all other Believers have but one way of Justification and Salvation and that how great soever Abraham was in this case he hath found nothing whereof to Glory ver 1 2. and is not your Exposition a notable one to prove the Community of the Priviledge of Justification because the Seal of it was peculiar to Abraham alone rectifie it and better consider it Argument III. In the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. God makes over himself tâ—… Abraham and his Seed to be their God or give them a special Interest in himself But in the Covenant of Works God doth not since the Fall make over himself to any to be their God by way oâ—… special Interest Therefore the Covenant of Circumcision cannot be the Covenant of Workâ—… This is so plain and clear that noâ—… can doubt or deny it that understand the nature of the two Covenants Aâ—… now Sir what course do you take 〈◊〉 avoid this Argument such a one sure 〈◊〉 no Man that ever I met with took before you and that 's this you boldly cut Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. into two parts and make the first to be the pure Covenant of Grace which is the promissory part to the ninth Verse and the Restipulation as you call it Page 205. â—…o be as pure a Covenant of Works What hard shift will some Men make â—…o maintain their Opinion You say â—…ruly Page 205. that at the seventh and â—…ighth Verses was their Restipulation why â—…hen do you say Page 224. that at Verse â—…he seventh he proceeds to speak of anoâ—…her Covenant than what he had been â—…eaking of before Does the Promise â—…nd the Restipulation make two Coveâ—…ants or are they just and necessary parts â—…f one and the same Covenant You â—…lso tell us that the Covenant Gen. 17. 〈◊〉 2 3 4. was a plain Transcript of â—…veral free Promises of the Gospel under â—…e denomination of a Covenant But â—…hy then don 't you take the Restipulaâ—…on verse 7 8 9 10. to be a part of 〈◊〉 Oh no there is something required 〈◊〉 Abraham's and his Posterities part â—…ey must be circumcised and that spoils â—…l Why but Sir if the requiring of Circumcision alters the case so greatly as to make it a quite contrary Covenant how comes it to pass that in the Covenant to Abraham he himself was first required to be circumcised Why this is the reason here is somewhat required on their part as a Condition and a Condition quite alters the nature of the Covenant Very well but tell me then why you say Page 223. and in many other places that the Covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 12. was a Gospel-Covenant and yet there Abraham is obliged to walk before God and be perfect Does not that also there alter the nature of the Covenant as well as here in the seventeenth Chapter You also grant the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 22. was a pure Gospel-Covenant or if you deny it the Apostle proves it Heb. 6. 13. and yet there is more appearance of respect to Abraham's Obedience in that Covenant than is in submitting to Circumcision see Gen. 22. 16 17. By my self have I sworn saith the Lord for because thou hast done this thing c. That in Blessing I will bless thee and in multiplying I will multiply thee I will trouble you on this Head but with one Query more If the four first Verses of the Seventeenth of Genesis contain a pure Gospel-Covenant as you say and the Restipulation in the following Verses make a Covenant of works because it thereby becomes Conditional Then tell me if you please whether what God graciously granted to Abraham in the former Verses be not all null'd and made void again by their Restipulation Does not this seem Harsh Here you have brought Abraham Isaac and Jacob and all the believers of Abraham's race just into the same case you brought Moses and all the Israelites before under two opposite Covenants where one cuts off all that the other granted But there is a stronger reason urged than the conditionality of the Covenant to prove it a Covenant of Works and that is Circumcision is made the Condition of Abraham's Covenant and that 's the worst of all conditions for it obliges a man to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. 't is the yoke of bondage and to whatsoever Covenant it be so annexed it makes it become a bondage Legal Covenant If we be circumcised Christ shall profit us nothing Thus it was in the Covenant Gen. 17. Great use is made of this in many parts of your Discourse but Sir you are greatly mistaken in applying these Texts to the Purposes you do For the Apostle all along in that Epistle to the Galatians argues against the false Teachers who taught and pressed the necessity of Circumcision as a Bond obliging them to the strict and perfect Obedience of the Law in order to their Justification thereby or at least to joyn it with the Righteousness of Christ as a Con-cause of Justification see Gal. 2. 4 5. and the 3. 1. Now against this Abuse of Circumcision it is that the Apostle argues thus and tells them that in submitting to it on that account they made the Death of Christ of no Effect and obliged themselves by it to the whole Law for Circumcision did not simply and absolutely in the nature of the work or action oblige Men to the whole Law in the way of Justification by it but it did so from the Intention of the worker
and the Supposition of such an Opinion of it and design in it for in it self and with respect to Gods design in the Institution of it it was to be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. and so it was an excellent useful instructive Ordinance to all Believers as long as the Ceremonial Law stood and even when it was expiring as the Gospel began to open more and more clearly there was yet some kind of Toleration of it to such as were born of Jewish Parents Thus Paul himself circumcised Timothy his Mother being a Jewess Acts 16. 1 3. but Titus being a Greek was not circumcised and that because of these false Teachers that would make an ill use of that their Liberty Gal. 2. 