all just Contradiction and which hath accordingly been urged by multitudes of Protestant Divines by way of Opposition to the Papal Usurpation That in respect of all Positive or Instituted Worship such as Baptism is that hath no other Rule nor Reason than the meer Will of the Law-giver there must be something in the Scripture either by way of Precept or Example that alone can justly warrant our Practice therein The Reason is obvious because Baptism being a part of Instituted Worship not found in Natures Garden hath of it self no vertue but what it receives from the Institutor It being a right Note That Moral Laws are good and therefore commanded But Positive Worship is commanded and therefore good And accordingly though Moral Duties are easily deducible from their proper Premises yet we cannot possibly arrive unto any certain Knowledge of our Duty in reference to Positive Worship without some express signification of God's mind unto us therein True it is that in some Cases if an express Precept be wanting we may justly enough recurr to the Example of the Apostles as a sufficient Authority for our Practice As for Instance in the Case of the Observation of the Lord's day concerning which though we have no express Precept to warrant our Practice therein we are yet justifiable enough upon that Account in that we have the frequent Examples of the Apostles recorded in the Scripture to that purpose whose steps we are bid to follow But when Precept and President do both fail us as is most evidently the case with us in respect of Infants Baptism and which hath been accordingly ingeniously owned by some of the chiefest of the Paedobaptists themselves We do certainly step aside into a wrong Path in our Practices of that kind And justly enough therefore may our common Adversaries the Papists twit us in the Teeth with the Guilt of a Self condemned Practice while we blame that in them which yet we our selves do allow in other Cases And how can we call upon them to produce something oâ— other by way of Precept or President from the Scripture for the justification of their Ceremonies without the one or the other of which we justly condemn them as unlawful when we our selves are found highly guilty of the same Transgression and that in a greater degree in other Respects Object 18. But it is yet further Objected That Infants by God's express Command were to be Circumcised under the former Administration and all God's Commands about His Institutions then according to the Rules of Analogy or Proportion are equally binding unto us as well as to the Jews As in the case of the Christian Sabbath unto which the Fourth Commandment binds us as it did the Jews to the former And thus it is in reference to Infants Baptism in respect of which though there is no express Command to that purpose recorded in the New Testament yet we cannot but conclude that God's Command unto the Jews to Circumcise their Infants carries with it the force at least of a virtual Command unto us to Baptize ours To this we reply That certain it is that that which concerns the Worship of God which hath not an express Institution in the New Testament is now to be rejected by us which is to be understood as we have said before in respect of Positive Worship consisting in outward Rites such as Circumcision Baptism and the Lord's Supper are which have nothing Natural or Moral in them but are meerly Ceremonial For as for that which is Natural or Moral in God's Worship we allow that an Institution or Command in the Old Testament is Obligatory to Christians under the New And such do we conceive the Sabbath to be as being of the Law of Nature For outward Worship being due to God Days are due to God to that end and therefore even in Paradise appointed from the Creation and in all Nations in all Ages observed enough to prove so much to be of the Law of Nature And therefore the Fourth Commandment is justly put among the Morals which proves that at least a seventh Portion of time is to be dedicated more immediately to the Service of God Now Circumcision hath nothing Moral in it it is meerly Positive Neither was it so from the beginning nor observed by all Nations in all Ages nor is it in the Decalogue And therefore the Observation of the Lord's Day may stand though Circumcision fall and though there be no other Ordinance come in the room of it that bears Analogy or Proportion with it Secondly When we require express Institution in the New Testament in respect of the Matters of God's Worship now to be practised by us We do not mean that in all Positive Worship there must always be of necessity a positive Command in so many Words in form of a Precept But we conceive that the Example of the Apostles which hath not a meer temporary Reason is enough to prove that Institution from God to which that Practice doth relate And in this therefore as we said before in Answer to the foregoing Objection we reckon it a sufficient Warrant for the Justification of our Practise in the Observation of the Lord's Day