of Duty Choice and Sanctity is joined with it in order to the Production of the end so mentioned p. 243. Thirdly They that Baptize Children make Baptism to be wholly an Outward Duty a Work of the Law a Carnal Ordinance It makes us adhere to the Letter without regard to the Spirit and to Relinquish the Mysteriousness the Substance the Spirituality of the Gospel Which Argument is of so much the more Consideration because under the Spiritual Covenant of the Gospel of Grace if the Mystery goes not before the Symbole which it doth when the Symboles are Cognations of Grace as the Sacraments are yet it always accompanies it but never follows in Order of Time and is clear in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture Fourthly That the words mentioned in St. Peter's Sermon Act. 2. which are the only Records of the Promises are interpreted upon a weak mistake The Promise belongs to you and your Children Therefore Infants are actually Receptive of it in that Capacity That is the Argument But the Reason of it is not yet discovered nor ever will For to you and your Children is to you and your Posterity to you and your Children when they are of the same Capacity in which you are receptive of the Promise But he that whenever the Word Children is Exprest understands Infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no Men but all were Infants And if that had been true it had been the greater wonder that they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab and March so far and Discourse so well for they were all called the Children of Israel p. 233. Fifthly Whereas 't is Argued from the Commission Mark 16. 6. He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved Infants are Believers and therefore according to the Commission they are to be Baptized Whether Infants saith he have Faith or no is a Question to be disputed by Persons that Care not how much they say and how little they prove First Personal and Actual Faith they have none For they have no Acts of Understanding And besides how can any Man know that they have since he never saw any sign of it neither was he told so by any that could tell Secondly Some say they have Imputative but then so let the Sacrament be to that is if they have the Parents Faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by Derivation from them And as in their Mothers Womb and while they hung on their Mothers Breasts they live upon their Mothers Nourishment So they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church For since Faith is necessary to Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new Kinds of Faith to dawb the matter up such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no Proportion between an Actual Sacrament and an Imputative Faith this being an immediate and necessary Order to that And whatsoever can be said to take off from the necessity of Actual Faith all that and much more may be said to excuse from the Actual Susception of Baptism The first of these Devices was that of Luther and his Scholars the second of Calvin and his And yet there is a Third Device which the Church of Rome Teaches and that is that Infants have Habitual Faith but who told them so How can they prove it What Revelation or Reason teacheth any such thing Are they by this Habit so much as disposed to an Actual Belief without a Miracle Can an Infant sent into a Mahometan Province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a Man than if he had not been Baptized Are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended Habit This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority but the Men are to be excused unless there were a better p. 240. To which saith he This Consideration may be added that if Baptism be necessary to the Salvation of Infants as the Fathers of Old and the Church of Rome and England since upon whom is the Imposition laid To whom is the Command given To the Parents or the Children Not to the Parents for then God hath put the Salvation of Innocent Babes into the Power of others and Infants may be damned for their Fathers Carelessness or Malice It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done to them to whom it cannot be prescribed as a Law and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably entrusted to others with the Apendant Necessity And if it be not necessary it is certain it is not Reasonable and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed and therefore it is presumed that Baptism ought to be understood and administred according as other Precepts are with Reference to the Capacity of the Subject and the Reasonableness of the thing And again p. 242. If any Man runs for Succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have Faith or any other inspired Habit of I know not what or how we desire no more Advantage in the World than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common Sense and all the Experience in the World Sixthly But Tradition saith he by all means must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical that Infants were Baptized But at this saith he we are not much moved for we who rely upon the written Word of God as suffcient to establish all true Religion do not value the Allegation of Tradition And however the World goes none of the Resormed Churches can pretend this Argument for this Opinion Because they who reject Tradition when it is against them must not pretend it in the least for them But if we will allow the Topick to be good yet how will it be verified For so far as can yet appear it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen for from him Austin had it Now a Tradition Apostolical if it be not consigned with a fuller Testimony than of one Person whom all other Ages have condemned of other Errors and whose Works saith â—rasmus are so spurious that he that reads them is uncertain whether he read Origen or Ruffinus therefore will obtain so little Reputation amongst those who know that things have upon greater Authority been pretended to be received from the Apostles but falsly that it will be a great Argument that he is Ridiculous and Weak that shall be determined by so weak Probation in matters of so great Concernment But besides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical we have very good Evidence from Antiquity that it was the Opinion of the Primitive Church that Infants ought not to be Baptized which saith he is clear in the Canon of Neocaesarea which he mentions at large in the Original Greek determining that none ought to be Baptized without giving an Account of their Faith and desiring the same And
whereas the other two are Participles it is manifest that the whole Command or Commission is given in that and that the Mode of Execution is express'd in these And if the Mode of executing that general Commission be express'd in these where Baptizing is first and Teaching comes after What is become of the Order the Antipaedobaptists have so long talked of Certainly the insisting on the Order in that place proves to them an unhappy Weapon to stab that Cause for the defence of which it hath been brought into the Field For Answer hereunto we say That how fatal soever you suppose it may prove to us or the Cause we plead for to insist on the Order there mentioned Of this we are sure that if we neglect the Order Christ himself hath appointed we shall come short of pleasing him and consequently so to Teach must needs prove an unhappy Weapon to stab that Cause in the defence of which it is engaged In the Scripture before us Mat. 28. 19 20. there are plainly 3 distinct Acts required by Christ in the Commission he there gave his Apostles First Go Teach or Disciple all Nations that is not by Baptizing them as the Objection supposeth and afterward to teach them but singly by the Preaching of the Gospel unto them For so it must of Necessity be understood as appears by the Parallel Account that is given us of the same Commission Mark 16. 15. Go Preach the Gospel to every Creature Secondly to Baptize them So it follows in Mathew that is such as shall give a believing Entertainment thereunto For so it follows in Mark. He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be saved And accordingly this was the consequent Practice of the Apostles Act. 8. 37. If thou believest with all thine Heart thou mayst Thirdly To teach them their following Duty Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you You tell us indeed That a Person may be Baptized before he is Taught and that if the Mode of executing the general Commission be express'd in these where Baptizing is first and Teaching comes after What is become say you of the Order the Antipaedobaptists have so long talk'd of But it may rather be demanded What then is become of the Order the Scriptures have so long spoken of For if Baptizing is first as you say and Teaching comes after then it will follow that the Apostles understood not their Commission aright for they always first endeavoured to make Disciples by the Preaching of the Gospel and then Baptized those that gave a Believing Entertainment thereunto So did Philip to the Eunuch he first Preached the Gospel to him and then Baptiz'd him Act. 8. So did Peter to Cornelius and the rest with him Act. 10. And so did the same Peter to the 3000. Jews that were converted by that Gospel Sermon Recorded Act. 2. And accordingly upon the Profession of their Faith and Repentance we are told Vers 41. Then they that gladly Received his Word were Baptized And thus runs the whole Current of the Scripture and no Example to the contrary But according to your Doctrine neither Philip nor Peter did well in Preaching to them first and Baptizing them afterward for say you Baptizing is first and Teaching comes after 'T is true there is a sort of Teaching that comes after as hath been before express'd But to say that a Person may be Baptized before he is Taught is certainly Repugnant to the whole Doctrine and Practice of the Gospel And indeed according to this Reckoning If a Minister were to be sent into a Foreign Land among a Company of Ignorant Heathens to Disciple them to the Practice and Profession of Christianity His first work must be to take them by the Shoulder and to lead them into the Water or at least by Surprize to sprinkle a little Water upon their Faces For it may justly be doubted few would readily submit thereunto unless they were first Taught and Instructed in the Mystery of that sacred Institution And if any should be induced to submit thereunto without the Precedency of Preparatory Instructions This Practice you see would be Foreign to the Doctrine and Practice of Christ and his Apostles And therefore certainly to insist on such an Order must needs prove an unhappy Weapon to staâ—â— that Cause in the defence whereof 't is thus engaged The Scripture is indeed full in the Justification of the Order we now plead for and to affirm the contrary carries with it no small Absurdity Go Teach or Disciple all Nations saith Christ to his Apostles that is according to the scope of the fore-mentioned Objection Baptize them first and Teach them afterward this being the mode of executing that General Commission But is the Opus Operatum of Baptism think you a likely way or means to beget or bring forth Disciples unto Christ If Men be Preach'd by the Gospel into Discipleship it is no wonder For it is the Wisdom of God and the Power of God unto Salvation unto every one that believeth 1 Cor. 1. 21. 24. And accordingly where the Spirits Energy doth accompany it it Disciples Men into the very Life and Spirit of Christianity But we never read that Baptism was ever appointed for that end whether by it self or in Conjunction with Preaching It follows after 't is true but not to make us Disciples but to shew that we are such as a visible Mark to this purpose to be taken on us Gal. 3 26 27. If you say that Baptism is not sufficient to make a Disciple or Christian without the after-Teaching How comes it then to pass that Infants are Baptized who are uncapable of the after-Teaching you speak of Many of whom also dye in their Infancy and so are never Taught whether before or after Of whom nevertheless it is affirmed that the Baptized Infant is Regenerate received into the Number of the Children of God and an Heir of Everlasting Life And hence it is that the Baptism of Infants is commonly called the Christening of them that is they are thereby made Christians So that though you seem to allow the Necessity of joyning Instruction with Baptism to make a Disciple or Christian yet the common Practice shews that Baptism aloue is reckoned sufficient for that Purpose But say you These two Conclusions do plainly flow from the Premises First that Infants are not there excluded from Baptism Secondly That a Person may be Baptized before he is Taught For Answer you see we have plainly proved to you from the constant Doctrine and Practice of Christ and his Apostles that none ought to be Baptized before they are Taught And then it will equally follow and that with the same Clearness that Infants are there excluded from Baptism because uncapable after an ordinary rate of being taught as the Gospel directs So that you see the whole of your Argument falls to the ground You may Criticize therefore at Pleasure and talk what you will of Imparative Moods
and Participles You see we have diligently considered the general Scope of the Commission by comparing Mathew and Mark together and the consequent Practice of the Apostles thereon who were best able to understand the meaning of it wherein we have plainly proved to you the Antecedency of Teaching or Preaching to Baptism And therefore unless you can produce another Commission for the Baptism of Infants who are uncapable of being thus Taught all you can say besides will avail you nothing Mr. Allen's Second Argument is derived from those Words of our Saviour Mat. 19. 14. Suffer Little Children and forbid them not to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven From whence it is Inferred that if little Children are capable of a Membership in the Kingdom from the gracious Respect Christ bears unto them then they are equally capable of the Sign or Cognizance thereof which is Baptism For Answer Frst it must be considered that it remains as yet unproved that the little Children here spoken of were Infants the Context both here and elsewhere giving shrewd ground of Conjecture that they were rather such little Children as were capable of making an Actual Profession of their Faith in Cbrist which seems to be intimated by our Saviour Mat. 18. 2. When having called a little Child unto him and set him in the midst of them he saith Ver. 6. Whoso shall offend one of these little Ones that believe in me c. Which after an ordinary rate cannot with any shadow of pretence be intended of Young Sucking Infants For Faith cometh by Hearing and Hearing by the Word of God which such little Children according to an ordinary Reckoning are utterly uncapable of Nor doth the Greek Word used Luke 18. 15. Which is translated in English Infants prove it For the Greek Word which is there translated Infants as Piscator himself tells us signifies a Child capable of Teaching As when it is said Timothy knew the sacred Scriptures from a Child that is ever since he was a Boy not an Infant it being the same Greek Word that is used in both places It is an ungrounded Supposition therefore that these were sucking Infants of whom Christ here speaketh which till it can be proved the Inference that is hence drawn concerning the Baptizing of such must needs be acknowledged to have a very infirm and slender bottom Secondly Though it should be granted that they were indeed Young Infants that are here spoken of as such unto whom belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven It may be as Piscator also observes referred not to their present state as if for the present they were in the Kingdom of God that is Believers and Justified but that they were Elect Persons and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God Now that which gives right to Baptism is the present state of a Person And Thirdly It ought also to be duly considered that the little Children here spoken of whatever they were are expresly ordered to be brought unto Christ who himself Baptized not and not unto his Disciples whose proper Work that was Nor is there any mention made at all of their Baptizing but his laying his Hands upon them and blessing them And from the Action of Christs blessing them to infer that they are to be Baptized proves nothing so much as that there is a want of better Arguments For the Conclusion would with more probability be derived thus Christ blessed Children and so dismissed them but Baptized them not therefore Infants are not to be Baptized But let this Argument be as weak as its Fellow sure we are that Christ hath other ways of bringing them to Heaven than by Baptism And as we are sure that God hath not commanded Infants to be Baptized So we are sure God will do them no Injustice nor damn them for what they cannot help viz. If the Parents Baptize them not Many Thousand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable Soul unto him but nothing is more unreasonable than because he hath tied all Men of Years and Discretion to this way therefore we of our own Heads shall carry Infants to him that way without his Direction So to conceive is groundless and the Action consequent to it is too bold and venturous Let him do what he pleases with our Infants we must not But it is Objected That as it cannot be denied but that it is our Duty to bring our Children unto Christ in the Arms of Faith and Prayer at least in order to their receiving the Holy Spirit so we are assured that in all the things that we ask of him according to his Will he heareth us And if so who can forbid Water that these should not be Baptized that have received the Holy Spirit as well as we Act. 10. 47. To this we Reply That though it is indeed our Duty to be Wrestling with God for our selves our Children and others also in Order to our obtaining the blessings of the Holy Spirit for our selves and them yet we have no ground certainly to conclude that God heareth our Prayers in this respect for others than our selves Of this we are assured that if we sincerely desire it for our selves God will not deny us the same having to this purpose given us his most faithful Promise That he will give the Holy Spirit unto them that ask him Luk. 11. 13. But we have not the same Assurance in respect of others the Promise being only to those that ask it for themselves He saith not that he will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him not or that desire not the Knowledge of his Ways True it is that God is found sometimes of them that do not seek him and he may accordingly give the Holy Spirit to them that do not desire him when so it pleaseth him But he hath no where bound himself so to do What he may do is one thing and what he hath promised is another and 't is God's Promise only that we are to build upon in this respect 'T is true we are to ask Gods Spirit as for our selves so for others also that if peradventure they may receive the same benefit with our selves And much more are we bound to become Petitioners to Heaven for our Children upon that Account But till they are able to give some Convincing Evidence that our Prayers are heard we have no just Reason to conclude that they are actually possest of so rich a Benefit there being no Promise giving us Assurance to this purpose As for that Promise Isa 59. 21. which is mentioned by Mr. Allen upon this Account It cannot without palpable streining be applyed to the Natural Off-spring of Believers now as he supposeth It having a most plain and absolute Reference to the Redeemer spoken of in the foregoing Verse and can be applyed unto none other than unto him and his Spiritual Seed and that at the time of his second Appearance according to Rom. 26.