3 4. this Paul could never have done in case Circumcision in the nature of the act had bound Timothy to keep the Law for Justification By which it appears that the action in its own nature did not oblige to the keeping of the whole Law but from the Intention of the Agent and therefore as the Apostle rightly argues if a Man be circumcised with this design to be justified by it he would thereby bind himself to the whole Law and frustrate the Death of Christ to himself but it was now to have its Funeral with all other parts of the Ceremonial Law which vanish'd and were accomplished in the Death of Christ and it falling out that such a vile use was made of it at that time the Apostle thus thunders against it Had this been observed as also the like abuse of the Moral Law you would have known how to have reconciled the Apostles Encomiums of them both with his sharp Invectives against the one and the other But being Ignorant of these two great and necessary Distinctions of the Law according to Gods Intention in the Promulgation of it at Sinai and the carnal Jews Sense of it as a pure Covenant of works against which the Apostle so sharply inveighs in the places by you cited all your 23 Arguments from Page 183. to Page 187. fall to the Ground at one stroke your Medius Terminus having one sense in your Major Proposition and another in your Minor and so every Argument hath four Terms in it as will easily be evinced by the particular consideration of the respective places from whence you draw them So in like manner in your arguing here against Circumcision as a Bond to keep the whole Law and as such vacating the Death of Christ is a stumble at the same stone not distinguishing as you ought to have done betwixt an Obligation arising out of the nature of the work and out of the end and intention of the Workers and this every learned and judicious Eye will easily discern But we proceed to Argument IV. That which in its direct and primary end teacheth Man the Corruption of his Nature by Sin and the Mortification of Sin by the Spirit of Christ cannot be a condition of the Covenant of works but so did Circumcision in the very direct and primary end of it This Ordinance supposeth the Fall of Man points to the Means and Instruments of his Sin and Misery and also to the Remedy thereof by Christ. 1. It singles out that Genital part by which original Sin was propagated Gen. 17. 11. Psalm 51. 5. to this the Sign of the Covenant is applied in Circumcision for the Remission of Sins past and the Extirpation of Sin for the future 2. Therefore it was instituted of God that Men might see both the necessity and true way of Mortifying their Lusts in the vertue of Christ's Death and Resurrection whereof Baptism that succeeds it is a Sign now as Circumcision was then as is plain from Col. 2. 11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptism wherein also ye are risen with him through the Faith of the operation of God who raised him from the dead 'T is clear then that Circumcision directed Men to the Death and Resurrection of Christ as the true and only means of mortifying their Lusts and if it did so sure it was not the Covenant of Works for that gives Fallen Man no hint of a remedy 3. It was also a discriminating Sign or Token betwixt the Church and the World God's People and the Heathens who were accordingly denominated from it the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision the Holy Seed and the Gentiles And now under the New Testament the Children of Abraham by Faith and the Children of the Flesh. This also shews it cannot be the Covenant of Works for in that Covenant all are equally and alike concluded under Sin and Misery Ephes. 2. 3. and there is no difference made by that Covenant betwixt Person and Person State and State If this be not enough to evince that the Covenant of Circumcision is a Covenant of Grace I promise you many more Arguments to prove it as soon as I shall find these refuted and your contrary Assertion well discharged from the gross Absurdities with which it is clog'd and loaded You see how genuine natural and congruous to Scripture the notion of it as a Covenant of Grace is and all the World may see how harsh alien and repugnant to Scripture your Notion of Circumcision as a Covenant of Works is You see into what Boggs you are again driven in defence of your Opinion Exemp gra That Circumcision is a part of the Ceremonial Law which was dedicated with Blood and therefore could be no â—…art of the Moral Law or Ten Commandments which was say you the Coâ—…enant of Works and yet that it is of â—…he same nature and that it 's clear 〈◊〉 is no other than a Covenant of Works Don't you there distinguish and confound all again blame and check Mr. Sedgwick without Cause and commit a greater Absurdity presently than you charged him with Don't you question whether that Covenant that was typically sealed by Blood was sealed by Christs Blood Pray Sir consider where-ever God commands typical Blood to be applyed it relates to Christs Blood Spiritually apply'd or to nothing Are not you forced in defence of your erroneous Thesis to say with Bellarmine That Circumcision was extraordinary in its Institution and applyed as a Seal to none but Abraham himself it excluded even Isaac the Type of Christ and Jacob a Prince with God O what will not Men venture upon in defence of their darling Opinions Are you not forced for your Security from the danger of the Third Argument to cut one and the same Covenant made with Abraham just in two and of the pure promissory part to make a Covenant of Grace and of the other part which you your self call a Restipulation to make another quite opposite Covenant Don't you magnifie the Bounty and Grace of God to Abraham in the first four Verses and then destroy it
all by putting him at once under a contrary Covenant and so cut off all capacity to enjoy one of those mercies Don't you make Circumcision in its own Nature without respect to the intention of the Person an Obligation to the whole Law and that which frustrates the Death of Christ and yet must grant that Paul himself took Timothy and circumcised him and yet thereby brought him under no such dangerous obligation to the Law In a word You reject all those Covenants as legal that have any conditions in them or respect to any thing that is to be done by us and allow Gen. 12. and Gen. 22. to be pure gospel-Gospel-Covenants of Grace and yet in the first Abraham is bound to walk before God and be perfect and in the other God saith For because thou hast done this thing surely blessing I will bless thee And so much for Abraham's Covenant III. Of the Conditionality of the New Covenant Come we next to consider that Opinion of yours which led you into these other gross mistakes and absurdities and that is this That the Covenant of Grace is absolute and whatever Covenant is not so but hath any condition upon our part must needs for that reason be a Covenant of Works See Page 229. It is observable say you that as the Covenants mentioned Gen. 2. Exod. 20. c. were all conditional and therefore legal Covenants requiring strict and perfect Obedience as the condition propounded in order to the enjoyment of the mercies contained in them which are all therefore done away in Christ so on the other hand we see that the Covenant God made with Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. and Gen. 17. 2 3. and Gen. 22. 