to it since they are forced to fly to such an Argument as this to prove Circumcision to be a Gospel Covenant I shall not now enter upon the Debate Whether the Ceremonial Law was a part of the Covenant of Works or not tho' I must say I judge it was an Appendix to it and that it appertained to the First Covenant the Apostle affirms Heb. 9.1 They are to clear up this viz. How the Ceremonial Law is part of the First Covenant and yet no part of the Covenant of Works 2. Yet their Work lies not so much in that neither as it doth in this Respect viz. They are to prove That the Ceremonial Law was part of the Covenant of Grace which as yet none of them that I ever heard of have attempted to do tho' we grant it was a Shadow of it when they have proved that they have in the 3. Third Place another Task viz. To prove that Circumcision was â— part of the Ceremonial Law for tho' it was a Figure or a Sign yet it may be doubted of Whether it was a part of that Law or not Yet 4. It might be a part of or appertain unto the Sinai Covenant for 1 t is called a Covenant that 's evident but Where is the Ceremonial Law â—o called 2. It gave the Children of Israel an Assurance of the Sinai â—ovenant and that the Apostle calls The great and chiefest Advâ—ntage â—hey had by it 3. It also was of the same nature and quality and had â—e like Promises annexed to it upon their Obedience and the same â—hreatning upon their Disobedience 4. It obliged those who were Cirâ—umcised to keep the said Law Gal. 5.3 It was I have proved of the â—â—me Nature and Quality i. e. a Conditional Covenant and like Promise â—f Earthly Blessings and like Threatnings annexed to it Secondly Was not the Ceremonial Law a Part of that Law St. Paul â—alls The Hand-Writing of Ordinances that was against us which was contrary 〈◊〉 us and took it out of the way nailing it to his Cross Col. 2.14 If Cirâ—â—mcision was part of this Law sure it did not appertain to the Gospel or â—ew Covenant much less the Seal of it for then it could not be against us but for us not contrary to us but agreeable to us as a Choice Blessing 2. And if the Covenant of Circumcision was a Part of the Ceremonial Law 't is evident that Covenant is abolished and if the Covenant be cancelled or abolished What good will the Seal do them 3. That the Ceremonial Law was part of the First Covenant 't is evident Heb. 9.1 2. Then verily the First Covenant had also Ordinances of Divine Service and Worldly Sanctuary The Old Covenant comprehended not only the Sinai ministration as a Covenant of Works do this and live but also the whole Mosaical Oeconomy and Aronical Priesthood Sacrifices and all manner of shadowing Rites and Ordinances whatsoever amongst which Old Covenant Rites or Legal Ordinances Circumcision was one of the chief so that this makes against them 4. All the Holiness and Sanctification of the Ceremonial Law only appertained to the Flesh and therefore no part of the New Covenant Heb. 9.13 What tho' it was dedicated by Blood it was but Typical Blood Blood of Bulls and Goats that could not take away Sin purge the Conscience nor make any thing perfect Mr. Elton on Colossians speaking of Col. 2. ver 14. puts forth this Question viz. Quest. How were the Legal Ceremonies of the Jews a Hand-Writing of Ordinances Answ. I answer saith he they were so in regard of their Use to the Jews who in using them as it were Subscribed to their own Guiltiness of Death and Damnation In using Circumcision they made known they had ordinal Sin and were guilty of it their Washings shewed they were exceeding filthy in God's sight and so guilty of the Curse of the Law and so did their Sacrifices Hence God in infinite Mercy sent his Son to pay our Debts and he has satisfied Divine Justice and so has cancelled this Hand-Writing that witnessed our Guiltiness and bound us over to Punishment What good will it do them to grant That Circumcision was part of the Law I know not these Things considered For they evident it is were bound exactly to keep all the Laws Statutes and Ordinances of that Law which I think a Learned Man says were more then 300 nay and if they continued not in doing all these Things they were Cursed when they sate down and when they rose up wheâ— they went abroad and when they came home see Deut 27.20 to 26. Gal. â—â— 10. Cursed is he that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of tâ—â— Law to do them Mind it well all Things in the whole Book of the Lawâ— not only the Ten Precepts but all things contained in the Ceremonial Laâ— also 6. Therefore tho' the Blood of Bulls Goats and Heifers are called thâ— Blood of the Covenant yet it was not the Blood of the New Covenanâ— but of the Old neither the First Covenant was dedicated without Blood Heb. 9.18 True the Blood of the Old Covenant figured the Blood of the New yet that doth no more prove the Ceremonial Law was part of the New Covenant then the Shadow can be proved to be the Substance and therefore tho' those Sacrifices pointed to Christ yet that Law was part of the Covenant of Works i. e. no Life by it In those Sacrifices God's Soul had no Pleasure 7. Nor could they see or look beyond those things which are abolished see 2 Cor. 3.13 From hence I argue If the Ceremonial Law was a Hand-Writing i. e. a Bond or Obligation of Conviction Accusation and Condemnation to the Jews binding them farther to the Curse of the Moral Law it was no part of the Covenant of Grace but the former is true Ergo Therefore whatever gracious Design God had in it or however useful to the Elect yet in it self it was a Law of Works tho' given in Subserviency to the Gospel Law as the Sinai Law was 6. Obj. God gave himself to Abraham to be his God and the God of his Seed in the Covenant of Circumcision or made over himself by way of special Interest to them in it so Mr. Flavell positively affirms Therefore it was the Covenant of Grace Answ. I Answer This I am persuaded is the grand Cause of their great boldness and mistake in affirming the Covenant of Circumcision was the Covenant of Grace and therefore ought the more carefully to be Examined Considered and Answered for if Mr. Flavel and the rest of our Brethren are right in this Assertion i. e. That God gave himself in Circumcision to Abraham and to all his Seed to be their God by way of special Interest they say a great deal but this we deny 1. As to Abraham God gave himself to him to be his God yea gave him special Interest in himself but it was before he
THE Ax laid to the Root CONTAINING An EXPOSITION of that Metaphorical Text of Holy Scripture MAT. 3.10 PART II. WHEREIN Mr. Iohn Flavel's last Grand Arguments in his Vindiciarum Vindex to prove Circumcision a Gospel-Covenant are answered Also a brief Reply To Mr. Rothwell's late Treatise Intituled Paedo-Baptismus vindicatus as to what seems most material To which is Added â—ome short Reflections by way of Confutation of a Book Newly published by Mr. Ioshua Exell Minister of the Gospel Intituled A Serious Enquiry into and certain producing of plain and express Proofs that John Baptist did as certainly baptize Infants as the Adult JOB 6.25 How forcible are right words but what doth your arguing reprove â—â—ndon Printed for the Author and are to be sâ—â—â—â—y Iohn Harris at the Harrow in the Poultrey â—â—â—â— ERRATA PAg. 2 line 39. r. disprove p. 4. line 26 for ordinal r. original p. 4. l. 32. for the Law r. this p. 11. l. 12. for 12. r. 2. p. 13. l. 14. for Rite r. Right in p. 29. l. 33. for Circumcision r. Commission p. 13. l. 28. for usurb'd r. absurd p. 16. l. 2. blot out against p. 20. l. 12. a false point r. Covenant-Holy blot out the Interrogation Point and put a Colon after Holy p. 24. l. 29. for Abraham r. God p. 34. l. 12. for Rite r. Right p. 34. l. 34. for Rite r. Right p. 38 l. 10. for rom r. from p. 39. l. 10. for weighty r. mighty p. 41. l. 39. for prophaned r. prophane p. 39. l. 40. for prophaned r. prophane p. 43. l. 5. for penitent r. penitents p. 43. l. 6 for must r. might p. 46. l. 25. for internals r. internal p. 47. l. 37. blot out Truth p. 48. l. 26 blot out the. THE Ax laid to the Root c. Sermon III. PART II. MAT. III. ver 10. And now also the Ax is laid to the Root of the Trees every Tree therefore that bringeth not forth good Fruit is hewn down and cast into the Fire Beloved I Have already opened the Scope and Coherence of this Place of Holy Scripture as also the Parts and Terms and then took notice of one or two Points of Doctrine That which I have largely Prosecuted is this viz. Doct. Now the Dispensation is changed to be of the Natural Root viz. Of the National Church of the Iews the Seed of Abraham or Children of Believers according to the Flesh is no Ground for Church-Membership 't is no Argument to be admitted into the Gospel-Church or to Gospel-Baptism We have proved that there were Two Covenants made with Abraham â—ne with him and his natural Seed as such signified by Agar the Bondâ—oman the other made with him and his spiritual Seed as such signified 〈◊〉 Sarah the Free woman and also have clearly made it appear That â—â—e Covenant of Circumcision did not appertain to the Covenant of â—race but that it was a Rite of the Legal Covenant We shall now proceed to Answer the other Objections having the last Day only insisted upon One. 2. Obj. Circumcision was the Type of Baptism 1. Answ. If the Circumcision of the Heart was the Antitype of Circumcision in the Flesh then certainly Baptism was not could not be the Antitype thereof but this the Holy Ghost fully intimates was the Antitype of it see 1 Col. 2.12.13 Rom. 2.29 See Dr. Taylor as recited in Rector Rectified p. 9 10 11. 