that such was the Practise of the Apostles according to those plain Testimonies thereof recorded in the Holy Scripture though it be not expresly commanded Now if the one half of this Evidence could be brought for the Baptism of Infants we should make no question but readily subscribe unto it But Infants Baptism not consisting with the Order of Christ in the Institution being contrary to the Practice of John the Baptist and the Apostles there being no Foot-steps of it at all in the Scripture nor till about 200 years after Christ's Incarnation we dare not assent unto the Practise of it upon a supposed Analogy or Proportion between that and Circumcision And evident it is that it is a most dangerous Principle upon which they go that so argue to wit that in meer positive things such as Circumcision and Baptism are we may frame an Addition to God's Worship from Analogy or Resemblance conceived by us between two Ordinances whereof one is quite taken away without any Institution gathered by Precept or Apostolical Example For if we may do it in one thing why not in another Where shall we stop Certain it is that this very Principle hath brought in all the Popish Ceremonies into the Romish Church That which Christ and his Apostles have taken from the Jews and appointed unto us we are to receive as they have appointed But if any others shall take upon them to appoint to Mens Consciences any Rite in whole or in part on their own conceived Reason from Analogy with the Jewish Ceremonies It is an high Presumption in such against Christ and against the Apostles Command to yield to it Col. 2. 20. Though it hath a shew of Wisdom verse 23. And the Apostles Example binds us to oppose it Gal. 2. 3 4 5.
of the Supper whatever Circumstances were by the command of God to be Observed in the Celebration of the Type And after the same sort must we Reason if we will Reason aright concerning Circumcision and Baptism also And yet again Thirdly Even in the very Instance of this Argument Supposing a Corespondency of Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism yet there is no Correspondency of Identity For although it were granted that both of them did Consign the Covenant of Faith yet there is nothing in the Circumstance of Childrens being Circumcised that so concerns that Mystery but that it might very well be given to Children and yet Baptism only to men of Reason Because Circumcision left a character in the flesh which being Imprinted upon Infants did its work to them when they came of Age. And such a Character was necessary because there was no word added to the sign But Baptism Imprints nothing that remains on the Body and if it leaves a character at all it is upon the Soul to which also the word is added which is as much a part of the Ordinance as the Sign it self For which cause therefore it is highly requisite that the Parties Baptized should be capable of Reason that they may be capable both of the word of the Ordinance and the Impress to be made thereby upon the Soul Since therefore the Reason of the Parity doth wholly fail there is left nothing to Infer a Necessity of Complying in this Circumstance of Age more then in the other Annexes of the Type Then also the Infant must be precisely baptized upon the Eighth day And Females must not be baptized because such were not to be Circumcised But it were more proper if we would understand it aright to prosecute the Analogy from the type to the Antitype by way of letter and Spirit and Signification That as Circumcision figures Baptism so also the Adjuncts of the Circumcision shall signifie some thing Spiritual in the Adherences of Baptism And therefore as Infants were Circumcised So Spiritual Infants shall be Baptized which is Spiritual Circumcision For therefore Babes had the Ministry of the type to Signifie that we must when we give our Names to Christ become Children in Malice and then the type is made Compleat The Seventh Argument for Infants Baptism and whereon the greatest stress is laid by Mr. Allen Mr Baxter and others is drawn from the Church-member-ship of Infants under the former Administration That because Infants were comprehended with their Parents in the Jews Church state they are so still under the Gospel and therefore to be baptized Reply We know very well that Mr. Baxter and others do Assert the Church-membership of Infants before Abrahams time and that therefore it is a Moral Institution and so not Capable of being Repealed as other Jewish Rites were But that is a groundless Fiction and cannot be at all proved from the Scripture The Discussion whereof shall be reserved for the latter part of this Discourse In the mean season That they were admitted Members of the Jewish Church is Evident And it is also as Evident that God hath now quite pulled down that House of his broke up House-keeping and turned the Servants Infants and all out of Doors Rom. 11. 17. 24. The Natural Branches are broken of and God hath now built him a New house into which God hath admitted none as his Houshold Servants but Believers only or such as Profess so to be Moses saith the Apostle Heb. 3. 