16 17 18. was wholly free and absolute and therefore purely Evangelical c. We will review these things anon and see if you truly represent the matter but in order to it let me first tell you 1. What we mean by a Gospel-Condition 2. Prove that there are such in the Gospel-Covenant 3. Shew you the absurdity of your Opinion against it 1. What we mean by a Condition in the Gospel-Covenant By a Condition of the Covenant we do not mean in the strictest rigid Sense of the Word such a Restipulation to God from Man of perfect Obedience in his own Person at all times so as the least Failure therein forfeits all the mercies of the Covenant That 's rather the condition of Adam's Covenant of Works than of the Evangelical Covenant nor do we assert any meritorious condition that in the nature of an impulsive Cause shall bring Man into the Covenant and its Priviledges or continue him in when brought in This we renounce as well as you but our Question is about such a Condition as is neither in the Nature of it an Act perfect in every degree nor meritorious in the least of the Benefit conferr'd nor yet done in our own strength But plainly and briefly our Question is Whether there be not something as an Act required of us in point of Duty to a Blessing consequent by vertue of a promise Such a thing whatever it be hath the nature of a Condition inasmuch as it is antecedent to the Benefit of the Promise and the Mercy or Benefit granted is suspended until it be performed The Question is not Whether there be any intrinsecal worth or value in the thing so required to oblige the Disposer to make or perform the Grant or Promise but meerly that it be antecedent to the enjoyment of the benefit and that the disposer of the benefit do suspend the benefit until it be performed Thus an Act or Duty of ours which hath nothing at all of Merit in it or answerable value to the benefit it relates to may be in a proper Sense a Condition of the said benefit For what is a Condition in the true Notion of it but the Suspension of a Grant until something future be done or as others to the same purpose the adding of words to a Grant for the future of a suspending quality according to which the Disposer will have the benefit he disposeth to be regulated This properly is a Condition though there be nothing of equivalent value or merit in the thing required And such your Brethren in their Narrative pag. 14. do acknowledge Faith to be when they assert none can be actually reconciled justifyed or adopted till they are really implanted into Jesus Christ by Faith and so by vertue of this their Union with him have these fundamental benefits actually conveyed unto them which contains the proper Notion of the Condition we contend for And such a Condition of Salvation we assert Faith to be in the New Covenant Grant that is to say the Grant of Salvation by God in the Gospel-Covenant is suspended from all Men till they believe and is due by Promise not Merit to them as soon as they do truly believe The Notes or Signs of a Condition given by Civilians or Moralists are such as these If If not unless but if except only and the like When these are added in the Promise of a Blessing or Benefit for the future they make that Promise conditional and your Grammar according to which you must speak if you speak properly and strictly will tell you that Si sin modo dum dummodo are all conditional Particles and it is evident that these conditional Particles are frequently inserted in the Grants of the Blessings and Priviledges of the New Testament As for example Mark 9. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou canst believe Acts 8. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou believest with thy whole heart thou mayest c. Rom. 10. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth and believe with thy heart c. thou shalt be saved Matth. 18. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Except ye be converted and become as little Children you shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven Mark 5. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Only believe Mark 11. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if ye forgive not c. with multitudes more which are all conditional Particles inserted in the Grants of Benefits 2. Having shewn what the nature of a Condition is I shall I hope make it plain to you That Faith is such a Condition in the Gospel-grant of our Salvation for we find the Benefit suspended till this Act of Faith be performed John 3. 36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see Life but the wrath of God abideth on him And most plainly Rom. 10. 9. having shewn before what the Condition of Legal Righteousness was he tells us there what the Gospel-condition of Salvation is The righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved I ask you Sir
whether it be possible to put Words into a Frame more lively expressive of a Condition than these are Do but compare Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned Do but compare I say that Scripture-phrase with the Words of Jacob's Sons which all allow to be conditional Gen. 43. 4 5. If thou wilt send our brother with us we will go down but if thou wilt not send him we will not go down and judge whether the one be not as conditional as the other More particularly Argument I. If we cannot be Justifyed or Saved till we believe then Faith is the Condition on which those consequent Benefits are suspended But we cannot be Justisied or Saved till we believe Ergo. The Sequel of the Major is evident for as was said before a Condition is the Suspension of a Grant till something future be done The Minor is plain in Scripture Rom. 4. 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone that righteousness was imputed to him but for our sakes also to whom it shall be imputed if we believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qibus futurum est ut imputetur to whom it shall come to pass that it shall be imputed if we believe And Acts 10. 43. Whosoever believeth on him shall receive remission of sins John 3. 36. He that believeth not shall not see life but the wrath of God remaineth on him with multitudes more Now Sir lay seriously before your Eyes such Scriptures as these that promise Salvation to Believers and threaten Damnation to all Unbelievers as Mark 16. 16. doth and then give a plain and clear Answer to this Question either the positive part of that Text promises Salvation absolutely to Men whether they believe or believe not and consequently Unbelievers shall be saved as well as Believers and the negative part threatens Damnation absolutely to Sinners as Sinners and consequently all Sinners shall be damned whether they believe or believe not or else if you allow neither to be absolute but that none can be saved till they believe nor any damned when they do believe is not that a conditional Promise and Threatning Argument II. If Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. and that Gen. 17. 