27. Out of whose Mouth God there Promiseth That his Spirit should never depart nor out of the Mouth of his Seed nor out of the Mouth of his Seeds Seed for ever Indeed If God's Holy Spirit were absolutely and everlastingly entailed upon all the Natural Off-spring of Believers now as our Opponents from this Scripture do affirm it is this would be comfortable Tydings indeed could it be substantially proved unto us But alas As the present Scripture proves it not so neither doth any other that we know of and were it so that God had any where promised that at the Request of the Believing Parents he would not fail to give his Holy Spirit unto all their Natural Seed No doubt Noah Abraham and David with many other choice Believers recorded in the Scripture were not defective in their Duty to be wrestling with God for their Off-spring in this Respect that they all might be Partakers of his Holy Spirit and consequently that they all might be made Inheritours of the Heavenly Kingdom For the Holy Spirit once given as the Scripture before alledged proves was never more to depart from them But alas Most evident it is that notwithstanding their most Zealous Prayers and other Pious endeavours for the Spiritual benefit of their Natural Off-spring they had many of them such Children as were very Wicked Flagitious and Prophane and such as were rejected by God which yet they had not been had they been at all possessed of Gods Holy Spirit as the Fruit of their Parents Prayers and Supplications to God for them And to this doth the dayly Experience that occurs to our own Observation very sadly testify The Sum then of our Answer to the forementioned Objection is this They that have Received the Holy Ghost or such at least concerning whom there is any convincing Evidence thereof as was the Case of them in the 10. Act. of whom this word was spoken such are the proper Subjects of Baptism For who can forbid Water that such should not be Baptized But till there can be convincing Evidence given concerning our Children that either all or any of them are actually partakers thereof according to this Rule they are not the proper Subjects of Baptism And therefore till then they are not to be Baptized As for Mr. Allen's Third Argument drawn from Rom. 11. 17. We say that that Scripture is by him and others impertinently alledged to this purpose It being to be understood not of ingrafting into the visible Church by an outward Ordinance as Baptism but into the Invisible by Election and giving of Faith as the whole Chapter shews His Fourth Argument is drawn from 1 Cor. 7. 14. For the Vnbelieving Husband is sanctified by the Wife and the Vnbelieving Wife is sanctified by the Husband else were your Children unclean but now are they holy from whence he would infer that the Children of Believers are Holy with a faederal or Covenant Holiness and therefore to be Baptized To this we Reply That the same sort of Holiness is ascribed to the Children as is to be understood in reference to the Vnbelieving Husband or the Vnbelieving Wife who are both here said to be Sanctified by their Respective Yoak-Fellows which cannot be understood of a Faederal or Covenant Holyness but that which is Matrimonial For if we must understand it of a Covenant Holyness then it will follow that the Vnbelieving Wife or the Vnbelieving Husband may upon the same ground lay claim to Baptism as well as their Children which yet your selves will not grant Besides it is evident from the Words themselves in which the term Believer is omitted which would not be if the Holiness were derived from the Faith of the one Party and so to be understood of a Covenant Holiness And the single terms of Husband and Wife are twice used which shews that the Holiness is from the Conjugal Relation and cannot bâ— meant of any other than Legitimation And the term Vnbeliever is also twice used and said to be Sanctified which can have no other sence but this That the Vnbelieving Yoke-fellow is Sanctified in respect of Conjugal Vse to his or her Yoke-fellow and so though the one be an Vnbeliever they might comfortably enough live together in Lawful Wedlock For else saith he your Children were to be accounted Vnclean that is Illegitimate But this being determined that the Husband is thus Sanctified to the Wife and the Wife to the Husband though the one be an Vnbeliever hence it follows that your Children are Holy that is Lawfully begotten which is the only sence â—pposite to the Determination verse 12. 13. And as for the use of the Word Holy for Legitimate that it is in this Sence used elsewhere in the Scripture is evident from Mal. 2. 15. Where a Seed of God can be understood in no other sence than that of a Lawful Seed in Opposition to those born by Polygamy But though it should be allowed that the Holiness in the Text is indeed to be understood of a Faederal or Covenant Holiness yet we cannot therefore grant That that is a sufficient Reason for the Baptism of Infants For let the Holiness in the Text be what it will whether Moral Faederal or Matrimonial neither of these is either there or elsewhere assigned to be a Ground of Baptizing Children upon that which is laid down in the Institution being that alone that can Warrant the same It is God's Word only not our Reason that can Justifie our Practice in God's Ordinances That a Profession of Faith and Repertance is a Substantial Warrant for Baptism is undeniable to be proved from the Scriptures But that so is Faederal Holiness or any other Indiscernable Qualification in Infants the Scripture is altogether silent therein His Fifth Argument for Infants Baptism is derived from Acts 2. 38 39. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins c. For the Promise is unio you and to your Children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall Call But whatever Mr. Allen or others suppose First it is Evident that the Promise here spoken of is not to be understood of a Promise of External Priviledges but the Promise of the Gospel or the Grace of God â—â— Christ Jesus which was now freely held forth unto them upon their Repentance notwithstanding they had been the Actual Murderers of the Lord of Glory which he had before charged upon them which only could be a Suitable Plaister for the Wound now given them thereby telling them that they might have Remission of Sins even of that Sin if they did Repent Because beyond and contrary to their Acting in Crucifying Christ God had brought to pass the raising up of Christ for their Salvation and their Children and all whom God should Call though a far off if they also did Repent and were Baptized into the Name of Christ Nor indeed Secondly was the
ADVERTISEMENT A Confession of Faith put forth by the Elders and Brethren of many Congregations of Christians Baptized upon Profession of their Faith in London and the Country With an Appendix concerning Baptism Printed for John Harris at the Harrow against the Church in the Poultrey 1690. Price bound 1 s. Page 10 line 12 read of a Title for Baptism to them A Solemn Call Unto all that would be owned as Christ's Faithful Witnesses speedily and seriously to attend unto the Primitive Purity of the Gospel Doctrine and Worship Or a Discourse concerning BAPTISM WHEREIN That of Infants is Disproved as having no Footing nor Foundation at all in the Word of GOD. By way of Answer to the Arguments made use of by Mr. William Allen Mr. Sidenham Mr. Baxter Dr. Burthogge and others for the Support of that Practice Wherein the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai Exod. 20. That in the Land of Moab Deut. 29. As also the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9. Whereon so much stress is laid for the Support of Infants Baptism are plainly proved to be no other than three several Editions of the Covenant of Works And consequently that no just Argument can thence be deduced for the Justification of that Practice Together with a Description of that truly Evangelical Covenant GOD was pleased to make with Believing Abraham containing the Sum of the Everlasting Gospel then Preached unto him since Proclaimed by the Apostles and which now remains to be yet further Published unto every Nation Kindred Tongue and People for the Obedience of Faith By Philip Cary a Lover of Truth and Peace LONDON Printed for John Harris at the Sign of the Harrow in the Poultrey over against the Church M.DCXC TO THE READER VVE are doubtless brought forth in a Day to which many Glorious Prophecies contained in the Holy Scriptures have a special reference amongst others that which is recorded Dan. 12. 4. Many shall run to and fro and Knowledg shall be increased Antichristian Darkness hath so covered the European Nations for many Hundreds of Years that the Truths and Ordinances of Christ were generally Corrupted and Obscured till our Blessed Reformers Luther Calvin c. were raised up in some good measure to detect the corruptions of Antichrist and to bring to Light that blessed Doctrine of Justification by Faith in the Blood of Christ with several other Truths of great Importance And since that God has been pleased to raise up many Learned Men namely Dr. Ames Mr. Ainsworth and Dr. Owen with others who have Learnedly and with much clearness and strength of Argument made it appear that a true Gospel visible Church is to consist only of such as are Saints by Profession and who give up themselves to the Lord and one to onother by Solemn Agreement to practise the Ordinances of Christ And now of latter Years the Lord hath been pleased to raise up some worthy and learned Men to detect the vanity of Infant Baptism who by solid Arguments have made the unlawfulness thereof appear The main Arguments that are made use of by Paedobaptists for the support of their Practice herein are taken from the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. 2 3 4 c. Some of themselves confessing That Arguments taken from the Baptizing of whole Families from Christ's blessing little Children and from 1 Cor. 7 14. have no weight in them And as for those Arguments which are taken from the Covenant made with Abraham above-mentioned several of our Learned Authors have thorowly examined and sufficiently answered Notwithstanding we cannot without Injury to Truth omit to reccommend the Labours of this our worthy Brother who having had the advantage of other Men's Writings that have gone before him and so standing on their Shoulders may see further than they did Yet he hath some Nations of so rare a Nature that he is not beholding to any other for them but only to his own studiousness and dexterity and the Blessing of God upon his Labours We freely acknowledge that many Learned and Holy Men whom we much Honour do differ from us in the point of Baptism yet we must not let go any Truth of God for their sakes And we doubt not but the time is drawing nigh when God will cause the Light of His Holy Word so to shine forth that all remaining Darkness on the Minds of the Lord's People shall vanish away and then Sion's Builders shall no more take a Stone for a Corner nor a Stone for a Foundation of Babylons Rubbish And now Châ—iâ—tian Reader seeing the Author hath taken so great pains in Writing this Treatise for the Information of thee and ohters in a great Gospel Ordinance be thou perswaded to lay by prejudice and read diligently examine it by the Holy Scriptures and if thou meet with any thing of Truth wherein thou wast not before Inlightened subject to it lâ—ast thou be found rejecting the authority of Christ Quod Dei eâ—t agnosce quod hominis est ignosce If any Glory may come to Christ or comfort to his Members hereby it is enough and as much as is aimed at by the Author and thy Soul Friends Will. Kiffin John Harris Rich. Adams Rob. Steed Ben. Keech TO THE READER READER HAving had a sight of this Piece without the Privity of the Author before it went to the Press I Read it with much Delight though in great haste and thought good without his Knowledge or being Desired to give thee if thou beest a Stranger to him this assurance by the way that thou wilt find his Lines altogether free from Lightness as also from Reflections or Reproaches towards those of the Perswasion he contends with which is a thing so rare that it deserves a Remark and savours much of a right serious Christian Spirit I have had Knowledge of him many Years but never knew or heard him otherwise represented then of a very sober Character suitable to his Writings a Man every way free from any of those Temptations that might incline him to espouse any Interest or fall in with any Perswasion otherwise than what he did freely out of pure Choice and as satisfi d with its Purity upon a diligent and conscionable Perusal of the Holy Scriptures in which he has been a very laborious Searcher these many Years and in whom that Text is verified 2 Tim. 3. 15 16. That they make the Man of God wise unto Salvation c. I am assured that his Papers were intended only for private Use and for satisfaction of some that desired to know what he had to say to the Arguments here reply'd to He has all the appearances of a Man low in his own Eyes yet willing in his capacity to serve the Lord Jesus freely without seeking in the least any advantage to himself in the service of the Gospel boing much above those low Ends that too too many are sway'd by of making a Gain by his Preaching and though his
granted by GOD in lieu of Circumcision Object 6. But Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to Believers and their Seed under the Law and therefore so is Baptism to the Seed of Christian Parents under the Gospel the denial therefore of Baptism to Infants is the denial of a great Priviledge which of right belongs unto them To this We Answer in the Negative That neither was Circumcision a Seal to them nor much less a Seal to them of the New Covenant for then they had been all Saved It is true it was a Seal Confirmation or Ratification of the Faith that Abraham had long before he was Circumcised But so it could not be said of Infants that had no Faith It was indeed a Sign put into the Flesh of the Infant but a Sign and Seal only to Abraham Witnessing to Him that he not only had a Justifying Faith but to the Truth of the Promises viz. That he should be the Father of many Nations Rom. 4. 17. Gen. 12. 2. 3. The Father of the Faithful Rom. 4. 11. Heir of the World Rom. 4. 13. Which was no way true of any Infant that ever was Circumcised for none had before their Circumcision such a Faith that entituled them to such singular Promises and Prerogatives The Scope of that place Rom. 4. being to shew that Abraham himself was not Justified by Works no not by Circumcision but by Faith which he had long before he was Circumcised and so but a Seal or Confirmation of that Faith which he had before and to assure him of the Truth of those special Promises then made to him So that though Circumcision is rightly termed by the Apostle A Seal of the Righteousness of Abraham 's Faith which he had yet being Vncircumcised of which see further p. 51. 52. 53. but more especially from p. 205 to p. 206. Yet the Scripture no where affirms that so it was to any others neither indeed could it be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Infants that had no Faith Besides diverse others who as it appears from the Scriptures were utterly destitute of that Saving Grace For some were Circumcised to whom no Promise in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong Of Ishmael GOD had said that His Covenant was not to be Established with him but with Isaac and yet he was Circumcised Gen. 17. 20 21 25. Rom. 9. 7 8 9. Gal. 4. 29 30. The like may be said of Esau Together with which it must be considered That all that were in Abraham's House whether Strangers bought with Money or Born in his House though not of his Seed were to be Circumcised To whom nevertheless none of the Promises of that Covenant were made as is plain from Gen. 17. 7 8 20 21 23 27. So that as far as appears to us from the Scriptures Circumcision was a Seal of the Rightcousness of Faith only to Abraham not so to the rest as all the Jews also were not called the Fathers of the Faithful or the Fathers of many Nations as Abraham was Secondly Neither is Baptism more than Circumcision called a Seal It is indeed called a Figure 1 Pet. 3. 21. And it is a Sign also but a Sign and Figure proper only to Men of Vnderstanding not as Circumcision which was a Sign not Improper for Infants because it left a signal Impression upon their Flesh to be remembred all their Days But so cannot Baptism be to any Infant To affirm Baptism therefore to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace is groundless for that is the peculiar Work and Office of the Holy Spirit Eph. 1. 13. and 4. 30. And since neither hath GOD any where Commanded Infants to be Baptized the denial therefore of Baptism to Infants cannot be the denial of any Priviledge due unto them Object 7. But Circumcision was Administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed after them as such to which Baptism was to correspond We Answer That Circumcision was an Ordinance which by the Institution belonged to all the Natural Lineage and Posterity of Abraham good or bad without any such Limitation as was put upon Baptism If thou Believest with all thine Heart thou mayst Acts 8. Or any such Qualification that an Infant capable to receive it must of necessity have a Believing Parent For we know that the Servants Born in Abraham's House and Strangers Bought with Money were also to be Circumcised as well as those proceeding from Abraham's Loins who yet surely could not pretend to be all of them the Off-spring of Believing Parents Which clearly shews that Circumcision was not Administred to Believers as Believers and to their Seed after them as such But though the Natural Posterity of Abraham whether they were Believers or no were to be Circumcised because God had so Commanded it yet this was not sufficient for their Admission to Baptism The main Plea indeed of the Jews in John's time was That they had Abraham to their Father But notwithstanding this he rejects them and bids them bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance as that which alone would give them Admission to the Baptism of Repentance And if you say that this concerns the Adult only We say that it concerns Infants as much who are uncapable of that Faith and Repentance which the Gospel every where requires in those to be Baptized From what hath been already said therefore it clearly appears that the not Baptizing Infants makes not our Priviledge under the Gospel less than theirs under the Law to which Circumcision was annexed inasmuch as they were not Circumcised because they were the Children of Believers but because GOD had Commanded it neither were they by Circumcision Sealed with a New Covenant Seal as being thereby Interessed in the Mercies of God's New and Everlasting Covenant many being then Circumcised as Ishmael and others who had no right or title at all thereunto But they were Circumcised by the Command of God to distinguish them from the Nations and to keep that Line clear from whence Christ according to the Flesh should come and to oblige them to keep the Law c. but no such thing in the Gospel The Body and Substance being come the shadow was to vanish and pass away No common Father now but Christ and if Christâ— then Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise No Birth Priviledge but the New Birth therefore to go back to the National Birth Priviledge is so far from being a Priviledge that it is a Bondage rather and no other than to rtâ—urn to the Type and Shadow the Anti-type and Substance being come Neither ought such a thing to be any more esteemed the loss of a Priviledge than our not enjoying litterally a Holy Land City Temple a Succession of a High Priest and a Priest-hood by Generation or Lineal Descent as it was with them since all these Types are Spiritualized to us the Believers under the Gospel who are now the Holy Nation City Temple and Royal Priest-hood