5. 9. was faithfull as a Servant in all his house But Christ as a son over his own House Whose House are we if we hold fast the Confidence c. Where the Servants of the new house are discribed te be Beleivers not Infants and therefore called Living stones and a Spiritual House 1. Pet. 2. 3. And that the Old House the Jewish Church with all the Appurtenances and Priviledges of it is pulled down and a new One Built into which Infants are not to be admitted is Evident from the Apostles Reasoning Heb. 7. 12. For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law Which must needs Include Circumcision with all the Appurtenances and Priviledges belonging to it And therefore as Infants Church-membership came in with the Law of Circumcision So it went out and was repealed with it They were t is true of the Houshold of Old but it was by a positive Law Shew us the like now or you say nothing Sure it is There is now no Institution that makes Infants fellow Citizens with the Saints and of the Houshold of God neither are they to bo so accounted till they believe and are able to do Service in the House And if you say that among men Infants are counted of the Houshold tho they can do no Service we Answer that as Comparisons do not run upon four feet so it doth not follow that because we count our Infants of our Family therefore they are to be accounted members of Gods Family the Gospel Church unless God by any Institution had made them so The Houshold of God is called the Houshold of faith or a House Consisting of Believers Now unless you can prove Infants to be Believers they are not of this House For all the Servants here must be Believers either Really or at least historically and Professedly which Infants cannot be If it be Objected That as the Jews and their Children are broken off So the Gentiles and their Children are Ingraffed in their Room according to Rom. 11. 20. Because of unbelief they were broken off and thou standest by faith We Answer That the Reason why the Jews and their Children were broken off was not because they had not Believing Parents For Abraham Isaac and Jacob were still the Parents of them all They were Abraham's seed when they were broken off as well as before But the true Reason was because the terms of standing in the Church were now altered For before the Gospel came they stood members of the Old Jewish Church though as much unbelievers for many Generations as they were when they were broken off But now Abraham's Church state is at an end and all the Priviledges and Immunities cease The Jewish Church must give way to the Gospel Church The Messiah being come and about to build him a New House into which none are of Right to enter but such as are profest Believers For the Old House or Jewish Church was not intended to abide for ever but only to the time of Reformation And then the Law must be changed the Priesthood changed the Priviledges and Ordinances changed yea the Covenant changed Which they not believing being willing to abide in the Old House still and to remain Church Members upon the account of a meer Fleshly and Natural Birth still crying out Abraham is our Father and we are his Seed and are Free and were never in Bondage Wherefore they were broken off and that whether they would or
concerning Infants Baptism from the Covenant of Evangelical Blessings which you say was there made with Abraham and his Seed after him And from the Interest which as you say the Children of Believers have together with themselves in that Covenant you thence Argue they are to be Baptized Because all that are in the Covenant ought to have the Seal thereof When the invalidity of this Plea is made manifest you then fly to a Covenant of outward Priviledges which you say the Children of Believers are concerned in with themselves But then we would willingly know what Scripture is it that makes mention of this Covenant of outward Priviledges Gen. 17. 7. makes not mention of it For that you have often told us is to be understood of the Covenant of Grace containing purely Spiritual and Everlasting Blessings and therefore cannot be understood of outward Priviledges or concerning the bare Administration or Susception of an outward Ordinance which is the thing driven at Where then shall we find this Covenant of outward Priviledges mentioned or Recorded Besides both Circumcision and Baptism also according to your former Reckoning are but Seals of the Covenant and not the Covenant it self All that are in Covenant say you must have the Seal thereof that is ought to be Baptized Whereas after this Rate the Seals and the Covenant it self are strangely confounded together The Children of Believers say you are in Covenant equally with themselves not in the Inward but in the Outward part of it in respect of External Priviledges that is Baptism But then what becomes of the Seal so much contended about Unless we must take it for granted that the Seals of