2 3. were as you say pure gospel-Gospel-Covenants of Grace and yet in both some things are required as Duties on Abraham's part to make him partaker of the Benefits of the Promises then the Covenant of Grace is not absolute but conditional But so it was in both these Covenants Ergo. The Minor only requires proof for which let us have recourse to the places and see whether it be so or not 1. For the first you instance in as a pure Gospel-Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. I must confess as you dismember the Text pag. 229. by choosing out the second and third Verses and leaving out the first which was the Trial of Abraham's Obedience in forsaking his native Country and his Fathers House I say give me but this liberty to separate and dis-joyn one part of a Covenant from the other and it 's easie to make any conditional Covenant in the World to become absolute For take but the Duty required from the Promise that is made and that which was a conditional presently becomes an absolute Grant Suppose Sir that Abraham had refused to leave his dear native Country and nearest Relations as many do think you that the promised mercies had been his I must plainly tell you you assume a strange liberty in this matter and make a great deal bolder with the Scriptures than you ought and the very same usage the other Scriptures hath 2. For when you cite your Second Covenant with Abraham you only cite Gen. 17. 2 3. and then call it an absolute Gospel Covenant when indeed you made it so by leaving out the first Verse which contains the Condition oâ—… Duty required on Abraham's part foâ—… thus run the three first Verses Anâ—… when Abraham was ninety nine years old the Lord appeared to Abraham and said unto him I am the Almighty God walk thou before me and be thou perfect and I will make my Covenant between me and thee c. Here an upright Conversation before God is required of him at God's entrance into this Covenant with him but that is and must be omitted and cut off to make the Covenant look absolute I am really grieved to see the Scriptures thus dealt with to serve a design Argument III. If all the Promises of the Gospel be absolute and unconditional requiring no Restipulation from Man then they cannot properly and truly belong to the New Covenant But they do properly and truly belong to the New Covenant Therefore they are not all absolute and unconditional The Sequel of the Major is only liable to doubt or denial namely That the Absoluteness of all the Promises of the New Testament cuts off their Relation to a Covenant but that it doth so no Man can deny that understands the difference between a Covenant and an absolute Promise A Covenant is a mutual Compact or Agreement betwixt Parties in which they bind each other to the Performance of what they respectively promise So that there can be no proper Covenant where there is not a Restipulation or Re-obligation of one part as well as a Promise on the other But an absolute Promise binds only one Party and leaves the other wholly free and unobliged to any thing in order to the enjoyment of the good promised So then if all the New Testament Promises be unconditional and absolute they are not part of a Covenant nor must that Word be applied to them they are absolute Promises binding no Man to whom they are made to any Duty in order to the enjoyment of the Mercies promised But those Persons that are under these absolute Promises must and shall enjoy the Mercies of Pardon and Salvation whether they repent or repent not believe or believe not obey or obey not Now to what Licentiousness this Doctrine leads Men is obvious to every Eye Yet this absoluteness of the Covenant as you improperly call it is by you asserted pag. 229 230. there is say you no condition at all 't is wholly free and absolute as the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. Gen. 17. 2 3. Thank you Sir for making them so for by cutting off the first Verses where the Duty required on Abraham's part is contained you make them what God never intended them to be And the same foul play â—…s in Deut. 30. where you separate the plain condition contained in vers 1 2. from the Promise vers 6. Or if the Condition vers 1 2. be not plain enough â—…ut you will make it part of the Proâ—…ise I hope that after in vers 10. is too â—…lain to be deny'd As to the other Texts more anon Mean time see how â—…ou destroy the Nature of a Coveâ—…ant Object But say you pag. 233.
they being true and sincere though imperfect Graces they are our usual and standing Evidences to make out our Interest in Christ by And I hope you and the whole Antinomian Party will find it hard yea and impossible to remove the Saints from that comfortable and scriptural way of examining their Interest in Christ by the Graces of his Spirit in them as the Saints who are gone to Heaven before them have done in all Generations Argument V. If the Covenant of Grace be altogether Absolute and Unconditional requiring nothing to be done on our part to entitle us to its Benefits then it cannot be Man's Duty in entring Covenant with God to deliberate the Terms count the Cost or give his consent by word or writing explicitly to the Terms of this Covenant But it is Man's Duty in entring Covenant with God to deliberate the Terms and count the Cost Luke 14. 26. to 34. and explicitly to give his consent thereto either by Word or Writing Ergo The Sequel of the Major is self-evident for where there are no terms or Conditions required on our part there can be none to deliberate or give our consent to and so a Man may be in Covenant without his own consent The Minor is undeniable in the Text cited If you say these are Duties but not Conditions I reply they are such Duties without the performance of which we can have no Benefit by Christ and the new Covenant Luke 14. 33. and such Duties have the true suspending nature of Conditions in them If you say they are only subsequent Duties but not antecedent or concomitant Acts the 28th Verse directly opposes you Let him first sit down and count the cost And for those overt acts whereby we explicitly declare our consent to the terms of the Covenant at our first entring into the Bond of it I hope you will not say that 's a legal Covenant too Isa. 44. 