it is of Divine institution or the form of a particular Church eiâ—her in respâ—ct of its truâ—h or purity much less that it is a condition of interest in the covenant of grace as if the promises thereof were mâ—de under that condition But I conceive this speech of Mr. C. heâ—e together wiâ—h â—hat other excepted against mâ— by me in the first part of this Review pag. 92 are very dangerous I go on Again saith Mr. C. That Covenant of grace is considered either in it self or its administration to which purpose Circumcision is called the Covenant partly because it was the sign and seal of the covenant of grace Gen. 17 11 12 13 partly too because it was the covenant of grace in the administration of it Ier. 13.11 Isai. 24. Zach. â—1 10 hath reference to the covenant of grace both as invested with the Church covenant and in respect of Church administration thereof Answer The administration of the covenant of grace is to me no way intelligible but thus that by it is meant the administring the promise it self which I know not how it should not be done but by making or writing or some other way representing or recording it or the things promised in the covenant of grace to wit justification c. which may be done either by Divine authority power conferring or bestowing and this none can do but the eternal Father Son and Spirit or by way of signification revelation or assurance of them so I confess the preaching of the Gospel and in some sense the Sacraments as they are called may be termed Church-administrations of the covenant of grace But this seems not to be Mr. C. his meaning for he saith Circumcision is called the Covenant partly because it was the sign and seal of the covenant of grace Gen. 17.11 12 13. partly too because it was the covenant of grace in the administration of it Which words are an inâ—pt tautology if to be the covenant of grace in the administration of it be not somewhat beyond being a sign and a seal of it and sith circumcision is said to be both circumcision must not onely sign and seal the covenant of grace but must be the administration of it which how it should do but by conferring the grace of it I know not If it be that way it must do it either ex opere operato or ex opere operantis if this later way then how do infants receive grace by it who believe not nor do any other act pre-required if the former it is the same with the tenent of Popish Doctors And for the text Gen 17.11 12 13. his own words pag. 43. refuâ—e him when he sâ—iâ—h Every one that haâ—h read Catecheticall doctrine will say that when in one verse it 's said of Circumcision in their flesh that it was his covenant in their flesh It is an usuâ—ll Metonymy in speaking of Sacraments to call the outword sacramenntall sign and seal by the name of the thing signified and scaled pag 44. Circumcision is bâ—t a branch of the covenant or condition of the covenant on their part As for the texâ— Jer. 13.11 there 's not a word of ciâ—cumcision in 〈◊〉 onely it is said that God had caused to cleave to him the whole house of Israel as the girdle cleavâ—th to the â—yns of a man but to refer this to circumcision is frivolous God had by his Covenant Providence and actings for them in wonderfull maâ—er made them to cleave to hiâ— That â—hey might be unto him for a people as iâ— follows in the vâ—rse In the other text Isai. 24 5 it is said the Iews had broken the everlasting covenant which if it be undâ—rstood of the covenant of grace then may it be brâ—ken aâ—d persons may faâ—l from grace if of circumcision as Mr. C. seems to undâ—rstand it then it is no more but they had uncircumcised â—hemselves which were both faâ—se for at that time and after even unto this day â—he Iewes keep the ordinance of circumcisioon very strictly â—nd frivolâ—s as if this hâ—d been the great maâ—ter for which the earth mourned did fade away languished was utterly emptied and spoiled But â—the covenant here is meant of the covenant of â—he Law a 〈…〉 which was everlasting that is to continue as long as their pâ—â—iâ—y stood Exod 24.7 8. as Exâ—n 27 21 12.24 28.43 2 Chron. 6.2.2 7.16 the word for ever is used for a long time or the continuance of the Iewish Sâ—ate So Jer 11 3 4 Jer 31 32 they are accused to break the covenant at mâ—unâ— Sinai by disobedience chiefly by idolatry and therefore neither of the Tâ—xâ—s yeild any thing to prove circumcision to be the covenant of grace in the administration of it That Gods breaking of his Covenant Zach 11.10 hath no reference to the Covenant of grace either as invested wiâ—â— church-Church-covenant or Church-administration thereof is shewed above Sect 25 in the right administration of it The distinction he makes of being in the Covenant intentionally and 〈◊〉 I allow nor do I deny the distinction oâ— being in Covenant internally and savingly and onely externally in respect of men though I find not Ishmael any where said to be in the Covenant and the promises Rom. 9.4 are meant of the peculiar promises to the nation of Israel by the Covenants are meant the tables of the Covenant as Beza in his Annot. on that place however all there said is meant of the Israelites only as is shewed before Sect. 29. and therefore this place makes nothing for Christian Gentile professors being externally in the Covenant of grace as Mr. C. imagines Nor do I know any Text in the Scripture wherein that phrase is used of being in Covenant or having the Covenant belong to them externally only The distinction of being in Covenant externally in their own or their parents right hath no proof in the new Testament however it have in the old The seed of Abraham by proportion is a new invented sort of Abrahams seed no where Proselytes of old not true believers in their Generations and were visible inchurched beleivers in their Generations scil parents children together are terms Abrahams seed in Scriptue That Deut. 29 14. notes the sorts of persons not the individuats cannot be true for him that is here and him that is not here note individual persons distinguished according to their present and future existence That Gen. 17 7. is meant of a Church seed indefinite or by proportion is said not proved by Mr. C. and denied by me I pass on to his Conclusions Sect. 2. I grant the first conclusion according to the explication I give in my Exercit. Pag. 2. in my Examen part 3. Sect. 2. that the Covenant Gen. 17 7 was a Covenant â—f grace and the same in nature with that Covenant of grace nâ—w hâ—ld â—orth to us But Mr. C. hath a further meaning to wit that the Covenant as it is a Covenant of
the person baptized repents of his sins and renounceth specially his Gentile defilements communion with Satan and engageth himself to be Christs disciple Yet I deny not but that by consequent in the manner of doing it by dipping or plunging under water it minds us of Christs death burial and rising again and testifyeth our salvation by him and so in a remote manner assures to us the benefits of the Covenant of grace But in this manner it is the administration of election as well as the Covenant and is an administration of the Covenant only to elect persons and true believers for it assures salvation onely to them not to all that are baptized and therefore in this respect none but they can have title to it So that if from hence that baptism is the administration of the Covenant a title be derived for infants to be baptized it can intitle none but those to whom it administers the Covenant which are only the elect or true believers But the ambiguity of the expression is much more fallacious For 1. when it is said it is appointed for the administration of the Covenant the expressions sometimes are as if it were the administration it self calling it the new administration as I shew in my Apology sect 10. Mr. Geree here p. 10. baptism is a seal of a new administration and then it is all one as to say the administration of the Covenant is appointed for the administration of the Covenant which is either non-sense or at least inâ—ptly spoken 2. When they say it is the administration of the Covenant do they mean the outward or inward Covenant The latter I presume they will not say for then baptism should be an administration of the things promised therin regenerarion remission of sins and if so then it administers them in a natural way and so it should in manner of a natural agent regenerate c. which is to confer grace ex opere operato or in a moral way but baptism can administer regeneration remission of sins c. no other moral way but by assuring or perswading or the like what ever way it be conceived it administers not the covenant to an infant in infancy nor to any but the elect now if it do not administer the covenant to any but such then it is not baptism but to such if baptism be in its nature the administration of the Covenant of Grace If they mean baptism is the administration of the outward covenant I am yet to learn what the outward covenant is except they mean the outward administration which is no other then baptism as I shew Apology s. 10. and what is this then but to say that baptism is the administration or appointed for the administration of baptism 3. When they say it is the administration of the Covenant do they mean the Covenant or promise of the baptized to God or Gods promise to the baptized If the former then it is no more but this that baptism is the administration that is the signification of the baptized his engagement to be Christs disciple which is indeed the best sense of it but then it will not fit them for so it is not in infants for they signifie no profession or engagement of theirs by it If the