Infants in the Days of the Gospel many of them are in the Covenant of Grace and so Saved by Virtue of the Free Promise But yet not to be Baptized if they do not Live to the time of Believing and Repenting the only time appointed for Baptism So that the Administration of Ordinances to Infants depends upon the Law of Institution only and not upon their being in Covenant Fourthly In this respect therefore it ought to be duly considered as hath been before Observed That the Covenant of Grace or the Gospel Covenant which Believers are now under whereof Christ is the alone and only Mediator was not made with Believers and their Seed but with Abraham and his Seed that is Christ For so the Apostle tells us expresly That to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made He saith not unto Seeds as many but as of one And to thy Seed which is Christ So that all Gospel Promises run to Christ the Inheriting Seed To Him they are made In Him do they all center and from Him alone are all the Blessings in Promise to be derived unto all His Members 'T is true In the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 27. 7 8 9. which was a Legal Bondage Covenant and therefore now repealed as shall be afterward shewn God doth indeed therein promise to be a GOD to Abraham and his Fleshly Seed and to give them the Land of Canaan for an Inheritance And their Obedience to Circumcision is expresly called the Covenant on their Part. Gen. 17. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between Me and you and thy Seed after thee Every Man-Child among you shall be Circumcised So Acts 7. 8. And he gave them the Covenant of Circumcision and so Abraham begat Isaac and Circumcised him the Eighth Day By which they stood engaged to keep all those other Additional Ordinances which Moses gave them when they were about to enter their Promised Inheritance Gal. 5 3. For I testifie that whosoever is Circumcised he is a Debtor to do the whole Law But the Covenant of Grace which God shade with Believing Abraham before his departure out of his own Countrey and therefore long before the Covenant of Circumcision was in being runs in another strain For therein as GOD freely Promiseth to Bless Abraham himself so he doth as freely Promise to make him a Blessing For that in him that is in his Seed Christ should all the Families of the Earth be Blessed Gen. 12. 2 3. And this was a Covenant of Grace indeed a Covenant that was purely Evangelical every way Extensive and Absolute and therefore unchangeable For therein God hath freely Promised a Blessing unto all sorts of true Believers whether Jews or Gentiles in giving unto them an Eternal Inheritance Heb. 9. 15. Incorruptible and Vndefiled that fadeth not away Purchased by the Blood of Jesus and reserved in Heaven for them of which the Earthly Inheritance in the Land of Canaan was a Type So that as there was a two-fold Covenant made with Abraham a Covenant of Grace and a Covenant of Works So there is a two-fold Seed of Abraham a Fleshly and a Spiritual Typed out by Ishmael and Isaac and a two-fold Inheritance an Earthly and a Heavenly But the Heavenly Inheritance was not given to the Fleshly Seed but only in Types offered to them and confirmed only to the Spiritual Seed whether Jews or Gentiles who in that respect are called the Heirs of Promise yet not immediately or at first hand rate but through the Mediation of Christ alone in whom all the Families of the Earth are Blessed For as Ishmael the Child of the Flesh had no right with Isaac in the outward Typical Promise so Isaac himself by vertue of his fleshly descent had no right nor interest in the Heavenly Inheritance Rom. 9. 7. any otherwise than as he came to have an Interest in Christ And therefore we find the Apostle expounding the Word of Promise sheweth that the Evangelical Promises made to Abraham were not made to any one Fleshly Seed no not with the meer Fleshly Seed of Believing Abraham himself but these Promises did all run to Christ the Inheriting Seed to whom they were made and when Christ was come they all centre in Him Now to Abraham and his Seed saith the Text were the Promises made He saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of One and to thy Seed which is Christ In whom all the Promises of the Gospel are Tea and Amen Fifthly Having thus followed the Promises down from Abraham unto CHRIST let us now see to whom they come forth again and it is not to any ones Fleshly Seed whatsoever but from Christ they all Flow forth again to Believers and only to Believers and that by vertue of their union with Christ To this purpose the Apostle tells us That if we be CHRIST's then are we Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise There being no way to partake of the Promise but by Faith in Christ Gal. 3. 22. The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe So that all the Promises run to Christ and from Him Flow forth again only to Believers not to them and their Natural Off-spring as is Suggested further than they are Believers also in their own Persons For no otherwise was it with the Fleshly Seed of Believing Abraham himself Which being Impartially Consider'd is a full Answer to all Arguments drawn from the Covenant and the the Promises made to Abraham and certainly and unavoidably cuts off Infants Church-member ship in the Days of the Gospel unless you can find a new Institution for it and consequently it leaves no room for Infants Baptism unless it can be proved that all the Infants of Believers are Heirs of Abraham's Faith Believing as he did and that the Promises are theirs not by Application or Analogy but directly and properly and by their own Personal Faith Which the Scriptures do no where Affirm And indeed so to Assert would be not only contradictory to the Scriptures which tell us that we are all Children of Wrath by Nature But to all former and latter Experience Then would Grace be a Birth Priviledge and Regeneration tied to a Natural Generation Then must all the Posterity of Believers be Saved unless that Doctrine be true that Men may fall from Grace Then must we tie up and restrain the Grace of God's Covenant to the Children of Believers only and then what Hope for the Posterity of Vnbelievers Contrary to the Experience of all Ages whilst Grace was extended to the Gentiles who were not the Off-spring of Believers when the Natural Branches the Children of Believing Abraham were cut off Sixthly Whereas you tell us That all those that were Faederati were to be Signati that is all those that were in the Covenant were to have the Seal thereof Gen. 17. 10. And that therefore it naturally follows that
an Initiating into the Church though as the Church it self is a different Church from that under the Law so it hath different Subjects and Church Members and those to be Admitted upon different Grounds and to different Ends and in a different manner The one to be done in a private House and by a private Hand the other in some publick Place by the hand of some publick Minister appointed by the Church to administet the same But it follows not that because there is some Analogy between Baptism and Circumcision therefore one cometh in the room stead and use of the other For by the same reason we may as well conclude that Baptism cometh in the room and stead of the Ark Manna Rock c. And from such like Arguments drawn from Analogy what Jewish Rites may not be Introduced to the Justification of the Roman Church in their High Priest-hood and all other their innumerable Rites and Ceremonies which without any Institution of Christ or New Testament Authority they have Introduced upon the account of Analogy with Old Testament Rites and Ceremonies And therefore if we will follow this way of Reasoning from Infant Circumcision to Infant Baptism we must fall back not only to Popish but Jewish Ceremonies also Nor is that Plea sufficient to avoid it to say we bring not in a new Rite in Baptizing Infants if we use it not as Christ appointed So they might say of Bell Baptism and the Pharisees of their washing of Hands Cups and Vessels of Brass yet condemned by Christ because not Commanded but after Mens Traditions taught Papists say they bring not in a New Rite in their Mass yet we charge them with a great Sin in making it a Propitiatory Sacrifice and the Priest a Sacrificing Priest as the Jews The Corinthians did not bring in a new Rite yet when they used it otherwise than Christ appointed it was not to Eat the Lord's Supper 1 Cor. 11. 20. It being the Apostles Rule to use it as it was received by him of the Lord. And they that admitted Infants to the Lord's Supper or shall do it may say as much as you for Infants Baptism that they do only apply an Instituted Ordinance by way of Proportion to such Subjects though they are not Expresly called to a Participation thereof Object 12. But it is yet further Objected That though 't is true when God made a Promise to Abraham to be a GOD to him and to his Seed The Seed there mentioned is applyed to Christ Gal. 3. 16. He saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of one And to thy Seed which is Christ Yet this is not to be understood of Christ Personal but of Christ Mystical as in 1 Cor. 12. 12. And so is to be understood of the Visible Church of which Infants Born of Believing Parents are a part To this we Reply That we must not be put off with bare Affirmations but we expect Solid Proof from Scripture as to the point in hand it being evident that the Apostle Gal. 3. 16. refers not to Gen. 17. 7. but to Gen. 12. 2. 3. and Gen. 22. 17 18. as shall be afterward made manifest And whereas you say that the Promises are to be considered as made to Christ Mystical that is to the Visible Church the contrary appears Gal. 3. 16. where the Apostle affirms that Christ was the Seed to whom the Promises were made And in Verse 19 He saith the Law was added because of Transgressions 'till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made Where it is Observable that the Law that is the Mosaical Administration is said to be before the Seed was come and was to have its Period then Now if by the Seed Christ be not to be understood Personally but Mystically for the Visible or Invisible Church take which you will then the Law could not have been before the Seed For God had His Church in Abraham's Family 400 Years at least before the Law was of which Christ was the Head and they His Mystical Body And so by this Interpretation the Seed should have been before the Law contrary to the Apostle who makes the Law to have been before the Seed and to have its Period when the Seed to whom the Promise was made was come And now the Promises running to Christ Personal GOD makes Him over for a Covenant to the Elect and all the Promises in Him Isa 42. 6. So that in Christ he is Our GOD and in Christ He takes us to be his People In Christ and a right to the Promises Out of Christ and Strangers to the Covenants of Promise Eph. 2. 12. So that it is evident that the Promises were first made to Christ Personal and in Him to His Mystical Body the Church who are united to Him by Faith Secondly As to that Scripture 1 Cor. 12. 12. For as the Body is One and hath many Members and all the Members of that One Body being many are one Body So also is Christ It rather seems also to be meant of the Invisible Church of true Believers than of the visible For the Apostle there calls none the Body of Christ but such as had received the Gifts of the Spirit And such as by one Spirit as the concurring Cause had been Baptized into one Body yea such who had received the Spirit to profit withal such that had a real Sympathy one with another Verse 26. If one Member suffers all the Members suffer with it If one Member be Honoured all the Members rejoyce with it All which cannot in any tollerable Sense be applyed to the visible Church amongst whom there are many Hypocrites that never received the Spirit nor by the Spirit could sympathize one with another But however it be most certain it is that Infants are not called the Body of Christ if it be meant of the visible Church Indeed by Virtue of the Grace of Election some of them may be Members of the Mystical Body the Invisible Church but not at all Members of the Visible Especially from this Chapter where it is said that if one Member suffer all the Members suffer with it and the Manifestation of the Spirit is given to every one to profit withal which cannot be applicable to Infants For none in this Chapter are counted the Body of Christ but such as are useful to the Body as an Eye an Ear a Hand a Head c. as v. 21. The Eye cannot say to the Hand I have no need of thee nor the Head to the Foot I have no need of you From whence we draw these two Conclusions First every Member in a Church stands in need of the help of all the other Members Secondly That every Member in a Church must be useful in his place to the rest of the Members But of what use are Infants to the rest of the Members in respect of Edification So that notwithstanding this Objection It is plain that all the Promises respecting Spiritual
forgiven and that have received the Holy Ghost are to be Baptized Now to affirm that all Infants of Believers either Actually or Imputatively are Sanctified Regenerated Justified is quite contrary to Rom. 9. 6. c. as also to daily Experience To Baptize them all therefore is most certainly a Preposterous and Irregular Practice The outward Sign according to your own Reckoning of right belonging to none but such as have the Inward Grace And who they are among them that have or have not this Inward Grace is not determinable according to ordinary Rule 'till discovered by an answerable Profession when coming to Years of Vnderstanding And then indeed when such a Profession is made we are bound according to a Judgment of Charity to reckon them as such as are made partakers of the Inward Grace whether so in realty or no. And according to this Rule only are we to proceed in our admission unto Baptism Obj. 15. But doth not our Saviour tell us that unto such belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven If Children therefore are capable of the greater then they are capable of the lesser If capable of a Membership in the Kingdom then of the Sign and Cognisance thereof But the First is true Ergo the Latter To this We Answer First That that which you are to prove is that all the Infants of Believers or the Infants of Believers in as much as they are the Infants of Believers are Actually partakers of the Inward Grace of Baptism and consequently such to whom appertains the Heavenly Kingdom Now neither doth the Apostle's Speech 1 Cor. 7. 14. prove it as hath been already shewed Nor doth this Text Mat. 19. 14. prove it And as neither of these prove it So Rom 9 6 7 8 9. Positively disproves it For first it is doubtful whether those were Infants or no of whom Christ here speaketh There being several Learned Men as Piscator and others that do maintain that the Speech of Christ Mat. 19. 14. is not of Infants but of Children that were capable of Instruction Which they gather from this that Christ called them Luke 18. 16. And elsewhere He saith Whoso shall offend one of these little Ones that Believe in Me. Mat. 18. 6. Mark 9. 42. Which after an ordinary rate of Speech cannot be intended of Infants And whereas it is said in Mark He took them up in His Arms. The Word so Translated is used Mark 9. 36. for the Imbracing of those that were of some growth whom He placed in the midst and of whose Scandalizing He there warns Nor doth the Greek Word used Luke 18. 15. Translated in English Infants prove it For the Greek Word there Translated Infants as Piscator himself tells us signifies a Child capable of Teaching As when it is said Timothy knew the Sacred Scriptures from a Child that is ever since he was a Boy not an infant It being the same Greek Word that is used in both places Secondly Though it should be granted that those were Infants yet there is no Certainty only Conjecture that they were Believers Infants which yet ought to be proved if you say any thing from hence to the purpose For though Christ was then in the Coasts of Judea yet it might as well be that the Children were brought by others as Parents and that without Faith in Christ as the Messiah upon the Fame of his Miracles and the conceit that â—e was a Prophet And so they might bring Children to him to be Blessed as Jacob and Esau by Isaac and Joseph's Children by Jacob. Thirdly Let it be granted they were the Infants of Believers of whom our Saviour here speaketh that of such is the Kingdom of God It may be as Piscator also observes referred not to their present state as if for the present they were in the Kingdom of God that is Believers and Justified but that they were Elect Persons and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God Now that which gives right to Baptism is the present Estate of a Person Fourthly Though it should be granted that the little Children Christ here speaketh of are indeed young Sucking Infants that they are also the Infants of Believers and that unto them also belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven yet this is no sufficient Ground or Warrant for us therefore to Administer Baptism to Infants It being only the ground laid down in the Institution that can justly warrant the same That a Profession of Faith and Repentance is a sufficient ground is undeniably to be proved from the Scriptures But because some of our Infants are or may be in a state of Salvation or because for ought as we know unto all of them belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven that therefore they must all be Baptized whether capable of making an Answerable Profession or no Neither doth the present Scripture prove it which speaks nothing at all of Baptism nor doth any other that we can meet with give any Warrant or Countenance at all unto such a Practice Obj. 16. But the Gospel took place just as the Old Administration did by bringing in whole Families together When Abraham was taken in his whole Family was taken in So in this New Administration usually if the Master of the House turned Christian the whole Family came in and were Baptized with him The whole Houshold of Cornelius the first Converted Gentile Acts 11. 14. The Houshold of Stephanus The Houshold of Lydia The Houshold of the Jaylor Reply Whereas you say the Gospel took place just as the Old Administration by bringing in whole Families together By the Old Administration you mean Circumcision But we do not find the Gospel or Baptism took place just in the manner that Circumcision did For Circumcision was but in one Family singled out from all the Families of the Earth of the Males only whether in the Covenant of Grace or no Children or Servants Elder or Younger by the Master of the Family or others in his stead But in Baptism it is clean otherwise And as to the bringing in oâ— whole Families together it was but contingently so not always so nor constantly so according to any Promise or Prophecy And when it did so happen we find not any â—nfant Baptized nor any Intimation of Baptizing Housholds in Conformâ—â—y to the Administration of Circumcâ—â—ion but rather the contrary Express notice being given of the Faith and Repentance of those Admitted unto Baptism in the several Housholds recorded to have been Baptized whereas all were to be Circumcised that were of Abraham's Family both Children Servants Slaves and all whether making a Profession of Faith and Repentance or no. And this may appear by taking a view of the several Examples of Baptizing recorded in the New Testament Concerning John the Baptist it is said Mat. 3. 5. There went out to him all Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Region about Jordan and were Baptized of him in Jordan Confessing their Sins In which the practice of Baptizing