3 4. I will pour water upon him that is thirsty and flouds upon the dry ground I will pour my spirit upon thy Seed and my Blessing upon thine Off-spring and they shall spring up as among the grass as willows by the water-courses One shall say I am the Lords and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord c. A plain allusion to Souldiers when they List themselves under a Captain or General What remains now to reply to these Arguments but either that the places by me cited and argued upon do not intend the new Covenant under which we are or that this new Covenant hath its Conditions and is not altogether Absolute as you have asserted it to be And thus Sir you are fairly beaten off if I mistake not from the new Ground you had chosen and marked out to raise your Battery upon to demolish that strong Fort which secures the Right of Believers Infants to Baptism and you must return again to the old answers of Mr. Tombes and others to our solid and substantial Arguments from Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. which have been bassled over and over by Baxter Blake Sydenham and many other stout Champions for Infants Baptism All that I am further concerned about is to examine so many of those Scriptures as you have spoken to which are by us produced in defence of those four Grounds or Principles mentioned in the beginning of this Discourse whereon we establish the Right of Infants Baptism and to vindicate those Scriptures from your strained and injurious Interpretations of them Which being done they will each of them stand in those eminent places of Service where they have been so long useful to the Cause we defend As for your pretended Solutions of the incomparable Mr. Baxter's and the learned and acute Dr. Burthogg's Arguments I admire at your Confidence therein and let me tell you without breach of Charity 't is an high piece of Confidence in you to throw the Gantlet and bid Defiance to two such Worthies yet alive and easily able to detect your Folly in the Weakness and Impertinency of your Answers Alas my Friend you little know what it is to have such weak and inartificial Discourses as yours brought under the strict Examen of such acute and judicious Eyes But Sic Dama leonem Insequitur audetque viro concurrere Virgo Nor will I presume to anticipate either of their Answers to your Discourse if they shall think it worthy of an Answer but rather briefly reflect upon what you return to the Arguments of those eminent Divines that are gone to Glory in the Faith of that Truth you oppose and are not capable of defending their solid and regular Interpretations of Scriptures against the Notions you force upon them contrary both to the Grammar and Scope of several of them And here Sir in the beginning let me mind you what a learned and judicious Person saith about all Interpretations of Scriptures Four things saith he commend an Interpretation and establish it as a King upon the Throne against whom there is no rising up 1. If the Letter and Grammar of the Text will fairly bear it 2. If the Scope and Argument of the place will close directly with it 3. If the Interpretation set up against it cannot stand before both or either of the former 4. If the Judgment of learned wise and impartial Men be found generally agreeable to it According to these Rules whereat you can have no just Exception I shall briefly yet I hope clearly and sufficiently answer some of the Replies you make to the Arguments of those deceased Worthies And 1. In Page 1. you produce Mr. William Allen's Argument ad hominem against your Practice He tells you your own Principle condemns you for you reject the Baptizing of Infants because there is no Example in the New Testament for it and yet baptize Persons at Age whose Parents were Christians which is as much without a Gospel-president or example as the former The Sum of your Reply is That though it should be granted that there is no express example for the Baptizing of such in Scripture yet there are Examples enough concerning the Baptism of Believers Reply Here you grant all that Mr. Allen objects viz. That you are altogether without Example or President for your Practice And object to him and us what neither he nor we ever scrupled or denied viz. The Baptizing of some adult Persons upon the personal Profession of their Faith I have done it my self and in like Circumstances am ready to do it again Once you clearly yield it that you have no President nor Example for your Practice in the Gospel That 's all that he seeks and what he seeks you plainly grant As to the Precept and Examples of Baptizing adult Believers whose Parents were Unbelievers and themselves never baptized in Infancy that 's not the Point you are now to speak to Nor have we any Controversie about it Certainly you are none of the fittest Persons
branches And this can be no other than a Federal Holiness because those their Ancestours were utterly uncapable to transmit any inherent Holiness to them That being the Incommunicable Prerogative of God This Federal Holiness lying still in the root the Covenant with Abraham will recover the branches again to Life though at present many of them be broken off as Job speaks in another case Job 14. 7 8 9. There is hope of a Tree though it be cut down that it will Sprout again and that the tender branch thereof will not cease though the root thereof wax old in the Earth and the Stock thereof dye in the ground yet through the scent of water it will bud and bring forth boughs like a plant 3 We affirm by the Authority of this Text that all the Jewish Nation was not broken off but only a part of it So the 17th ver plainly declares And if some of the branches be broken off c. Not all but some For many of them were converted to Christ. We read of Three Thousand at one Sermon Acts 2. And multitudes more at other times all these converted Jews stood in the Apostles time as branches in the true Olive still enjoying all their priviledges And that which brake off them that were broken off was nothing else but their own unbelief ver 20. Well then because of unbelief they were broken off For at the promulgation of the Gospel a new Article was added to their Creed namely that this same Jesus whom they had crucifyed is the promised and true Messiah This some believed and so stood by Faith still enjoying all their ancient priviledges of the Covenant others believed not and their unbelief broke them off 4. We find in this place two sorts of Branches growing upon this Root Abraham some natural Branches namely Jews by Nature embracing Christ by Faith others wild and foreign Branches viz. Gentiles by Nature but ingrafted by Faith and by their Ingrafture growing among the natural Branches and with them partaking of the Root and Fatness of the Olive-tree vers 17. that is the rich Priviledges of the Covenant and Promise