2. If Baptism and Circumcision were both in Force together for some time then Baptism is not the Antitype of nor did it come in the room of Circumcision but that they were both in Force together for some time I shewed before Iohn and the Disciples of Christ Baptized Ioh. 4.1 2. sometime before Circumcision was nailed to the Cross or did cease Can one thing come in the room or place of another till the other is actually and legally removed and took away Why now since these Two Rites had a Being together I affirm as I have formerly done one could not be the Type of the other A Type can abide no longer then till the Antitype is come therefore Circumcision was not the Type of Baptism 3 dly and lastly As to this I see not indeed how one Thing that was a Figure could be the proper Shadow or Type of a Figure sure no Wise Man has Reason so to think all may see that Baptism it self is called a Figure 1 Pet. 3.21 And this is sufficient to remove the Second Objection 3. Obj. The Third Objection I mentioned is this viz. Infants were once in Covenant and never cast out therefore they are in still See Mr. Rothwell's Paedo-Baptism Answ. I Answer Tho' Infants were in Covenant under the Law in the Legal Church of the Jews and that by God's Appointment Gen. 17.7 which is not denied Yet what of this their being once Members of the Iewish Church doth not prove them to be Members of the Gospel Church They had then many outward Privileges which we under the Gospel have not they went all off when the Ax was laid to the Root i. e. When the Old Covenant was abâ—ogated and the Old Church State cut down then their Old Church Members fell likewise The Branches cannot stand when the Tree is cut down or rooted up 2. We have proved the Covenant for in Covenanting of Infants under the Law was no Gospel Covenant and therefore this Objection hatâ— nothing in it to hurt us unless it can be proved they were taken a-new into the Gospel Church or Gospel Covenant which we positively deny and they can't disprove For according to that Maxim Omnis Privati intimat babitum you know that every Dispossession implyeth a Possessâ—â—on Infants therefore cannot be cast out of the Gospel Covenant or Goâ—â—pel Church unless they had been first received into it therefore they muâ—â— prove if they can they are in the Time of the Gospel taken in as Meâ—â—bers if so I will not undertake to prove them cast out but I am sure at the Dissolution of the National Church of the Jews they lost their Right of Church Membership and God hath not constituted another National Church under the Gospel to bring in the carnal Seed again but the Church is now purely Congregational God's Spiritual Temple is built up with spiritual and lively Stones 1 Pet. 2.4 5. Ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house an holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. Obj. 4. Circumcision was part of the Ceremonial Law Thus I find Mr. Iohn Flavel expresses himself in his Vindiciarum Vindex in Answer to Mr. Philip Cary pag. 214. viz. If Circumcision be part of the Ceremonial Law and the Ceremonial Law was dedicated by Blood and whatsoever is so dedicated is by you confessed no part of the Covenant of Works then Circumcision can be no part of the Covenant of Works c. But it is so Ergo. Answ. 1. I Answer It argues these Men are hard put
all Mosaical Rites ended so did the Covenant of Circumcision also God never said he would be the God of Abraham's natural Seed as such as he gave himself to him and to all his true spiritual Seed for to them he gives himself or an Interest in all God is or has so far as communicative even for ever and ever or to all Eternity the Covenant of Grace being ordered in all things and sure 2 Sam. 23.5 'T is impossible this Covenant and Covenant Blessings which is comprehensive of all Grace here and Glory hereafter should referr to a certain Period of time and since he was not thus in Covenant with Abraham's carnal Seed as such 't is evident the Covenant of Circumcision tho' called an Everlasting Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace And so much to this Objection 8. Obj. There was never but one Covenant of Works and that God made with Adam and in him with all his Postâ—rity therefore the Covenant of Circumcision did not appertain in the Covenant of Works See Mr. Flavel Answ. First Our Controversie lies not so much about the Covenant of Works as given to Adam but about the Nature of Sinai Covenant since Circumcision appears to be of the same Nature with that I do not say in every respect there is no difference between the Covenant of Works made with Adam and that made with the Peopâ—e of Israel though theâ— differ not Essentially in Substance 't is all one and the same Covenant viz. Requiring compleat and perfect Righteousness 2. Therefore tho' there is but one Covenant of Works yet there was more than one Addition or Administration of the said Covenant This is evident although given upon a different end purpose and design by the Lord. Adam's Covenant I grant had one end and design and the Sinai Covenant of Works had another yet may be both as to the Essence and Substance of them but one and the same Covenant Which doubtless is all Mr. Cary intends 1. Adam's Covenant had Happiness and Justification in it by his perfect Obedience thereto and he being able in the time of his Innocency to keep it he was thereby Justified 2. But the Second Edition or Ministration of the Covenant of Works given to the People of Israel tho' in its Nature and Quality it was a Covenant of Works and one with the former yet it was not given for Life or to Justifie them nor was it able so to do by reason of their Weakness through the Flesh Rom. 8.3 But it was added because of Transgression 1. To restrain Sin or as I said before to regulate their Lives under those external Covenant Transactions of God with them as his People as before expressed 2. To make Sin appear exceeding sinful 3. To discover to them what Righteousness it is God doth require in order to the Justification of the Soul in his Sight 4. To make known to them thereby what a Righteousness Man originally in the First Adam had and lost and 5 thly It did discover their woefull Condition to them and might put â—hem upon seeking Relief and Justification by the promised Seed and so be as a School-Master to bring them to Christ. 6. That in their Conformity to it to their utmost Power to continue â—ll those outward Blessings and Privileges to the House or Church of Israel as God promised to Abraham upon that Account for 't is evident the Promises made to them upon their Obedience were Earthly and Temporal Promises and not Spiritual Hence the Apostle saith the New Covenant is established upon better Promises And Now that the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Works as considered â—n it self notwithstanding the end and design of God therein I find many of our sound Protestant Divines do affirm tho' given with a merciful and gracious intention or in subserviency to the Gospel 1. It commanded or did require perfect or compleat Obedience 2. On these Terms Do and Live 3. It gave no strength nevertheless to perform what its just Demands were Hence the strength of Sin is called the Law it did Condemn but could not Save 4. Nor was there any Pardon or Remission of Sin by that Covenant for any Soul that broke it for He that despised against Moses's Law dyed without mercy under two or three witnesses Heb. 10.28 Moreover 5. It cursed all that did not continue in all Things that were contained in the whole Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 6. The Holy Ghost calls it the Old Covenant in contra distinction and direct Opposition to the Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant The law is not of faitâ— but the man that doth those things them shall live in them Gal. 3.12 And tho' Moses was the Mediator of that Covenant yet he was but a Typical Mediator and stood between God and them to plead for the Blessings of that Covenant and to prevent the Threatnings of Temporal Judgments for there was never but one Mediator between God and us upon a spiritual Account i. e. To stand between eternal Wrath and us or to make Peace with God for our Souls Take what the Learned Bishop Usher hath said about the Law as a Covenant of Works viz. Quest. How doth this Covenant i. e. The Covenant of Grace differ from that of Works Answ. His Answer is much every way for first in many Points the Law may be conceived by Reason but the Gospel in all Points is far above the reach of Man's Reason Secondly the Law commandeth to do good and giveth no strength the Gospel enableth us to do good the Holy Ghost writing the Law in our Hearts Thirdly The Law promised Life only the Gospel Righteousness also Fourthly The Law required perfect Obedience the Gospel the Righteousness of Faith Fifthly The Law revealeth Sin rebuketh us for Sin and leaves us in it but the Gospel doth reveal unto us Remission of Sins and freeth us from the Punishment belonging thereunto Sixthly The Law is the ministration of Wrath Condemnation and Death the Gospel is a ministry of Grace Justification and Life Seventhly The Law was grounded on Man's own Righteousness requiring of every Man in his own Person perfect Obedience Deut. 27.26 And in default for satisfaction everlasting Punishment Gal. 3.10 12. But the Gospel is grounded on the Righteousness of Christ admitting Payment and Performance in another in behalf of so many as receive it Gal. 3.13.14 Bishop Usher's Summ and Substance of Christian Religion p. 159. A multitude of Protestant Writers I might produce who all assert the same Doctrine And if the Sinai Covenant was not a Covenant of Works Why do all our Brethren say as it was a Covenant of Works 't is done away and Why doth the Apostle say Christ is the end of the Law as touching Righteousness It is not abolished or done away as 't is a Rule of Righteousness for as so it abides as a perpetual Rule and Law to us Therefore I wonder at Mr. Flavel's Out-crys against
