Faithful under the Law so Baptism belongs to the Children of the Faithful under the Gospel or else the Priviledges under the Gospel would be less than those were under the Law. Answ There hath been enough said over and over by Mr. Tombs Mr. Danvers and many others to detect and utterly vanquish the weakness of this Argument As first it hath been proved that the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham and his Seed doth not intend his Carnal Seed according to the Flesh but his Spiritual Seed or such who had the Faith of Abraham And one would think the Apostle might be believed in his expounding that Text viz. To Abraham and to his Seed were the Promises made Gal. 3. 16. He saith not And to Seeds as of many but as of one And to they Seed which is Christ Compare this with v. 29. If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise And again in Rom. 9. 7 8. he saith Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called That is they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed Could the Apostle in plainer words have detected the Error of these Men if he had met with them in his day 'T is true he did meet with some viz. the Jews or Abraham's natural Seed who were so blind as thus to argue from the Covenant made with Abraham and concluded they were the true Seed and Children of God because they were the Off-spring of Abraham according to the Flesh But as John Baptist first endeavoured to undeceive them when he saw the Scribes and Pharisees coming to his Baptism by saying Think not to say with in your selves ye have Abraham to your Father c. So in the next place our Blessed Saviour himself in John. 8. likewise shewed them their great Error and Mistake herein and that they might be the Children of the Devil notwithstanding they were the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh and thought themselves safe as being in that Covenant made with him The Covenant of Grace there made with Abraham and his Seed extends to none but the Holy and Elect Seed to none but the Spiritual Seed to such who are Christ's or true Believers in Christ only Now if the Covenant of Grace comprehends none of Abraham's carnal or fleshly Seed but the spiritual Seed only to what purpose is there so many Sheers of Paper printed by Mr. Baxter Mr. Sidenham c. to prove the carnal Seed of Believers to have right to the Seal of the Covenant Their Business is to prove all Believers Children to be in the Covenant in the first place or all they say is nothing But Secondly if they could prove all the Children of Believers to be in that Covenant made with Abraham yet it doth not from thence follow neither that therefore their Children may be baptized unless they can shew the Lord Jesus hath injoined them so to be because Baptism wholly depends upon the Authority of Christ's Institution or positive Prescription 'T is not enough for any to say if Children are in Covenant they may be baptized Who tells them so Hath Christ any where required it doth he say they ought or that it belongs to them Had it been Abraham's Duty to circumcise his Children because they were in Covenant with him before God gave him a positive Law so to do certainly had he done it without any Command of God and have called it God's Ordinance he had ceas'd being called any more Faithful Abraham Come Sirs your Consequences and Conclusions you have so long made a noise of will make no Gospel-Precept nor hold equal weight with the Ballance of the Sanctuary For thirdly pray consider Were there not divers in the Covenant of Grace i. e. in that Spiritual or Gospel-Covenant God made with Abraham in that very day and time that the Law of Circumcision was given forth and yet they were not from that Ground to be circumcised nor were they at all circumcised because God did not command them so to be Was not Lot a Godly Man and in the same Covenant of Grace together with Melchisedec and others I might mention These were in Covenant and yet without the Seal as you call it we do not read they were circumcised And do you not think that many of the Females of Abraham's off-spring were in that Covenant of Grace yet they had no right to Circumcision the Seal as you called it of the Covenant because none but Males were required or commanded to be circumcised Suppose Abraham should have gone without a Command or Word from God and have Circumcised his Females and have reasoned after the rate you do viz. My Female children are in Covenant and since the Covenant belongs to them the Seal of the Covenant belongs to them which is Circumcision therefore I will circumcise them also would God have allowed him to do any such Act think you You will reply I am sure that God would never have born with Abraham in doing any such thing because he must have done it without a Command And pray how can you think he will bear with you in Baptizing Children of Believers sith you have no more Command from God so to do than Abraham had to Circumcise his Female Children You reply They are in Covenant and therefore to them belongs the Seal of the Covenant even so say we his Females might be in the same Covenant and yet you would have condemned such an Act in him though grounded upon the very same foot of an Account which you stand upon your own Justification in and acknowledg no Fault but contrarywise blame nay reproach us for holding an Error because we cannot do and practice as you do in this case without any Authority from God's Word 4ly To prove further that the Right of Circumcision wholly depended upon the absolute Will Pleasure and Soveraignty of God as Baptism now doth and that his Will and not ours nor any Consequence that may be drawn from being in the Covenant can give a Person a right thereto without his Command or allowance 't is to be considered that there were those commanded to be Circumcised who were not as there is probable ground to believe in that holy and blessed Covenant of Grace God said his Covenant should not be established with Ishmael but with Isaac yet he was Circumcised Gen. 17. 