to Abraham Gen. 17. I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed This is the sweet Juice or Fatness of the Olive-tree which both sorts of Branches live upon vers 17. some on the external others on the internal some on both 5. These naturally wild but now engrafted Branches viz. the Believing Gentiles being grafted by Faith amongst the natural Branches and with them sucking the Fatness of the same Root and Olive that is to say the Priviledges Ordinances and Franchises of the Church we cannot but judge it to be a natural clear and necessary Consequent that the same Priviledges the natural Branches once had and the remaining Branches amongst whom the Gentile Believers were ingrafted then had the very same the Gentile Believers and their Children do now enjoy by vertue of their Interest in the same Root else we cannot understand how we should be said to partake with them of the root and fatness of the Olive Certainly the Sap is the same which the Root sends into all the Branches whether they be natural or ingrafted ones and is as plentifully communicated to the ingrafted as to the natural Branches For the watering of this Olive with the more rich and plentiful Grace of the Gospel must make the Olive-tree as sâ—…t and flourishing as eâ—…r it was to supply all its Branches and â—…ore than ever before Seeing then we Gentiles have 1. The same grafting into the true Olive And 2. That our present grafting in is answerable to their present casting out And 3. That their re-ingrafting in the end of the World shall be the same for substance that ours now is and their own first was For when they were first taken in they and their Children were taken in together when they were broken off they and their Children were broken off together and when they shall be taken in again they and their Children shall be taken in again And 4. Seeing all these their expected mercies are secured to them by the Covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob which will extend again to them when their Unbelief shall be taken away Methinks as was said before nothing can be clearer than this Conclusion That we Gentile Believers are now invested with the same Priviledges they once enjoy'd and our Children have the same Federal Holiness or relation to the Covenant theirs had by being grafted amongst them and living on the same Sap they did and that by the â—…ame Promise Acts 2. 39. But you will say There 's no mention â—…ere made of the grafting in of our Children with us We reply Neither â—…s there any mention here made of the â—…reaking off of their Children with them â—…hich yet was so Nor was there need 〈◊〉 say it seeing both their Infants and â—…urs are comprehended in the Parents as â—…wigs are comprehended in the Branch 〈◊〉 Buds in the Graft and the one beâ—…g holy so is the other And this Fedeâ—…l Holiness of the Children is not only â—…entioned in this Chapter vers 16. but also in 1 Cor. 7. 14. Now are your Chiâ—… dren holy And the very same Promisâ—… which conveigh'd the Fatness of thâ—… Olive to Abraham's natural Seed manâ—… festly extends it self to the Gentile Beâ—… lievers Seed Acts 2. 38 39. And 〈◊〉 Men will not shut their Eyes and studâ—… Evasions what can be plainer froâ—… Scripture in this Explication and Application of this place We have with 〈◊〉 the Consent of the generality of Orthâ—… dox Expositors the Sense it self is gâ—… nuine easie and unconstrained agreâ—… able with the Letter and Scope of tâ—… Text whether the Sense you set 〈◊〉 against it be as probable as this 〈◊〉 come next to examine And truly Siâ—… your Answer is as ambiguous as a Dâ—… phic Oracle For 1. You tell us pag. 〈◊〉 That the ingrafting spoken of in this place into the invisible Church by election We sâ—… it is into the visible Church by Professâ—… of Faith for we know not how to 〈◊〉 derstand any breaking off from the iâ—… visible Church nor falling from Elecâ—… on But 't is like you better considerâ—… the Consequents of that Opinion draâ—… upon you by Mr. Sydenham in his 85â—… Page and therefore nauseating thâ—… Dregs of Arminianism you speak more Orthodoxly to the Point pag. 27 where you honestly acknowledge That the Church of the Jews and Gentiles as to the true Essence and inward Substance of either is one and the same in which respect the believing Gentiles according to the Apostles Metaphor are here said to be grafted in amongst them and with them to be made Partakers of the Root and Fatness of the Olive-tree and in reference hereunto it 's rightly added by the Apostle that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance The inward Substance of the Church and Covenant of Grace whereon it is founded being invariable and which
shall for ever remain immoveable though the outward Form and Administration be not so Well then from hence we have gained two things 1. That the Church of the Jews and Gentiles are essentially and substantially the same Church 2. That the Jews were not broken off from the invisible Church or from Faith and Election for these you truly say are invariable and immoveable and if you had deny'd it the Apostle assures us that the foundation of God stands sure and that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance But what then was their breaking off and the Gentiles grafting in which made this great alteration in the Church Can it be any thing else but our ingrafting into the Visible Church by the Profession of our Faith from whence the Jews were broken off from their unbelief For certainly from the Invisible Church they were not broken off and into the Invisible Church multitudes of professing Christians are not ingrafted 'T is evident therefore by grafting us into the Olive-tree he means the Visible Church and by the Fatness thereof the Ordinances and Priviledges of that Church Though we deny not but all sincere Professors are Members of the Invisible Church also and do belong to the Election of Grace but that 's not the breaking off or grafting in here spoken of And now having given up Mr. Tombes his Notion of the Invisible Church and Election you are again put to your Shifts and must either shuffle and seek to hide your self in an heap of strange and unintelligible Distinctions or which had been much fairer honestly have yielded the Cause and where-ever you met with them I find a whole Troop of distinctions rallied together for this purpose pag. 23 24. This grafting in say you may be either into the visible or invisible Church either by Faith or profession of Faith or by some outward Ordinance Children may be either grown Men or Infants The ingrafting â—…n may be either certain or probable Certain either by reason of election or their natural Birth being