Mr. Cary as if it was impossible for the Saints to be under the Covenant of Works under the former Dispensation and yet in the Covenant of Grace for I would know Whether or not they were not at that time under the Ministration of that Covenant but what tho' no sooner did they believe in Christ the Promised Seed but they were delivered from the Curse of the Law Nor is this any strange Thing For are not all now in these Days under the Dispensation of the Gospel yet untill Men and Women believe in Christ they abide still under the Curse of the Law of the First Covenant for Christ is not the end of the Law to all the World so as some erroneously assert i. e. all are justified in God's sight from the Curse of the Law but he is only the end of the Law touching Righteousness to every one that beleiveth to them and to no other Adult Person Therefore Men might be under the outward Dispensation of the Law of Works and yet through Faith be Justified and also others may be and are now under the Dispensation of the Gospel and yet for not believing in Christ be Condemned and under the Curse of the Law For the Gospel is not the Cause of our Sickness but our Cure none believing is the refusal of the Medicine So that there 's no Reason for him to say because we assert this That the Godly under that Dispensation hung mid-way betwixt Life and Death Justification and Condemnation and after Death mid-way betwixt Heaven and Hell p. 180. Therefore as all that lived under the Dispensation of the Law or Covenant of Works were saved by Faith in the Promise of Christ or by the Covenant of Grace Abraham saith our Saviour saw my Day and was glad so without Faith or Interest in Christ such that live under the Dispensation of the Gospel cannot be saved nor are they delivered from the Curse of the Law or Covenant of Works Therefore to conclude with this 't is evident the Covenant of Works though but one as to the substance of it yet there was several Ministrations of it as it was given also upon different Ends and Designs by the Lord And therefore because the said Covenant of Works was first given to Adam by vertue of which he was accepted and justified in his Innocency Could not God give forth a Second Addition Ministration or Transcript of his Righteousness and Holy Law requiring perfect Obedience though not to Justification yet to aggravate their Sin and so to their just Condemnation And doth not the Apostle assert the same Thing Rom. 3.19 20. compared with Rom. 7.13 Gal. 3.19 But saith Bishop Usher Quest. Doth not God wrong to Men to require of him that he is not able to perform Answ. He Answers No for God made Man so that he might have performed it but he by Sin spoiled himself and Posterity of those Gifts Therefore To proceed I do affirm That always generally when the Apostle speaks of the Old Covenant or Covenant of Works he passes by in silence the Covenant made with Adam and more immediately and directly applies it unto the Sinai Covenant and to that of Circumcision as all careful Readers who read the Epistles to the Romans Galatians and to the Hebrews may clearly find And farther to evince the Truth we contend for 't is evident That although there is and ever was but one Covenant of Grace yet nothing is more plain then that there were several distinct Additions of it altho' we say the Promise or Gospel Covenant was one and the same in all Ages in respect of the Things promised with the Nature and Quality thereof which is a free and absolute Covenant without Works or Conditions of foreseen Acts of Obedience or Righteousness done by the Creature whatsoever Rom. 4.5 The Substance and Essential Part of this Gospel Covenant as to the Promises of it is Christ Faith a New Heart Regeneration Remission of Sins Sanctification Perseverance and everlasting Life Yet this Evangelical Covenant had divers Forms Additions or Transcripts of it which signified those Things and the various Sanctions by which it was given forth and confirmed To Adam the Promise of it was under the Name Of the Seed of the Woman bruising the Head of the Serpent To Enoch Noah c. in other Terms To Abraham under the Name of His Seed in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed To Moses by the Name of A great Prophet among his Brethren and it was signified also unto him under dark Shadows and Sacrifices Unto David under the Name of A Successour in his Kingdom To other Prophets more clearer still made known Unto as a Child is born a Woman shall compass a Man a New Covenant I will make c In the New Testament in plain Words We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord 2 Cor. 3.18 But now because there were so many Additions or Ministrations of the Gospel or New Covenant Doth it follow there are so many New Covenants This being so Mr. Flavel hath done nothing to remove Mr. Cary's Arguments but they stand firm For he says not That the Sinai Ministration of the Covenant of Works was ordained to justifie Mankind nor was it possible it could after a Man had sinned and yet in its Nature an absolute Covenant of Works or do for Life or Perish The Man that doeth these Things shall live in them Obj. 9. Circumcision could not oblige the Iews in its own Nature to keep the whole Law because Paul Circumcised Timothy If in the very Nature of the Act it had bound Timothy to keep the Law for Iustification how could it have been Paul's Liberty so to do saith Mr. Flavel which he asserts it was Gal. 2.3 4. p. 226. Answ. 1. That Circumcision did oblige the Jews to keep the whole Law is evident Gal. 5.3 and as I hinted before our Learned Annotators on the said place speak the same Thing positively Take more largely their very Words They were obliged to one Part of the Law they must be obliged to all other Parts of it besides that Circumcision was an owning and professing Subjection to the whole Law c. Obj. But did not the Fathers then by being Circumcised acknowledge themselves Debtors to the Law he Answers Yes they did acknowledge themselves bound to the observation of it and to endure upon the breaking of it the Curse of it but they were discharged from that Obligation by believing in Christ who was made a Curse for them that he might redeem them from the Curse of the Law Thus Pool's Annotations 2. But as to Paul's Circumcising Timothy it was when he knew Circumcision was abolished and therefore it could not oblige him Paul well knew to keep the Law Sith no Law in its own Nature can oblige any Person according to the Nature and Quality of it when 't is abrogated and in no force tho' he saw
and primary End of it he proves not for the direct and more immediate End and Design thereof we have proved was something else although we grant it was a dark Sign Type or Figure of that they speak of viz. to discover the Corruption of Nature by sin and the Mortification thereof and so also did most of the Ceremonies of the Law but doth it therefore follow those Ceremonies and so Circumcision did not appertain to that Ministration of the Covenant of Works God gave by Moses to the People of Israel which is abrogated and done away Must the Shadow or Sign be part of the Substance or belong or appertain to the Substance Wherefore as Mr. Cary well saith until they can prove the Sinai Covenant and Ceremonial Law c. not to be in their own Nature a Covenant of Works this which they object here has nothing in it since Sacrifices the Passover c. as well as Circumcision were Types of Christ and other Gospel-Mysteries likewise and indeed Mr. Flavel seems to me to run upon a Mistake all along in his Answer to Mr. Cary as if the latter makes no distinction between Adam's Covenant of Works and those after Administrations of the same Old Covenant for Mr. Cary I am satisfied means no more than what I have said viz. That they agree in Nature and Quality tho' Adam had Life and Justification by his own perfect Obedience unto that Law or Covenant while he stood and it was given to him to that end yet God gave not the Sinai Covenant which required perfect Obedience to the end Man might be thereby justified nor was it possible he could since he had sinned and lost his power to obey but that Law contains a clear Transcript of the first Law and so of the Holiness of God and of that Righteousness Man originally had and lost and of the Impossibility of his being justified without such a compleat and perfect Righteousness but the Law as written in the two Tables was given in Mercy upon the Score or Account I have mentioned to Israel in Subserviency to the Gospel and to it was annexed the Ceremonies to shew that a plenary Satisfaction must be made for the breach of God's Holy Law and that this must be by Blood tho' not by blood of Bulls or Goats but they might have understood that by them the Sacrifice and Blood of Christ was figured could they have seen to the end or purport of them Therefore the true Distinction lies here viz. Both are the first Covenant of Works both shew Man must live and sin not if he would be justified in God's sight the first in Man's Innocency answered the end of a Covenant of Works the second Administration thereof could not give Life nor was it given to that end but it answered the end for which God gave it and so much to this Objection Obj. 13. You cannot deny but Circumcision sealed the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham and how can you prove a Seal of the Covenant of Works can be applied to such a use and service Thus Mr. Flavel p. 234. Answ. 1. I answer first who of us say that Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Works there is a great difference between a Seal of a Covenant and that which was given as a Sign or Token of that legal and external Covenant God made with all Abraham's natural Seed as such aâ—d that Circumcision was such a Sign we have before shewed as also of their having the Covenant or Law of Mount Sinai and Land of Canaan given to them c. 2. But that Circumcision was a Seal of that Faith Abraham himself had not being yet Circumcised and that he should be the Father of all that believe Paul possibly affirms Rom. 4.16 and yet it might well be of use to him also as a Sign or Token of those other Covenant Rights and Blessings granted to his natural Off-spring is evident 3. And from hence we have proved that Circumcision could not be so a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to any other Person or Persons none having the like Faith before they were Circumcised as Abraham had nor were they made common Fathers to all true Believers whether Iews or Gentiles Obj. 14. Where the Covenant of Circumcision is by the Apostle contra-distinguished to the Covenant of Faith Rom. 4.13 the Law in that place is put strictly for the pure Law of Nature and metatypically signified the Works of the Law p. 235. Answ. 1. I suppose no Man besides Mr. Flavel ever asserted such a thing as this is I would know how Circumcision a meer positive Precept came to be a part of the Pure Law of Nature for 't is evident that the Law Paul contra-distinguisheth from the Righteousness of Faith had Circumcision in it or else the same Apostle needed not to have taken such pains to have distinguished between Circumcision and the Righteousness of Faith and had Circumcision appertained to the Righteousness of Faith or been a Gospel Covenant why doth he exclude it with the Law from being so counted read v. 10 11 12 13. 