20 21 25. Gal. 4. 29 30. The same might be said of Esau and thousands more of Abraham's Carnal Seed It was it appears from hence God's Soveraign Will and Pleasure that gave right to Circumcision and not being in the Covenant Quest But was not Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under that Dispensation as Baptism is now a Seal of the same Covenant under this Dispensation Answ No for Circumcision was only a Seal to Abraham's
Faith or a Confirmation of that Faith he had long before he was Circumcised but so it could not be said to be to any Infant that had no Faith. It was indeed a Sign put into the Flesh of Infants but a Sign and Seal too only to Abraham witnessing to him that he had a Justifying Faith but to the Truth of the Promises there was 'tis evident a two-fold Covenant made with Abraham 1. That he should be the Father of many Nations and that the Land in which he was a Stranger should be given to his Seed these Promises seem to relate to his Carnal Seed 2. That he should be the Father of the Faithful Rom. 4. 11. Heir of the World Rom. 4. 13. and that in him and in his Seed all the Families of the Earth should be blessed that is Jesus Christ Gal. 3. 16. Now none could receive Circumcision as such a Seal to them but Abraham because none before circumcised had such a Faith which intitled them to such singular Promises The Apostle in the fourth of the Roâ—ans shews that Abraham was not justified by Works nor by Circumcision but by Faith which he had long before he was circumcised and so but a Seal or Confirmation of that Faith he had before and to assure him of the Truth of the Promises made to him and to his Carnal and Spiritual Seed You ought not therefore to call Circumcision a Seal to any but to Abraham neither ought you to call it a Seal of any other thing to him than what the Scripture calls it a Seal of viz. And he received Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised Rom. 4. 11. And that you may see we are not alone in this matter see what Chrysostom and Theophilact as I find them quoted by Mr. Danvers It was called a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith because it was given to Abraham as a Seal and Testimony of that Righteousness which he had acquired by Faith. Now this seems to be the Priviledg of Abraham's alone and not to be tranferred to others as if Circumcision in whom ever it was were a Testimony of Divine Righteousness for it was the Priviledg of Abraham that he should be the Father of all the Faithful as well uncircumcised as circumcised being already the Father having Faith in Uncircumcision he received first the sign of Circumcision that he might be the Father of the Circumcised Now because he had this Priviledg in respect of the Righteousness which he had acquired by Faith therefore the sign of Circumcision was to him a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith but to the rest of the Jews it was a sign that they were Abraham's Seed but not a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith as all the Jews also were not the Fathers of many Nations Moreover it is evident a Seal is a Confirmation of that which a Person hath made over to him and it doth insure him of it Now to call Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant of Grace 't is all one as to say all that were circumcised were assured of all the Blessings of that Covenant then must all that were circumcised be pardon'd and saved and so also would it follow in the case of Baptism were that acknowledged to be a Seal to all those that are baptized of the new Covenant But in a word we know nothing called a Seal of the New Covenant but the holy Spirit which the Saints were said to be sealed with after they believed Ephes 1. 13. 4. 30. unto the day of Redemption God by setting his Seal upon us assures us that we are his and that we shall have Eternal Life Baptism is called a Figure but no where a Seal and a Sign or Figure proper only to such who have Understanding to discern the Spiritual things and Mysteries that are represented thereby and wrought in them Object Say what what you will the Promise and Covenant of Grace was to Abraham and his natural Off-spring Answ Why do you not believe the Apostle who tells you the quite contrary and that he said not of Seeds as of many but to thy Seed which is Christ But it you will have it as you say see what absurd Consequences will follow and arise from your Notion And first take what Calvin saith 'T is manifest saith he that the Promise understood of Spiritual Blessings pertaineth not to the Carnal Seed of Abraham but to the Spiritual as the Apostle himself saith Rom. 4. 