abstractly by themselves do not make such a full clear and convincing discovery of the Mind of our Lord Christ in this Matter as to set this Practice above all rational Doubts There is undoubtedly much yea very much Weight in them especially when added as a farther Confirmation of what is pleaded from this Covenant and let any Baptists pretend what they will they never have nor will be able to answer some of those Arguments Mr. Baxter hath urged from that 1 Cor. 7.14 But this I was saying in order to a full Establishment of this Practice 't is absolutely necessary that a Foundation be laid where I have laid it viz. in the fore-mentioned Covenant But more particularly that this Foundation may be surely laid as I have done so all others ingaging in the same Cause must do these five things 1. It must be solidly proved that this Covenant is not the Old Covenant which the Apostle tells is done away but that it is the Covenant of Grace that very Covenant under which Believers still are And I fear not falling under the Censure of over-Confidence in the Minds or Judgments of judicious and unbiassed Persons if I say this is fully done already See among others my Answer to Mr. Cox p. 95 to the 139. with the places there referred unto where I have demonstrated these three Positions 1. That God in those Transactions with Abraham recorded Gen. 12. at the beginning did not make or establish the Covenant of Grace with him My meaning is he did not then compleat the Covenant of Grace with him This I grant that God did then begin to deal with Abraham with reference to his establishing his Covenant with him did as it were draw the first Lines of that Covenent he intended afterwards in a more formal express manner to enter with him Hence the Apostle Peter telling the Jews that they were the Children of the Covenant cites one Promise then made to Abraham Acts 3.26 2. That the Covenant recorded in Gen. 17.7 is not the Old Covenant nor had any reference or relation thereunto 3. That that Covenant is the Covenant of Grace the same which Believers are still under And would our Opposers satisfy the World in their Judgments and Practice they ought to return solid and satisfactory Answers to those Arguments pleaded in Confirmation of each of those Positions their Silence wherein renders all their Discourses utterly insignificant in the Judgment of all Men of a competent Understanding Alas can they think a loose Discourse however filled up with Scripture-Quotations can be of any use to such Persons so long as those Arguments remain unanswered And it seems strange to me that Men of any Judgment Gravity or Conscience should recommend to the World any Discourses so excessively defective in that regard in the Management of the Cause they plead It being evinced and demonstrated past all rational Contradiction that this Covenant is not the Old Covenant said to be done away but the Covenant of Grace The most copious Harangue of Words how many Scriptures soever are alledged therein signifieth nothing save only to shew how tenacious Men are of Error and how they will wrest and pervert the Scriptures to confirm themselves and others therein when once embraced by them But it may be some will say There are two Treatises the one of Mr. Grantham's the other of Mr. Philip Cary's wherein there are several irrefragable Arguments to prove the contrary viz. That that Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace To that I answer It is true that there are such Books abroad but so long as those Arguments remain unanswered here is only the opposing of Arguments to Arguments and which are the most valid and demonstrative possibly Men of weaker Capacities are not able to determine to the Satisfaction of their own Consciences Hence such Methods of Procedure serve only to confirm those that are before resolved and puzzle weak consciencious Christians that are sincerely inquiring after Truth I shall only add that the Arguments I have laid down are unanswerable is undoubted to me the sure-footing they have in the Scriptures of Truth assures me of that neither is the Silence of our Adversaries after their so long Presentation to publick View any small Addition to that Assurance I shall now try whether those Arguments laid down by the two fore-mentioned Authors be so or no. To begin first with those laid down by Mr. Grantham he attempts to prove two things 1. That Circumcision was not a Gospel-Ordinance 2. That that Covenant recorded Gen. 17.7 is not a Covenant of Grace For the 1. What he means by a Gospel-Ordinance is to me difficult to determine and therefore I shall only declare what I mean by a Gospel-Ordinance and in brief I mean an Ordinance or Act of Worship instituted in the Covenant of Grace having an immediate and direct Respect thereunto for the Confirmation obtaining or conveying the Good therein promised Now let us see the strength of his Arguments and they are these three 1. That which could profit no Man except he kept the whole Law