later then by baptism God doth promise man but that 's not true his promise is in the Word before baptism or he signifies his promise formerly made this can derive no title to the persons to whom the promise is made for the signifying that promise as past is as useful for others either baptized or unbaptized as the then baptized and not at all of use or avail to infants who cannot apprehend the signification or he assures the benefits of the Covenant and that can be only to elect or true believers or that he contains them by it and so it gives grace ex opere operato 4. The Covenant of grace is I take it the Covenant of saving grace opposite to the Covenant of works the promise of justification by faith in contradistinction to the Law Gal 3.18 This covenant was made mixtly Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. purely Heb. 8.10 11 12. They should tell us whether they mean the one or the other or both The former they seem to mean when they make baptism to succeed Circumcision and to seal the same Covenant that it did But then baptism should not be the new administration but belong to the old And if it seal that Covenant then it assures the Land of Canaan and greatness in it But it seems they mean that it seals only the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed so Mr. Geree here we find in the administration of the Gospel covenant to Abraham and his seed But if so 1. Then it seals only a part of the Covenant that circumcision did and so succeeds not in it's use nor is there a reason given but their own conceit why it should seal one part and not another 2. If it seal or administer the Gospel-covenant then it administers not this promise that God will be a God to a believer and his natural seed as such For that is neither Gospel nor at all to be found Gen. 17.7 3. In that promise was foretold Christ to come of Abraham and this was Gospel Gal. 3.16 But this is not administred by baptism which signifies Christ already come 4. In the spiritual sense it was made to Abrahams seed by faith Gal. 3.29 Rom. 4.11 12. But they are only the elect Rom. 9.7 8. and then it is an administration of that Gospel covenant onely to elect persons and true Believers 5. There 's ambiguity also in the term the Gospel covenant is extended The Gospel covenant is The just shall live by faith that God will be a God to Abrahams seed by faith But Mr. Geree imagines a Gospel covenant which is but a fiction that God hath promised to be a God to the natural posterity of every believing Gentile 6. For the extent of it how it is extended is ambiguous For he cannot say it is extended in respect of the Gospel promise of righteousness and life to all the children of believers it was not extended Ishmael to and Esau. Therefore he acknowledgeth it to be extended in the reality of it onely to the Elect onely it is to be charitably presumed that they are elect and therefore they are to be taken for persons in covenant till they discover the contrary But he shews no rule of Scripture for such a Construction of the promise sure such a construction was unknown to Paul Rom. 9.6 7 8. when he expounded that very promise Gen. 17.7 nor doth such a construction agree with the words sith when God saith I will be a God to thee and thy seed the meaning according to M. Geree should then be I will be a God to thee that is every believer and to thy seed that is every believers natural seed which are
promises proper to Abrahams natural posterity were of the substance of the covenant and for the confirming of them circumcision was instituted of God as well as for them in priority of order before the assuring of those Evangelical benefits And for what Mr. Geree saith That the Gospel is not so pure now as to exclude all temporal promises it is true yet the Gospel doth not promise as the Covenanâ— Gen. 17. the inheritance of the land of Canaan with rest plenty prosperity and greatness therein but on the contrary such temporal blessings as are with persecution Mark 10.30 and do rather consist in inward comfort and content than in outward enjoyment of any earthly commodity which proves that the Gospel promise for temporal things is clean different from that made to Abraham Gen. 17. concerning temporal benefits to his posterity Mr. Geree addes Neither are the differences mentioned by you page 4. of your Exercit. or elsewhere to be between Circumcision and baptism any whit material to put a difference between the parties to be sealed by them in reference to our present controversy sith notwithstanding these differences they agree in this main general That the one was the Sacrament of initiation to all that were to be sealed under one administration of the covenant the other in the other which is enough to my purpose To which I say the disparities between circumcision and baptism are brought by me to invalidate the argument made by Paedobaptists to prove the succession of the one into the place room and use of the other from the parities between them which allegation to that end is made good before against Mr. Church sect 11. Those differences which I allege Exercit. p. 4. tend to demonstrate that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptism in signing the Evangelical covenant nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like administring of the other which differences are very material to that end the different end and use of a thing being the most apt reason for altering the application of it As Mr. Rutherford Divine right of Church Government ch 6. q. 2. page 276 277 278. answering Eraâ—tus saith of the Sea Cloud Mannah Water because they had a mixt use they were appointed to all yet it follows not now the Sacrament of the Lords Supper must be given to wicked men So by the very same reason sith circumcision had a mixt use to signify political as well as Evangelical promises to confirm the promise of Christ to come and did belong to the Church not oecumenical but oeconomical or national which baptism did not therefore circumcision might belong to infants and yet not baptism And letting pass his phrase of administration of the Covenant of which is enough said before though the agreement which he calls The main general be yielded him that they are both sacraments of initiation yet unless the same special rule of command or example primitive be brought for the one as the other infant-baptism cannot be proved from infant-circumcision Mr. Geree further tells me But you add further p. 4. of your Exercit. that some were circumcised to whom no promise in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong as Ishmael of whom God had said his Covenant was not to be established with him I answer it is said indeed Gen. 17.21 my Covenant will I establish with Isaac But by covenant there is not meant that covenant which we stand in to God in regard of our persons for our own personal benefit but the covenant of special prerogative that Christ should come of and the Church should remain in his posterity Therefore notwithstanding that exception Ishmael when circumcised might be and was a member of the visible Church in Abrahams family and in regard of his person within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham and so in the judgement of charity no alien from the covenant of grace but under it This I might confirm by the opinion of some Hebrew Doctors wherein they are followed by many that the petition of Abraham for Ishmael Gen. 17.18 was not onely for natural but for spiritual blessings and what he begged God granted v. 20. But I clear it thus God establisht his Covenant with Abraham and Isaac not with Melchisedeck nor Lot shall we therefore expunge them out of the Covenant of grace how absurd were that we only see their posterity enjoied not that privilege which God vouchsafed Abraham in Isaac and his seed And therefore no more can be truly or rationally gathered from that place of Genesi touching Ishmael Answ. That which in my Exercit. page 4. I gathered from the instances of Ishmael Esau the strangers and others of Abrahams house their circumcision and the non-circumcision of females males under eight daies old Melchisedeck Lot Job the non-admission to baptism of circumcised Jews in covenant till they professed repentance and faith in Christ were That the right to Evangelical promises was not the adequate reason of circumcising these or those but Gods precept as is exprest Gen. 17.23 Gen. 21.4 2. That those terms are not convertible federate and to be signed which overthrows the chief Hypotheses upon which the Paedobaptists argument from infant-circumcision for infant-baptism rests For they all conclude thus The reason why infants were circumcised was that they were in covenant therefore by like reason infants being in covenant should be baptized Now if the reason of infants being circumcised were not their being in covenant but only the command then there is not a like reason for infant-baptism though they were in the Covenant unless there were the like command Now let us see what Mr. Geree saith to my first iâ—stance of Ishmael I alleged that Ishmael was circumcised though no promise in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong to him and that Abraham knew therefore the reason of his circumcision and the same is the reason of others was not his being in covenant but only Gods command to Abraham The antecedent is proved from the words Gen. 17.21 which are exclusive And besides I alleged Rom. 9.6 7 8 9. Gal. 4.29 30. where expresly Ishmael is denied to be a child of the promise or to be born after the promise And I might have added Heb. 11.9 where Isaac and Jacob are distinguishingly reckoned as heirs of the same promise with Abraham not Ishmael and Esau. Now what saith Mr. Geree to this He â—aith The Covenant there is not meant that Covenant which we stand in to God in regard of our persons for our own personal benefit but the Covenant of special prerogative to Isaac that Christ should come of and the Church should remain in his posterity But this is false 1. For it was that covenant that made Isaac heir of the promise which the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8 9. reckons as much as to be an elect person it was the same covenant which was mentioned v. 2 4 5 6 7