8 9. for if you understand the Carnal Seed saith he then that Promise will belong to none of the Gentiles but to those alone who are begotten of Abraham and Isaac according to the Flesh by this it appears you go about to shut out your selves and Children too from having any part in that Covenant made with Abraham Secondly If God made the Covenant of Grace with Abraham and his Carnal or Fleshly Off-spring and so with all Believers and their Children then all their Off-spring must have saving Grace bestowed upon them and a new Heart because these things are some of the chief Blessings contained in the new Covenant Now do you see that all the Children of Believers have the Grace of God bestowed upon them so that they are new Creatures certainly no for as Abraham had his Ishmael and Isaac his Esaâ— and David his Absolom so have most or many Believers wicked and ungodly Children and so they live and die to the great Grief of their Souls You can't think that God fails in his Promise and that the Covenant of Grace is not so firm and sure as the Scripture declares it to be one of them will follow or you must conclude your selves mistaken in your Notion But certainly they cannot miss of Grace if Mr. Blake is right for saith he Christianity is hereditary that as the Children of a Noble-Man are Noble the Child of a Free-Man free of a Turk a Turk and of a Jew a Jew so the Child of a Christian is a Christian We will grant him they are so called but withal must tell him the Children of Christian People are by Nature the Children of Wrath as well as others Fourthly This would render Grace to be a Birth-Priviledg as Mr. Danvers observes and Regeneration tied to Generation contrary to the Scripture and all good Doctrine as if a Believer doth not only beget a Child in natural Generation but a Saint also Fifthly Then the Apostle spake not true in saving the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God i. e. of the Promise Rom. 9. Sixthly And it also would follow that all the whole Off-spring of Believers shall be saved without you will assert the Doctrine of James Arminius that there is a falling away from Grace Seventhly And would it not follow also that all the Children of Believers know God and need not be taught saying Know the Lord for you know who saith
be joined to the Father c. And St. Austin saith They were commanded to be baptized in the Name of Christ and tho the Father and Holy Ghost were not mentioned yet we understand they were not otherwise baptized than in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Why dost thou not apprehend when it is said of the Son All things were made by Him that the Holy Ghost also though not mentioned is there likewise understood To be baptized into Christ Jesus saith Eulogius signifies to be baptized according to the Precept of Christ that is into the Father Son and Holy Ghost And that other into his Death is typically representing his Death in Baptism The same Patriarch in the same place a little before saith thus What is said in the Acts of those that had received the Baptism of John that they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus denotes that they were baptised according to the Institution and Doctrine of the Lord Jesus that is to say they were baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost For so the Lord Jesus Christ taught and commanded his Disciples to baptize Mat. 28. 19 20. Object Notwithstanding what we have said yet saith the Objector John Baptist opposeth his Baptism to the Baptism of Christ which could not have been done if the Baptism with Water was an inseparable Companion of Christ's Doctrine How could John say Verily I baptize you with Water but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost c. Moreover if Christ had been commanded to baptize with Water as well as John the words would have run thus Verily I baptize you with Water only but he shall baptize you also with the 〈◊〉 Answ Thus to distinguish the Baptism of Water and that of the Spirit into John's and Christ's and oppose these two one to the other as if the one of these were distructive to the other as if that of John's were his own and none of Christ's is very ridiculous and argues great darkness in the understanding of these opposers of Water-baptism for 't is undeniably evident that this of Water as well as that of the Spirit was given forth by Christ himself and as part of his last Will and Testament to abide together with teaching believing and repenting to the end of the World. These Men would fain have us believe that the Baptism of Water was the Baptism of John's and none of Christ's but as if John had instituted it and not Christ and as if John were the Author of it and Christ the Finisher whereas nothing is more clear that Christ consider'd as God was the Author and the first that ordained appointed and instituted it to be administred by John and after John's decease yea and after his own Death and Resurrection too gave order to its continuance And for the observation of it amongst all Nations our late Annotators also on Mat. 3. 5. agree with us exactly herein He that is John was sent to baptize in Water so as from this time say they the Institution of the Sacrament of Baptism must be dated Nothing can be more evident than that the Baptism with Water was Christ's Baptism and howbeit it is called John's as John was the first Minister and Messenger from Christ to begin it For behold I send my Messenger and he shall prepare my way before me saith Christ Mal. 3. 