was not by taking in a Family but by admitting all that would become Disciples over all the Countries After the Ascention of Christ the first Example of Baptizing is that recorded Acts 2. 44. And there it is said they that gladly received the Word were Baptized And those were they of whom he had said V. 39. The Promise is to you and to your Children And there were added unto them about 3000 Souls But no mention of any Infants neither indeed is there any probability that any Infants were at all Comprehended in that Number in as much as 't is afterwards told us Ver. 42. That they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in Breaking of Bread and in Prayers Which cannot with any shadow of pretence be applied to Sucking Infants The next Example is that of the Samaritans of whom it is said Acts 8. 12. That when they â—elieved Philip Preaching the things Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ they were Baptized both Men and Women Where Children if any had been Baptized might very aptly have been Inserted But we find none mentioned to have been Baptized but those that Believed and Received the Word of God both Men and Women not Children Concerning Cornelius we are told that he was a Devout Man One that feared God with all his House Acts 10. 2. And Ver. 44. we are told While Peter yet spake these Words the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word and they spake with Tongues and magnified God which cannot be affirmed of Infants And accordingly there being convincing Evidence that they that had thus heard the Word had received the Holy Ghost he commanded them to be Baptized in the Name of the Lord. Concetning the Houshold of Stephanus which is said to be Baptized 2 Cor. 1. 16. they are said to have addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints To which most aptly may be adjoyned the House of Crispus concerning whom it is said Acts 18. 8. And Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue Believed on the Lord with all his House And many of the Corinthians hearing Believed and were Baptized Where under the term Houshold those only are meant that Believed And those that among the Corinthians were Baptized are said first to hear and Believe The next mentioned is the Houshold of Lydia of whom it was said that She was Baptized and her Houshold Acts 16. 15. But this must be understood by other places which when they express the Baptizing of the Houshold they express also the Believing or Receiving of the Word by the whole Houshold and by the frequent use of the Word which is to put the House for the People of Growth in it The last mentioned is the Houshold of the Jaylor Acts 16. 33 34. of whom it is said that he was Baptized he and all his and when he had brought them into his House he sate Meat before them and Rejoyced Believing in God with all his House Upon the whole then it doth not appear that either one Infant was Baptized or that the Gospel always took place as the Old Administration did by bringing in whole Families together yea the contrary appears out of the 1 Pet. 3. 1. As also from 1 Cor. 7. 13 16. That the Husband was Converted sometimes without the Wife and the Wife sometimes without the Husband So sometimes in the House of Infidel Masters were Converted Servants 1 Tim. 6. 1 2. And on the contrary Phil. 11 12 c. And our Lord Jesus fore-told it should be so in the Preaching of the Gospel Mat. 10. 35. 36. To affirm therefore that there were Infants in any of those forementioned Housholds or if there were that they were Baptized is more than doth well become us to assert since the Scripture makes no mention of them in either respect And consequently much to blame are they that build their Practice upon so infirm a Bottom Obj. 17. But then it is again Objected That as there is no Express Command or Example in the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Infants so neither is there any concerning the Baptism of Persons at Age whose Parents were Christians and who have been Educated from their Child-hood in the Christian Religion the Scripture giving no account of the Baptism of any in the Apostles Days but such as were Converted from Judaism or Paganism to Christianity And if a just Consequence may be admitted for the proof of the one Why not for the other also You are wont to reject all Scripture Consequences in respect of Infants Baptism and yet here you must of necessity admit of the same So that this Argument therefore returns upon your selves To this we Reply First that though it should be granted that there is no express Example in the Scripture of the Baptism of Persons at Age whose Parents were Christians yet the Precept concerning Baptism is as express for such as for any others Mat. 28. 19. Go Teach all Nations Baptizing them c. Mark 16. 15 16. Go Preach the Gospel to every Creature He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved Where none are excluded that are capable of being Taught or Discipled into the true Faith or Profession of Christianity let their Parentage be what it will Secondly It is sufficient unto us that as the Commission is express so there are Examples enough in the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Believers So that let a Person be but a Believer and we have no Reason to look into his Pedigree nor have we any Rule that so directs us in order to his Admission to Baptism And as we have no Rule nor Reason to accept of a Person that believes the rather because he had Christian Parents so neither to reject him upon that ground Could the like Command or Examples be produced from the Scripture concerning Infants Baptism as can easily be produced concerning the Baptism of Believers for under that Notion only are we bound to take Cognisance of those Baptized by us the present Controversie would suddenly be concluded betwixt us And therefore Thirdly This cuts not off our Pretensions to something more than a bare consequential Deduction for the Justification of our Practice whilst Consequences only and those far fetch'd and streined enough are the best bottom that Infants Baptism is built upon Which Consequences of yours are a most insufficient ground for the Justification thereof For though it is true that in respect of all sorts of moral Duties or other concernments of Christianity Consequences are allowable enough and we are sufficiently warranted in our Practice therein and that not only from the Practice of our Saviour himself who took this Method for the Proof of the Resurrection but from several other such like Instances in the Scripture And indeed without them neither can the Word be Preached not the Duties of Christianity inforced as they ought upon the Conscience yet this is an infallible Maxim a Rule beyond
shall be a peculiar Treasure unto me above all People for all the Earth is mine ve 6. And ye shall be unto me a Kingdom of Priests and an Holy Nation And if this was a Covenant of Works as the Apostle doth plainly Affirm it is Rom. 10. 5. from Lev. 18. 5. Why not that made with Abraham also since the terms are the same as well as the Promises are the same The like account the Scripture gives us of the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. You have seen saith Moses there ver 2 3. all that the Lord did before your Eyes in the Land of Egypt unto Pharaoh and all his Servants the great Temptations which thine Eyes have seen and those great Miracles ver 4. Yet the Lord hath not given you an Heart to perceive and Eyes to see and Ears to hear unto this day ver 5. 6. And I have led you forty years in the Wilderness your clothes are not waxen old upon you That ye might know that I am the Lord your God ver 9. Keep therefore the words of this Covenant and do them that ye may prosper in all that ye do The same Language with that Exod 19. 5. and Lev. 18. 5. compared with Rom. 10. 5. So that we cannot but plainly see that all those fore-mentioned Covenants are of one and the same Nature what the one is the others are the same And therefore if the Covenant made with our First Parent before the Fall and that made with Israel at Mount Sinai were neither of them a Covenant of Grace nor a Gospel Covenant whereof Christ is the alone and only Mediator For the same Reason neither was that mentioned Deut. 29. nor that Gen. 17. 7 8 9. as being all of the same tenor and the Promises in them all of a like Nature § 6. The whole entire Nature saith Dr. Owen of the Covenant of Works consisted in this That upon our Personal Obedience according unto the Law and Rule of it we should be Accepted with God and Rewarded with him Herein the Essence of it did consist And what ever Covenant proceedeth on these terms or hath the Nature of them in it however it may be varied with Additions or Alterations is the same Covenant stiil and not another As in the Renovation of the Promise wherein the Essence of the Covenant of Grace was contained God did oft times make other Additions unto it as unto Abraham and David yet was it still the same Covenant for the Substance of it and not another So whatever Variations may be made in or Additions unto the Dispensation of the First Covenant so long as this Rule is retained Do this and Live it is still the same Covenant for the Substance and Essence of it Dr. Owen in his late Discourse Entituled The Doctrine of Justification by Imputed Righteousness p. 397. SECT II. BUt forasmuch as Mr. Roberts Mr. Sedgwick and many other Divines who have Written upon the Covenants do affirm that the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Faith or which is all one a Covenant of Grace At least that it was Subserviently the Covenant of Grace Or a Covenant of Grace for the Substance of it though propounded in a more dark way and in a manner fitting for the State of that People and that present time and Condition of the Church And for as much as it will unavoidably follow that if that was a Covenant of Grace So also was that made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9. We shall therefore the more Intently apply our selves toward the Discovery of their great Mistakes in this Respect it being of so vast an Importance to the Church of God to be set at rights herein on which as all will grant So much of the Superstructure of the Christian Faith and Practice depends For this purpose therefore Additional unto what hath been already said we shall only premise two Arguments proving that the Covenant at Mount Sinai mentioned Exod. 19. and Exod 20. was no other than a Covenant of Works And then proceed to Answer those Scripture Objections which are usually urged by way of Opposition hereunto § 2. In the first place then that the Covenant at Mount Sinai before mentioned was no other then a Covenant of Works We thus prove First that Covenant that is not of Faith cannot be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle doth Expresly affirm that the Law is not of Faith Gal. 3. 11 12. Which is most plainly to be understood of Mount Sinai Covenant therefore that Covenant cannot be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Secondly that Covenant which is now Repealed could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works But the Apostle doth plainly Affirm that the Covenant which God made with his People at Mount Sinai when he took them by the Hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt for the faultiness thereof is now Repealed Heb. 7. 18. Chap. 8. 7. 13. 2. Cor. 3. 7. 11. Col. 2. 14. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works The Covenant of Grace being every way Immutable and perfect and therefore unrepealable and Eternal 2. Sam. 23. 5. Isa 55. 3. Heb. 7. 21 22 24 25. Heb. 13. 20. And the Gifts and Callings thereof without Repentance Rom. 11. 27. 29. And if Mount Sinai Covenant was no other than a Covenant of Works and accordingly now Repealed It cannt be denied but that the Covenant Gen. 17. 7 8 9. Was of the same Nature and therefore also now Repealed Act. 15. 10. 24. Col. 2. 14. § 3. If any shall Object that it is unlikely that the Covenant of Works should be Renewed after Mans fall and after the Covenant of Grace had actually taken place as it did in the first promise Concerning the Womans Seed that was to bruise the Serpents Head We answer that how absur'd so ever it may seem to us it is plain matter of fact that so it was and we ought not to Impeach Infinite Wisdome that so appointed it And if we will know the reason why the Covenant of Works should be thus Renewed after the Fall the Scripture Expresly tells us That the Law was added because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made Gal. 3. 19. The Apostle had before told us ver 17. That the Covenant that was Confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430. Years after could not Disannul that it should make the Promise of none Effect wherefore then saith he ver 19. Serveth the Law To which himself gives this Resolution That it was added because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made And elsevvhere the same Apostle Informs us That the Law entered that the Offence might abound Rom. 5. 20. Or as he Expresseth it Chap. 7. 13. That Sin by the Commandment might become exceeding Sinful It being Evident that the Lavv vvas appointed as a School-master to Christ Gal. 3.
24. For so it vvas to the Jevvs that is to shevv them the Nature of Sin and the Holiness and Righteousness of God to convince them of their Sin and Misery vvithout Christ and their necessity therefore of a Saviour Rom. 7. 7 12. 13. And for this purpose it still serves to all Men in an unregenerate State Rom. 3. 19. But though the Lavv doth indeed shevv us our Necessity of Christ and our Misery vvithout him yet it doth not bring us to Christ as our Translation hath it for that is the Work of the Covenant of Faith only Rom. 10. 6 7 8 9. And that as it stands opposed unto the Legal Covenant ver 5 6 c. § 4. There is a double Enquiry made by the Apostle saith Dr. Owen on Gal. 3. vvith respect unto the Law or the Covenant of Sinai 1. Vnto what end in General it served 2 Whether it were not contrary to the Promise of God Unto both these the Apostle ansvvereth from the Nature Office and Work of that Covenant For there vvere tvvo things in it First a Revival and Representation of the first Covenant of Works vvith its Sanction and Curse Secondly A Direction of the Church unto the Accomplishment of the Promise From these tvvo doth the Apostle frame his Ansvver unto the double Enquiry laid dovvn And unto the first Enquiry Vnto what â—nd it served He Ansvvers It was added because of Transgressions The Promise being given there seems to have been no need of it Why then vvas it added to it at that Season It was added because of Transgressions The fulness of time vvas not yet come vvherein the Promise vvas to be Fulfilled Accomplished and Established as the only Covenant wherein the Church was to Walk with God or the Seed was not yet come as the Apostle here speaks to whom the Promise vvas made In the mean time some Order must be taken about Sin and Transgression that all the Order of things appointed of God vvere not Overflovved by them And this vvas done tvvo vvays by the Lavv. 1. By Reviving the Commands of the Covenant of Works vvith the Sanction of Death it put an Avve on the minds of Men and set Bounds unto their Lusts that they should not dare to run forth into that Excess vvhich they vvere Naturally inclined unto It vvas therefore added because of Transgressions that in the Declaration of God's Severity against them some Bounds might be fixed unto them For the knowledge of Sin is by the Law 2. To shut up Vnbelievers and such as vvould not seek for Righteousness Life and Salvation by the Promise under the Povver of the Covenant of Works and Curse attending it It concluded or shut up all under Sin saith the Apostle ver 20. This vvas the end of the Lavv for this end vvas it Added as it gave a Reviveal unto the Covenant of Works Dr. Owen's Exposition on the Hebrews 3 d. Vol. p. 231. § 5. It is true that Scripture Gal. 3. 24. vvhere the Apostle tells us that the Law was our School-Master to Christ that we might be Justified by Faith is strongly urged by some to prove that the Law must needs be therefore a Covenant of Faith But it is Evident that the School mastership of the Lavv and the Covenant of Faith are tvvo quite different things as appears by the Words before and after ver 23. Before Faith came saith he we were kept under the Law shut up unto the Faith which should afterward be Revealed ver 24. Wherefore the Law was our School-master to Christ that we might be justified by Faith ver 25. But after that Faith is come we are no longer under a School-master So that the Schol mastership of the Lavv is one thing and the Covenant of Faith another For vvhen the one cometh the other ceaseth When the one takes place the other vanisheth The Lavv therefore could not be a Covenant of Faith it being here so plainly Opposed or Contra distinguished thereunto Accordingly the Apostle elsevvhere assures us that the Law Written and Engraven in Stones was a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2. Cor. 3. 6. 7. 9. And consequently gave no hopes of Relief to the Miserable Sinner as the Covenant of Faith doth It convinc'd him indeed of the dreadful Nature of Sin and of the Infinite Purity and Holiness of Gods Nature and Being against whom it had Sinned but it left no Room for Repentance For Cursed is every one saith the Law that Continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them Therefore it is calld the Hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us which Christ took out of the way nailing it to his Cross Col. 2. 14. So that the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith It being constantly represented to us in the Scripture as being of a vastly different Nature therefrom and that in the very Essence or Substance thereof The one being a Ministration of Death and Condemnation the other a Ministration of Life and Peace SECT III. WE are told indeed by Mr. Obadiah Segdwick in his Discourse upon the Covenant of Grace p. 175. That the Covenant made with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai was at least subserviently the Covenant of Grace a Covenant of Grace for the Substance of it though propounded in a more dark way and in a manner fitting for the State of that People and that present time and condition of the Church § 2. But this is but an Evasion and serves for no other purpose than to darken the Truth For the thing is plain that the Law was as much a Covenant of Works as that made with our First Parent The Jewish Legal Covenant saith Dr. Annesly in his Sermon upon the Covenant of Grace Morning Exercise p. 122 Neither admitted of Faith in the Redeemer nor Repentance of Sin For Pardon of sin and Curse for Sin are Inconsistent Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse For it is Written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them As many as depend upon the Works of the Law for Justification are under the Curse And the Law saith he discovered no other way of Justification but by Works Mr. Cooper also in the same Morning Exercise p. 117. tells us That Moses his Law is opposed to the Covenant of Grace as another Covenant upon this very distinguishing account of Obedience and Faith Works and Grace as you may see saith he at large among other Places Heb. 8. 6 7 8 9 10 c. § 3. The Law therefore was not so much as Subserviently a Covenant of Faith much less for the Substance of it so for it is quite another thing and is constantly so represented unto us in the Scriptures The Apostle saith indeed The Law was our School-master to Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He doth
not say to bring us to Christ as our Translation hath it For as we have already said that is the Work of the Covenant of Faith only And therefore that Notion that the Law was Subserviently a Covenant of Faith hath no Foundation Those Words to bring us being unduly added to the Original Text and are accordingly put in a Different Character in our Translation thereof But saith the Apostle in the words immediately following After that Faith is come we are no longer under a School-master But how can that be if the Law was a Covenant of Faith Must the Covenant of Faith cease at least in this World Must the Covenant of Faith Vanish be Blotted out taken out of the way and done away as the Apostle speaks of the Law Or was the Covenant of Faith against us and contrary to us as he speaks of the Hand-writing of Ordinances that is now Blotted out And indeed therefore neither could the Law be so much as Subserviently a Covenant of Faith For if it had the Apostle would never have described it as hath been now declared § 4. And 't is in vain to say That the Law was a Covenant of Faith though propunded in a more dark way and in a manner fitting for the State of that People and that present Time and Condition of the Church as Mr. Sedgwick speaks For the Apostle Expresly affirms that the Law is not of Faith It is not of Faith Absolutely not Comparatively but the man that doth them shall live in them Gal. 3. 12. The Law therefore was no other than a Covenant of Works since not only the Apostle doth here assure us that it is not of Faith but also the same Rule Do this and Live is that still retained therein as at first And it is therefore different from the Covenant of Faith not barely in respect of the Degrees or clearness of the Revelation of Gospel-Grace as is commonly Suggested For the Law as hath been already proved discovers none at all but leaves the guilty Sinner wholly Remediless without the least glimps of Light or Comfort The Law therefore differs from the Covenant of Faith Specifically in respect of the whole Nature or Essence of it In which respect the Law could never be appointed as a School-master to bring us to Christ Well it may convince us of our Necessity of him but bring us to him it cannot § 5. So that then these are the Reasons which the Holy Spirit himself Suggesteth why the Law was added Or why the Covenant of Works was Revived after Man's Fall and even after the Proclaiming of the first Promise concerning the Womans Seed Gen 3. 15. which was renewed to Abraham Gen. 22. 18. It was added saith the Apostle because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made And it entered that the Offence might abound It being appointed as a School-master to Christ to convince the Jews of their necessity of a Saviour And since it cannot be denied but that all the Sons and Daughters of Adam must of Necessity be under one or another of the two Covenants either that of Works or that of Grace And since all Men by Nature are Children of Wrath Eph. 2 3. And since it would be utterly absurd to affirm that such are under a Covenant of Grace till-Converted It of necessity follows that unto such the Covenant of Works is still in force and under it they are till wrought upon by the Grace of the Gospel the Law abating nothing but still exacting the utmost Farthing Neither from the Impossibility of Man's yielding that perfect Obedience which that Covenant requires can we justly conclude that therefore it is not still in Force For God hath not forfeited or lost his Right of Dominion though we have lost our Strength or Capacity of Obedience So that it is evident that the Law given upon Mount Sinai to the People of the Wilderness or the Law written in Stones which was a plain and clear Manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the first was no other than a Covenant of Works Thus it was to the Jews and thus it still continues in its full Power Force and Virtue to all Men in an Unregenerate State For what things soever the Law saith it saith to them that are under the Law that every Month may be stopped and all the World may become Guilty before God Rom. 3. 19. SECT IV. NEither was the Law by the Jews only Interpreted as a Covenant of Works but as it is evident by Moses himself and by Paul also We are told indeed by Mr. Sedgwick in his fore-mentioned Discourse upon the Covenants p. 173. That we must distinguish between the intention of God in giving the Law and the Abuse or Perverting of the Law We grant saith he that many of the Jews did set up a Legal Righteousness for their Justifications and rested upon the Works of the Law as if Life came by them against which Paul doth notably Argue in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians But this saith he was not the intention of God in the Sanction of Law They could never find a justifying Righteousness by the Law or Works of the Law under the Notion of a Covenant of Works nor did God ever propound it for that end § 2. For Answer hereunto we say That since by Mr. Sedgwicks own confession the Jews could never find a Justifying Righteousness by the Law or by the Works of it From hence it inevitably follows that it could not be a Covenant of Faith Sure it is that the Covenant of Faith Justifies all that are under it For being Justified by Faith we have Peace with God c. Rom. 5. 1. That Covenant therefore that could never Justifie any that were under it could never be a Covenant of Faith But the Scripture is Express that by the deeds of the Law there shall no Flesh be Justified in God's sight Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith And yet again that Covenant under which though many were Justified yet none were ever Justified by it or by virtue of it could never be a Covenant of Faith But such was the nature of the Law that though many were Justified under it yet none were ever Justified by it or by virtue of it Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith And if the Law was not a Covenant of Faith then â—t must of necessity follow that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works And indeed so it was appointed and declared by God himself Lev. 18. 5. Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgments which if a man do he shall live in them And this the Spirit of God by the Apostle Paul takes special notice of Rom. 10. 5. For Moses saith he describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law That the man that doth these things shall live by them And what