2. The Law therefore of which the Apostle speaks is that Ministration of the Law given to Israel of which Circumcision was part and so of the like Nature and Quality with it and both contra-distinguished to the Covenant of Grace or to the Righteousness of Faith And that the Law here is put strictly for the pure Law of Nature is wholly without Reason Proof or Demonstration what Law doth the Apostle speak of in the preceding Chapters and also in this see chap. 3.1 2. is it not that he calls the Oracles of God or Lively Oracles Act. 7.38 given on Mount Sinai The Law of Nature and the written Law contained in the two Tables are all one and the same Law as to the Substance of them they are materially the same tho' not formally both convinced of Sin both bring Sinners under Guilt and Condemnation and so that all Mouths may be stopped and all the World become guilty before God Rom. 3 19. both are a Rule to walk by both Witnesses for God but neither of them can give Life nor justifie the Sinner in the sight of God v. 20. Therefore neither of them are any part of the Covenant of Grace for if one of them is a part of it both of them are if the Law of Nature be not so the Law written in the Tables of Stone was not so yet the Iews had the Advantage of the Gentiles because their Law was wrote in far more legible Characters than the dimm Law of Nature Rom. 3.2 as well as in many other respects Obj. The denying Baptism to Infants hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion 1. That Principle which hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion can be no Christian Doctrine but the denying Baptism to Infants hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion therefore such a Principle can be no Christian Doctrine this is Mr. Rothwell's
Water is applyed to the Body If it were so that all that were Baptised were Regenerated then all that were Baptised should be saved or eâ—se the Doctrine of Perseverance falls â—o the Ground And again he says That some indeed say That Regeneration is conferred in Baptiâ—m upon the Elect but how so active a principle as a spiritual Life should lye dâ—aâ— and sleep to loâ—g even many Years which intervene between Baptism and Conversion is not easily conceivable Charnock on Regen p. 75. Sir Do but prove what you here affirm and I will write no more against Infant-Baptism and till that 's done all you say is nothing in my Judgment But to proceed Such a Commission you speak of would not in your sense Authorize those Twelve Elders of Israel to go and Teach and Circumcise the Jews and their Children only but all others in all Nations of the World this would be an easie way of making People Christians But Sir The Gospel whatsoever you think according to our Doctrine is more extensive then was the Law to the Jews for that was restrained to that People He sheweth his word unto Iacob his statutes and judgments to Israel He hath not dealt so with any nation for his judgments they have not known them Psal. 147.19 20. But the Gospel is not restrained or limited to any one particular People or Nation but it is to be preached to all the World and whosoever are made Disciples i. e. Do believe and are baptised shall be saved Mark 16.16 Not that we suppose Men can't be saved without Baptism for that makes no Person a Christian or a Disciple of Christ neither Young nor Old though 't is the Duty of Believers to submit thereto We doubt not but that the same spiritual and eternal Blessings which the Jewish dying Infants had by the Death and Merits of Christ then the dying Infants of Christians have now according to the Election of Grace But as touching the legal and external Privileges of the Jews we have proved in this Tract and elsewhere that they had many more in divers respects under the Law than those we Christians and our Children have under the Gospel As to those great Advantages Blessings and Privileges of the Covenant of Works which you talk of I wonder what they were for the Covenant of Works could not give Life no Justification nor Righteousness that could save by that Covenant no pardon of Sin but contrarywise Death Wrath and the Curse is denounced upon every Soul of Man for the breach of it How vain then are your Arguments in the Gospel is Life is Justification is Pardon of Sin to every Man that believeth To the Iew first and also to the Gentiles Rom. 1.16 Time would fail me to shâ—w how absurd your Notions are to what almost all our Learned Protestant Divines have wrote about the Covenant of Works The Jewish Infants received no Soul Spiritual and Eternal Advantage by Circumcision What the chief Advantage or Profit was which they hâ—d thereby St. Paul tells us Rom. 3.1 2. Tho' it was commanded of God for the Ends and Designs I have already mentionâ—d and if so What Benefit can any Infant receive by Baptism or rather Rantism which is a mere humane Innovation You confess it was instituted by the Church as a needful Thing p. 37. And the Church hath Instituted it because it is needful it was indeed never Instituted or Appointed by our Lord Jesus And as to that Custom among the Jews you speak of p. 7 8 of their Baptising Proselytes I have fully Answer'd it in my Treaty called The Rector Rectified p. 24 25. and in my Answer to the Athenian Society Sir you go upon a Mistake all along taking it for granted That Circumcision and other legal Rites were great spiritual Privileges for 't is no such Thing It was a Yoke of Bondage not to be born and a great Mercy it was to them that they were delivered from it Act. â—5 And therefore the Jews did they believe in Christ and see the Nature of and Tendency of Circumcision would never speak after that manner as you mention in p. 9. Viz Obj. I will rather be a Iew then a Christian because as soon as I own and profess their Faith my Child after such a Declaration is in covenant as well as my self and hath a Right to the Sign c. Answ. Sir The Jewish Childrens Right to Circumcision was not deferred till their Parents made a profession of Faith but as they were the natural Seed of Abraham as such it was the Command of God to Abraham that gave them that Right and nothing else Obj. So that by this account it plainly appears That denying Infants Baptism is an hindrance to the progress of the Holy Gospel Answ. True if Infant-Baptism doth make them Christians you say right it must follow That the denying them Baptism hinders the progress of the Gospel but this is false which you assert Baptism makes them not Christians we say none but Christ by his Spirit can Regenerate the Souls of Men or make them Christians True you may thereby give them the Name of Christians but can't give them the Nature of Christians you may deceive them and make them believe they were so made Christians and thereby undoe them eternally by relying upon a mere Cheat and Delusion This is a way to make false Christians counterfeit Christians What a Christian is he whose vile Nature was never changed You would do well to get a great Number of Ministers if Baptism does make Christians as I said before to go into the Heathen Nations and Baptise them and so make all the World Christians but if you know no other way for the progress of the Gospel then this of making Christians by Baptism God deliver the World from your way of Christianing the Nations You will not see That the Gospel Church is not National but only Congregational the Jewish Church in that differ'd from the Christianâ— For What is more clearer than this Christ's Church is called a Garden inclosed Christ's Flock is a little Flock Those who were added to the Church were separated either from the Jewish People or Heathen Nations were commanded to separate themselves and not to touch the unclean Thing Ye are not saith Christ of the World You would make whole Nations the Church and from the Commission inferr such a false Conclusion I have consider'd what you have said in p. 10 11. Sir When all the Pagan World are instructed and believe in Christ we will say they have a Right to the Sign i. e. Baptism but not till then hath one Soul a Right thereto prove what you say if you can i. e. That the Children of Christians as such are Christians as the Children of Iews were Iews or that Baptism makes any either old or young True Christians or regenerates their Souls 'T is not your bare Assertions or your Saying it that is worth any thing what Authority