1. It was Christ's Appointment in whose Name and not in John's it was begun and dispensed always even in that juncture wherein John himself was living and one would think Men could not be so blind to suppose it ceased in John fith our Lord Jesus after his Death and Resurrection gives special Command for the continuation of it in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost in all Nations to the end of the World And in regard also that the Apostles after Christ's Ascension into Heaven preached the same Doctrine of Repentance and commanded such who were discipled to be baptized in Water in the Name of the Lord Jesus which signifies as we have already shewed nothing less than according to the Institution of Christ and that glorious Commission they had received from him Therefore John Baptized only as Christ's Servant and it was from Heaven he received Commission to Baptize and our Lord's Submission to it himself as administred by John to fulfil all righteousness that is as one observes the Righteousness of his own Law i. e. the Gospel to be an Example to us and the Father's glorious Approbation of his Son in his Obedience herein by a Voice from Heaven at the time of his coming out of the Water one would think might put an end to these foolish Objections Jesus Christ we say owned Water-baptism to be his Ordinance by subjecting himself to it tho administred by his servant John and the Father ratified it also as well as the Holy Ghost the one by that Voice from Heaven saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased and the other in coming down or descending in a visible manner like a Dove and lighting upon him And certainly had not this Ordinance been to abide our Saviour would not have given such a Commission a little before he ascended into Heaven for the continuance of it to the World's end Nay if it had been to cease he would doubtless have given some hint of it and have told his Disciples plainly when at Jerusalem they should be anointed with Power from on High they should go and Preach the Gospel to all the World or make Disciples of the Nations but not baptize them any more for that the way of Repentance and Faith and the Spirit 's Baptism was all the Baptism they should teach and instruct the People in Moreover had Peter known this to have been the Mind of his Blessed Master he would doubtless have said to them Act. 2. when they asked what they should do Repent and believe in Christ for the remission of your Sins but in the Name of Jesus Christ be not baptized in Water never a one of you as some while since every Penitent was required to be for that was a Dispensation and Baptism of John and had its time for a while meerly to prepare the Way of Christ but now is abolished and out of date ye must forsake John's old Administration of Water-baptism that being a carnal and low thing and look wholly to a higher and more sublime Baptism i. e. that of the Holy Ghost And had he known this to be the Mind of his Master would not he rather have said concerning Cornelius and those with him Acts 10. instead of saying Who can forbid Water Who can require Water that these Persons should be Baptized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we No doubt had Water-Baptism ceased or been abolished we should have had some discovery of it as well as we have
now quite pulled down that House of his I mean that National Church-state and broke up House-keeping and turned the Bond-Woman and her Son i. e. the Fleshly Seed Servants and Infants all out of doors the natural Branches are broken off and God hath now built him a new a glorious and more spiritual House into which he admitteth none as his Houshold-Servants to dwell in his Spiritual Family but Believers only or such as profess so to be Ye also saith Peter as lively Stones are built up a Spiritual House c. and that the old House the Jewish Church-state with all the Appurtenances Rites and Priviledges of it is pulled down and a new one built into which Infants are not to be admitted is very evident from what the Apostle speaks Heb. 7. 12. For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessary a Change also of the whole Law which must needs include Circumcision with all the Appurtenances and Priviledges belonging to it And therefore as Infants Church-membership came in with the Law of Circumcision so it went out and was disanull'd with it they were 't is true of the Houshold of old but it was by a positive Law Shew us the like now and you do your business or else you say nothing For evident it is that what Priviledges soever are given to any Persons by an Act of Parliament which said Law was to continue in force for so long a time and no longer when that time is expired and another Parliament makes a new Law wherein many things are contained that were in the first but those certain Priviledges given to those Persons in the former Law are left out in this latter Act it would 〈◊〉 be a solly for any of them to 〈◊〉 those Priviledges by virtue of a Law that is gone and now not in force Or if a Man should have a Legacy bequeathed to him by the Will and Testament of his Friend and yet afterwards his Friend sees cause to make another Will which is his last Will and Testament and in the last Will leaves him quite out and gives him no such Legacy it would be a foolish thing for him to sue for the Legacy left him in the first Will which is void in Law by his Friends last Will and Testament Just so it is here there was an old Law wherein Infants were admitted to the Priviledges of being Members of the National Church of the Jews and so also it was in the old or former Will and Testament but that Law was to continue but till Christ came and now he has