Children of believers Probable as being likely either because frequently or for the most part it happens so Though necessary and so not certain the thing to be prov'd is That the Children of believers are in the Covenant of free grace in Christ and by vertue thereof to be Baptized into the communion of the visible Church Reply Words enough and distinctions enough to reduce the Text to an indivisible point But whither doth all this tend I will ask you Two or Three plain Qestions and then make what use you please of your distinctions 1. Whether the Breaking off of the Jews and the ingrafting of the Gentiles here spoken of have Relation to the invisible Church by election or to the visible Church by profession of Faith and some outward Ordinance 2. Whethether if it were into the visible Church by profession of Faith that the Gentile believers were grafted in as doubtless it was and by relinquishing the former sense you here seem to yield it saying this ingrafture may be certain upon the account of natural Birth being Children of believers then I would fain know why you so state the Question as to make the certainty of Believers Childrens interest in Christ to be the only ground of their admission into the Communion of the visible Church This say you must be prov'd or no Baptism for them Alas poor Infants to what hard terms are they here tyed up Very much harder than the terms any of your one Society are tyed to and if Baptism must be suspended till this point can be clear'd that the person to be Baptized be first in Christ and in the Covenant of free grace as to the saving benefits thereof Then farewel to all Baptism both of Infants and adult profâ—…ssours too For how can you prove that the persons you Baptizâ—… are all or any of them really in Christ May they not deceive you as Simon Magus did Peter I did not think you had proceeded in this matter upon a Certainty but a Probability and if you proceed with yours upon the grounds of Probability how come you to tie up the Children of Believers to a certainty of their Interest in Christ as the antecedent suspending condition of their Baptism We need dispute no more about the proper Subjects of Baptism for by this account we have lost the Ordinance of Baptism it self We thought Sir that our Childrens Title to Baptism was derived to them from their believing Parents as the Children of the Jews was to Circumcision from their circumcised and professing Parents and that the same Promise which conveigh'd their Childrens Priviledge to them Gen. 17. had conveig'd the right of Believers Children to Baptism unto them also Acts 2. 38 39. and that the root being holy the branches are holy also that is federally holy Rom. 11. 16. But to this you make such an Answer as astonishes me to read pag. 26. where allowing Abraham to be the Root you say The Holiness here spoken of is first in respect of Gods Election Holiness personal and inherent in God's intention Ephes. 1. 4. He hath chosen us in him that we should be holy 2. 'T is also Holiness derivative but not from any Ancestors but from Abraham only and that not as a natural but a spiritual Father wherein he is a lively Image or Figure of Christ and is derived from the Covenant of Grace which passed in his Name to him and his Seed And lastly It shall be inherent being actually communicated by the Spirit of God when they shall be actually call'd Reply Here we see into what Brakes and Pits Men run themselves when they depart from the plain and safe Path in Explications of Scripture Here is such a tripartite Distinction of Holiness as I never met with before 1. Here is personal Holiness inherent in Gods intention By this you must either mean Sanctification decreed for them and to be bestowed on them at the time of their Calling and then it is coincident with the third Member of your Distinction Or else you mean that it is Holiness inherent in the Intention of God as an Accident in its Subject and then the Simplicity of Gods Nature resists your incongruous Notion But it would be a less Crime to confound the first with the last Member of your vain and self-created Distinction than to speak things so repugnant to the simple and uncompounded Nature of God Or if your meaning be That this Holiness is in God by way of Intention but in them by way of Inhesion that will not deliver you out of your Confusion neither but run you into greater for then you confound the immanent with the transient Acts of God and make the same thing at the same time to be purely in Intention and in Execution or to be only in Gods Purpose to bestow hereafter and yet at present inherent in the Persons he intends it for so that I must leave your strange Notion of
Works forasmuch as our Divines are so far from conceiting the Covenant with Abraham to be a Covenant of Works that they will not allow the Sinai Law it self to be so and to convince you of it I lent you Mr. Roberts and Mr. Sedgewick on the Covenant to enlighten and satisfie you about it But little did I think you had had Confidence enough to enter the Lists with two such learned and eminent Divines and make them to follow your triumphant Chariot shackled with the incomparable Baxter and Allen Sydenham and Burthogg like three pair of Noble Prisoners of War But whatever was the occasion setting aside your Sin I am not sorry you have given a fit opportunity to enlighten the World in that Point also 2. You seem to fancy in your Letter that I was once of your Opinion about the Moral Law because you find these Passages in a Sermon of mine upon John 8. 36. If the Son therefore shall make you free then are you free indeed viz. That the Law required perfect working under pain of the Curse accepted no short Endeavours admitted no Repentance and gave no Strength But finding me here pleading for the Law you think you find me in a Contradiction to that Doctrine The Words I own the Contradiction I positively deny for I speak not there and here ad idem For in that Sermon and in those very Words you cite I speak against the Law not as God intended it when he added it to the Promise but as the Ignorance and Infidelity of unregenerate Men make it to themselves a Covenant of Works by looking upon it as the very rule and reason of their Justification before God This was the Stumbling Stone at which all Legal Justiciaries then did and still do stumble Rom. 9. 