of the Old Covenant wherein they had their peculiar Right and Privilege no less can be intended in this I will be a God unto them in their Generations and it is also made more evident by the following Account that is given of this Transaction with respect to Isaac and Ishmael Gen. 17.18 21. When the Lord had promised unto Abraham a Son by Sarah whose Name should be called Isaac he thus prayed O that Ishmael might live before thee which the Chaldee Paraphraseth thus i. e. Might live and worship before thee No doubt his Prayer was that Ishmael might also be an Heir of the Blessing of this Covenant but that was not granted to him for the Lord would have his Covenant Seed called by Isaac only With him God would establish his Covenant having appointed and chosen him alone to be the Heir thereof who was to be the Child of the Promise and Son of the Free woman and yet for Ishmael in special Favour with Abraham whose Seed he was Thus much he obtained i. e. That he should be made Fruitful and multiply exceedingly Twelve Princes or Heads of great Families should spring of him which imports some Analogy to the Twelve Tribes of Israel after the Flesh and God would make him a great Nation and yet all this fell short of the Blessings of Abraham's natural Off-spring by Isaac from which Ishmael was now excluded It is plain therefore that the Privilege of the Ecclesiastical as well as the flourishing of the Civil States of Israel did arise unto them out of the Covenant of Circumcision We conclude therefore saith he That notwithstanding the carnal Seed of Abraham could not as such claim a Right in the spiritual and eternal Blessings of the New Covenant because of their Interest in the Covenant of Circumcision yet their Privileges and Advantages in their Church-State tho' immediately consisting in things outward and typical were of far greater Value and Use than any meer Worldly or Earthly Blessings as to giving them choice means of the Knowledge of God and setting them nearer to him than any Nation in the World besides Thus far this Learned Author Dr. Bates also in his Sermon preach'd at Mr. Baxter's Funeral shews That God may be said to be the God of a People several manner of ways 1. Upon the Account of Creation Thus he is our God and Father O Lord thou art our father we are the clay and thou art our potter and we all are the work of thy hands Isa. 64.8 2. Upon the Account of external Calling and Profession there is an intercurrent Relation of the Father and Son between God and his People Thus the Posterity of Seth are called the Sons of God Gen. 6. and the entire Nation of the Jews are so styled When Israel was young I called my son from Egypt Hos. 11. And all that have received Baptism the Seal of the Holy Covenant and profess Christianity in this general Sense may be called the Children of God Thus he clearly confirms what I have said but observe in this Sense God is not said to be the God of a People by way of special Interest But 't is not saith he the outward Dedication entitles Men to saving Interest in God unless they live according to that Dedication There are Baptised Infidels as well as Unbaptised c. Then say I some Infants Baptised are in his Opinion but in an external Covenant with God and so have no special Inteâ—est Moreover Sure none can deny but by gross Idolatry the Israelites broke this Covenant and yet when they in Ezekiel's time became guilty of vile Abominations the Lord still claimed an Interest in their Children by vertue of this Covenant Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters whom thou hast born unto me and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter That thou hast slain my children Ezek. 16.20 12. The Children they begat in a natural way when by cursed Idolatry they had Apostatized from God by vertue of this Covenant God calls his Children which could not have been if their Covenant Interest had been as our Brethren affirm i. e. suspended on the good abearing or Faith of immediate Parents But as the Apostacy of Parents could not hinder their Children from that external Covenant Interest they had in God and God in them so the Faith and Holiness of Parents could not Interest their Children in the special Blessings of the Covenant of Grace Lastly 'T is remarkable that when God gave the Sinai Covenant Exod. 20.1 2. where he pleads Interest in them as his People he mentions expresly upon what account he so owned them read the Text I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt out of the House of Bondage Thou shalt have no other Gods before me I am Jehovah and thy God having chosen you to be a People to my self above all People as 't is said elsewhere not that as they were thus his People and a chosen Nation they had special Interest in God by eternal Election and peculiar Adoption no but a few of them as it appears were in that sence his People But their God by vertue of that legal and external Covenant he made with their Fathers and now again with them and so bestowed temporal Blessings upon them therefore 't is added That brought thee out of the land of Egypt not Land of spiritual Darkness nor house of spiritual Bondage but literal Bondage c. In the Covenant of Works saith Reverend Mr. Cotton the Lord offered himself upon a Condition of Works he bid them obey his Voice and provoke him not for I will not pardon your Transgressions But in the Covenant of Grace he will do this but not in the Covenant of Works all is given upon Condition of Obedience The Lord giving himself c. tho' it be but to work yet he is pleased to receive them into some kind of relative Union expressed Ier. 32.32 Which my Covenant they break as though I was an Husband unto them He was married to them in Church-Covenant he was their God and they were his peculiar People and yet the Lord cast them off from this Marriage-Covenant from this Union Thus Mr. Cotton on the Covenant P. 39.40 So much shall serve to the answering this grand Objection Obj. 6. Sixthly Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith If Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith saith Mr. Flavell it did not appertain to the Covenant of Works For the Righteousness of Faith and Works are opposite but Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4.11 Ergo pag. 220. 1 Answ. We Answer first That the Text they bring doth not call Circumcision the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith As 't is such or in common to all that were Circumcised pray let us read the Words And he received the sign of circumcision a seal of
compleatly Justified before God from the Guilt of Original Sin both Originans and Originations and yet when they come to Years of Discretion may yea must by their actual closing with or refusing the Terms of the Covenant either obtain the continuation and confirmation of their Covenant Interest or be utterly and finally cut off from it and so perish Eternally in their Ignorance of God and Rebellion against him Answer To which I must say That they seem to make the Covenant of Grace such a Conditional Covenant that renders it in Nature and Quality like the Sinai Covenant or Covenant of Works i. e. If they perform the Righteousness required they shall live if they Obey not or make not Good this pretended Covenant of Grace they shall dye or be cut off Let our Brethren who are sound in the Doctrine of Free-Grace consider this 2. And as the Promises of the New Covenant will admit of no such partial Interest saith a Learned Author so neither can this Opinion consist with the Analogy of Faith in other Respects for either the stain of Original Sin in these Infanrs is purged and the dominion of Concupiscence in them destroyed when their Guilt is pardoned or it is not if it be then the Case of these Infants in point of Perseverance is the same with Adult Persons that are under Grace by actual Faith and then a final Apostacy from the Grace of the New Covenant must be allowed to befall the one as well as the other notwithstanding all Provisions of that Covenant and Engagement of God therein to make the Promise sure to all the Seed Rom. 4.16 But this the Author will not admit If he say That their Guilt is pardoned but their Natures are not changed or renewed nor the Power of Original Corruption destroyed so as that Sin shall not have Dominion over them it will be replyed That then notwithstanding their supposed Pardon they remain as an unclean Thing and so uncapable of admission into the Kingdom of God Thus this worthy Author 3. To which let me add Certainly if Divine Habits were in those Infants they would immediately be manifested or be sure when they are grown up would appear in them by gracious Operations flowing from thence But since those Acts or Products of such a gracious Habit appear not in them 't is evident they never had them infused 4. All that are in the Covenant of Grace if they live the Fruits of Faith and Holiness will flow naturally from those sacred Habits God hath by his spirit planted in them as heat and light doth from the Fire when 't is kindled on the Hearth The Truth is such who are united to Christ and have Faith in him and so are actually in the Covenant of Grace are also washed and purged from Sin and Pollution see Ezek. 16. Rom. 5.14 Act. 15.10 None can have Union with Christ but by the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit and wheresoever the Spirit of Christ is it applies The Blood of the Covenant not only for Pardon but also for the purging the Conscience from dead Works to serve the living God And therefore as the same Learned Author observes as certain as any derive a New Covenant Rite from Christ for Pardon they also receive a vital Influence from him for the renovation of their Natures and conforming their Souls to his Image Therefore to assert That the Grace of Christ is applied to some for remission of Sins only or that the guilt of any Sin can be pardoned to any Person and yet that Sin retains its Dominion over them is a Doctrine I understand not to be sound or agreeable to the Doctrine that is according to Godliness 5. To conclude with this 't is evident these Men must by their Notion make every believing Parent to be considered in respect of that Covenant made with Abraham a common Head and Father not only to his own natural Seed but to all Believers also as Abraham was and then it would follow that there are as many common Fathers like as Abraham was so called as there are believing Men in the World and so a knowing or knowledge of Men still after the Flesh which the Apostle disclaims 2 Cor. 5. 