the Covenant and the Covenant it self are the same thing and no Distinction at all to be made between them So that upon the whole it clearly appears that your Arguments from the Covenant however set forth or managed by you are no other than a darkning of Counsel by Words without Knowledge And therefore while you do Labour to fasten such Dismal Consequences on our Doctrine who deny the Children of Believers to be taken into Covenant with themselves in the sense expounded We say they are unduly charged on us forasmuch as we do not exclude the Infants of Believers from the ordinary way of Salvation For though we say not that they are in Covenant by their Parents Faith And though we deny that they have any Right to Church Priviledges till they are capable of making an Actual Profession of Faith and Repentance according to the Gospel Rule yet we say they may be by Gods Election saved and may be sanctified by the Spirit of God and Parents may have ground of Comfort in their Death as much or more than according to your Doctrine which tells them that their Children are in the Covenant only in respect of outward Priviledges the Enjoyment of which nevertheless can give us no undoubted Assurance of their Salvation Ninthly And Lastly as to this whereas you tell us that Christian Baptism is come in the Room Place and Use of Jewish Circumcision So as that the Institution of that should be our Rule about Baptism To answer this doubt let us consider the great difference between Circumcision and Baptism Circumcision was a Legal Ordinance appointed to the Jewish Males Reprobate as well as Elect by a positive Command to distinguish them from the rest of the World as a Token of the Covenant God made with Abraham and signified that the Messiah should come of his Loins according to the Flesh But Baptism is an Evangelical Ordinance whereby Jew or Gentile Male or Female upon a Profession of Faith and Repentance is Baptized in Water in token of Regeneration and to signifie the Death Burial and Resurrection of Christ the Messiah already come and so added to the Visible Church and admitted to all the Priviledges thereof The Consideration of the great difference in their Institution illustrates this also For when Christ instituted Baptism he says Go Teach and Baptize and in the Administration they confessed and were Baptized not a Word of Infants And in the Precept of Circumcision not a Word of Teaching or Faith but of Infants the command expresly notes the Time Age and Sex And therefore since things become Ordinances to us by Vertue of a Word of Institution and no such Word is to be found to make out that Baptism succeeds Circumcision in its Room Place and Use We think it safe to be sober and advance no further than the Scripture guides And indeed to make Circumcision Institutive of Baptism is no other than to send us to School to the Law and that First Old Vanishing Covenant as it is stiled Heb. 8. 13. as if the Lawgiver in the New Testament had not by a positive Institution establish'd his Ordinances nor left us any warrant for our Gospel Duties without that Retrogression to Moses and assimulating them to the Paedagoggy and similitude of Types Besides when you tell us that Christian Baptism is come in the Room Place and Vse of Jewish Circumcision so as that the Institution of that should be our Rule about Baptism This is not right For First then Infant Females should not be Baptized as hath been already noted And to say that Females were Virtually and Reputatively Circumcised in the Circumcision of the Males is frivolous For if so by Analogy the Females should be only Virtually and Reputatively and not Actually Baptized And if Infants out of Abraham's Family were not Circumcised though the Parent believed in God as a Proselyte of the Gate e. g. Cornelius Then neither should an Infant of a Believer in Christ not in a National or other Constituted Church be Baptized And if Circumcision were of the Use of Baptism the Circumcised Infant needed not to be Baptized Secondly it appears from Col. 2. 17. That a Principal Use of Circumcision was to signifie Christ to come of Abraham which Baptism not doing hath not a Principal Use of Circumcision Thirdly though Baptism distinguish between Believer and Unbeliever yet it doth not make a Partition Wall between Nation and Nation as Circumcision did which was not to be imparted to all Believing Males of the Gentiles as is manifest in the Case of Cornelius who though fearing God was not Circumcised nor to be Circumcised unless joyned as a Member of the Jewish People Fourthly Circumcision bound Men to keep the whole Law of Moses or else was Unprofitable Rom. 2. 25. Gal. 5. 3. But Baptism Witnesseth that the whole Ceremonial Law of Moses is now made void and only Christ's Law is to be kept Fifthly Circumcision was Administred to Abraham's Natural Seed without any Profession of Faith Repentance or Regeneration whereas Baptism is only to be Administred to the Spiritual Seed of Abraham upon an Actual Profession of Faith Repentance and Regeneration Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. 36 37. It is granted that in some things there is an Analogy betwixt them both signifying Heart Circumcision and