31 32 33. In this Sense the Apostle in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians argues against the Law and so do I in the Words you cite but vindicate the Law in the very same Sermon you mention as consistent with and subservient to Christ in the former Sense and there tell you The Law sends us to Christ to be justified and Christ sends us back to the Law to be regulated The very same double Sense of the Law you will find in this Discourse and from the mistaken end and abuse of the Law which the Apostle so vehemently opposeth I here prove against you that the Law in this Sense cannot consist with or be added to the Promise and therefore make it my Medium to prove against you That the true Nature and Denomination of the Sinai Law can never be found in this Sense of it but it must be estimated and denominated from the Purpose and Intention of God which I have proved to be Evangelical Try your skill to fasten a Contradiction betwixt my Words in that Sermon and this Discourse I know you would be glad to find the shadow of one to make some small Excuse or Attonement for the many faults of that nature you have here committed 3. Your Letter also informs me that you hear you are answered by one hand already and for ought you know many more may be employed against you and I for one and so we shall compass you about like Bees Reply I have only seen Mr. Whiston's little Book against your Brother Grantham wherein he hath baffled two of your principal Arguments but you only come in collaterally there and must not look upon it as a full Answer to your Book but only as a Lash for your Folly en passant And for our compassing you about like Bees methinks you seem to be greatned in your own Fancy by the supposition or expectation of a multitude of Opponents You know as well as I who it is that glories in this Motto Unus contra omnes Sir I think your Mind may be much at rest in that matter Of all the six famous Adversaries mentioned in your Title Page there are but two living and you know mortui non mordent and of the remaining two one of them viz. Mr. Baxter is almost in Heaven living in the daily Views and chearful Expectations of the Saints everlasting rest with God and is left for a little while among us as a great Example of the Life of Faith And it is questionable with me whether such a great and Heavenly Soul can find any leisure or disposition to attend such a weak and trivial Discourse as this And as for my self you need not much fear me I have not neither do I intend to vibrate my Sting against you unless I find you infecting or disturbing that Hive to which I belong and to which I am daily gathering and carrying Honey and then who but a Drone would not sting 4. To conclude in the Close of your Letter you fall into the former strain of Love assuring me That the ancient Friendship of so many years shall still continue on your part Reply All that I shall return to this is only to relate a short Story out of Plutarch in the Life of Alexander where he tells us That whilst he was warring in the Indies one Taxiles an Indian King came with his Company to meet him and saluting Alexander said What need you and I to fight and war one upon another if thou comest not to take away our Water and the necessaries of Life from us for which we must needs fight As for other Goods if I am richer than thee I am ready to give thee of mine and if I have less I will not think scorn to thank thee for thine Alexander highly pleased with his Words made him this Reply Thinkest thou that this meeting of ours can be without fighting no no thou hast won nothing by all thy fair words for I will fight and contend with thee in Honesty and Courtesie and thou shalt not exceed me in Bounty and Liberality I say with Taxiles I had never armed against you had you not come to take away our Water and the necessaries of Life I mean the Covenant of God with Abraham which contains the rich Charter of the Gentile Believers Children and make it an abolished Adam's Covenant and told us that we must come up to the Primitive Purity in these things that is in renouncing it as a Covenant of Grace and relinquishing Infants Baptism as grounded thereon Sir Were my one Father alive I must and would oppose him should he attempt what here you do Infant Baptism with you is not Singing of Psalms that plain and Heavenly Gospel-Ordinance with you is not and will you take away our Benjamin also What! the Covenant of God with Abraham and his Children in their Generations all these things are against us No Sir we cannot part with that Covenant as an abolish'd Adam's Covenant nor will I give it up for all the Friendship in the World And yet I will say with Alexander I will contend with you in Friendship and Courtesie even whilst I earnestly contend against you for the Truths of God which you have here opposed and I have endeavoured to vindicate One Word more before I part with you I do assure you and the whole World that in this Controversie with you I have not knowingly or advisedly misrepresented your Sense If you shall say I did so in my second Argument from the Words p. 179. I assure you both my self and others could understand you no otherwise than I did in the Papers I sent you and when you told me you meant there was no pardon in either of those Covenants but that it plainly directed to Abraham's Covenant you will find I have given you as fair a Choice as you can desire either to stand to your words in the first Sense wherin I understood them or which will be the same to me to your own Sense in which you afterwards explained it to me And whereas I blame you over and over in my Epistle and Conclusion for putting the proper Subject of Baptism among the highest things in Religion Let the Reader view your Conclusion and see whether you do or not If you say you speak of the Covenant there as well as of baptism I allow that you do so yet I hope 't is equally as bad nay indeed and truth a great Aggravation of your Fault to make this Article viz. Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17 is an abolished Adam 's Covenant one of the highest concernments of a Christian the Baptism only of Adult Believers another My consequences from your Words are just and regular how startling soever they seem to you If you think fit to rejoyn to this my Answer I desire you will avoid as much as you can a tedious Harangue of Words and speak strictly and regularly to my Arguments by limiting distinguishing or denying as a Disputant ought to do If so I promise you a Reply but if I find no such thing it shall pass with me but for waste Paper nor will I wast time about it The Lord give us Unity in things necessary Liberty in things indifferent and Charity in all things FINIS Gal. 3. 18. Rom. 10. 3. Rom. 2. 17. * Conditio est suspensio alicujus dispositionis tantisper dum aliquid futurum fiat Navarr Enchirid. 482. †Est verborum adjectio in futurum suspendentium secundum quam disponens vult dispositum regulari Dr. Crispe 2d Vol. of Christ exalted Serm. 14. Infant-Baptism pag. 45 45.