17. Besides the Thing is usurp'd in it self Therefore let all know That a Believers Right to the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham's or by vertue of that Promise made with him do relate to such a Seed as do believe and not as Co-ordinate with him in Covenant Interest they are not each one by this Covenant made the Father of a Blessed Seed as Abraham was the Father of the Faithful neither can they claim the Promise for themselves and their Seed according to the Tenour of Abraham's Covenant as he might as this Author observes but they must believe as Abraham did or have a Faith of their own For if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham 's seed and heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3 29. This the same Author notes Obj. 7. The Covenant of Circumcision was an Everlasting Covenant therefore it was the Covenant of Grace Answ. I Answer 'T is not unknown to our Opponants that the Hebrew Word for Everlasting sometimes signifies no more then a long continuance of time And so extensive was the Promise of God's peculiar Favours to the natural Seed of Abraham and the original of their Claim there-from that the severity of that Law afterwards given to them was so far restrained as that notwithstanding their manifold breach of Covenant with God and forfeiture of all legal Claim of their Right and Privileges in the Land of Canaan thereby that they were never utterly cut off from that good Land and ceased to be a peculiar People unto God untill the end or period of that time determined by the Almighty was fully come which was the Revealation of the Messiah and the setting up his spiritual Temple under the Dispensation of the Gospel and thus far the Word Everlasting doth extend 'T is said God promised to give the Land of Canaan to Abraham and to his Seed for ever and again Gen. 17.8 for an everlasting Inheritance whereas it is evident they have for many Ages been dispossessed of it Nor may this seem strange if we consult other Texts where the same Terms are used with the like Restriction for the Priesthood of Levi is called an Everlasting Priesthood Numb 25.13 And the Gates of the Temple Everlasting Doors Psal. 24.6 so the Statute to make an Atonement for the Holy Sanctuary and for the Tabernacle and for the Altar and for the Priests and for all the People of the Congregation is called an Everlasting Statute Levit. 16.34 And this shall be for an everlasting statute c. So that from hence 't is very clear that the Word Everlasting is to be taken sometimes with Restriction and referrs to the end of that Dispensation to which the Law Statute or Covenant did belong and when Christ came as
Covenant Relation to God at all The Dispensation being changed the Old House pulled down Agar and her Son cast out Old things past away and all things being now become New But this New State New Blessings and New Church Privileges they rejected and so were the natural Branches broken off and the Gentiles who were wild by Nature that is never were in any visible Covenant State with God nor in any sense related to Abraham as a Root were grafted into the True Olive Jesus Christ and into the Gospel Church and so Partakers of the sap and fatness of the Root and of the Olive that is of the spiritual Blessings of Christ and of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and Privileges of the Gospel Church and this they received and partook of us as being first grafted by saving Faith in Christ and so united to his Mystical Body But since there are a great Number of the natural Branches that are beloved for their Father's sake that is for their Father Abraham's sake as the Root and Father of all the Elect Seed they shall in due time be grafted in again and so become a People visibly owned of God and in Covenant with him as the True Seed now actually are and formerly were And if this be considered What doth this Text do to prove the natural Seed of Believers are in the Gospel Covenant or are externally relatively and foederally Holy for if the natural Seed of Abraham can lay no claim nor have any Right to Gospel Precepts or Privileges as such but are broken off What ground is there for us to think within our selves that we or our natural Off-spring as such should be taken in and so another Wall of Partition and cause of Enmity set up between believing and unbelieving Gentiles and their Seed as such The Apostle speaks not of Branches or of being Holy with an external relative Covenant Holiness but of such a spiritual Gospel Holiness that was in the Root viz. Abraham who believed in God and it was counted to him for Righteousness And thus all his true spiritual Seed who are actual Branches and in Covenant are Holy and also all the Elect of Abraham not yet called are discretively Holy or in God's sight so who calls things that are not as if they were they are all Holy in his Account and beleved for their Father's sake with whom the Covenant of Grace was made for himself and all his spiritual Seed And 't is from this Argument the Apostle argues for the calling of the Iews and grafting them in who belong to the Election of Grace Therefore there is no ground for Infants Church Membership or Baptism from hence and those who make every Believer a common Head or Root of their natural Off-spring as Abraham was either way know not what they affirm nor what they say see Rector Rectified Moreover the Jews who were broken off are still the natural Seed of Abraham and if therefore this Holiness was an external relative foederal Holiness they are still in that Sense Holy as far forth as any Child of believing Gentiles as such can be said to be but 't is evident this is not that Holiness of which the Apostle speaks nor is there any such Holiness under the Gospel Dispensation spoken of as to that Text in 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children unclean but now are they Holy this is so fully answered in that late Treatise Entituled The Rector Rectify'd c. that I shall speak nothing now to it for from the Scope of the place 't is evident the Apostle speaks of Matrimonial Sanctification and of the Holiness of Legitimation see pag. 134. to 140. so that there Mr. Rothwell hath his Arguments answered touching Infants faedoral Holiness under the Law c. Obj. 11. If the Children of Believers as such are not now under the Gospeâ— in Covenant with them and so to be admitted Members of the Church as formerly then the Privileges of the Gospel Covenant and Membership are straitned and fewer than they were under the Law Mr. R's Paedo-Baptismus pag. 2.3 Answ. 'T is not once to be supposed but that the External or Temporal Privileges of the Iews under the Law were more and larger as well as Church-Membership than those we have under the Gospel Dispensation since their Church was national and their Promises and Privileges consisting in earthly Blessings as they were a People considered in that old Covenant Relation for the Jewish Teachers or Priests of God had many external Privileges which no Gospel Minister can once pretend unto Minister's Sons had all a Right to the Ministry they had a Right to the Tenths of all their Brethren's Increase and first Fruits and a multitude of other Advantages besides viz. they had a Civil Government of their own Power to punish Capital Offenders with Death their Temporal Rulers were among themselves but Christ hath not set up such a Gospel political Church-State nor given such Power and such a Government to his Church under the Gospel what will be in the Kingdom of Christ in the last days we know not They had a lovely and fruitful Land given to them for their Inheritance that flowed with Milk and Honey they were promised outward Peace Riches and gathering of much Wealth so are not we they had a glorious external Temple and what not also all their natural Off-spring were born Members of their Church But none of these Privileges can we lay claim unto all that are to be admitted into the Gospel-Church have only a Right by Regeneration by the second Birth and not by the first Birth we are to expect Persecution and trouble in the World and not Peace and Prosperity Poverty and Want and not Riches or earthly Fulness yet our Privileges are better and greater under the Gospel than theirs were under the Law the Gospel Covenant being established upon better Promises Our Children when grown up sit under the clear and glorious Light and Preaching of the Gospel which they and theirs had then held forth but in dark shadows moreover the Parâ—ition Wall being now broken down the Gospel Church is not confin'd to the one People or Nation only but now all in all Nations of the World who believe and embrace Christ by saving Faith whether Iews or Gentiles are Joint-heirs together and have Interest in like spiritual Blessings now greater Infusions of the Spirit Alas what Privileges had the poor Gentiles under the Law and their Children Is not the matter well amended with us Sir this being so what is become of your Rational Arguments for Infant Baptism p. 2 3. Obj. 12. Circumcision in the very direct and primary End of it teached Man the Corruption of his Nature by sin and the Mortification of sin therefore 〈◊〉 Covenant of Works or Condition of it to this purpose Mr. Flavel speaks pag. 231. Answ. I answer though it should be granted that Circumcision had such an End yet that that was the direct