was no Gospel-Ordinance but Circumcision could profit no Man except he kept the whole Law Ergo c. And he cites Rom. 2.25 for the Proof of his Minor Proposition Before I answer to either part of his Argument I must distinguish of these two Terms Law and Keep Thus by Law may be meant either the Moral Law and that taken in a strict and proper Sense as the Law or Covenant of Works the Sum of which the Holy Ghost reduces to a Do this and live Or 2. That Term Law may intend the whole Revealed Will of God concerning Man's Duty and then under this Term Law we are to include both the Moral Ceremonial and Judicial Law and that in their utmost Extent and Latitude 2. For that Term Keep it may be meant either of a perfect sinless keeping so as the Persons so keeping the Law shall live therein according to that of the Apostle Gal. 3.12 Or 2. It may be meant of a sincere and upright Keeping so as not willingly or wilfully to fail in doing any thing required or doing any thing so bidden Now if Mr. Grantham takes these Terms in the first Sense which in case he doth Law here can only refer to or be understood of the Moral Law and that as a Law of Works seeing God never required of or expected from his People a perfect sinless Obedience to the Ceremonial Law no nor to the Moral Law as the Rule of that Obedience he requires of his People And then I deny the Minor Proposition and say those words of the Apostle prove it not and my Reason is because the Apostle there speaks of the Law as considered under another Notion and of another manner of keeping than is intended by Mr. Grantham But 2. If Mr. Grantham understood these Terms Law and Keeping in the latter Sense then I deny the Major Proposition and affirm on the other
he drives at is this There were some in the Covenant of Grace which were not circumcised nor under an Obligation to be circumcised Now in Answer to this I would only demand of Mr. G. Whether he is sure the Covenant now entred with Abraham was so far promulgated as that the Persons he talks of had knowledg of it Or suppose they had some notice of it Whether their Duty to be circumcised was made known unto them Either of these things being granted how their not being circumcised should intimate that this Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace nor Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance is as much above the Reason of Man to apprehend as the former I would commend to Mr. G. the Case of Cornelius in Acts 10. the latter end There is only one thing more that I would take notice of in Mr. G's Discourse And thus he argues against that Covenant its being a Covenant of Grace from the Date of the Promise But I have returned so satisfactory an Answer to that in my Answer to Mr. Cox that I shall and no more see p. 97 and so on I shall now come to what Mr. Cary hath said in pursuance of the same Design namely to prove That that Covenant Gen. 17.7 is not the Covenant of Grace but on the other hand that it is the Old Covenant or a Covenant of Works only I shall premise that at present I design not a full Answer of his Book that I have already done in my Answer to Mr. Cox Neither do I know how I could more effectually answer his Book than by laying down and proving those three Propositions there laid down and proved I shall now only take notice of what is Argumentative in his Book and considering the Commendation it hath by Five as I suppose of the chiefest of that Perswasion and a Commendatory Epistle by a Sixth I might justly expect something extraordinary and I shall not deny but that my Expectations were somewhat high But if ever that Proverb Parturiunt Montes were verified it is here Alas what do I meet with but Ridiculus Mus For I have yet observed but two Arguments syllogistically framed by which he attempts the Confirmation of his Notion and the very recital of them may in the judgment of all unbyassed Persons be a sufficient confutation of them There first is in his p. 120. and it is this If that Covenant he means that recorded in Gen. 17. was as much a Covenant of Works as that Covenant of Mount Sinai and that Covenant mentioned Deut. 29.9 nay as much as the Covenant made with Adam before his Fall then it is not a Covenant of Grace But it was as much a Covenant of Works as either of the Covenants before-mentioned were Therefore c. A lusty Argument if it would stand But truly I might with sorrow say as the Apostle of some that would be teachers of the Law There are some that would be Teachers of the Gospel neither knowing what they say nor whereof they affirm But to the Argument I positively deny the Minor Proposition as that concerns the Covenant made with Adam and that entred with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai As for that Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. 