8. which Mr. Geree and other Paedobaptists call the covenant of grace and usually make the interest in it the reason of circumcision and was sealed by it and That it was the same Covenant is apparent from v. 19. now then it was a covenant of personal benefit if it derive grace to the person or any other personal benefit If it were only the Covenant containing the special prerogative mentioned then it was not the covenant sealed to any but Isaac not to any of the rest of Abrahams house that were circumcised 2. It is insufficient For it shews not that to Ishmael any promise either Evangelical or Political in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong though he were circumcised which he should have done if he would have answered to the objection and have vindicated his argument from it As for his inference Therefore notwithstanding that exception Ishmael when circumcised might be and was a member of the visible Church in Abrahams family and in regard of his person within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham and so in the judgement of charity no alien from the covenant of grace but under it I answer I know not what it is to be under the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham except it be to be circumcised and therefore I count this speech that Ishmael when circumcised might be within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham to be an inept tautology as if he had said Ishmael when circumcised might be circumcised But were his speaking right yet it is impertinent For the thing he should have shewed was not that Ishmael notwithstanding that exception was a visible Church-member within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham or in the judgement of charity no alien from the covenant of grace but that any of the promises in the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. did belong to him and so that he was circumcised because of his interest in the covenant Yet how Abraham could in judgement of charity judge him no alien from the Covenant of grace but under it whom God so plainly excepted out of that Covenant which Paedobaptists themselves take to be the Covenant of grace I see not It is true that God heard the petition of Abraham for Ishmael Gen. 17.18 but that God granted him spiritual blessings doth not appear but the contrary v. 20. where the blessings granted upon Abrahams Petition for him are recited However it is clear that he did exempt him from the covenant v. 21. and therefore he was not circumcised by vertue of his interest in the Covenant nor did his circumcision seal that interest As for what Mr. Geree saith no more can be truly gathered from thence then what may be said of Melchisedec or Lot it is not true For though it s not said expressely that God established his covenant with them yet they are reckoned among the righteous and so in the Covenant of grace But for Ishmael when Abraham begged for him God answers how far he would grant for him and then addes adversatively But my covenant will I establish with Isaac that is not with Ishmael which can be no other then the covenant before mentioned v. 2 4 5 6 7 8. which thing was further manifested by Gods ratifying Sarahs desire of Ishmaels election Gen. 21.10 12. where he is excluded from Abrahams seed from which the Apostle argueth Ishmael not to have been a child of the promise nor elect nor born after the Spirit but reprobate a persecutor born after the flesh And therefore in my Exercit. I cited those texts which Mr. Geree did ill to omit sith they served for my purpose to prove that Ishmael had no part in the Covenant made with Abraham To the instance of Esau Mr. Geree tels me The case of Esau was but as that of Ishmael and others that were of Israel but were not Israel they were under the external administration of the Covenant though not really within the covenant of grace This distinction you your self acknowledge in the fourscore and sixteenth page of your answer when you say it is one thing to be under the outward administration another thing to be under the covenant of grace It s true these are distinct but those that are under the outward administration are to be reputed under the covenant of Grace and thence were to be sealed thus was it with Esau for that sentence the elder shall serve the younger Gen. 25.23 could sound no higher in Isaac's apprehension then that difference which was put between Ishmael and Isaac To which I reply If Ishmael were not really within the covenant of grace then Mr. Geree yields what I proved before that the promise of the Covenant of grace did not belong to him and if it were so then Ishmael and Esau were circumcised though no promise in the covenant Gen. 17.2 4 5 6 7 8. did belong to them and because this was revealed to Abraham and Isaac they were not reputed under the covenant of grace and thence to be sealed as Mr. Geree saith Nor is it likely but Isaac did apprehend concerning Esau by the Oracle Gen. 25.23 that none of the promises in the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17.2 4 5 6 7 8. did belong to him However God appointing circumcision to these to whom he intended no interest in the covenant it follows he made not interest in the covenant the adequate reason of each persons circumcision but his own institution To the instance of strangers in Abrahams family he answers By Gods own testimony Abraham would keep none in his family but such as were outwardly conformable to the waies of God Gen. 18.19 and so were in the state of Proselytes and interessed in the Gospel covenant Answ. Whether Abraham did or might keep any infidel in his family was considered by me in the first part of this Review s. 37. But for the text Gen. 18.19 it doth not testify that Abraham would keep none in his family but such as were outwardly conformable to Gods waies but that he would command them to keep Gods waies and shall keep the way of Jehovah but this being spoken indefinitely is equipollent onely to a particular as appears in Ishmael and Esau and others But were this granted they were so conformable and were so proselytes and were in some sort interessed in the benefit of the Gospel covenant yet it follows not that any promise in that covenant did belong to them much less that such interest was the reason of their being circumcised As for Mr. Gs. useful observation that circumcision was not annext to the Covenant only because it was a mixt covenant sith it was appliable to the Proselyte Gentiles and their seed that were not onely without but uncapable of interest in the land of Canaan I know not what use there is of it for his purpose it goes upon a mistake that circumcision was to be to none but who had interest
in the covenant Gen. 17. which I have refuted The Gentile proselytes were to be circumcised because of the command though it were not known that each or any proselyte or his seed had interest in the Covenant As for Mr. Gs. reason of his obsevation it should seem by it he meant otherwise than he expressed to wit Circumcision was not annext to the Covenant only because of the temporal promises which I grant and yet hold the Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. a mixt Covenant and that persons were to be circumcised to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong Mr. G. goâ—s on To the other part of my exception against the connexion between the seal and covenant as they speak that many were not to be circumcised to whom all or most of the promises of the Covenant did belong as the females comming from Abraham he saith For females we answer That God under that administration was pleased in reference to some things pointed at by the seal to appoint a sign of which women were not capable so were they particularly excluded from being sealed with the Sacrament of initiation under that administration To which I reply 1. That women are not capable of circumcision is contradicted by those that say that at this day in some parts of the world women are circumcised Aethiopes Christiani mares octavo ab ortu die circumcidunt feminis etiam aliquid amputatur ut Abrahami et aliorum sanctorum patrum exemplo ardentius in similis sanctitatis studium incitentur Quarto deinde a circumcisione die mares octavo autem foeminae salutaribus aquis expiantur Eucharistiam â—o die infantes initiati in mica panis assumunt Osorius lib. 9. rerum ab Emmanuele gest Zuinger theat vit Hum. vol. 27. l 3. tit bapt pag. 4172. Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 12. l. 4. c. 4. Anno Christi 1187. Jacobitae baptismo ciriumcisione utuntur circumcidentes masculos femellas Hornbeck Append. ad disp de bap ve thes 8. Solebant Aethiopes cum baptismo etiam circumcidere baptizatum mas an femina esset circumcidebatur Doctor Field of the Church 3. book chap. 1. Speaking of the Jacobites in Syria Sixtly they use circumcision even of both Sexes and of the Habassines They are also circumcised both male and female The same hath Heylin in his Geography describing Syria and Ethiopia and before him if my memory deceive me not Brerewood in his Enquiry of Religions So that it is but a just of Mr. Blake that women could no more be circumcised than barb'd if these authors be of any credit But were it true that women were not circumcised because uncapable yet would God doubtless have appointed such a sign as they were capable of if it were true that all that were in covenant must be signed But if it be true which Mr. G. confesseth That the females though in covenant were particularly excluded from being sealed with the sacrament of initiation under that administration then the connexion between the seal initial and the covenant is not proved from circumcision And as for that he saies That in reference to some things pointed at by the seal God under that administration was pleased to appoint a sign of which women were not capable it is a plain confession that God appointed circumcision for an end not common to believers at all times or to such as were in the covenant of grace but proper to the posterity of Abraham and therefore though the covenant were granted to be the reason of circumcision yet it follows not all must be baptized barely from the covenant of grace because they were circumcised by reason of interest in it sith this was not true and as Mr. Geree confesseth Circumcision was appointed in reference to some things proper to that time But he hopes to salve the matter thus So actually they were not circumcised yet were they reputed as circumcised as appears both by the place alleged by Mr. M. Exod. 12.48 and where the house of Israel is said to be circumcised and also by that of Samsons parents being displeased that he should take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines Judges 14.3 For unless the Israelitish women were reputedly circumcised in the males circumcision could make no difference between wife and wife yea our Saviour should be born of the uncircumcised To which I answer To be reputed as circumcised may be understood thus they were mentioned as circumcised and this sense is false for then it should be an errour sith they were not circumcised nor is in the text Exod. 12.48 any thing to that purpose for the speech no uncircumcised person shall eat the passeover is to be limitted by the matter of them that ought to be circumcised and that Judge 14.3 of taking a wife of or from the Philistines uncircumcised as if thereby were intimated that an Israelitess woman was reputed as circumcised or that our Saviour should be born of the uncircumcised if women were not reputed as uncircumcised proves it not For the terms ciecumcised and uncircumcised are spoken of the people who are said to be circumcised from the chief part not from all parts I remember not where the whole house of Israel is said to be circumcised but to be uncircumcised in heart Jeremy 9.26 yet were there such a place it must be understood of all that were to be circumcised Or else the meaning is they were reputed as circumcised that is they were admitted to the passeover if their males were circumcised notwithstanding they were not in their proper persons circumcised which sense is true But then it serves not the turn to avoid the force of the instance brought to shew there is not a necessary connexion between interest in the covenant and the persons right to the initial Seal in his own person which Mr. G must prove to make good his Major For he would have infant-females actually baptized because in covenant and his proof is They that were in covenant were circumcised which must be meant of all in covenant and of actual circumcision in their own persons or else it can prove but a particular of some and their virtual baptism to wit female infants But Mr. G. thinks to prevent this objection And whereas you object that you may as well say that children are virtually baptized in their parents I deny it because you have not the like proof for the one as we have for the other Besides women that are said to be virtually and reputatively circumcised in the males were not actually to be circumcised at all they were excluded which you do not nor cannot say of infants when they are grown up you confess they may and ought to be baptized Answ. That which I said was only by way of inference upon Paedobaptists suppositions if virtual circumcision were all that might be claimed by virtue of the covenant it would not help Paedobaptists who would from the covenant prove a right
covenant were not to be circumcised without joining to that administration or the Church in Abrahams family then right to circumcision was not from interest in the covenant common to all believers but something proper to that Church-state or administration which is now voided if therefore the Jews in covenant and circumcised must profess repentance and faith afore they were baptized because they must join to the new administration of the covenant then according to Mr. Gerees own confession according to the new administration of the Covenant faith and repentance are required of them that join to that administration of the Covenant And therefore whereas Mr. Geree addes we may therefore conclude that those that are under the Gospel-covenant in any administration of it have right to the seal of initiation under that administration unless they be particularly excluded by God himself and so the major is firmly proved I may truly say it is firmly proved that they that are under the Gospel-covenant in any administration of it yet have not right to the seal of initiation under that administration barely from the Covenant without a command and that God himself hath excluded infants from baptism by Mr. Gerees own concession without faith and repentance and that in all this arguing Mr. G. hath dictated much and proved nothing Let 's see whether he speed better about proving the Minor SECT XVI That the Gospel-Covenant is not extended to infants of believers as such NOw the Minor saith he that children are under the Gospel-Covenant in the Christian administration of it that we prove by the Scriptures mentioned as first Gen. 17.7 I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee To comprehend the meaning of this place we are to consider What the privilege is that is here promised 2. what the extent of it is First for the privilege it self as Calvin hath well observed by vertue of this promise the Church was settled in Abrahams family and it was separated from the rest of the World as light from darkness And the people of Israel Abrahams posterity was the house and sheepfold of God And other nations like wild beasts ranging about without in the wilderness of the World And by this privilege the dignity of adoption-belonged to all the Israelites in common Rom. 9.4 To whom pertaineth the adoption And so though by nature they were no better than others yet by reason of this promise they had a birth-privilege whereby they were separated from others which is apparently held forth Gal. 2.15 We who are Jews by nature not sinners of the Gentiles as Mr. Blake hath truly observed And sith you grant the Jews a birth-privilege as p. 106. and p. 78. of your Answer you needed not have quarrelled with this plain proof But now among those that had this outward privilege of common adoption to be reputed children when the Gentiles were reputed as Dogs Matth. 15.26 there were some that were separated by the secret election of God and really made partakers of sanctifying and saving grace and so not only adopted outwardly and reputatively but also really in comparison of whom the other Israelites are sometimes spoken of as no sons of Abraham Rom. 9.6 7. Though externally they were the children of the Kingdom and in reference to the Gentiles they are so stiled Matthew 8.11 12. So then the privilege is that he would be a God to all in regard of external denomination and external privileges of a Church and to the elect in regard of spiritual adoption grace and glory Answ. It is true I granted page 78. of my Examen that the Jews had a birth-privilege yet denyed it to be from the Covenant of grace according to the substance of it as Mr. M. speaks but that special love God bare to Abrahams posterity Nor do I deny that the people of Israel till broken off were in common estimation Gods children children of the Kingdom nor Dogs nor unclean as the Gentiles and that these titles did belong to all by external denomination really to the elect Nor do I much gainsay that by vertue of the promise I will be a God to the seed of Abraham the Church was settled in Abrahams family though it doth not appear to me that the Apostle did so expound this promise but expresly contradistinguisheth the children of the promise to the children of the flesh Rom. 9.8 And his doctrine there is plain that the elect are they only to whom the promise I will be the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 was made yea Exercit. page 2 3. I expound the promise as in respect of some peculiar blessings belonging to Abrahams natural seed Nor did I quarrel with Mr. Blake for proving from Gal. 2 15. a birth-privilege belonging to the Jews but excepted against him for that he contended to have the seed of believing Gentile-parents under the Gospel to be under the first member of the division in the text to wit Jews by nature which exception I have made good in my Postscript to my Apology S. 9. which I intend to vindicate from Master Blakes Reply Vindic. foed cha 35. in that which followes But then what doth this advantage to prove Mr. Gs. Minor To children meaning all or else his conclusion can be