therefore whoever will pertinaciously persist in this Opinion of the Paedobaptists and Practise it accordingly they pollute the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant They Dishonour and make a Pageantry of the Sacrament they ineffectually represent a Sepulture into the Death of Christ and please themselvet in a Sign without effect making Baptism like the Fig-Tree in the Gospel full of Leaves but no Fruit and they invocate the Holy Ghost in vain doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a Stone of a Tree Thus far Dr. Taylor p. 244. Mr. Baxter saith If there can be no Example given in the Scripture of any one that was Baptized without the Profession of a Saving Faith nor any â—recept for so doing then must we not Baptize any without it But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent 2. Disp against Mr Blake 16. Arg. p. 149 2dly Christ hath instituted no Baptism but what is to be a sign of present Regeneration But to Men that understand not a Justifying Faith it cannot be Administred as a sign of present Regeneration therefore he hath Instituted no Baptism to be Administred to such 10th Arg. p 117 118. 3dly If it be the appointed Vse of all Christian Baptism to solemnize our Marriage with Christ or to Seal and Confirm our Vnion with him Then must we Baptize none that profess not justifying Faith But the Antecedent and Consequent are evident Gal. 3. 27 28 29. p. 98. The Lord Brookes saith That the Analogy which Baptism now hath with Circumcision in the Old Law is a fine Rationall Argument to Illustrate a Point well proved before But I somewhat doubt whether it be Proof enough for that which Some would prove by it Since besides the vast difference in the Ordinance the persons to be Circumcised are stated by a Positive Law so Express that is leaves no place for Scruple But it is far otherwise In Baptism Where all the Designation of Persons fit to be Partakers for ought I know are such as Beleeve For this is the Qualification which with Exactest Search I find the Scripture Repuires in persons to be baptized And this it seems to require in all such Persons Now how Infants can be properly said to Believe I am not yet fully resolved Dr. Barlow Bishop of Lincoln hath these Words in a Letter of his in Print I do believe and know saith he that there is neither Precept nor Example in Scripture for Paedobaptism nor any just Evidence of it for ahove 200 Years after Christ That Tertullian condemns it as an Vnwarrantable Custom And Nazianzen a good while after him dislikes it too Sure I am that in the Primitive Times they were Catecheumeni then Illuminaâ—i or Baptizati And that not only Pagans and Children of Pagans converted buâ— Children of Christian Parents The Truth is I do believe Paedobaptism how or by whom I knnow noâ— came into the World in the second Century And in the Third and Fourth began to be practised though not generally and desended as Lawful from that Text grosly Mis-understood Jo. â— 3. Vpon the like gross Mistake of Jo. 6. 53. They did for many Centuries both in the Greek and Latine Church communicate Infants and give them the Lord's Supper And I do confess they might do both as well as either But although they Baptiz'd some Infants and thought it Lawful so to do yet Austin was the First that ever said it was Necessary I have read what my Learned and worthy Friends Dr. Hammond Mr. Baxter and others say in Defence of it And I confess I wonder not a little that Men of such great Parts should say so much to so little purpose For I have not as yet seen any thing like an Arguument for it Thus far Dr. Barlow Obj. 20. But the Apostle tells us That neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor Vncircumcision but a New Creature It is our main Business therefore to press after the Power of Godlyness And we are afraid that while there is so much stress laid upon the Circumstantials of Religion it tends to the losing the Substance Besides having been already Baptized in our Infancy what necessity is there for the Repetition thereof It being an approved Maxim that that which ought not to be done being done ought not to be undone We Answer First whereas you tell us that neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor Un circumcision but a new Creature Certain it is that once Circumcision was something when the Lord would have killed Moses because of the Circumcision Exod 4. 24 26. And when the Lord said That whosoever was not Circumcised should be cut off from his People Gen. 17. 14. True it is that now under the Gospel it is nothing because Abolished Gal. 5. 2. If you be Circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing But shall we therefore say that Baptism is nothing Baptism is the Counsel of God Luk. 7. 29. And is that nothing Baptism is a Command of the Lord Jesus Mat. 28. 