't is the same with this in Genesis both which I affirm to be one and the same Covenant of Grace But Mr. Cary attempts to prove his Minor thus It must needs be as much a Covenant of Works as that entred with the People at Mount Sinai yea as that made with Adam in Innocency because although God promised to be a God to Abraham and his Seed yet it was upon condition of Obedience with an answerable Threatning But can Mr. Cary or any other Man of common sense think that the bare requiring of Obedience in any Covenant or Threatning of Judgments in Case of Disobedience makes it presently a Covenant of Works Is it not expresly said That our Lord Christ is the Author of Salvation to all that obey him and doth he not say according to the Covenant of Grace Yea and is not Faith it self an Act of Obedience and yet the Condition of the Covenant of Grace Mr. G. expresly grants that it is and if I do not mistake so doth Mr. Cary also And for Threatnings doth not the Apostle tell us If we live after the Flesh we shall die Rom. 8.13 Yea doth not our Lord Christ give us the Sum of the Gospel-Covenant in his Commission to his Apostles Mark 16. and yet doth he not say He that believeth not shall be damned But not to waste time Mr. Cary must know that it is not the bare requiring of Obedience nor yet the denouncing Threatnings that makes a Covenant a Covenant of Works but the commanding a perfect sinless Obedience to all that is written therein and threatning Death unto all in case of the least failure in such an Obedience And therefore to proceed His 2. Argument which is of a like validity with this we have p. 204. and it is this That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness could never be a Covenant of Faith of Grace I suppose he means And this Argument he takes to be irresistible Strange Confidence And not to spend Time in shewing the Insufficiency of his Proof that speaking of Circumcision when his Argument speaks of the Covenant and sure there is a wide difference between the Covenant and Circumcision the Token of it So that this Argument of it self falls to the ground for want of Proof But yet let me ask this one Question of Mr. Cary and that is Whether Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness by a meer Act of Soveraign Grace without Respect had to any Covenant he was then under Or was it reckoned to him by virtue of some Promise of any Covenant that he was then under If he say the former Then I shall only say how his having his Faith reckoned unto him for Righteousness by such an Act of Soveraign Grace should be an Argument that this Covenant after entred with him was not the Covenant of Grace is above the reach of Man's Understanding to apprehend But if he say the latter then I shall affirm That was the Covenant of Grace the same for substance with this now entred with him only before less compleat but now fully compleated and how the Institution of Circumcision could either cast Abraham out of it or alter the Tenure of the Covenant so as that before he had Faith reckoned to him for Righteousness by virtue of the Promises contained in it but after neither had nor could have Faith alike reckoned to him for Righteousness by virtue of the same Promises is as much above the Understanding of Man as the former We will suppose an Heathen or a Pagan converted and enabled to believe Now upon his very first Conversion and Believing he hath his Faith reckoned to him for Righteousness but afterwards this Man is baptized shall we now say
that the Covenant he is received into and of which Baptism is a Sign or Seal neither is nor can be the Covenant of Grace because he had his Faith reckoned to him for Righteousness before his Baptism or while in an unbaptized Condition how absurd would that be So that this Argument is so far from being irresistible that it hath not the least weight in it But to proceed Having removed out of our way these feeble Argumentations whereby these two Authors endeavour to prove That that Covenant Gen. 17.7 is not the Covenant of Grace but the Covenant of Works the direct contrary whereunto I have affirmed whereby the Arguments I have laid down for the Proof of my Assertion may be rendred somewhat doubtful in the Judgments of Persons of weaker Capacities seeing Propositions lying so diametrically opposite the one to the other cannot both be true I doubt not those Arguments laid down by me will be seen in their full force And therefore I shall return to my first Design which is as I have said to direct to the laying a sure Foundation to the Practice of Infant-Baptism in this Covenant established between God and Abraham and his Seed in their Generations 2. The second thing then to be done is to determine the true and proper Subjects of this Covenant The first as I have said is convincingly to prove that it is indeed the Covenant of Grace the very same Covenant under which Believers still are 2. The second thing I now say is to determine the true and proper Subjects of it And that they are and were Abraham and his Seed in their Generations the very words of the Covenant do assure us for so the Covenant runs I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations Here let it be observed That it is not said I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed in thy Generations but between the and thee and thy Seed in their Generations to be a God unto thee and thy Seed Now the Question is Who we are to understand by Abraham's Seed and who are intended and included in that Phrase Their Generations For the first I answer That by Abraham's Seed we are undoubtedly to understand all that is Scripture bare that Denomination of his Seed And these are of two sorts 1. His Natural Seed And 2. His Spiritual Seed All those who through their taking hold of and Reception into this Covenant were or are adopted into his Family as the Proselytes under the first Testament and Believers under the New As for Believers under the New Testament whom at present we are only concerned in that they are to be accounted as Abraham's Seed is expresly according to the Letter of the Scripture Rom. 4.16 Gal. 3.29 Now I say this Covenant God promiseth to establish between Himself and Abraham and all his Seed whether Natural or Spiritual Here is no Exception of the one or the other kind of his Seed but the words are absolute I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations And when God makes no Exception we ought to make none 2. But who are intended and included in this Clause Their Generations Who are these Generations of Abraham's Seed To that I say they are the natural Infants or natural Seed of Abraham's Seed And that we are to understand the Infant-Seed naturally descending from this Seed of Abraham I have as I hope sufficiently proved formerly and have as yet met with no Contradiction And indeed unless we include the Infant-Seed of Abraham's Seed in that Clause Their Generations there can be no Reason assigned of God's adding it nor can it be interpreted in any other Sense in a Consistency with the Truth and Faithfulness of God in his Covenant But 3. That which is to be done in pursuance of the End mentioned is to settle and establish the true Tenour of this Covenant as here establish'd between God and Abraham and his Seed in their Generations And for this we must observe that this Covenant as here established may be considered two ways 1. As having a more general Respect to all Abraham's Seed 2. As having a peculiar and special Respect to those who heretofore did or yet do stand immediately related to him as his Seed Such were the Children immediately descended from his own Loins as Isaac Ishmael c. and such are his Spiritual Seed viz. Believers they stand in as an immediate Relation to Abraham as his Seed immediately descending from his own Loins did And the Covenant as established with these gives them a present actual Right to and Interest in the Good promised in it And for the more clear understanding the true Tenour of this Covenant these three things must be observed 1. That the Covenant was and is established between God and all these his immediate Seed universally one as well as the other That it was so established between God and Abraham's natural Seed I have fully proved and that it is so established between God and his Spiritual Seed will certainly be readily granted by all that lay claim to this Spiritual Relation unto Abraham 2. That it was and is established between God and every one of these that were or are the Seed of Abraham in their Generations including as I said their Infant-Seed with their Parents between God and whomsoever this Covenant hath been established it always hath been and is established between him and them in their Generations this is according to the express words of the Covenant So that supposing it to be granted as I judg it is pass'd all rational Contradiction proved that in that Clause Their Generations the natural Infants of Abraham's Seed are included it must be granted that all the Infant-Seed of Believers are as such in Covenant with God and answerably have a present Right and Title to the Good promised in it 3. That this Covenant indispensably requires a personal Acceptation of and Closure with it by all between God and whom it hath been or is established As for grown Persons their first Admission into it doth indispensably require it as for Infants whether naturally descended from Abraham or from his Seed such a personal Acceptation of and a Closure with it always hath been and is indispensably required upon their coming to Years of Discretion and thereby they did and do become Abraham's Spiritual Seed and as such convey Covenant-Interest to their Seed And from these three things we may infer these two Colloraries 1. That all Abraham's natural Posterity immediately or mediately descending from him did as grown up to Years of Discretion hold their Interest in the Covenant and Right to the Good promised not as his Natural Seed but as his Spiritual Seed And the like must be said of Believers Seed I mean of such who have their Covenat-Interest continued to them 2. That however the Covenant might have a more general Respect