but particular of believing Christians the Gospel-covenant is extended in the Christian Churches Is this the Gospel-covenant to make a people only reputatively and outwardly but not really adopted Is this that which circumcision did seal Is this the covenant of grace which the seal is to follow What kind of juggling is there with these men They contend the Covenant Gen. 17.7 to be the same with the Covenant of grace for substance and that they make to consist in saving graces the temporal benefits they refer to the administration that then was they will not have it called a mixt covenant and this covenant of grace they will have to be sealed by circumcision out of Rom. 4.11 and they say this was made to believers and their seed and thence they have salvation if they die in infancy and without this there is no ground of hope of the salvation of any infant deceased and they argue they are to have the seal because they are in covenant which if they understand not of that covenant of which that ordinance is the seal what colour is there to derive thence a title unto that seal on them who have interest in another covenant which it doth not seal Their argument is He hath right to the Conveyance who hath right to the Land but these men who dare not assert that the covenant of saving grace belongs to all believers natural children yet will have them all to have right to baptism which seals saving graces though perhaps a very few and those all unknown persons have right to that Covenant onely because a promise of
the seal and no special bar put in against them by God himself But all the infants of believing parents are in covenant and they are capable of the seal and there is no special bar put in against them by God himself Ergo They should be sealed Or thus All who since Abrahams time are foederati or Covenanters with God must by Gods own appointment receive the seal of admission into covenant unless they be either uncapable of it or are exempted by a particular dispensation All infants of believers since Abrahams time are foederati or covenanters with God neither uncapable of the seal nor exempted by a particular dispensation Ergo all infants of believers since Abrahams time must by Gods own appointment receive the seal of admission into covenant To which I answer Mr. M. tells me I must needs state thus the general Proposition But it is a pretty art he hath as elsewhere to call that my Minor which was his own not mine so here to say I must needs state the general Proposition thus which is of his own framing However he is not wronged that it is thus framed Let us then view it and try whether except in that of circumcision there be any truth sense or consideratenesse in it As for circumcision if it be meant onely of it then the Conclusion can be of it only and as the truth is his argument concludes only that infants of believers are to be circumcised 1. I had in my Examen noted a fault in his Argument in his Sermon in that his Conclusion was of a sign of the Covenant indefinite and not of baptism only whereas the Lords Supper is also a sign of the Covenant which he would not have delivered to infants And to it he answers That he clearly in his Sermon shewed this Proposition to be only meant of the initial sign and not of the other But this doth not excuse his fault who taking upon him to prove infant-baptism concludes another thing in the argument though he might perhaps some pages of where the Reader looks not for an explication of his argument limit his speech to the initial seal And for what he tells me he is sure that I who durst baptize an infant known to me to be regenerate durst not give the other Sacrament to it there being self examination and ability to discern the Lords body prerequired to the one not to the other I told him in my Apology s. 10. I durst do the one as I durst do the other and that self examination and ability to discern the Lords body is as well required to baptism as the Lords Supper Acts 2.38 8.37 Rom. 6.3 4. But were it that I durst not do the one as the other yet this would not help Mr. M. who would prove the title to the initial seal by that proof of interest in the Covenant which will conclude as well title to the after as the initial seal For the proof is usually the seal must follow the covenant which if true then not only the initial but also the after-seal must follow it But waving this is the fault mended in his Defence doth he conclude definitely of baptism here nay notwithstanding he was warned yet chorda semper oberrat eadem he still runs into the same fault concluding in both forms of an initial seal indefinitely not definitely of baptism and therefore may be interpreted to conclude of circumcision as well as of baptism yea rather his assertion if there be any good sense of it is of the circumcising then baptizing of infants sith all his proof is about the initial sign of circumcision and the limitations he puts into the Major are that it may be true of circumcision But this is not all the fault in his new forms notwithstanding I complained in my Examen sect 3. of his ambiguities which I shewed in my Apology s. 9 10. and Postscript s. 6. yet as if either he could not or would not speak distinctly he retains the same fault in his Defence Whereas I conceive the covenant of grace now contains only the promise of saving grace he saith p 90. The Covenant of grace contains not onely saving grace but the administration of it also in outward ordinances and Church privileges but shews not where nor in which covenant of grace there are promises of the administration of saving grace in outward ordinances and Church privileges It is true circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17.13 by a Metonymia as Mr. M. confesseth page 32 but not because it was contained in the Covenant it is not Metonymia continentis pro contento but signati pro signo now that the sign should be said to be contained in the covenant is scarse good sense sure it is not meet to be used in disputes And therefore whoever useth the covenant of grace for any other than the covenant of saving grace or saith it contains any other than promises of saving grace seems to affect ambiguities unmeet for dispute as not willing to be understood Again page 92. he expresseth the covenant of grace he means to be that Gen. 17.7 and he cannot but know it to have diverse meanings one that God will be a God to Abraham and his spiritual seed which he confesseth pag. 102. to be the elect when he saith Secondly by the word seed was meant the children of the promise the elect Rom. 9.8 and in this sense it is denyed by him that God hath made a promise of saving grace to the natural seed of believers and so they are not in this covenant in this sense Yet the Directory when it speaks of baptism as the seal of the covenant means it in this sense as the words before recited shew for what else can be meant when they distinguish between interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and the ouâ—ward privileges of the Church under the Gospel And Rom. 4.11 is alleged in the Confession of Faith for the proof of this that it is the seal of the Covenant of grace now that text speaks of being a seal of the righteousness of faith which is a saving grace and in the Confession of faith ch 7. art 3. and in the greater Catechism they make the Covenant of grace to offer life and salvation by Christ to promise faith and to be made with Christ and in him with all the elect as his seed and so the Argument from the Covenant of grace to the Seal must mean it thus or else it is frivolous For if the Seal must follow the Covenant it must follow the Covenant which is sealed by it which is only the promise of saving grace there being no shew of consequence in it infants of believers have not the covenant of saving grace but of outward Ordinances and Church privileges therefore they are to be sealed with that seal which seals only saving graces And yet methinks they should not have avouched as the Directory doth that the posterity
promise to which baptism the seal is annexed now the seal is ever to the covenant which is not barely to Christs being sent in the flesh but to benefits contained in promises by his coming Ans. Had Master Cobbet heeded my words in my Exam. pag. 60. And was it not a comfortable Argument for men in that case to be told that notwithstanding all this the promise of Christ and remission of sins by him was yet to them and their children c. And pag. 61. The promise which is made to Abraham is now fulfilled in sending Christ to you and your children and to all that are afar off as many as the Lord our God shall call that they might be turned from their iniquity and baptized in his Name for the remission of their sins these objections had been spared they proceeding all against me upon this mistake which my words heeded might have rectifyed as if I had expounded the promise Acts 2.39 of Christs being sent and coming without some promise annexed and particularly that of remission of sins by Christ Whereas I did expresly include it in my paraphrase as my words recited shew gathering it from the mention of it v. 38. and conceiving it to be implyed in the expression to you v. 39. that is for your benefit by remission of your sins And therefore these three objections are answered by shewing how according to my exposition the promise of Christ sent includes also the benefit of remission of sins But on the contrary all these objections are against Master Cobbets own exposition For 1. It had been but cold comfort to tell them of a promise of remission of sins onely in external