but God gave it to Abraham by Promise So that it clearly appears by the scope of the Apostle's Argument that the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith For if it had it would have been honoured as an Instrument for the conveyance of Abraham's Inheritance But saith he God gave it to Abraham by Promise not by the Law therefore the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith But is the Law then against the Promises God forbid saith he For if there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law but the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise of Faith by Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe So that the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith since the Apostle doth here so plainly distinguish between them setting forth the Weakness of the one and the Strength and Perfection of the other The Law saith he Could not give Life but the Covenant of Faith doth The Law indeed would but could not It promiseth Life but it could not perform it through the Weakness of the Flesh So there is no Repugnancy in the Law against the Promises but what the Law could not do the Covenant of Faith performeth For it not only promiseth Life but accomplisheth what it hath promised and sets the Soul in Safety § 4. According to the plain and clear Scope of the Apostle's Reasoning therefore the Law is so far from being a Covenant of Faith that it is quite another thing For if it had been a Covenant of Faith it would have given Life as the Covenant of Faith doth But it could not give Life therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works But is the Law then against the Promises God forbid saith Paul and so say we For supposing the Law to be as it is indeed a pure Covenant of Works yet through the Satisfaction of Christ there is no Repugnancy or Hostile Contrariety betwixt the Law and the Promises or between the Law and Faith which hath respect to the Promises There is only a difference of Deficiency in respect of that Strength that there is in the one to what there was in the other The one being Weak through the Flesh the other Strong and Powerful and goes through-stitch with its Work But what the Law could not do through our Weakness that Christ hath performed by fulfilling its Commands and submitting to its Curse on our behalf whereby God's Justice is satisfied and Everlasting Righteousness obtained for the Salvation of Sinners And indeed herein consisteth the Covenant of Faith here is the Object of it and in this path is the very Law and Justice of God it self most highly Glorified Shall we say then that because the Law is a Covenant of Works that it is therefore against the Promises God forbid For who shall lay any thing to the Charge of God's Elect so as to hinder the accomplishment of the Promises upon them The Law it self doth not cannot Impeach them since it is God that Justifieth Or Who shall Condemn them The Law it self cannot since it is Christ that Died. It is true the Law saith That the man that doth these things shall Live by them And indeed herein the very Essence of the Covenant of Works consisteth But the Covenant of Faith leads us to what Christ hath done and performed for us which the Covenant of Works doth not But though the Law leads us not to Christ yet Christ being made under it and giving it its due honour on our behalf hence it follows that the Law it self that was before our Enemy stands up as our Friend Even that Law that was before against us which was Contrary to us and which was in it self no other than the Ministration of Death and Condemnation even that Law stands up as our Friend through the Mediation of Christ whom God therefore hath set forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood to declare his Righteousness that he might be Just and the Justifier of him that Believeth in Jesus Rom. 3. 24 25 26. So that the Law through the Satisfaction of Christ though it be as it is indeed a Covenant of Works yet is not against the Promises there is no Real Repugnancy or Contrariety between them whatever there seems to be Which made the Apostle Propound the Question as he doth § 5. Besides the same Apostle that tells us The Law is not against the Promises doth also expresly Assure us That the Law is not of Faith but the Man that doth them shall live by them Gal. 3. 12. So that though it is true the Law is not against the Promises Since Mercy and Truth Righteousness and Peace are met together in Christ yet it is as true that the Law is not of Faith And if the Law is not of Faith then neither can it be a Covenant of Faith but of Works as the same Apostle doth plainly affirm it is Rom. 3. 27 28. And therefore neither could it give Life For if it could Righteousness should have been by it But saith he The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe The Law therefore was not a Covenant of Faith For if it had it would have given Life and so Righteousness should have been by the Law But it could not give Life and so Righteousness was not by the Law therefore it was not a Covenant of Faith The like Inference may be clearly drawn from Rom. 10. 5 6 c. Moses saith the Apostle Describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man which doth these things shall live by them But the Righteousness which is of Faith or Gospel Covenant speaketh on this wise c. If thou Believest thou shalt be Saved Wherein we cannot but observe that the Apostle maketh a plain difference betwixt the Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of Faith The one saith he speaketh after this sort the other speaketh after quite another rate From whence also it plainly follows that the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith since the Righteousness of the one is here so plainly Opposed to the Righteousness of the other which yet it would not be had the Law been a Covenant of Faith nay though it had been so only more Darkly and not with that clearness of Demonstration as the Gospel Reveals it had it been so Subserviently only much more if it had been such for the Substance of it as it Affirmed For it cannot be imagined that if it had been a Covenant of Grace or a Covenant of Faith Subserviently much more if it had been such for the Substance of it that ever it would have been set in point blank Opposition to it as quite another thing as it is When the Apostle tells us therefore that the Righteousness which is of the Law saith Do this and Live but the Righteousness of Faith speaketh
in quite another Dialect It is plain there is a difference between them toto Genere or in the whole Kind or Substance thereof and not barely in the several Degrees of Manifestation as is suggested For as the Apostle Reasoneth concerning Election Rom. 11. 6. So it is here If it be of Works then it is no more Grace otherwise Work is no more Work And if by Grace then it is no more of Works otherwise Grace is no more Grace Either therefore the Law was a Covenant of Grace or it was a Covenant of Works If it was a Covenant of Grace then according to the scope of the Apostle's Reasoning it was not a Covenant of Works or it is no more of Works that is it is not of Works at all And consequently Moses doth not describe the Righteousness which is of the Law as he doth that the Man that doth these things shall live by them But if this be absurd and it be evident that it is as it is indeed a Covenant of Works For the same Reason therefore neither can it in any Sence be a Covenant of Gospel-Grace otherwise as the Apostle speaks Work is no more Work For these two Grace and Works or Faith and Works are constantly in the Scripture opposed the one unto the other in point of our Justification before God's Presence which is our present case and admit of no Mixture § 6. So that though the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works is not against the Promises that is there is no Repugnancy between them there being a sweet Harmony and Conjunction of all the Blessed Attributes of God in Christ in the way of the Salvation of Sinners yet the Law is constantly in the Scripture represented in a way of Contradistinction to the Promises and so it is in the words foregoing as hath been already observed ver 18. If saith the Apostle the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise And which is yet clearer the same Apostle doth also assure us Rom. 4. 14. That if they which are of the Law be heirs Faith is made void and the Promise made of none Effect Therefore the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works SECT VI. ANd whereas the Apostle doth also tell us Rom. 3. 31. That we do not make Void the Law through Faith but Establish it This also is true and no way Contradicteth but is Consistent enough with what hath been Asserted viz. That the Law is no other than a Covenant of Works Forasmuch as Christ our surety hath fulfilled it for us given it its due Honour and satisfied its Penalty on our behalf So that we are so far from making void the Law through Faith that it is rather thereby Established as having received greater Honour by the obedience and Sufferings of Christ than ever could have been given it by us § 2. And yet further which is also Objected to the same purpole as before whereas the Apostle doth also tell us Rom. 10. 4. That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth The Sence is Evident Forasmuch as what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the Flesh God sending his own Son in the likeness of Sinful Flesh and for Sin or by a Sacrifice for Sin Condemned Sin in the Flesh that the Righteousness of the Law might be fullfilled in us that is in the Person of our surety for us Rom. 8 3 4. And thus Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth by fulfilling its Commands and answering its Penalty on our behalf But doth it therefore follow that the Law is a Covenant of Faith It is Evident that Christ Submitted to it as a Covenant of Works And if it was so to Christ it was so to us and would have been so and the Curse thereof had accordingly lighted on us had not Christ Interposed for our Relief But saith the Apostle when the Fulness of time was come God sent forth his Son made of a Woman made under the Law to Redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons Gal. 4. 4 5. From whence it clearly appears that the Law was not a Covenant of Faith For if it had what necessity was there for Christ to have Redeemed us from under it Can we imagine that Christ ever shed his Blood to Redeem us from being under a Covenant of Faith or from being under a Gospel Covenant The Law was therefore no other than a Covenant of Works from which Christ hath now Redeemed us by his Blood and Sufferings for us The Law indeed shews us our Sin and Misery without Christ but Relieves us not Rom. 7. 7 8 9 10. which the Covenant of Faith doth Rom. 10. 6 7 8 9. Nay the Law instead of Relieving or Curing us it brings us under the Curse which the Covenant of Faith delivers us from Gal. 3. 8 9 10. But though we are delivered from the Law as a Covenant of Life Do this and live yet it is also as true that All true Believers are still under the Law to Christ as a Rule of Life 1 Cor. 9. 21. SECT VII MR. Sedgwick doth indeed also tell us in his forementioned Discourse upon the Covenants p. 174. That that Covenant which God made with Moses and under which Moses stood was no Covenant of Works But Moses and the People of Israel were both under the same Covenant Exod. 34. 27. I have made a Covenant with thee and with Israel If any doubt under what Covenant Moses stood whether of Works or Grace let him peruse Heb. 11. 26. What a Description he shall there find of Moses He shall there find him to be a Choice and Eminent Believer in Christ Esteeming the Reproach of Christ greater Riches than the Treasures in Aegypt and having respect to the Recompence of Reward c. Now certainly such a Choice Believer in Christ was not under a Covenant of Works And p. 175 176. speaking of the immediate Introduction unto the giving of the Law Exod. 20. 2. I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt Why saith he there is the very Covenant of Grace Here is God as our God And Blessed are the People who have the Lord to be their God And here is Jesus Christ the Mediator of the Covenant implied for in Christ doth God become our God And there is our Redemption from Sin and Satan intimated by their Deliverance out of Aegypt And presently there is the Worship of God Instituted and Appointed which if Acceptable to God must be performed with Faith For without Faith it is impossible to please God And saith he upon the Breaking of the Tables of the Covenant before they were Written again there is such a Preface made by God as can no way fit any Covenant but that of
to be never so small a transgression though in the least Circumstance the Curse of the Law presently took hold upon them and that without mercy For as James saith Whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one Point he is guilty of all And accordingly the Curse of the Law was pronounced upon every one that continued not in all things therein contained to do them This is the true Scope and Tenor even of the Ceremonial Covenant it self to all under it that were not relieved by the Grace of the Gospel § 7. Wherefore though it is plain that the Law written in Stones and the Book wherein the Statutes and Judgments were contained were two distinct Covenants and delivered at distinct Seasons and in a distinct Method the one with the other without a Mediator the one dedicated with Blood and Sprinkling the other that we read of not so dedicated yet it is as clear from the Premises that they were both of the same Nature that is no other than a Covenant of Works and accordingly both now Repealed and that under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant which was of a decaying vanishing nature Heb. 8. ult And accordingly though the Blood of the Legal Sacrifices wherewith the Ceremonial Covenant was dedicated was plainly Typical of the Blood of Christ yet forasmuch as the Apostle informs us it could not take away sins nor make the Comers thereunto perfect as pertaining to the Conscience Heb. 9. 9. Chap. 10. 1 4. That Covenant therefore which was dedicated only by the Blood of such Sacrifices could never be a Covenant of Grace properly so called which hath Christ alone for the Mediator thereof and was confirmed only by his Blood and Sufferings for us but of Works § 8. Besides If the Ceremonial Covenant which was thus dedicated by Blood and Sprinkling had been indeed a Covenant of Grace and confirmed also by the Blood of Christ why should it be Repealed as we know it was as well as the Law written in Stones which is said to be now done away Is it possible that a Covenant of Grace confirmed by the Blood of Christ should ever be Repealed Or why did God appoint the New Covenant to succeed it which was Really so Confirmed and which is also opposed thereunto as another Covenant and of a quite different Nature Unless we shall say that there were two Covenants of Grace Confirmed by the Blood of Christ the one whereof was of a faulty accaying vanishing Nature as the First Covenant is by the Spirit of God himself described which to affirm would be perfectly to Contradict the whole Scope of the Scriptures § 9. The Blood of those Sacrifices therefore wherewith the Ceremonial Covenant was dedicated together with the rest of the Types that were then afforded served only as an Example Figure and Shadow of Heavenly things They were not as the Apostle speaks The Heavenly things themselves Heb. 9. 23. For the Law saith he Heb. 10. 1 c. having a shadow of good things to come and not the very Image of the things can never with those Sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the Commers thereunto perfect For then they should not have ceased to be Offered because that the Worshippers once purged should have had no more Conscience of Sins But in these Sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of Sins every year For it is not possible that the Blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away Sins All those Sacrifices therefore could never amount to the value of the Blood of Christ And accordingly that Covenant though dedicated by Blood and Sprinkling was no other than a Covenant of Works for as much as it was not confirmed by the Blood of Christ For if it had it would have made the Commers thereunto Perfect as pertaining to the Conscience which it did not § 10. Besides the Apostle expresly tells us That Christ hath obtained a more Excellent Ministry than that of Moses by how much also he is the Mediator of a Better Covenant which was Established upon better Promises Heb. 8. 6. Which Better Covenant the Apostle doth plainly oppose unto the First or Old Covenant vers 7 8 9 13. From whence it plainly follows that Christ was not the Mediator of the First or Old Covenant unless we shall say that he was the Mediator of two Covenants a Better and a Worse And consequently it doth as plainly follow that the First Covenant was no other than a Covenant of Works since neither was Christ the Mediator of it nor did he ever shed his Blood for the Confirmation thereof SECT IX HAving thus far considered Mr. Obadiah Sedgwick's Arguments wherewith he labours to prove that the Sinai Covenant was not a Covenant of Works but of Grace We should next have considered Mr. Francis Roberts his Arguments also to the same purpose in his large Discourse upon the Covenants But that the most substantial part of them have been already dispatcht in the Answers we have returned to Mr. Sedgwick's Arguments Onely we cannot but take notice of two grand Absurdities which Mr. Roberts and all others who Assert that the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Faith do and cannot but unavoidably run into and fasten upon the Scriptures on that Hypothesis The first is this Whereas Mr. Roberts pretending to Answer several Objections which are urged by way of opposition to his forementioned Doctrine the Fourth Objection which he mentions pag. 769. of his forementioned Discourse runs thus § 2. Object 4. The Sinai Covenant is opposed by the Prophet Jeremy and by the Apostle Paul to the New Covenant and is said to be broken by the People of Israel Jer. 31. 31 32 c. Heb. 8. 8 9 10. Therefore it is not a Covenant of Faith which is everlasting and cannot be broken But a Covenant of works which is but Temporary and liable to be broken This is indeed a substantial Argument or Objection against what he Asserts But how substantially answered may appear by what follows For thus he returns thereunto These Premises saith he will not bear this Conclusion for first though the Sinai Covenant made with Israel when God brought them out of the Land of Egypt is said to be unlike or not according to the New Covenant yet it is not said either by the Prophet or Apostle to be unlike to the Covenant of Faith § 3. Reply But what a strange Evasion is this And whither will not Men run when left to themselves For is not the New Covenant a Covenant of Faith And therefore when the Sinai Covenant is opposed to the New Covenant is it not plainly opposed to the Covenant of Faith Or shall we make the New-Covenant and the Covenant of Faith opposite and Contradistinct the one from the other as Mr. Roberts plainly doth when he saith that though the Sinai Covenant is opposed to the New Covenant yet it is not opposed to the Covenant of Faith