19. And is his Command nothing And therefore Secondly We cannot be justly affirmed to have placed more stress on the Ordinance insisted on than the Scripture it self chargeth on it In which respect it ought to be considered what our Saviour himself speaks when he was to be Baptized by John after the manner we are now pleading for Mat. 3. 15. Suffer it to be so now For thus it becometh to fulfil all Righteousness And what is that Righteousness or Holiness which God now requireth of us but our answerable Conformity to the revealed Will of God and that both in respect of the Duties of the first as well as the Second Table Upon which account we ought further to consider what a special charge our Lord Jesus left with his Apostles upon his Departure hence That they should teach the Nations to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them And this of Believers Baptism amongst the rest Mat. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 16. And elsewhere Paul commends the Corinthians for that they had kept the Ordinances as they were delivered unto them 1 Cor. 11. 2. It is therefore certainly an undue Reflection when you suppose that we place too much stress upon an Ordinance of Christ while we plead for the Purity of its Practise according to the Primitive Institution It was our Saviours passionate Expression to his Disciples John 14. 15. If ye love me keep my Commandments And John 15. 14. Ye are my Friends if ye do whatsoever I Command you We cannot therefore express our Friendship to Christ as we ought if we are negligent on this Account And certain it is that as we cannot express our Love to Christ aright if we do not whatsoever he hath commanded us So if we do it not as he hath commanded us for if God were so strict as we all know he was upon this Account under the former Administration we cannot rationally expect to be Indulged in a known Deviation in respect of any part of
Baptism as Men are We Answer If God had pleased He could have made them by an Institution capable of some sacred Usefulness yea capable of Relative Holiness as well as Aaron's Bell Or the Bells mentioned Zech. 14. 20. upon which it was written Holiness to the Lord. But it is well known there are those in the World who think themselves as wise as others that judge Bells capable Subjects of Baptism and have done so diverse Ages § 3. Thus you see what Absurdities follow this Position That those things are lawful in God's Worship which are not forbidden by any express Word dropt from Christ or his Apostles But surely God is more jealous of his Honour and tender of his Worship than to leave it to Our Pleasure And that God hath in all Ages testified his dislike yea Abhorrence of Will-Worship and that for this very Reason because he hath not Commanded it is too evident to be denied For this cause God threatens Judgments upon his People of Old Ezek. 43. 8. They have set their Thresholds by my Threshold and their Posts by my Post wherefore I have Consumed them in mine Anger Wherein we cannot but observe that God discovers his severe displeasure against them not for neglecting any part of his Worship that he had Commanded them But for their Presumption in adding something thereto which he had not Commanded them § 4. And indeed Will-Worship must needs be a great Sin when the same Person who is to perform the Obedience shall dare to appoint the Laws Implying a peremptory Purpose of no further Observance than may consist with the Allowance of his own Judgment Whereas true Obedience must be grounded on the Majesty of that Power that Commands not on the Judgment of the Subject or Benefit of the Precept proposed Divine Laws such as are the Positive Institutions concerning God's Worship require Obedience not so much from the Quality of the things commanded as from the Authority of him that commands them We are all Servants of God and Servants are but living Instruments whose Property is to be governed by the Will of those in whose Pessession they are Will-Worship and Superstition well they may flatter God they cannot please him He that requires us to deny our selves in his Service doth therein teach us that his Commands stand rather in fear than in need of us In fear of our Boldness lest we abuse them not in need of our Judgment to Polish or Alter them The Conquest of an Enemy without the Command of the General cost a Roman Gentleman his Life though his own Father were the Judge So the over-wise Industry of the Architect in bringing not the same but as he thought a fitter piece of Timber than he was commanded to the Roman Consul was rewarded with nothing but a Bundle of Rods. So jealous and displeased are even men themselves to have their Laws undervalued by the private Judgments of those who rather Interpret than Obey them Much more Impious then will it be for us to mix Humane Inventions and Appointments of our own with the Institutions of God and to Impose them as Divine Duties with a necessity of Obedience whilst by that means we take Christ's Divine Prerogative out of his Hands and make our selves joynt Authors of his Ordinances or rather the Destroyers of them For to practise an Ordinance otherwise than Christ hath Instituted is not to honour Christ's Appointments but an Idol of our own making Now this the Apostles durst not do They tell us that they declared the Counsel of God but nothing else And Paul tells the Corinthians he delivered nothing unto them but what he had received from the Lord 1 Cor. 11. 