right and administration 2. It had not been available for their reviving healing succour and support 3. According to Paedobaptists suppositions baptism is not a seal of that covenant in which remission of sins in external right and administration onely is promised but as it is in the Directory it is a Seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ and of our union with him of remission of sins regeneration adoption and life eternal Therefore the promise Acts 2.39 according to Master Cobbets own arguments and Paedobaptists hypotheses is not of remission of sins onely in exâ—â—rnal right and administration Master Cobbets third exception Sect. 3. about those afar off whether Israelites in the dispâ—rsion or in after ages or the Gentiles be meant hath been considered before But whereas he saith The Apostles afore Peter Sermon Acts 10. knew by Christs declaration of his minde to all his Apostles touching the discipling and inchuâ—ching of the Gentiles the conversion of them onely they knew not whether it might be by joyning them first by way of addition as proselytes to the Jewes rather then by gathering them into other distinct Churches his speech is not right For 1. Though it is true Christ had declared his minde Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.15 about conversion of the Gentiles yet either Peter understood not Christs minde or did not remember it afore the vision Acts 10.2 It is apparent from Acts 11.3 that the exception against Peter was not for that he had gathered Cornelius and his company into a distinct Church and not joyned them as Proselytes to the Jewes but that he went in to men uncircumcised and did eat with them which shâ—wes they held it unlawfull so much as to preach and converse with any uncircumcised though he were a proselyte of the gate as Cornelius appears to have been As for not joyning the Gentiles as proselytes to the Jewes they knew that well enough that they were not to be so joyned sith neither John the Baptist nor Christ or his Disciples did ever by baptism joyn any as proselytes to the Jewes but did take even the Jewes themselves who embraced their Doctrine into distinct Churches or Schooles though they did not erect any new political States or Common-wealths as the nation of the Jewes was Master Cobbet further excepts against me in these words 4. It 's affirmed that this promised of sending Christ was to them their children and those afar off as many as our God should call that they may be turned from their iniquity and be baptized for remission of sins and yet also that the promise what ever it be supposed to be was to them all with that limitation that they repent or that they be called What is it to as many as the Lord shall call or convert or cause to repent and yet is it that they may be turned from their iniquity is it to persons called and yet also to uncalled persons is it to them that they may be called yet the persons to whom the promise is are as many as are supposed to be called how can these two be right yea it is to them all upon condition that they be called and yet also that it is to them that they may be called Why if it be to them that by Christ they may be called then is that promise to persons as yet uncalled and their calling is an effect following their interest in that promise as a cause and not preceding their interest in the promise as a condition Ans. the promise is of sending of Christ for remission of sins their calling is a consequent of Christs being sent who was sent to turn them from iniquity that is to call them and this calling was for a further benefit remission of sins through Christ sent and so their calling is a condition of the remission of sins by Christ sent nor is the promise of remission of sins by Christ sent to any but those who are called The calling is a consequent to Christs sending as a prior benefit and an antecedent to remission of sins as a subsequent And thus the knot Master Cobbet conceives is easily loosed SECT XXIII The arguments drawn from Acts 2.38 39. against the connexion between covenant-interest and baptism-right and infant-baptism are vindicated from Master Cobbets answers THere are other passages in the following Sections on which I animadvert Sect. 4. he saith Acts 2. he doth not intend it thus your children i. e. Abrahams children for Abraham is considered rather by him as a patern having the precedential Copy of the Covenant mentioned And it had been incongruous to have said It is to your children that is to Abrahams children Concerning which passage I say that though I conceive it a mistake to understand by your children Abrahams children yet Master Cobbets words intimate sundry things which are liable to animadversions 1. The promise Acts 2.39 is supposed by others and by Master Cobbet Sect. 7. to be that Gen 17.7 I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee but this was the covenant it self and not a precedential Copy of the covenant mentioned I think Master Cobbet cannot shew any other after Copy in which God promised to be the God of a believer and his seed which it is confessed he did to
and that it is verified intentionally quoad Deum is besides the text which speaks not of Gods making a covenant but of Moses v. 14. and this covenant was obliging to duty not expressing covenant-grace That which Master Cobbet saith that the righteousness of faith according to the covenant Gen. 17.7 which containeth the promise of justification was by circumcision visibly sealed unto the Jewes their children by Gods own appointment circumcision being in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith it self and not meerly in a personal respect to Abraham as applyed by his faith to justification hath either none or very little truth For though it be true that the promise Gen. 17.7 was of the righteousness of faith according to the more hidden sense of the words yet it was so onely to the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith Rom. 4.12 16. Gal. 3.7 9 29. Nor was circumcision appointed by God to seal it to Jewes and their children nor circumcision in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith nor is any mans circumcision termed in the Scripture a seal of the righteousness of faith but Abrahams which was not a seal as applyed by his faith to his justification but as a seal to him that he had the righteousness of faith before he was circumcised and that all that believe as he did shall be justified as he was Rom. 4.11 12. Master Cobbet addes Nor will it suffice to say that covenant was a mixt covenant It held forth temporal things indeed but by vertue of a covenant of grace Psal. 111.5 as doth the promise now 1 Tim. 4.8 But it holds forth also spiritual things in the external right and administration thereof to all albeit in the internal operation as to some The promises are to them all Rom. 9.4 Scil. in the former sense and yet ver 8. some onely are the children of the promise and the choice seed in that general covenant Scil. in respect of the saving efficacy of the covenant upon them v. 6. And the same distinction is now held out in such sort amongst persons in Church-estate Ans. It sufficeth against those that make the covenant Gen. 17. to be a covenant of Evangelical grace onely and make other promises of temporal things to be onely administrations of it and make circumcision a seal of the covenant of grace because it was the tâ—ken of that covenant to say that 〈◊〉 covenant Gen. 17.7 was a mixt covenant containing promises proper to Abrahams natural posterity as well as Evangelical to his Spiritual and 〈◊〉 the covenant is rather to be denominated from the former which are more manifestly held forth in it then the latter and that the reason why circumcision was appointed was the signifying and assuring the former rather then the latter and so the circumcising of infants was not from interest Evangelical but national or proper to the people of Abraham Nor is Master Cobbets exception of any validity that because there is a promise of the life that now is 1 Tim. 4.8 therefore the covenant now is mixt For the promise of the life that now is is not of any outward inheritance peculiar to the godly and their children as Abraham had of the Land of Canaan for him and his but of fatherly care and sanctified use of outward things Nor doth Psal. 111.5 prove that the inheriting Canaan being great and prosperous Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. were by vertue of a covenant of grace but it rather appears from many places Deut. 28. c. Heb. 8.6 that they were by the covenant of works in keeping the law of Moses unto which circumcision did oblige Gal. 5.3 The promises Gen. 17. so far as they were Evangelical did belong to Abrahams seed by faith onely nor doth the Apostle any where interpret that promise Gen. 17.7 as holding forth spiritual things in the external right and administration of it and the spiritual things assured therein are by the Apostle determined Rom. 9.8 to belong onely to the elect not to all Nor doth Rom. 9.4 say the promises pertained to all the Jewes nor to any in respect of external right and administration And though I deny not but that persons may be said to be outwardly in the covenant of grace in appearance to mâ—n when they make a profession of faith though not in reality yet I deny that God hath made the covenant or promise of grace to any other then the elect true believers nor appointed any way of sealing it to any other Nor is it true that baptism as a covenant-seal presupposeth a covenant-right or that the Jewes Acts 2.38 39. had any covenant or Church-right