As if the New Covenant and the Covenant of Faith were not one and the same thing But certainly the New Covenant to which the Sinai Covenant is opposed must needs be a Covenant of Faith or there is no Covenant of Faith mentioned in the Scriptures And consequently since the Sinai Covenant is both by the Prophet and Apostle so plainly opposed to the New Covenant from hence it plainly follows that it was never designed by God â—s a Covenant of Faith For else why is it opposed thereunto § 4. But saith Mr. Roberts the Dissmilitude or Difference here Intimated betwixt the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant is not in substance or kind For in both the Lord saith I will be their God and they shall be my People But onely in the manner of Administration or Degree God promising in the New Covenant a greater fuller and clearer Measure of Grace unto his People than under the Sinai Covenant Whereof he gives Three Instances in point of Sanctification Illumination and Remission And then Concludes Thus saith he the Sinai Covenant gradually not specifically differs from the New Covenant They are both Covenants of Faith But the New Covenant every way more Excellent Compleat and Perfect § 5. To this we reply That as the Dissimilitude or Difference here Intimated betwixt the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant iâ— not in Substance Since in both the Lord saith I will be their God and they shall be my People So neither in the manner of Administration that is If by the manner of Administration we understand the Measure or Degrees of the Divine Blessedness therein Promised For what can be a greater or more Comprehensive Blessedness than for God to be their God and they to be his People For this Comprehends Justification Sanctification and Illumination in the heighth and Perfection of them And indeed what is not promised where God is promised And accordingly this is the Blessedness promised in both Covenants The Difference or Dissimilitude therefore betwixt the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant upon the Account whereof they are here opposed the one unto the other must of necessity Consist in the terms of either and in that alone For Moses saith the Apostle Rom. 10. 5. describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man which doth these things shall live by them Whereas Life and happiness is promised in the Gospel Covenant in the way of believing onely from Vers 6. to 12. And indeed nothing short of this can be duely supposed as the ground of such an opposition as here Insisted on For can it be rationally imagined that a bare difference in the Extent or Degrees of the Divine Blessedness promised in either could be a sufficient ground for the Prophet or Apostle to speak as they do that the New Covenant was not like or not according to the Sinai Covenant For if the Substance be the same there is still a likeness between them though in Respect of Degrees Circumstantially different A Child hath the likeness of a Man though not grown up to a Perfect Stature But if the Difference or Dissimilitude lie in the terms of either and those terms Essentially different Then though the Promises are the same for the Substance of them and the Degrees of the Mercy promised also yet it may be justly and properly said that the one is not like or not according to the other For as Covenants they are Essentially different because the terms are so And accordingly it is evident both from the forementioned Rom. 10. 5 6 c. as also from Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. Where the Sinai Covenant is opposed to the New Covenant that whereas the Promises of the Sinai Covenant run all upon condition of Vniversal and Perfect Obedience to whatsoever the Law requireth the Promises of the New Covenant are all of them Absolute and therefore onely to be received by Faith For as therein God promiseth that he will put his Laws in their Mind and write them in their Hearts So he doth also freely Promise that he will be Merciful to their Vnrighteousness and their Sins and Iniquities will he remember no more All which promises of Grace were plainly wanting in the Sinai Covenant For that required Obedience as the Condition of Life but gave no strength to perform it And not onely so but pronounced a dreadful Curse upon every Transgression and Disobedience leaving no room for Repentance So that it is plain that the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant differ Specifically the One being a Covenant of Faith the Otherâ— of Works And on this Account onely are they opposed the one unto the other both by Paul and Jeremy In which Respect though the Promises in both are the same for Substance I will be their God and they shall be my People As also in respect of the Degrees of the Divine Blessedness promised in either yet the terms of Enjoyment being Essentially different hence it plainly follows that so are the Covenants themselves that â—â— Essentially or Specifically different § 6. Secondly Whereas 't is justly urged That since the Sinai Covenant is said to be broken by the people of Israel Jer. 31. Heb. 8. Therefore it is not a Covenant of Faith which is Everlasting and cannot be broken but a Covenant of Works which is but temporary and liable to be broken To this Mr. Roberts returns thus Though saith he Israel brake the Sinai Covenant by their Idolatry yet they brake it not utterly and Irreparably as Adam brake the Covenant of Works by his first Transgression For God admitted them to Repentance upon their Repentance Pardons them and renews the Sinai Covenant again with them Therefore this Breach of Covenant doth no way prove the Sinai Covenant to be a Covenant of Works not of Faith Temporary not Everlasting § 7. Reply But why should any part of the truth of God be concealed which was so necessary here to have been discovered For though the Sinai Covenant was renewed in the Second Tables after the first were broken upon the Idolatry of the Israelites about the Golden Calf Exod. 34. Yet it clearly appears and we cannot be Ignorant that afterward it was utterly broken and they Rejected as they are to this Day Else why doth God say which my Covenant they brake they continued not in it and I regarded them not Jer. 31. 32. Heb. 8. 9. which plainly looks further than the first Breach For it is clear that after the first Breach they were regarded by God since upon Moses his Intercession they were admitted to Repentance and it is evident that upon their Repentance the Lord Pardons them and Renews the Sinai Covenant again with them But it is as Evident that at length having broken it again and again God plainly tells them that he Regarded them not So that though t is true the first Breach doth no way prove the Sinai Covenant to be a Covenant of Works not of Faith Temporary not Everlasting yet the
after Breaches do Else why doth the Apostle tell us as he doth concerning the same Sinai Covenant that it is dis-annulled Heb. 7. 18 For there is verily a dis-annulling of the Commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof So likewise Heb. 8. 7. For if that first Covenant had been faultless there should no place have been sought for the second And Vers 13. In that he saith a New Covenant he hath made the first Old Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away Though the Sinai Covenant therefore was Renewed after the first Breach thereof yet the Scriptures do give us a Positive Assurance that at length it was utterly and irreparably broken And so broken that at last it was dis-annulled made to Expire and vanish away which is utterly Inconsistent with the Nature of the Covenant of Faith according to the whole Scope and Tenour of the Scriptures So that we see that without a Manifest and Palpable Absurdity there is no Resisting the force and Evidence of the forementioned Objection The Conclusion whence Resulting is therefore highly Rational and remains firm and unshaken That since the Sinai Covenant is both by the Prophet and Apostle plainly opposed to the New Covenant and is said to be broken and so broken as to Expire and vanish away Therefore it is not a Covenant of Faith which is Everlasting and cannot be broken but a Covenant of Works that was but Temporary and liable thereunto As for the unchangeable nature of the Covenant of Faith at least on Gods part whatever it is on ours besides a multitude of other Testimonies that might be produced the 89. Psalm gives us a clear and convincing Evidence thereof Vers 30. c. If his Children forsake my Law and walk not in my Judgments if they break my Statutes and keep not my Commandments Then will I Visit their Transgression with the Rod and their Iniquity with Stripes Nevertheless my Loving kindness will I not utterly take from him nor suffer my faithfulness to fail My Covenant will I not break nor alter the thing that is gone out of my Lips Once have I Sworn by my Holiness that I will not lie unto David his Seed shall endure for ever and his Throne as the Sun before me It shall be Established for ever as the Moon and as a faithful Witness in Heaven The like Assurance we have concerning the Promise made to Abraham Wherein saith the Apostle Heb. 6. 17 18. God willing more abundantly to shew unto the Heirs of Promise the Immutability of his Counsel Confirmed it by an Oath that by two Immutable things in which it was Impossible for God to lie we might have strong Consolation c. So that we see the Covenant of Faith or which is all one the Covenant of Grace is every way perfect unchangeable unrepealable and Everlasting Whereas the Sinai Covenant was of a faulty decaying vanishing Nature and accordingly was at last disannulled and therefore could not possibly be any other than a Covenant of Works § 8. The Second Absurdity is this Whereas Mr. Roberts pag. 772. of his forementioned Discourse pretending to Answer the Seventh Objection against his Assertion the Objection it self as himself states it runs thus Object 7. The Condition upon which Life and Happiness is held forth in the Law or Sinai Covenant is Perfect Doing For Moses describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law that the man which doth these things shall live by them Rom. 10. 3. with Lev. 18. 5. Gal. 3. 12. And he denounceth a Curse upon the least failing Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. But the Condition upon which Life and Happiness is tendred in the Covenant of Faith is Believing in Christ Rom. 10. 6. to 12. Doing and Believing Works and Faith are two Contrary Conditions of Life Consequently the Law or Sinai Covenant which requires Doing unto Life cannot be a Covenant of Faith but must needs be a Covenant of Works The Answer which Mr. Roberts returns unto this Strong and Substantial Objection first of all in general runs thus This Objection saith he as it is most Obvious to every one that reads the Epistles of Paul to the Romans and Galatians so it is in my judgment of greatest difficulty to be clearly and satisfactorily Answered And yet it is of great Consequence and Necessity to be Cleared because otherwise the true Nature and Intent of this Sinai Covenant as a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus will not be fully and sufficiently evidenced Several Answers are given I shall propound them and pitely upon such as afford best satisfaction And accordingly he proceeds to give an Account of the several Answers given thereunto by Mr. John Ball and Peter Maâ—â—yr by D. Pareus and Mr. Anthony Burgess but neither of these fully pleasing him p. 775. I add therefore saith he for the unfolding of this Mysterie more clearly and for Answering of this Objection more fully First That the Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two Opposite and Contrary Conditions viz. Works and Faith Perfect Doing and Believing This is clear saith he by Paul's Epistles without Dispute And to deny this which is so clear will but tend to weaken Paul's Authority to darken many Scriptures both of Moses and Paul and to strengthen the Objection And so proceeds to make out this Notion § 9. Reply But if ever there was an Absurdity or plain Contradiction imposed upon the Scriptures we think we may justly and truly say that here it is For though 't is true there are those that labour to fasten an absurdity upon such as affirm that Gods People of old were under two Contrary Covenants at one and the same time yet was it ever known that the same Fountain did at the same time send forth Bitter Waters and Sweet Or can it ever be rationally imagined that the same Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed as to tence life and happiness upon two Opposite and Contrary Conditions For though 't is true two Opposite Covenants may be allowed to be purposely so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two Opposite and Contrary Conditions Works and Faith yet it is utterly impossible that the same Covenant should be so dispensed For as the Apostle reasoneth concerning Election Rom. 11. 6. So it is here If by Grace then it is no more of Works otherwise Grace is no more Grace But if it be of Works then it is no more Grace otherwise Work is no more Work So that we see according to the Apostles reckoning it is utterly impossible that two Opposite and Contrary Conditions should be able to consist together in one and the same Covenant Either the Sinai Covenant therefore is a Covenant of Grace or it is a Covenant of Works If it is a Covenant of Grace
tells them Vers 45. That he would for their sakes remember the Covenant of their Ancestors whom he brought forth out of the Land of Egypt This must of necessity have Reference either to the forementioned Covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob Or the Promises mentioned Exod. 33. 34. And cannot possibly have any Reference to the Sinai Covenant For that was a Bondage Covenant Gal. 4. 21 22 c. A Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 7 8 9. Against us and contrary to us And therefore now Blotted out Col. 2. 14. And is accordingly by Moses himself represented as a fiery Law that Proceeded from Gods Right Hand Deut. 33. â—â— So that that could not possibly yield any comfort unto them Whereas the forementioned Covenants did plainly give them hopes of Relief and Pardon But say you see Vers 46. and all is ended We have therefore accordingly Examined that Text But cannot discern that it speaks any thing by way of opposition to what we have Asserted For thus run the words These are the Statutes and Judgments and Laws which the Lord made between him and the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai by the Hand of Moses which can have no other Sense than this That this being the last Verse of the last Chapte save one of Leviticus wherein the Statutes and Judgments or the several branches of the Ceremonial Law had been particularly Rehearsed unto them These words in this 46th Verse contains therefore onely the general Sum thereof So that we cannot discern that it makes off or on as to the present Argument Arg. 4. The Fourth and last Argument runs thus Those Covenants which have Seals annexed of vastly different Nature are not Absolutely or just the same but widely different Covenants But so have these two Covenants Ergo not the same The Tree of Life was the onely Sacrament Annext to the first but the Passover and Circumcision to the last Both holding forth Christ and Salvation by him The first a plain Type of Christ in the Paschal Lamb. The other a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Reply First as to what concerns the Tree of Life which you say was the onely Sacrament annext to Adams Covenant That it was either a Sacrament or a Seal annext to that Covenant the Scripture gives us no Account thereof that we can find And as the Passover and Circumcision which you make to be the Seals of the Sinai Covenant the Scripture is as silent even in that Respect also As for the Passover it was indeed as you say a plain Type of Christ as many other things then were But we do not find that it is ever called a Seal of the Sinai Covenant Nor do we find that Circumcision is ever called the Seal thereof It is indeed called a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith that Abraham had yet being uncircumcized Rom. 4. 11. But the same Apostle expresly tells us Gal. 3. 12. That the Law is not of Faith And if the Law is not of Faith then neither can it be a Covenant of Faith And then it doth also as plainly follow that Circumcision which is by the Apostle termed a Seal of the Righteousness of Abrahams Faith could not be the Seal thereof And in this Respect therefore it is highly observable That though Circumcision is frequently called a Token of the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8 9. to the generality that were under it yet the Scripture no where tells us That it was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith but unto Abraham onely For indeed none else had ever before or after their Circumcision such a Faith that Entituled them to such Singular Promises and Prerogatives as Abraham had But of this we have already said so much toward the Resolution of the present Point in the Seventh Branch of our Answer to the Eleventh Objection in the Second Part of this Discourse foregoing and have yet so much to say in what follows where we shall have a further occasion purposely to handle this Argument that we shall need to say the less of it here SECT XV. FOR a Conclusion of the present Point we shall onely Collect the sum of the foregoing Arguments already Insisted on proving that the Legal Covenant was not a Covenant of Faith But was indeed and in truth no other than a Covenant of Works For First That Covenant that is not of Faith cannot possibly be a Covenant of Faith But the Apostle doth expresly affirm that the Law is not of Faith Gal. 3. 11 12. Therefore neither can it be a Covenant of Faith Secondly That Covenant which is now Repealed could not be a Covenant of Faith But the Apostle doth plainly affirm that the first Covenant for the faultiness thereof is now Repealed Heb. 8. 7 13. 2 Cor. 3. 7 11. Col. 2. 14. Heb. 7. 18. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Faith Thirdly That Covenant that could not give Life could not be a Covenant of Faith But the Law could not give Life Gal. 3. 21. 22. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Faith Fourthly That Covenant that is opposed to the Covenant of Faith as quite another thing could not be a Covenant of Faith But the School-mastership of the Law is by the Apostle plainly opposed and contradistinguished unto the Covenant of Faith as quite another thing Gal. 3. 23 24 25. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Faith Fifthly That Covenant the Righteousness whereof is opposed to the Righteousness of Faith cannot be a Covenant of Faith But the Righteousness of the Law is plainly by the Apostle opposed to the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 10. 5 6 c. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Faith Sixthly That Covenant that could never Justifie any that were under it could never be a Covenant of Faith For being Justified by Faith we have Peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Rom. 5. 1. But the Scripture doth expresly Testifie That by the Deeds of the Law there shall no Flesh be Justified in his Sight Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith Seventhly That Covenant under which though many were Justified yet none were ever Justified by it or by vertue of it could never be a Covenant of Faith But such is the Nature of the Law that though many were Justified under it yet none were ever Justified by it or by Vertue of it Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith Eighthly That Covenant that saith Do this and Live Or that the Man that doth these things shall Live by them cannot possibly be a Covenant of Gospel-Grace but of Works Since the Apostle Informs us That to him that worketh is the Reward reckoned not of Grace but of Debt Rom. 4. 4. But the same Apostle doth expresly tell us That Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man which doth these things shall live by them Rom. 10. 5.