23. And sure he did not receive Insants Baptism from the Lord For he never declares it to them § 5. This therefore should be a Boundary to all Christ's Ministers that they deliver nothing to the People but what they have recieved from the Lord. That Faith that was once delivered to the Saints must be Preached and contended for but nothing else And if Christ's Ministers have not received Infants Baptism from the Lord and if they cannot prove that it was once delivered to the Saints it is not to be Preached As for all humane Mixtures in God's Worship they are useful only for these two purposes either to slacken and abate something that is Excessive or to supply something that is Deficient And so all Heterogenious Mixtures do plainly intimate either a Vitiousness to be Corrected or a Defect to be Supplied Now it were a great Impiety to charge either of these upon the pure and perfect Word of God and by Consequence to use Deceit by Adulterating of it either by such Glosses as diminish and take away the force of it or by the Addition of Humane Traditions as may argue any defect So that to stamp any thing of a Humane Original with a Divine Character and obtrude it upon the Consciences of Men to take any dead Child of ours as the Harlot did and lay it in the Bosom of the Scripture and Father it upon God to build any Structure of ours in the Road to Heaven and to stop up the Way is one of the greatest Presumptions that the Pride of Man can aspire unto To Erect a Throne in the Consciences of his Fellow Creatures and to counterfeit the great Seal of Heaven for the countenancing of his Forgeries is a Sin most severely provided against by God with special Prohibition and Threatnings See Deut. 12. 32. What thing soever I Command you observe to do it Thou shalt not add thereunto nor diminish from it Deut. 18. 20. The Prophet that shall speak a Word in my Name that I have not Commanded even that Prophet shall die Prov. 30. 6. Add not unto his Words lest he Reprove thee and thou be found a Liar § 6. And yet further to demonstrate That Will Worship is a Sin of no small Magnitude consider the following Particulars First It clearly proceeds as the Fruit of Pride Men Love to have something of their own in God's Worship They are not content with what the Infinite Wise God commands them but will Presumptiously be adding something of their own thereto The Second Commandment shews that Man is prone to be medling and making something in Worship till he marres all Israel provoked God with their Inventions Psal 106. 29. Secondly Will Worship is a Sin greatly displeasing to God For God is not pleased with any thing in Worship which is not his own Nay the contrary is that which he hath signified to be greatly provoking to him In this Respect it is not the Work of Mens Hands nor their Heads that can be at all Acceptable unto God That which pleases God must come from God what he Appoints he Approves and nothing else Thirdly Will Worship and Mixtures of Mens Inventions with Gods Pure Ordinances are the great Canons that batter Cities and the Gun-Powder that blows them up Those
oâ— Intended that any should obtain Life and Righteousness by their Personal Obedience to it yet even in this Respect also it was aâ— much a Covenant of Works as that made with our first Parent For God never intended that Adam himself should obtain Life and Righteousness by his Obedience to that Covenant For if he had the purpose or intention of God in that respect must of necessity have been accomplished And accordingly Adam should have stood and Life and Righteousness should that way have been derived unto him and not only unto him but unto all his Off-spring also But it is evident that Man that was in Honour abode not but fell and we all in him and accordingly a New Covenant takes place whereby Life and Righteousness was to be derived both unto him and all his Elect Offspring § 3. So that if that Covenant at Sinai was materially a Cove-of Works though God intended not that Life should be that way derived unto us so it was in respect of Adam's Covenant also For as in the Legal Covenant God doth now plainly tell sinners That the Man that doth these things shall live by them that is if you can perform a steady perfect Obedience Life and Salvation shall be your Reward thus and no otherwise was our first Parent himself dealt withal For this was all the stipulation or agreement that we find God made with him Gen. 2. 