to baptism jus ad râ—m though not jus in re afore they were believers on Christ nor had they any right to baptism in that they were members of the Church of the Jewes nor was the commission of baptism first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that Church of the Jewes as a seal of their membership therein but of their owning Johns doctrine becoming his disciples and joyned into a School or Church distinct from the Pharasees and other Jewish Church-rulers though they adhered till after Christs death to the law of Moses and temple-service Nor is there any truth in it that Peter required of the Jewes repentance afore baptism Acts 2.38 because though they had covenant or Church-right thereto yet being adult members under offence and admonished thereof by Peter they might for their obstinacy against such an admonition notwithstanding Church or Covenant-right have been debarred that seal For 1. The Christian Church and the Jewish Church of which those Jewes were members were in their profession not onely distinct but also opposite therefore there was no Church-right from being members in the one to be members of the other 2. For their fact of which they were admonishde by Peter they were so far from being in danger of being cast out of the Jewish Church in which they were members that they were more sure of being cast out for repenting of their sin and being baptized into the Name of Christ John 9.22 3. Peter doth not act in his speech Acts 2. 38 â—9 as an Elder in the Jewish Church for he was none but as an Apostle of Christ nor was their fact objected to them as an offence to the Church of which â—â—ey were but confessed by themselves as an heavy burden that lay on their conscience nor was Peters advice given to remove a Church-censure for re-admission to a seal but to ease their consciences and to bring them to the faith of Christ and communion of that Church into which they had never been admitted But Master Cobbet against my first exception saith those Jewes were offensive members of that Jewish Church which was a true visible Church and not yet dischurched and divorced by the Lord they were then in the Church of the Gospel and so
there were no need to have stayed the Reader any further about it were it not that some of your Exceptions do almost recall your grant If it be in substance the same though you should reckon up a thousand accidental and local differences it were nothing to the purpose Answer It is true I granted this Conclusion understanding it according to the Explication in his Sermon pag. 9 10. in these words That the new and living way to life was first revealed to Adam immediately after his fall and that blessed promise concerning the seed of the woman often renewed and the Patriarchs faith therein and salvation thereby plentifully recorded in Scripture But the first time that ever it was revealed under the express name of a League or Covenant was with Abraham who because he was the first explicite Covenanter is called the Father of the Faithfull and ever since clearly hath all the world been divided into two distinct bodies and families the one called the Kingdom City Houshold of God to which all who own the way of life were to joyn themselves and thâ—se were called the children of God the sons of Abraham the children of the Kingdom all the rest of the world the Kingdom of the Devil the seed of the Serpent strangers from the covenant of grace without God in the world c. The substance of this covenant of grace on Gods part was to be Abraham's God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and sanctification and everlasting life Gen. 17.1 c. Gal. 3.15 Rom. 4.3 John 8.56 On Abraham's part the substance of the covenant was to believe the promised Messiah to walk before God with a perfect heart to serve God according to his revealed will to instruct his family c. Gal. 3.16 Gen. 17.1 18.19 Gal. 3.17 19. In which passage I did conceive that Mr. M. meant by the substance of the covenant of grace the promise as it is purely evangelical which I conceived to be the same with the new covenant mentioned Heb. 8.9 10 11 12. 10.16 17. And this I was sure was not made with all Abrahams natural posterity much less with any believing Gentiles natural posterity as such but onely so many of either as are elect and believe as Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 3.29 is determined and so none of a believing Gentiles children are in this covenant but they that are believers or elected to faith in Christ. But then this would not serve Mr. Ms. turn And therefore notwithstanding those words in his Sermon yet in his Defence pag. 90. he saith The covenant of grace contains not onely saving grace but the administration of it also in outward ordinances and Church-privileges but in what sense he means it contains them he declares not That which is contained in a covenant is either the promise or the condition The seal writing writer pen and such like adjuncts are never called the covenant nor contained in it though they be instrumental to hold forth the covenant Now where any promise is of outward ordinances and Church-privileges or how they should be a condition of the promises I understand not He distinguisheth pag 106. of the covenant of grace thus The covenant of grace is sometimes taken strictly sometimes largely as it is considered strictly it is a covenant in which the spiritual benefits of justifi-fication regeneration perseverance and glorification are freely promised in Christ. Secondly as the covenant of grace is taken largely it comprehends all evangelical administrations which do wholly depend upon the free and gracious appointment of God and this administration is fulfilled according to the counsel of Gods will sometimes it was administred by his appointment in types shadows and other legal ordinances this covenant of administration God said Zachary 11.10 he did break with the people of the Jews and at the death of Christ he did wholly evacuate and abolish and in stead thereof brought in the administration we live under where also he rejected the Jews or broke them off from being his people in covenant and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branch and broken off as your self pag. 65. do with Beza rightly express it But herein Mr. M. confounds what in his Sermon he distinguished the covenant of grace and the administration of it He saith The covenant of grace largely taken comprehends all evangelical administrations and saith This administration is fulfilled By the evangelical administrations he means the old legal ordinances afore Christs death and the administration we live under which is baptism and the Lords Supper pag. 120. he saith Our Divines own the outward administration of the covenant under the notion of foedus externum the outward covenant Now if there be sense in these passages I must needs charge my self with dulness who cannot discern it Is it sense to call that a covenant without a Trope which is neither a promise nor a condition of a covenant to say that the covenant contains or comprehends evangelical administrations and yet to call it the administration it self to say this administration was administred and not something by the administration administred But let us considee what others make of this distinction of covenant strictly and largely taken or which is all one the inward and outward covenant I have met with none that speaks more distinctly than Mr. Anthony Burges in his Book entituled Spiritual Refining Sect. 8. Serm. 64. pag. 393. who was one of the Assembly The external covenant is that whereby in an outward visible manner God doth own a people add they externally profess their owning of him but yet in their hearts and souls they do not stedfastly cleave unto God and faithfully keep this covenant in the conditions thereof The internal or inward covenant is that whereby God doth in a spiritual powerfull manner take a people to him working in their hearts all those gifts and graces promised in the covenant as regeneration remission of sins adoption and the like And in this sense onely the truly godly are in the covenant and they are onely Gods people and he their God This distinction of a covenant into outward and inward is not a distinction of a genus into its species so much as a distinction of a thing into the several administrations and dispensations of it In this passage there is want of clearness as well as in M. Marshals He tels us negatively that it is not a distinction of a genus into its species yet with some mincing of the matter so much as if it might be the distinction of a genus into its species though not so much which is an expression of a man who would say somewhat but cannot well tell what to say But if it be not a distinction of a genus into its species what distinction is