Therefore that Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works Ninthly That Covenant that is plainly and in direct terms opposed unto Grace cannot be a Covenant of Grace But the Law is by the Apostle directly opposed unto Grace Rom. 6. 14. Sin shall not have Dominion over you For ye are not under the Law but under Grace Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Grace Tenthly That Covenant that was not onely by the Jews Estimated as a Covenant of Works but was so by Gods own Appointment must needs be a Covenant of Works But the Law was not onely by the Jews so Reckoned but by Gods own Appointment it was expresly so designed Lev. 18. 4 5. Deut. 27. 26. Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 10 12. Therefore that Covenant must needs be a Covenant of Works Eleventhly That Covenant through which Abrahams Inheritance was not derived could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle doth expresly tell us That if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise But God gave it to Abraham by Promise Gal. 3. 18. Therefore the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twelfthly That Covenant through which had the Inheritance been conveyed would have made void Faith and made the Promise of none effect could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith But the Apostle doth expresly tell us That if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise made of none effect Rom. 4. 14. Therefore the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith Thirteenthly That Covenant from the Curse whereof we were Redeemed by Christ could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works But the Apostle Informs us That Christ hath Redeemed us from the Curse of the Law himself being made a Curse for us Gal. 3. 13. chap. 4. 4 5. Therefore the Law could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Fourteenthly That Covenant that is set forth by the Apostle as a Ministration of Death and Condemnation could be no other than a Covenant of Works But the Apostle doth assure us that the Law Written in Stones was a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 7 9. Therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works Fifteenthly That Covenant in which 〈◊〉 the Hand writing of Ordinances contained was against us and contrary to us which is therefore now Blotted out and taken out of the way being Nailed to the Cross of Christ could be no other than a Covenant of Works But such is the Nature of the Law Col. 2. 14. 2 Cor. 3. 6 7 8 9. Therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works Sixteenthly That Covenant which when it comes Revives Sin and kills the Sinner And which though it was Ordained to Life is by Experience found to be unto Death could not be a Covenant of Grace But Paul doth expresly tell us That when the Commandment came Sin Revived and he died And the Commandment which was Ordained to Life he found to be unto Death Rom. 7. 9 10. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Seventeenthly That Covenant that is a Bondage Covenant which gendereth to Bondage all whose Children also are in Bondage cannot possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle doth Expresly Inform us that Mount Sinai Covenant is a Bondage Covenant that is gendereth to Bondage and that her Children also are in Bondage Gal. 4. 21 22 23 24 26. Therefore Mount Sinai Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works Eighteenthly That Covenant that admitted not of Faith in the Redeemer nor Repentance of Sin Since Pardon of Sin and Curse for Sin are Inconsistent could not be a Covenant of Grace But the Scripture doth expresly assure us That as many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse For it is Written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Nineteenthly That Covenant that had not Christ for the Mediator of it could never be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle speaking of the Legal Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai tells us That Christ hath obtained a more Excellent Ministry by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant which was Established upon better Promises Heb. 8. 6 7 8. 9. From whence it plainly follows that Christ was not the Mediator of the Legal Covenant Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twentiethly That Covenant that was not Confirmed by the Blood of Christ which alone can cleanse us from all unrighteousness but onely by the Bloud of Bulls and Goats and Calves and the Ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean which onely Sanctified to the Purifying of the Flesh and could never take away Sins nor make him that did the Service perfect as pertaining to the Conscience could not be a Covenant of Faith But the Ceremonial Law was of this Nature and the Sacrifices thereof wherewith alone it was Dedicated Heb. 9. 9 10. 11 12 13 14. Chap. 10. 1 2 3 4 c. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twenty first That Covenant that was not confirmed by the Bloud of Christ No nor so much as by the Bloud of Bulls or Goats or Calves which was plainly Typical thereof could never be a Covenant of Grace but of Works But the Law Written in Stones was so far from being confirmed by the Bloud of Christ that it was never that we read of Dedicated with any other sort of Bloud whatsoever Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Twenty second That Covenant that is Represented to us in the Scripture as a Fiery Burning Law the Proclamation also whereof was attended with dreadful Thunderings and Lightenings with Blackness and Darkness and Tempest And such a Voice of Words as could not be endured which made Moses himself exceedingly to quake and tremble could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But such was the Nature and Quality of the Legal Covenant at Mount Sinai Exod. 20. 18. 19. Deut. 33. 2. Heb. 12. 18 19 20 21. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twenty third That Covenant that is just opposite to the Gospel Covenant which the Scripture represents unto us as a Covenant of Peace and Liberty making a Joyful found and speaking with a small still comfortable and alluring Voice in the Ears and to the Hearts of Sinners that hath also Jesus for the Mediator thereof and speaketh better things than the Bloud of Abel Proclaiming the Lord the Lord God Gracious and Merciful Abundant in Goodness and in Truth forgiving Iniquity
and only Firm Deed of Gift by which the Believing Gentiles always did and do claim Heaven and Earth and all the Promises they have Title to § 5. Besides that the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World cannot be understood of an Earthly Inheritance but the call of the Gentiles and consequently hath reference to his Universal Fatherhood to all sorts of true Believers whatsoever whether Jews or Gentiles is yet further evident from what the same Apostle tells us Rom. 1◠11 12 13. Have they stumbled saith he speaking of the Jews that they should fall God forbid But rather through their fall Salvation is come unto the Gentiles Now if the Fall of them be the Riches of the World and the Diminishing of them the Riches of the Gentiles How much more their Fulness And so likewise vers 15. If the Casting away of them be the Reconciling of the World what shall the Receiving of them be but Life from the Dead Where the same expression is made use of in reference to the Call of the Gentiles as had been before made use of Chap. 4. 13. concerning Abraham's Heirship For as Abraham by Promise was to be the Heir of the World so the Call of the Gentiles is here said to be the Riches of the World The same expression we have likewise in reference to Christ 1 John 2. 2. And he is the Propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole World Not for ours only that is not only for us Jews but for the sins of the whole World that is both Jews and Gentiles because the Partition Wall between Jew and Gentile was now broken down In the same sense therefore that Christ is here said to be the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World In the same sense is Abraham said to be the Heir of the whole World that is he was constituted or appointed to be an Universal Father unto all them that Believe not only Jews but Gentiles also And indeed as the Blessing of Abraham is hereby said to come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ Gal. 3. 14. So had it not been for this Gospel Promise the poor Gentiles had still remained without hope of Relief or ground of Comfort strangers to the Covenants of Promise and without God in the World there being no ground of Relief or hope of Comfort at all afforded unto them from the Covenant of Circumcision § 6. And in this respect therefore whereas the Apostle tells us in the forementioned Rom. 4. 13. That the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World was not to him or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith It is yet further observeble that the Law he here speaks of and which he doth so manifestly contradistinguish or oppose unto the Righteousness of Faith cannot be understood concerning the Law given by Moses to that People in the Wilderness 400 years after Abraham's time though it was of the same nature But it must of necessity be understood concerning the Law or Covenant of Circumcision which God made with Abraham himself and his Natural Posterity which was extant in his own time And that this is the Law which the Apostle here intends will evidently appear if we duly attend unto the scope of the Apostie in the foregoing part of this fourth to the Romans which was to shew that Abraham himself was not justified by Works no not by his Circumcision but by Faith which he had long before he was Circumcised For thus he begins vers 1. 2. What shall we say then that Abraham our Father as pertaining to the Flesh hath found For if Abraham were justified by Works he hath whereof to glory but not before God For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for Righteousness So then Abraham was not justified by Works before God but by Faith alone But how doth that appear Why thus it appears vers 9. 10. Because Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Vncircumcision And so vers 11 12. He received saith he the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Vncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe c. For saith he vers 13. the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World or as he had said just before that he should be the Father of all them that believe was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law which must needs therefore be understood of the Law of Circumcision but through the Righteousness of Faith From whence as it hath been already made evident the Promise he here speaks of was not derived unto Abraham or to his Seed through the Covenant of Circumcision there being no such Promise at all to be found in that Covenant So it is as manifest that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Faith since it is here so plainly contradistinguished or opposed thereunto SECT V. ANd therefore whereas the Apostle tells us of Abraham in the formentioned Rom. 4. 11. That he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Vncircumcised From thence to infer that the Covenant of Circumcision was a Covenant of Faith would be point blank to contradict the whole scope and design of the Apostle in the foregoing passages of that Chapter which as hath been alredy shewn as it was in general to prove that Abraham was not justified by Works but by Faith only vers 2. 3 4 5. So in particular to assure us that Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Vncircumcision vers 9 10. And what more convincing Testimony or Evidence can we desire that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Faith The Sign of Circumcision was indeed a Seal unto Abraham of the Faith which he had in respect of the Promises made him yet being Vncircumcised But it doth not therefore follow that the Promises Gen. 17. 7 8 9. that God would be a God unto him and his Seed after him in their Generations c. upon Condition that he and his were Circumcised were any part of the Covenant of Faith For otherwise the Apostle would never have told us as he doth that Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Vncircumcision The Argument hence resulting therefore is Irresistable That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness could never be a Covenant of Faith But the Scripture is express that Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Vncircumcision therefore the Covenant of Circumcision could never be a Covenant of Faith Besides it is evident that long before his Circumcision God had promised Abraham to bless
him to make his Name Great that he should be a Blessing that in him should all the Families of the Earth be Blessed that he should be the Father of many Nations according to that which was spoken so shall thy Seed be Gen. 12. 2 3. Gen. 15. 5. And it is evident that these were the Promises upon the account whereof we are told that he believed in the Lord and he counted it to him for Righteousness Gen. 15. 6. Circumcision therefore was a Seal only unto Abraham and that of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had in respect of the Promises made him long before his Circumcision and that for this very purpose that he might be the Father of all them that believe which was his Prerogative alone For none besides him had ever before their Circumcision such a Faith which entituled them to such singular Promises § 2. Upon the whole though it must be acknowledged that the Objection seems at first very Plausible How can it be but that the Covenant of Circumcision must needs be a Covenant of Faith since Abraham is said to have received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Yet we see when it comes to be duly examined there appears no such matter For the only Argument fairly resulting from Rom. 4. 11. can be no other than this That Covenant or those Promises in respect of which Abraham is said to have received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith must needs be a Covenant of Faith But the Scripture is express that Abraham received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Vncircumcised which must of necessity be understood in respect of the forementioned Promises that had been made him long before his Circumcision and upon the account of which we are expresly told that he believed in the Lord and he counted it to him for Righteousness Gen. 15. 6. Therefore that Covenant or those Promises must needs be a Covenant of Faith But then as hath been already observed it follows not that the Promises made unto him and his Seed after him in their Generations upon Condition of his and their Circumcision mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. were any part of the Covenant of Faith since the Apostle is express that Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Vncircumcision § 3. Circumcision therefore as we have said was a Seal only to Abraham and that in respect of the Promises made him yet being Vncircumcised whereby he was Confirmed in the Assurance of that Peculiar Prerogative that had been before conferred on him and which the Apostle here expresly mentioneth He received saith he the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Vncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe In respect whereof it is evident that Circumcision was that to the Father of the Faithful in its Extraordinary Institution and in his Extraordinary Circumstances that it could not be to any of his Natural Progeny in its Ordinary Vse It was indeed appointed as a Sign or Token of the Covenant Gen. 17. 7 8 9. and that both unto Abraham himself and the rest that were under it and so the Spirit of God himself expresly stiles it vers 11. Whereby they were obliged unto a Perfect and Universal Obedience to the whole revealed Will and Law of God Gal. 5. 3. For I testifie to every man that is Circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law and hereof 't is true it was a Sign or Token It being no other than the Restipulation of the Covenant on their part Gen. 17. 9. 10. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations this is my Covenant which ye shall keep Every man-child among you shall be Circumcised But it doth not therefore follow that because it was a Token of that Covenant on their part in respect of their Duty that it was also intended as a Seal unto them of the same Covenant on God's part in respect of God's Promise It being a Seal only unto Abraham and that in respect of those Peculiar Promises made him in Uncircumcision Nor was every ones Circumcision so much as a Token to him of his Right to any of the Promises therein contained as is evident in Ishmael and others the Servants born and bred in Abraham's Family and Strangers bought with Mony who were all to be Circumcised to whom yet nevertheless none of the Promises in that Covenant were made as is plain from Gen. 17. 7 8 20 21 23 27. whereby it is clear that the true Reason why any were Circumcised was the Command not Interest in the Covenant Much less was Circumcision a Seal to all that received it of their interest in the Righteousness of that Faith that Abraham had And it is equally absurd to say that Circumcision was a Seal unto all its Subjects of the Righteousness of Faith which they had while Uncircumcised since many of them were never Possessors of that saying Grace neither before or after as to affirm that it was the Seal of a Paternal Relation to all Believers unto every one that received it this being Abraham's Peculiar Prerogative and Incommunicable to any else And indeed Circumcision was so far from being a Seal of the Gospel Covenant or of their Interest in the Righteousness of Faith to the rest that were under it that it was rather Token unto them of Servitude and Bondage and such a Yoke that as the Apostles tell them neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear it Acts 15. 10 24. Gal. 5. 2. 3. Which yet it had not been had it been to them a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith or of the Gospel Covenant For that brings with it true Christian Liberty and Freedom Gal. 5. 1. SECT VI. AND therefore when the Apostle tells us Gal. 3. 16. that to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made He saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ He could not have the Covenant of Circumcision in his Eye as 't is generally concluded he had For as hath been plainly proved that was no other than a Covenant of Works or a Legal Covenant obliging all that were under it to a perfect Obedience to the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. And therefore as the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World was not derived unto him or to his Seed through the Righteousness of that Covenant So neither was Christ the Mediator of it He having obtained a more Excellent Ministry by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant which is established upon better Promises Heb. 8. 6. Better Promises not for the Substance of them in themselves considered For as God promised to be a God unto that People in