main Argument pag. 2 3. to prove the Minor thus he argues viz. 2. That Principle which makes the Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works hinders the Propagation of the Christian Religion but the former Principle does so Ergo To prove the Minor of this Argument he adds another viz. That Principle which allows not as great Immunities Benefits and Privileges to the Covenant of Grace as to the Covenant of Works makes the Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works but the Principle that denies Baptism to Infants does so Ergo. Answ. 1. This Gentleman calls these Rational Arguments but I have nothing but his own word for it but to proceed he should have shewed what those Immunities and Benefits were in the Covenant oâ— Works which we by denying Infants Baptism render the Privileges of the Covenant of Grace to be less than those were but do you not intimate hereby that Circumcision belonged to the Covenant of Works and if so in vain do you urge Circumcision as a Privilege and also since the Covenant of Works is abrogated what is there in your Arguments for the baptizing of Infants For all Iewish Rites and Privileges may be forced upon the Christian World by this Argument of yours or else we may say the Privileges of the Gospel are less than the Privileges of the Iews under the Covenant of Works which I have already answered 2. His mentioning that Passage of Calvin is remote to his purpose he speaks of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham not of the Covenant of Works which we say is not curtail'd by Christ's coming but is every way as extensive now as it was from the beginning but we have proved that there was a Two-fold Covenant made with Abraham and that Circumcision did appertain to his Natural Seed as such and so part of the legal Covenant Obj But the Commission Mat. 28.19 you say is as full or rather more beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works and consequently that the baptizing of Infants is a Christian Duty for had there been as general a Commission given by Moses to Twelve Elders of Israel as the Blessed Iesus gave to his Disciples and it had been said to them Go teach all Nations Circumcising them this had been no Prohibition to Circumcise the Iewish Children c. Ans. 1. Is this that the Mountains have brought forth we were big in Expectation by your Title Page wondering what new Notion or Arguments you had found out from the Commission Mat. 28.19 20. or what your different Method should be to prove Infant Baptism But truly Sir the Log is still too heavy you cannot lift it up I see nothing new in your whole Tract nor any thing but what has been answered but this being the main Pin upon which all hangs I shall give a brief Reply to you 1. I thank you for your plain and just Concession I see you conclude and grant Circumcision did belong to the Covenants or Works I doubt not but you are right so far and with that your Cause is gone and Calvin and all that came after him have said nothing in calling Circumcision a Gospel Covenant 2. But Sir suppose the People of Israel had never been commanded by the Lord to Circumcise their Children till Moses came and Moses had given such a Commission that you mention viz. to teach all Nations Circumcising them do you think they would have had ground from thence to have circumcised their Infants whereas his Circumcision required the teaching of all Nations first before they were circumcised of which Infants were not capable 3. 'T is evident that our Saviour in his Great Commission enjoineth no more to be baptized but such who are first taught or made Disciples and this agrees with his own Practice Joh. 4.1 he made and baptized more Disciples than John he first made them Disciples and then baptized them nor were there any baptized in the New Testament but such who first professed Faith in the Lord Jesus See our Answer to Mr. Burkit which I sent you Also our Answer to the Athenian Society this is there fully spoken unto 4. If the Commission be so extensive as you intimate Why do you not go or stir up some Ministers to go into all Heathen and Pagan Nations and Baptise them and their Children and so that way make them all Christians You may teach them the Christian Doctrine i. e. Faith and Repentance afterwards as you do your Children but the Truth is there is no need to teach them afterwards the way of Faith and Regeneration if your Doctrine be true because the chief Thing they received in Baptism you say is divine Grace viz. Regeneration Adoption and a Title to the Inheritance of eternal Life p. 20. Sure those divine Habits can never be lost Reader take what this Man says farther on this Respect Obj. But you say we neither regard nor consider the chief Thing in Baptism viz. The Testification or Witness of the divine Benevolence taking them into Covenant Protection and Patronage and conferring and bestowing Grace upon them for in Baptism the chief Thing is divine Grace which consists and stands in the remission pardon and forgiveness of Sins in Adoption or Sonship and in a Right and Title to the Inheritance of Eternal Life of which Grace Infants stand in need and are as capable as the Adult c. p. 20. Answ. This is such Doctrine that few Paedo-Baptists besides your self do assert or believe but What Proof do you give us to confirm it from God's Word You say right we do not regard it indeed Doth Baptism do all this 'T is wonderful How conferr Grace and give Pardon and Eternal Life You Ministers of the Church of England if this be so can do as strange things as the Popish Priests in Transubstantiation you can by sprinkling a little Water on the Face of a Babe it appears change the evil and vitious Habits form Christ in the Soul raise the Dead to Life and of a Child of Wrath make a Child of God It grieves me to think a Man called a Minister of the Gospel should teach such corrupt Doctrine and deceive the Ignorant For as it is without Scripture-Evidence nay contrary to it for God's Word that tells us Baptism washes not away the Filth of the Flesh that is the Corruption of depraved Nature so 't is contrary to Reason and without any rational Demonstration as Reverend Stephen Charnock tho' a Paedo-Baptist shews Many Men saith he take Baptism for Regeneration The Ancients usually give it this Term one calls our Saviour's Baptism his Regeneration This conferrs not Grace but engageth to it outward Water cannot convey inward Life How can Water an external Thing work upon the Soul in a Physical manner neither can it be proved That ever the Spirit of God is tyed by any Promise to apply himself to the Soul in gracious Opperations when
said With the heart Man believeth and with the Mouth Confession is made to Salvation Therefore say I it was Verbal Obj. You intimate that some may want Speech or Weakness which may be an Impediment to them c. Answ. If they can any ways signifie or make it known to the understanding of the Administrator they are True Penitents 't is no doubt sufficient if it be by Writing 't will do but Man knows not the Heart What appears not is not Your Arguments in p. 37. about their being in Abraham's Covenant I have fully Answered already That will do you no good Iohn Baptist denies that Plea when he said Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our Father Do you think Baptism turns People to the Lord for so you intimate at the close of your 37. Pag. Prove it 't is denied Obj. 4. You say such a Confession would overturn the Constitution or Institution of God by Moses and casting Infants out of that Floor Answ. I have shewed you That the Gospel Dispensation has overthrown the Mosaical Constitution or Legal Church of the Jews and that Christ has thrown out the Fleshly Seed as such i. e. No Infant is to be a Member of the Gospel Church and I have given my Reasons why I have so said which you may Answer if you please 7 thly Because it was Repugnant to the End and grand Design of Iohn's Ministry to receive and Basptise every body even Men Women and Children without distinction his Ministry being most strict and severe as 't is acknowledged by all Men. His Ministry of Preaching and Baptising was held forth by the Prophet in these Words Mal. 4.1 The Day shall come which shall burn as an Oven He lays the Ax at the Root he Preached no such easie way of making Men Christians nor Church Members as these Paedo-Baptists speak of his Ministry seemed like to Fire in him was the Spirit of Burning kindled as Mr. Cotton On the Covenant observes p. 21. The Lord also prepared his People by a Spirit of Burning which as a Spirit of Bondage he doth shed abroad into the Hearts of Men This we read of Mal. 4.1 It is spoken of Iohn the Baptist which did burn as an Oven against the Scribes and Pharisees and left them neither the Root of Abraham's Covenant nor the Branch of their own Good Works He cutteth them off from the Covenant of Abraham Mat. 3.9 Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our father and so by cutting them off from the Root he leaveth them no Ground to trust to But this Man renders Iohn's Ministry to be of a quite contrary Nature even the most easiest flesh-pleasing Doctrine that ever was Preached If he received all to his Baptism certainly he has made sad Work for Repentance for abusing the Ministry of this Great and Holy Prophet Arg. 7. If Iohn the Baptist was to prepare Christ's Way i. e. fit Persons as proper Materials for Christ's New and Spiritual Temple which consisteth only of living Stones viz. Believing Men and Women then Iohn did not Baptise Carnal Persons nor Ignorant Infants But the former is true Ergo Arg. 8. Iohn upon their unfeigned Repentance Baptised all that he did Baptise for the remission of Sins and no Persons have remission of Sins without such Repentance Ergo Can Baptism it self give remission of Sins or Is thete any promise of Pardon without unfeigned Repentance By this Man's Reasoning all the Carnal People of the Jews that were