16. The Lord God commanded the man saying of every Tree of the Garden thou maist freely eat But of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die Carrying with it an implicite conditional Promise that if he forbore it both Himself and Posterity should live For God never that we can find made any absolute Promise of Life to him only implicit and conditional And since it cannot with any shadow of truth be affirmed that God ever made any absolute Promise of this nature unto him Neither therefore can it be justly affirmed that God ever intended that Life and Righteousness should be conveyed unto him by his Obedience unto that Covenant Nay rather it is clear that God foresaw he would fall and consequently designed that Life and Righteousness should not that way be derived unto HIm or to any of his Offspring From whence it plainly follows the Sinai Covenant was as much a Covenant of Works as that made with our first Parent not only since it is materially the saine but in this respect intentionally also SECT XI BUt whereas it is further objected That if God never since the Fall published the Covenant of Works with a design to justifie any man by it and yet in the Sinai Covenant hath given it materially Considered a Second Edition and Promulgation It must needs follow that it was done in Subserviency to Christ and the Covenant of Grace or done in vain as to the Elect. To set it forth in opposition to the Covenant of Grace can never be imagined To make it a Co-ordinate way of Salvation with Christ is proved impossible Therefore it must be subordinate or not at all there being nothing else left us And this say they the Scriptures fully assert and confirm Rom. 10. 4. Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth Are the End and Means contrariant Or must not the means be always subordinate to the end This is plain and clear Reasoning not easily Answered So Gal. 3. 24. The Law it as our School-master to bring us to Christ that is to bring us to a Conviction of his Necessity as it did Paul Rom. 7. after Christ was come and thousands more since Paul Again Gal. 3. 23. It shut us up to Christ or Faith as our only Remedy This was and still is its use and design and will be so to the end to all that come to Christ As to others it hath another end even to Judge and Condemn them that continue under it as a Covenant of Works Rom. 2. 12. But to Believers it is subservient to Christ both to bring them to him at first and regulate their Lives as a Moral Rule ever after And therefore the two Tables are put into the Ark Heb. 9. 4. to shew their subserviencie to him and in this sense its consistence with him § 2. For Answer whereunto We do indeed acknowledge the subserviencie of the Law to Christ and the Covenant of Grace in which respect it is also true That the Means is not Contrariant to the End but is always subordinate thereunto But it doth not therefore follow that the Law is a Covenant of Gospel-Grace for that is the only Point we are Contending about or Enquiring after It hath indeed a plain subserviencie or subordination thereunto as Hagar the type of the Bondage Covenant had unto Sarah the type of the Gospel Covenant But yet neither is the Handmaid the Mistress nor the Mistress the Handmaid These two are still distinct The Law is not the Gospel nor the Gospel the Law And therefore though the one of them is plainly subservient to the other yet they ought not to be mixed â—â—ended or confounded the one with the other as if they were but one and the same Covenant and no difference to be made between them only in respect of the Different Degrees of the Discovery of Gospel Grace as hath been suggested § 3. 'T is true the Law is appointed as our School-master to Christ for so the words run in the Original Text as your selves have acknowledged that is to shew us the Nature of Sin together with the Holiness and Righteousness of God's Nature and Being to Convince us of our Sin and Misery without Christ and our Necessity therefore of a Saviour And in all these respects it hath Indeed a plain subserviency to drive us to Christ and to induce us to fly with the more earnestness to lay hold upon New-Covenant-Grace wherein Christ is plainly exhibited unto us for our Relief But then it doth not therefore follow that the Law it self is subserviently a Covenant of Gospel-Grace or that it is such for the substance of it as both Mr. Sedgwick Mr. Roberts and many other worthy Divines affirm it is A subserviency in any thing to promote the Ends of something else doth not make it to be the thing it self the Ends whereof are promoted thereby The temptations of Satan and the persecutions of Wicked Men have a plain subserviency and that by God's own appointment through his Over-ruling Providence to promote the Ends of the Covenant of Grace and to make us fly the more earnestly thereunto for Succour yet it would be too absurd to affirm that either of these are the Covenant of Grace or subserviently such So it is in our present Case For though the Law is in it self against us and contrary to us as being a Ministration of Death and Condemnation as the Apostle witnesses it is