the Covenant of Works made at Mount Sinai and to take them for his Peculiar People upon Condition of their Obedience to the Law So in the Covenant of Circumcision I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed And I will give to thee and to thy Seed the Land of Canaan c. upon the same condition of Obedience Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations In both which the Promises themselves are as large and as full as can be desired And that with Respect to the Blessings of this Life as also of that which is to come So that the Promises of the Gospel Covenant it self cannot be better than were those under the Law for the substance of them or in themselves considered For what doth the Gospel promise more The betterness therefore of this Evangelical Covenant whereof Christ is the onely Mediator and Surety must of necessity consist in the terms of it the Promises thereof being free and Absolute and onely to be Received by Faith which the forementioned Covenants were not And therefore called the Word of Faith which we Preach Rom. 10. 6 7 8. That if thou shalt Confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine Heart that God raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved He had told us before that Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man which doth these things shall live by them But saith he the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise c. So likewise Gal. 3. 21 22. If there had been a Law which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law But the Scripture hath Concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe So also Rom. 4. 14. If they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the promise made of none effect Therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace that the Promise might be sure to all the Seed The Gospel Covenant therefore we see is free and Absolute Proclaiming Liberty to the Captives c. Isa 61. 1 2. And declareth that to him that worketh not but believeth on him that Justifieth the ungodly his Faith shall be counted to him for Righteousness Rom. 4. 4 5. Whereas the Covenant at Sinai and that of Circumcision was clog'd with conditions of perfect Obedience unto the whole Law of God and therefore Impossible to be performed For the faultiness of both which in that respect they are therefore now Abollished So that Christ was not the Mediator of either of these but of this better Covenant which is Established upon these better Promises § 2. Besides when the Apostle tells us That to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made he saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ He could not have the Covenant of Circumcision in his Eye Because the Promises of that Covenant were expresly made unto Seeds as of many Gen. 17. 7 8. 9. I will Establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations plainly and expresly Plural And I will give to thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a stranger and I will be their God still expresly in the Plural and not in the Singular Number And so runs the Obligation also Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations Those words of the Apostle therefore Gal. 3. 16. cannot possibly refer to the Promises contained in the Covenant of Circumcision as it hath been generally though mistakingly imagined they do But must of necessity refer to that Evangelical Covenant first Recorded Gen. 12. 2 3. I will make of thee saith God to Abraham there a Great Nation and I will Bless thee and make thy Name Great and thou shalt be a Blessing And I will bless them that Bless thee and Curse him that Curseth thee And in thee shall all Families of the Earth be Blessed Which latter Promise is afterwards more fully Explained Gen. 22. 18. And in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed In which respect well might the Apostle say that to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made he saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ For those Gospel Promises can be understood in no other Sence but as of one For it is plain that it is Christ alone that is the Promised Seed there spoken of In whom God there promiseth that all the Nations of the Earth should be Blessed To him therefore all the Promises of the Gospel were first made Psal 89. 27 28 29. In him they are all yea and Amen 2 Cor. 1. 20. And from him alone are they to be Communicated to all his Members Isa 49. 6 8 9. Jo. 1. 16. Jo. 6. 27. Gal. 3. 29. Some refer Gal. 3. 16. to Gen. 17. 7. But I conceive the Apostle hath here a direct and special Eye to that Promise Gen. 22. 18. In thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed which runs directly parallel both in Terms and Sence with the Promise given to Abraham Gen. 12. 3. which was before pleaded by him Gal. 3. 8. And if it be Objected that the Promise there is made of or concerning Abrahams Seed and not to his Seed Let it be minded that all the Promises made of this Seed viz. Christ in one respect may be said to be made to this Seed in another because they are Originally Established in the Everlasting Covenant of Redemption that was between the Father and him Mr. Cox in his Discourse of the Covenants page 77. 78 79. SECT VII AND in this respect it is yet further Observable That as God promiseth Abraham Gen. 22. 18. That in his Seed should all the Nations of the Earth be blessed plainly speaking of Christ the Promised Seed So in the words just before he was also Expresly told And thy Seed shall Possess the Gate of his Enemies Not their Enemies but his Enemies expresly in the Singular whereas the Promises of the Covenant of Circumcision were all his Expresly in the Plural Number So that as the Apostle might justly say in Reference to this Gospel Covenant that to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made not a single Promise onely but the Promises So it is as evident that Seed there must of necessity be understood in the Singular Number For as it is by Christs Single Prowess that both his and his Peoples Enemies are vanquisht Isa 63. 3. John 16. ult In which respect Abraham was told And thy Seed shall Possess the Gate of his Enemies So it is as evident that the following Promise And in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed The Seed there spoken of must of necessity also be understood in
8 9. as well as those mentioned Gen. 2. Exod. 19. Exod. 20. and Deut. 29. were all Conditional and therefore Legal Covenants requiring strict and perfect Obedience as the Condition propounded in order to the Enjoyment of the Mercies Contained in them Which are all of them therefore done away in Christ So on the other hand we see that the Covenant that God made with Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. Gen. 17. 2 3 4. and Gen. 22. 16 17 18. was wholly Free and Absolute and therefore purely Evangelical and that which never shall be disannulled being Confirmed both by Word and Oath and consequently sure to all the Seed therein concerned For as therein God hath Absolutely promised that in Christ the Promised Seed all the Nations of the Earth shall be Blessed which according to the whole Current of the Scriptures must of necessity be limitted to the Elect or the true Believers of all Nations that all that shall be blessed shall be blessed by this means and no other way So lest it should be suspected that any Condition should start up whereby they might either be hindered from obtaining the Promised Blessing or forfeit it when in Possession thereof we are therefore also told that God having raised up his Son Jesus hath sent him to Bless us by turning away every one of us from his Iniquities And it is as plain that of the same Nature and Tenor is â—he Covenant mentioned Deut. 30. 6. As was also the Covenant which God made with Noah Gen. 9. 9 10 11. As also those mentioned Jer. 31. 31 32 33. Jer. 32. 38 39 40. Ezek. 36. 25 26 27. Heb. 8. 7 8 9 10 11. For as God Promiseth to the Israelites Deut. 30. 6. That he will Circumcise their Heart and the Heart of their Seed to Love the Lord their God with all their Heart and with all their Soul that thy mightlive So in Jer. 31. Jer. 32. and Heb. 8. the Lord there also promiseth unto the House of Israel and to the House of Judah after those Days to put his Law in their Inward parts and to Write it in their Hearts and that as he will not turn away from them to do them good so neither shall they depart from him c. Wherein as well as in the Gospel Covenant before mentioned which the Believing Gentiles are now under the terms are not Conditional or failable I will if ye will But Absolute and Soveraign I will and ye shall So that that which God had before required as the Condition of the Covenant of Works and was not before Promised is now become a main Branch of the Covenant of Promise it self § 2. And therefore when the Apostle tells us Gal. 3. 21. That if there had been a Law given that could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law from hence it appears that the Gospel Covenant doth more for us than the Legal did For it giveth Life and then Enables to the performance of that which it requireth of us whereas from what the Apostle there tells us it appears that the Legal Covenant did not give Life and that it failed because it was Conditional The Law indeed shews us our Duty but gives no strength to perform it The Gospel Covenant doth both by Writing the Law in the Heart Hence it is truely and properly a Covenant of Grace as not depending at all upon Works For if it be of Works then it is no more Grace otherwise Work is no more Work Rom. 11. 6. And if by Grace then it is no more of Works Otherwise Grace is no more Grace And therefore Christ is said to have obtained a more Excellent Ministry than that of Moses by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant which is Established upon better Promises Heb. 8. 6. 'T is true the Promises for the Substance of them as hath been before observed are the same as before I will be their God and they shall be my People But now the terms are altered For whereas before it depended upon the Works of our Obedience Now Faith alone is required in order to the receiving and consequently in order to our participation of them Thus Paul directs the Jaylor Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved Acts 16. 31. So Rom. 4. 5. To him that worketh not but believeth on him that Justifieth the ungodly his Faith is Counted for Righteousness And in like manner the Apostle tells us Gal. 3. 22. That the Scripture hath Concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe Not that Believing is the Condition of the Promise as 't is generally Asserted but a Designation rather of the Persons to whom the Promise is given that is to Believers or a Declaration of the Way in which the Promise is given that is in a way of Believing For indeed Faith is not the Condition but the Fruit of the Promise For if it be the Condition either it must be wrought by us of our selves Or it must be given us of God If it be to be wrought by our selves Then is the Promise of Grace worse and harder than the Covenant of Works which God made with our First Parent For though it was required of Adam to do and live yet he had then a Power of Doing But so have not we of Believing Yea no more was required of him than was put into his Nature For the Covenant of Works was Written in his Nature but so is not Faith in ours If it be given us of God as the Scripture doth plainly affirm it is Eph. 2. 8. For by Grace are ye saved through Faith and that not of your selves it is the Gift of God then it is given by vertue of some Promise For God gives nothing but by vertue of some Promise which Promise can be no other than the Free Promise the Promise of Grace From whence it plainly follows that the Covenant of Grace is wholly free and Absolute Since Faith it self is the Fruit and therefore cannot be the Condition thereof § 3. So that the Material Difference between the Covenant of Grace and that of Works Consisteth in the Different Terms of either The one being Conditional the other free and Absolute Not that we are therefore discharged from Duty under the Gospel For as the Apostle tells us by way of Answer to the same Objection Rom. 3. 31. Do we then make void the Law through Faith God forbid yea we Establish the Law Because that Obedience which was before the Obedience of Servants and Slaves is now become Filial or Son like Not for Life as under the Legal Covenant but from a Principle of Life already received which Powerfully Constraineth and Effectually Enableth unto the Love and Service of God 2 Cor. 5. 14. 15. Tit. 2. 11 12. Tit. 3. 8. It is certain therefore that Working is required under the Covenant of Grace as much as under
respecting an Antecedent Obedience in us so were all those which were peculiar unto the Covenant of Sinai they were indeed also of Grace in that the Reward did infinitely exceed the Merit of our Obedience But yet they all supposed it and the Subject of them was formally Reward onely In the Covenant of Grace it is not so For sundry of the Promises thereof are the means of our being taken into Covenant of our entering into Covenant with God The First Covenant Absolute was Established on Promises in that when Men were actually taken into it they were encouraged unto Obedience by the Promise of a future Reward But these Promises namely of the Pardon of Sin and Writing of the Law in our Hearts which the Apostle expresly Insisteth on as the Peculiar Promises of this New Covenant do take place and are Effectual Antecedently unto our Covenant Obedience For although Faith be required in order of Nature Antecedently unto our actual Receiving of the Pardon of Sin yet is that Faith it self wrought in us by the Grace of the Promise and so its Precedency to Pardon respects onely the Order that God hath Appointed in the Communion of the Benefits of the Covenant and intends not that the Pardon of Sin i◠the Reward of our Faith § 4. We shall Conclude what concerns this Subject with another Passage of the Doctors to the same purpose with the former in his Acurate and Judicious Discourse Entituled The Doctrine of Justification through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ Explained Confirmed and Vindicated page 156. It is commonly said saith he that Faith and New Obedience are the Condition of the New Covenant But yet because of the Ambiguous Signification and various use of that Term Condition we cannot certainly understand what is Intended in the Assertion If no more be Intended but that these things though promised in the Covenant and wrought in us by the Grace of God are yet Duties indispensibly required of us in order unto the Participation and Enjoyment of the full end of the Covenant in Glory it is unquestionably true But if it be intended that they are such a Condition of the Covenant as to be by us performed Antecedently unto the Participation of any Grace Mercy or Priviledge of it so as that they should be the Consideration and Procuring Causes of them that they should be all of them as some speak the Reward of our Faith and Obedience it is most false and not onely contrary to Express Testimonies of Scripture but destructive of the Nature of the Covenant it self SECT XVI § 1. LAstly Whereas we do affirm That though according to the Law of Circumcision Infants were Admitted and Reckoned as Members of the Jewish Church yet that Old Constitution being now pulled down and all the Appurtenances and Priviledges thereunto belonging being now Repealed a New Church State according to the Nature of the Gospel Administration is now Erected into which none are Admitted a◠Members but Professing Believers onely By way of Reply hereunto we are told That Infants Relation to the Covenant and the Universal Church as Members was not Repealed by Christ because it was not founded onely on the Law of Moses which if it had say you it were as such Repealed But Infant Church-Membership taking place as an Ordinance of God before Circumcision was Enjoyned or the Ceremonial Law Instituted why then should it cease with it To the same purpose we are also further told That it was no part of the Typical Administration but a Moral Institution of God even from the Beginning of the World God ever having made a distinction between the Seed of the Faithful and the Seed of the Wicked as Visibly belonging to the several Kingdoms of God and of Satan § 2. To this we Reply First That this Notion of Infants Church-Membership before the Law of Circumcision is but a bare Affirmation without Proof For if it be so that Infant Church-Membership did indeed take place as an Ordinance of God before Circumcision where is that Ordinance Why are we not directed to some place of Scripture where we may find it Hath God Revealed it to some and to none else Or in what Antient Father shall we find it Did any one ever say so before now Therefore with what Confidence soever we are now told That it was no part of the Typical Administration but a Moral Institution of God even from the Beginning of the World unless we are directed where to find that Institution whatever others do we dare not presume to be Wise above what is Written Mal. 2. 15. is indeed alledged And wherefore one That he might seek a Godly Seed But that can be understood of no other than a Legitimate Seed in opposition to a Spurious Off-spring And thus the Assembly do in their Annotations carry the Sence of the place As likewise doth Calvin Camer and divers others § 3. Secondly Whereas we are told That God ever made a Distinction between the Seed of the Faithful and the Seed of the Wicked What Distinction is it that is Intended Did God single them out and Separate them by any Visible Sign or Character before the Law of Circumcision It is evident he did not Or did God distinguish them by his Providential Care of them or Provision for them more than others The Scripture is silent as to this also Or did God Love them with a saving Love more than the Children of Unbelievers as visibly belonging to the several Kingdoms of God and of Satan so as that all the Children of Believers from Adam to Abraham belonged to the Kingdom of God and all the Children of Unbelievers belonged unto the Kingdom of Satan This is indeed suggested by you but not proved But then if this was always the state of the Case between Believers and Unbelievers as to their Respective Seeds and that both before and since the Flood and that it so continues Then according to this Rule woe unto all the Children of Unbelievers most deplorable and desperate i◠their State without any ground of Comfort or Hope of Relief contrary to the Experience of all Ages whilst we are assured that Grace is now Extended to the Gentiles who were not the Children of Believers whilst the Natural Branches the Children of Believing Abraham are cut off But then we would willingly know when the Sons of God took the Daughters of Men and all Flesh had Corrupted it's way To what Kingdom did the Children of Believers belong then Did not the Seed of Believers grow prophane and wicked as well as others That is undeniable And did not the Seed of Unbelievers some of them prove Pious and Godly This also appears even in Abraham himself whose Father was an Idolater as is probably supposed he himself being bred up in Idolatry § 4. Thirdly Whereas it is suggested that there was always from the beginning a Lineal Successive Conveyance of Grace from the Parent to the Child If so
of their Hopeful Children and now made Publick for the Support of all Christians Sorrowing on the same or any other Account To which is added a Sermon Preached for the Funeral of that Excellent and Religious Gentleman John Vpton of Lupton Esq By John Flavel Preacher of the Gospel at Dartmouth in Devon Price bound One Shilling 3. A Confession of Faith put forth by the Elders and Brethren of many Congregations of Christians Baptized upon Profession of their Faith in London and the Country With an Appendix concerning Baptism Price bound One Shilling 4. THe Conviction of Worldly Vanity Or The Wandring Prodigal and his Return in Two Parts PART I. Containing his Debate with himself about his setting forward in search of the Palace of Worldly Felicity His Hearkning to the Advice of Folly and submitting himself to her Conduct the manner of her furnishing him out of the Progress he made and the various Adventures he met with by the way As also the Entertainment he found at his Arrival and his Riotous Living there with his Description of the Vices Reigning therein PART II. Giving a Full Account of his Miraculous Escape from the Palace of Worldly Felicity Of the Glorious Prospect he had of the Coelestial City and of the Progress he made towards it under the Conduct of Divine Grace With the manner of his Proceeding 〈◊〉 the several Occurrences he met with by the way His Arrival 〈◊〉 Palace of Vertue and True Felicity and his joyful Reception there His Excellent Description thereof and of the Divine and Moral Virtues which he found therein both Pleasant and Profitable Delivered under the Similitude of A Wandring Youth Illustrated with Proper Cutts Price bound One Shilling 5. INstructions for Children Or The Child's and Youth's Delight Teaching an easie way to Spell and Read True English Containing the Father's Godly Advice Directing Parents in a right and spiritual manner to Educate their Children With a Scripture Catechism wherein all the Chief Principles of True Christianity are clearly opened Together with many other things both Pleasant and Useful for the Education of Children Written by B. Keach Author of War with the Devil Recommended to the Use of all Parents and School-masters by H. Knollys Price Six Pence 6. ENgland's Jests Refin'd and Improv'd Being a choice Collection of the Merriest Jests Smartest Repartees Wittiest Sayings and most Notable Bulls dispers'd through the several Tracts on those Subjects With many new Ones never before Printed To which are Added Fourteen Ingenious Characters drawn to the Life The whole Work compil'd with great Care and Exactness And may serve as the Witty-man's Companion the Busie-man's Diversion and the Melancholy-man's Physick and Recreation The Second Edition with Additions of several Jests Witty Sayings Bulls and Two New Characters Calculated for the Innocent Spending of the Winter Evenings by H. C. Price bound One Shilling 7. A Present for Ladies The Nymphs of Diana Or The Excellencies of Women-kind describ'd as well in their External Beauty as Internal Virtue being an Advocate for the Fair Sex Comprized in an Illustrious History of it Represented not only in Lively and Pathetical Discourses grounded upon Reason but in sundry rare Examples of Virtuous Love Piety Prudence Modesty Chastity Patience Humility Temperance Conduct Constancy and Firmness of Mind with what else in the like Nature is necessary to the Accomplishment of the most Celebrated Beauties With other Examples of Women skill'd in the most curious Arts and Sciences To which are Added the Examples of Warlike Women their Noble Exploits and Victories With the Prophecies and Predictions of the Sybils in Relation to our Saviour Christ c. And as an Appendix The Character of a Virtuous Woman in all 〈◊〉 Capacities viz. of a Virgin of a Wife and of a Widdow Wherein is shew'd the happiness that accrues to Man in the possession of so great a Blessing as a Virtuous Woman with the Reasons why Man's Happiness is not Compleat on Earth without the Charming Creature Woman The whole Work Enrich'd and Intermix'd with Curious Poetry and Delicate Fancies suitable to so Charming a Subject Price bound One Shilling 8. THe True Fortune-Teller Or Guide to Knowledge Discovering the whole Art of Chyromancy Physiognomy Metoposcopy and Astrology Containing 1. A Description of the Planets their Power and Influence over the Bodies of Men Women and Children 2. Of the several Lines Mounts Marks Angles and Sacred Characters in the Hand and Wrist and by what Planets they are Govern'd as to good and bad Fortune 3. Of Physiognomy 4. Observations on the Eyes Eyebrows Nose Chin Neck Hair Beard and Face 5. Metoposcopy or the signification of the Lines in the Face 6. Of Moles and their significations 7. Of Dreams and their Interpretations 8. Of Nativities and their Calculation 9. Of the Rod by which hidden Treasure is found 10. Of Marriages and at what time any Person shall be Married 11. Rules to know the danger of Death 12. Of good and bad Days 13. The manner of resolving doubtful Questions as to Friends Marriages places of Abode Health Prosperity or Adversity Love or Business 14. Of Pythagoras his Wheel of Fortune 15. Of the good and days in each Month relating to Health To which are Added Aristotles Observations on the Heavens their Motion Of Fiery Meteors Thunder Lightning Eclipses Comets Earth-quakes and Whirl-winds Illustrated with several Proper Figures The Second Edition Price bound One shilling 9 A Pleasant and Compendious History of the first Inventers and Instituters of the most Famous Arts Mysteries Laws Customs and Manners in the whole WORLD Together with many other Rarities and Remarkable things Rarely known and never before made publick To which is added Several Curious Inventions peculiarly Attributed to England and English-men The whole Work Alphabetically Digested and very helpful to the Readers of History Price bound One Shilling FINIS