made a new Law wherein Infant-Church-membership is quite left out and the Lord Jesus has made another Will his last Will and Testament wherein the old Priviledg is not be queathed to Infants Now is it not folly in you to plead for that old Priviledg that was in the former Testament you must find your Infant-Church-membership in the New Testament as must also the Seventh-day-Sabbath-Men the old Jewish Sabbath or else they and you too say nothing but render your selves weak and strangely be-clouded and certain I am there is now no Institution no Law no Prescription no Rule no Example for keeping the Seventh-day-Sabbath in the new Law in the new and last Will and Testament of Jesus Christ nor no Institution no Law no Precept no Example contained therein for Infant-Church-membership no not the least hint or intimation that Infants should be fellow-Citizins with the Saints and of the Houshold of God neither are they so to be accounted till they believe and are to do Service in the House for though we account our Children of our Family notwithstanding they can't do any Service therein yet that is no Argument they may be Members of God's Church unless by any Law or Institution God has made them so to be The Houshold of God is called the Houshold of Faith or a Family that consisteth of Believers therefore unless you can prove Infants to be Believers they are not of this House for all that are to have admission there must be Believers or profess themselves so to be as Mr. Baxter acknowledges or else no place for them there which Infants cannot do Object But it is still objected that as the Jews and their Children were broken off so the Gentiles and their Children are ingrafted in their room as Rom. 11. 20. because of Vnbelief they were broken off and thou standest by Faith c. Answ We answer that the Reason why the Jews and their Children were broken off was not because they had not believing Parents for Abraham Isaac and Jacob were still the Parents of them all they were Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh when they were broken off as well as before but the true reason was because the terms of standing in the Church were now altered For before the Gospel-Dispensation came they stood Members of the old Jewish Church though as much unbelieving for many Generations as they were when they were broken off but now Abraham's Church-state is at an end and all the Priviledges and Immunities cease the Jewish Church must give way to the Gospel-Church the Messiah being come and about to build him up a new and more glorious and spiritual House into which none are of right to enter but such as are profest Believers for the old House or Jewish Church-state was not intended to abide for ever but only until the time of Reformation and then the Law must be changed yea the Covenant changed which they not believing nor closing in with were broken off they being willing to abide in the old House still and to remain Church-Members upon the account of a meer fleshly and natural Birth crying out Abraham is our Father and we are his Seed and are free and never were in Bondage wherefore they were broken off and that whether they would or not by reason of their Unbelief that is because they would not believe Christ was the true Messiah and that the old Covenant and all the Priviledges thereof were flying away the Substance and true Antitype of all those Shadows being come viz. the Lord Jesus Christ So that thus they were broken off by Unbelief and thou and thine O Gentile Believer stand by Faith mark it thou standest by Faith not by virtue of any Birth-Priviledg whatsoever but by Faith thy standing is by Faith yet not thy Seed by thy Faith but thou thy self by thine and they by their own Faith is that by which thou standing and not thy Seed hast right to stand in the Church and not they but if thy Seed have Faith and thou hast none they have right in the Church and thou shalt be excluded Most certain it is that under the Law the natural Seed or Progeny of Abraham were all holy with an External Ceremonial or Typical Holiness and consequently they were then all admitted to an external Participation of Church-Priviledges But remarkable to this purpose is that
Passage of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 16. Wherefore henceforth know we no Man after the Flesh it seems then that heretofore there had been a knowledg taken of Persons after the Flesh and 't is as plain there was that becuase the Jews were of the natural or fleshly Seed of Abraham they were therefore all of them admitted to the Priviledg of an external Church-membership while others were exempted But we see the Apostle resolves henceforth to disclaim any such cognizance of them or any others upon the account of a meer fleshly Descent And to this very purpose immediately subjoyns in the following Verse Therefore if any Man be in Christ he is a new Creature old things are past away all things are become new the old Church and old Church-membership Rites Ordinances and Priviledges and a new Church-state new Ordinances a new Seed and new way of Introduction unto the Participation of the Priviledge of Church-membership now under this new and more glorious Dispensation viz. the Gospel Nothing but a new Creature will serve the turn for God expects that they that worship him do now worship him in Spirit and is Truth the Priviledg of being admitted into God's House and to stand before his Presence in the actual Celebration of Gospel-Ordinances being now entailed only upon the Spiritual Seed even such who as lively Stones are built up a spiritual House a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual Sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 2. 