willing to be Baptised Iohn was to Baptise and he did Baptise them as well Unbelievers as Ignorant Babes for all his Arguments are as strong to prove that as for Iohn's Baptising of Infants Which if so all Pagans and Infidels in the World are to be baptised and by Baptsm be made Christians and Members of the Gospel Church O What a Doctrine does this Man Preach Do but see what Work he would fain make of that Confession of Sins which was required of all those that came to Iohn's Baptism in Pag. 37 38. to p. 50. i. e. It was such a Confession that excludes no ungodly or unbelieving Person that was willing to be baptised so far as I can see All that were of the Church of Israel or in the Legal Covenant God made with Abraham he intimates might be baptised nay he tells us in pag. 44. A Confession made when Iohn Baptised was not a Commanded Duty Men after this rate may even say what they please Arg. 9. If Iohn the Baptist baptised all the People of Ierusalem and Iudea and all those of the Regions round about then he baptised Unbelievers Prophaned and Impenitent Persons as well as Penitent Persons but he did not Baptise Unbelievers Prophaned and Impenitent Persons Therefore he did not Baptise all the People of Ierusalem and Iudea and all those of the Regions round about Arg. 10. If Iohn the Baptist Baptised all the People of Israel as before mentioned then he left none for Christ nor his Disciples to baptise but Iohn did leave some nay more People for Christ or his Disciples to baptize than he baptized Ergo he did not baptize all the People of Israel or all of Ierusalem and Iudea That Iohn left some nay more People to Christ and his Disciples to be baptized than he baptized is expresly asserted by the Holy Ghost John 4.1 When Iesus knew how the Pharisees heard that Iesus made and baptized more Disciples than John c. see John 3.26 And they came unto John and said unto him Rabbi he that was with thee beyond Jordan to whom thou bearest witness behold the same baptizeth and all men come to him How did Iohn baptize all and yet all come to Christ to be baptized This is strange what People were these and where dwelt they if Iohn baptized all the People of Ierusalem and Iudea c. Arg. 11. If Iohn's Baptism and the Baptism of Christ was but one and the same Baptism as to the Nature Quality and Subjects thereof then he baptized none but such who were first made Disciples or who were first taught to believe and repent but the Baptism of Iohn and the Baptism of Christ was but one and the same Baptism as to the Nature Quality and Subjects thereof Ergo he baptized none but such who were first made Disciples c. That the Nature Quality and Subjects thereof were one and the same all generally affirm I know no difference but that after Christ was dead and risen they that were then baptized were baptized into him that was come dead buried and raised again but Iohn baptized them as such that believed in him that was to die c. Christ having then not actually suffered 'T is evident that Christ's Commission Impowers his Disciples to baptize only such who were discipled or such who did believe is plain Mat. 28.19.20 Mark 16.16 and this was his Practice Iohn 4.1 Arg. 12. If Iohn baptized all the People of
be baptized for no doubt there were many Thousand Families that lived either in Ierusalem Iudea or in the Regions round about that were not Jews broad is the Way to Heaven if this Man's Doctrine be true or into the Church at least The Man's mistake lies here i. e. because great Multitudes went out either to see or hear Iohn Baptist he therefore concludes Iohn baptized them all because 't is said he baptized them not observing the severe Doctrine he Preached and what a holy Sight and Sence of Sin and godly Repentance he enjoyned on all those he admitted to Baptism for they he baptized confessed their Sins i. e. their hearty Sorrow for Sin and were turned to the Lord for that was his Work and the grand Purport of his Ministry and evident it is that there were but a few comparatively baptized by Iohn because Christ by the hands of his Disciples baptized more Disciples than he Ioh. 4.1 and 't is said Christ's Flock was but a little Flock and after Christ's Resurrection the whole Number of his Disciples were about One hundred and Twenty Act. 1.15 tho' may be some few more there might be in some orher places Mr. Baxter tho' a great Asserter of Paedo-Baptism contradicts this Man Iohn Baptist saith he received and judged of the Profession of his Penitents before he did baptize them Baxt. Confirmat Restor p. 68. It was such a Confession that Iohn required of those that he baptized that gave him Ground to believe they had Right to Remission of Sin for he baptized with the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of Sin Read the late Annotators on Luk. 3.3 The Summ of Iohn's Doctrine say they was the necessity of Repentance and Faith in Christ in order to the Remission of Sin his pressing Faith in Christ is most clearly declared by the Evangelist Iohn Matthew Mark and Luke insist more upon his Preaching the Doctrine of Repentance for the Remission of Sins Baptism was an Evidence of it Iohn did not Preach that Baptism was Repentance or that Remission of Sin was infallibly annexed to it but that the way to obtain the Remission of Sins was by Repentance and Baptism was an External Sign and Symbol of it It was no doubt such a Confession that Philip required of the Eunoch Act. 8.37 See here is Water what doth hinder me to be baptized Philip answered If thou believest withal thine Heart thou mayest This Man would render Iohn Baptist less Faithful than any ordinary pious Minister I believe saith Gullespy No consciencious Minister would adventure to baptize any who hath manifested infallible Signs of unregenerations Gil's Aaron's Rod. blossom Obj. But saith Mr. Exell to conclude that this Confession mentioned Mat. 3.5 was a Confession with the Mouth or Tongue without considering any thing of the words when there is no such discovery in the Text is somewhat too quick and too bold for what is expressed is expresly asserted of all the Regions and all Judea and Jerusalem and those called Multitudes and these general Expressions contain and comprehend Men Women and Children c. Answ. I must needs say 't is a hard case you dare so boldly affirm all both Men Women and Children were baptized by Iohn whereas 't is positively said that they he baptized confessed their Sins You conclude against the express Words of the Text and assert plain Scripture proof that Iohn Baptist did certainly baptize Infants and yet give neither Scripture nor Reason to demonstrate what you say is true you can draw Consequences to build an Ordinance upon that which naturally rises not from the Texts you refer to nay which is more when the Text is expresly against such a Conclusion 't is said They that gladly receive the Word were baptized You may say that some of them were Infants as well as to affirm some of these Iohn baptized were such for Infants are as capable to receive the Word as to confess their Sins nay when 't is said Acts 20. The Disciples came together to break Bread you may affirm that Infants came then with others together to break Bread or to eat the Lord's Supper for you know how to prove them to be Disciples no doubt on 't if you have not been too quick in asserting what you with boldness have asserted I am greatly mistaken You make Baptism a very insignificant Sign what good can Baptism do that Parson that has no Grace If you can prove what your Brother Rothwell affirms do viz. That Baptism does regenerate Infants or is a Converting Ordinance Certaintly but very few of that great Multitude you suppose Iohn baptized received any Spiritual benefit by their Baptism and I challenge all the World to prove if they can that ever one Infant received any kind of Internals Spiritual or Eternal Advantage by being baptized as you call it or External either by the Word of God He adds an Induction of Twenty particulars to shew what a Confession it was not that those Iohn Baptist baptized made but they need no further Reply being all remote to the Purpose brought for Then he proceeds into ten more to shew it could not be a verbal Confession of Actual Faith and Repentance the most of them follow here Obj. There is nothing of a Command requiring such a Confession neither declared by John nor revealed by any other Messenger of God This contains his two First Answ. Did not Iohn require it when he said bring forth Fruits meet for Râ—pentance c A Confession is a Fruit of Repentance And did not Philip require it of the Eunuch Is not Faith required and as a Man believes with his Heart so a Confession is required with the Mouth to make known that Faith unto Salvation Obj. If such a Confession was commanded it must be gained by their own personal Obediâ—cence and so the Gospel is a Covenant of Works 2. If commanded then it was not voluntary 3. If commanded then it must not be to shew the Grâ—ce they had but their Obedience these are three more of them Pag. 44. 1. Answ. I answer if what God commands us to do those Vertues so commanded are gained or merited by our own personal Obedience then all our Evangelical Duties must be meritorious and the Gospel is a Covenant of Works indeed For that the Gospel doth command many Duties is evident Can't God give Grace and then command us by the Assistance of his Spirit to cause those Graces to appear in exercise to the Praise of his own Glory 2. Or cannot that which God commands us to do be done freely and voluntary by us Or doth free Grace destroy the Noble Faculty of the Will because it over-powers its vitious Habits and strongly inclines it to that which is good Do not Saints freely and voluntarily by the help of the Spirit and Grace of Christ will that which is good and well-pleasing to him Or is a Confession of Sin not good or an Evangelical Duty 3. Do we