3 4 5. or such at least as make a visible Profession thereof And therefore when this new and more spiritual Dispensation was about to be actually introduced and established John who was the Harbinger of it gives sufficient notice thereof and to this purpose deals plainly with the Jews i. e. the Pharisees and Sadduces that came to be baptized of him and tells them upon this account Mat. 3. 9 10. Think not to say within your selves We have Abraham to our Father For I say unto you that God is able of these Stones to raise up Children to Abraham And now also is the Ax laid unto the root of the Trees Therefore every Tree that bringeth not forth good Fruit is hewn down and cast into the Fire It cannot be denied but that they had Abraham to their Father as much now as before only the terms of their standing in that Church was now changed so that every Tree now of whatsoever natural Stock or external Production that bringeth not forth good Fruit must be hewn down and the reason is rendred for that Now the Ax is laid to the root of the Trees mark it now 't is so it was not so before the Ax was never till now laid thus unto the root of the Trees which must needs be understood in reference to that Birth and Fleshly Priviledg spoken of before which they had so long boasted of as the whole Context shews But now God is resolved to make other manner of work of it under the Gospel-Dispensation than he did before Now the root of the Trees are struck at a Bar put natural Descent or Extraction from a Religious Root i.e. Godly Parents will not now serve turn as in time past it did to give any true Right or Title to Church-Priviledges Moreover if God now will not suffer any of the natural Branches to abide on their own natural Stock viz. Abraham be sure he will not admit any Gentiles that are not natural Branches of Abraham to be grafted into the good Olive without Faith and Regeneration Object But if Children may not be baptized this makes the Priviledg of Believers Children under the Gospel less than was theirs under the Law for their Children were admitted Members of the visible Church by Circumcision and we cannot but conclude that our Priviledges for our selves and for our Children are at least as large great and comfortable as theirs and therefore our Infants are to be baptized Answ To this we reply that we do not doubt but that our Priviledges in respect of the Covenant of Grace and all Spiritual Blessings are as great and comfortable as theirs were but the Covenant of Grace the Blessings and Divine Priviledges thereof were neither made to the Jews natural Posterity nor to ours and although Circumcision was a Priviledg in some respect to the Jews above what the Heathens had yet it is termed by the Apostle an intolerable Yoke Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Necks of the Disciples which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear Their Children were not circumcised as Children of Believers and so sealed with a new Covenant-Seal as being made new Covenant-Children thereby Circumcision did not confer Grace nor make them Heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven it was therefore no more than an external Priviledg to the natural Lineage and Seed of Abraham as a typical and shadowy thing whereby his Posterity was to be mark'd to distinguish them from all the Nations of the Earth and to keep that Line clear from whence Christ according to the Flesh was to come and to be a Sign in their Flesh to put them in mind that God would perform the Promise of the Messiah made to Abraham and also to oblige them to keep the Law for he that was circumcised was a Debtor to keep the whole Law. Hence it was the Jewish Christians instead of looking upon Circumcision to be a Priviledg upon a spiritual account could not but acknowledg it a great Mercy they were delivered from it and hence 't is the Apostle exhorts the Saints to stand fast in that Liberty in which Christ had made them free and not be intangled again in the Yoke of Bondage Neither ought such a thing as Mr. Danvers observes to be any more esteemed the loss of a Priviledg than our not injoying literally a Holy Land City Temple a Succession of High-Priests and Priesthood by Generation or Lineal Descent For you know their Children were Priests successively in their Generations a Levite begat a Priest or Minister as well as they and other Tribes begat Church-Members Now though all these outward Priviledges are gone yet our Priviledges being more spiritual are greater both to our selves and Off-spring they look'd for Christ to come as held forth under many dark Types and Shadows we are assured he is come and has accomplish'd what was foretold of him We behold in the Glass of the Gospel as with open face the Glory of the Lord all those Types are explained and spiritualized to us viz. Circumcision the Worldly Sanctuary Tabernacle the Candlestick Table Shew-bread Cherubims Mercy-seat c. which things and many more were Figures for the time then present and were Shadows of good things to come but the Body or Substance of them is Christ who hath put an end to them and must we now needs find out some other carnal or external Rites to come in the room or stead of these or some of these