it Is any man the wiser for a meer Negative It is saith he a distinction of a thing into the several administrations and dispensations of it But this tells us not what sort of distinction this is whether nominis of the word or rei of the thing If he had meant to be a distinction of the word he should have shewed where the word is so taken if of the thing what kinde of division or distribution it is To me it seems against all Rules of Logick to divide thus A covenant is either the outward or the inward administration and dispensation of it or the inward which without Trope of speech which should be absent from men that should rationally explain things is non-sense affirming one covenant to be one administration and another another whereas the covenant is one thing and the administration another thing But his meaning is this one covenant is outward being outwardly administred or administring outward things another inward administring inwardly or inward things But neither is this right sith the covenant doth not administer but the covenanter nor doth he do it by the covenant but by some other act according to the covenant the covenant is onely an agâ—eement and promise to do it the administring is the keeping of the covenant not the covenant it self But let that be yielded that the covenant doth administer yet the description of the external covenant as made by Mr. Burges doth not include administration For God may in an outward visible manner own a people and they externally profess their owning of him and yet neither administer one to another any thing promised or if the owning be administration the people administer to God as well as God administers to them Besides his description makes an external profession of owning God requisite to the external covenant If that be right no infant is in the external covenant till it profess owning God and in what outward visible manner God doth own infants except by baptizing them which God doth not but the Minister nor ever commanded or declared his approbation of iâ— I know not and then the outward covenant is nothing else but baptizing and an infants being in covenant is his being baptized or to be baptized and the argument from the covenant comes to this ridiculous tautology all infants of believers are in the outward covenant for they dare not say they are all in the inward that is they are in the outward administration which is no other than baptism and so the antecedent is equipollent to this they are or are to be baptized and the conclusion is ergo they are to be baptized But Mr. Marshal it seems conceives the outward Covenant as he describes it meant Zach. 11.10 where the Prophet saith And I took my staff even Beauty and cut it asunder that I might break my Covenant which I had made with all the people And he interprets it thus that at the death of Christ God brake his covenant with the Jews wholly evacuating and abolishing the legal Ordinances and bringing in the administration we live under But if this be the sense then this Prophesie doth not foretell any thing penal to the Jews for the abolishing of legal ordinances was a mercy to them they being a yoke intolerable Acts 15.10 whereas the Text speaks of it as an evil that should befall them Piscator in his Analysis Eventus fuit desertio Judaeorum v. 9 10 11 14. Diodati and after him the New Annotations in Zech. 11.10 My Covenant the peace which I had granted to my Church that she should not be assaulted no more nor be molested by any strange Nation which was verified from the Maccabees time untill a little before the coming of Christ. Grot. Annot. in locum Abstuli protectionem illam specialem Irritum facere foedus suum Deus dicitur cum ruptis a populo foederis conditionibus ipse quoque a sua parâ—e promissa non implet Mr. Ms. conceit is as if by the Covenant were meant legal Ordinances and so the breaking off is meant either de jure onely and then it is not a Prophesie of what should happen or else de facto in the event but then it is not true for the Jews retained the legal Ordinances of the Covenant he made with them and do still at this day even circumcision and as many other of the legal Rites as they can in their present dispersion It is true God brake oâ— the Jews from being his people in Covenant and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramorum defractorum locum and how this is to be understood I have shewed before at large in the first part of this Review But without a Trope to call outward Ordinances Gods Covenant is without example of Scripture the Covenants Rom. 9.4 say Beza Piscator New Annot. c. are the Tables of the Covenant and can hardly be acquitted from non-sense Onely perhaps it seems Mr. M. for a shift as v. g. pag. 103. he saith God makes good his promise sealed in baptism in which he engageth himself to be the God of believing Christians and their seed which in his Sermon pag. 10. he makes the promise of saving grace yet when it is proved that cannot be true of Gentile believers and their children he runs to this vain shift that the outward Covenant belongs to them which is nothing to the promise Gen. 17.7 in which outward administrations are not promised though not the inward Nor is it Mr. Ms. manner alone but the common course of Paedobaptists in their writings to play fast and loose with the ambiguity of the term Covenant and Covenant of grace as hath been formerly shewed and may appear more in that which follows But to keep to Mr. M. He tells me If the Covenant of grace be in substance the same though you should reckon up a thousand accidental and local differences it were nothing to the purpose To which I reply Though I grant the Covenant of grace be always the same in substance meaning thereby that the elect are saved in all Ages by the same promises of evangelical grace that is righteousness regeneration adoption in Christ and the promise Gen. 17.7 hath an evangelical sense which is this that God will be a God to Abraham and his spiritual seed by election and faith and am unjustly charged of spoiling all infants of all interest in the Covenant of grace and confining the Jews promises to earthly and temporal blessings of which I have acquiâ—ted my self in my Letter to Mr. Baily Sect. 1.2 yet I never granted that the Covenant with Abraham did contain no other than evangelical promises of grace in Christ nor that these very promises Gen. 17 4 5 6 7 8. were all evangelical promises nor any of them in that sense which is obvious to the understanding according to common Rules of Grammar but onely according to the Apostles Exposition who never so expounded the promise Gen. 17.7 as if
it were made to any mans seed but Abrahams not to every believing Gentile and his natural seed And certainly this difference between the covenant Gen. 17. and the covenant of grace will be much to the purpose to shew the Covenant Gen. 17 not to be to a believing Christian and his seed and that though circumcision of male infants should have its reason barely from the interest of the circumcised in that Covenant yet such a Covenant-interest not belonging to our children who are of the Gentiles cannot be a reason to entitle them to baptism though it should be granted which is not that our baptism succeeds their circumcision and seals the covenant of grace as theirs did that made with Abraham This mixture of the Covenant and the inference thence that Circumcision did not belong to all believers and their children but as in Abrahams family is observed by Mr. Allen and Mr. Sheppard in their Defence of the Answer to the nine Positions chap. 8. and because their words are apposite to my purpose though otherwise applied by them I shall recite them Now that we hold the right proportion in the persons may appear first in that as was granted Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant but this Covenant was not simply and onely the Covenant of grace but that whole Covenant that was made with Abraham whereby on Gods part they were assured of many special blessings whereof Lot and others not in this Covenant with Abraham were not capable and whereby Abraham and his seed and family were bound for their part to be a people to God and to observe this sign of the Covenant which others in the Covenant of grace were not bound to Secondly as is granted it was Abraham and his houshold and the seed of believing Jews that were to be circumcised and therefore not visible believers as such for then Lot had been included so by right proportion not all visible believers as such but such as with Abraham and his family are in visible Covenant to be the people of God according to the institution of Churches when and to which the seal of Baptism is given and therefore as all family-churches but Abrahams being in a new form of a Church were excluded so much more such aâ— are in no visible constituted Church at all In which it is expresly yielded that the Covenant with Abraham was mixt in my sense that Circumcision did not belong to all visibly in the Covenant of grace that it belonged peculiarly to the Church in Abrahams family that Baptism follows the Christian Church constitution which sure is much different from the Jewish and therefore not the Covenant made with Abraham But Mr. M. seems to be sensible of this and endeavours to pâ—event it in that which follows But saith he the first doth almost recall it wherein you charge me to carry the narration of the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. as if it did onely contain the Covenant of grace in Christ whereas it is apparent say you out of the Text that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant consisting of temporal benefits the multiplying of Abrahams seed possession of Canaan the birth of Isaac besides the spiritual blessings To which I reply I meant so indeed and so I plainly expressed my self that all the difference betwixt the Covenant then made with Abraham and the Covenant made with us lies onely in the manner of administration of the Covenant and not in the Covenant it self The Covenant it self in the substance of it holds out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to them and to us Answer By mixt Covenant I mean a Covenant consisting of some temporal blessings proper onely to Abrahams natural posterity and some spiritual blessings common with him to all believers whether Jews or Gentiles And I say those promises of temporal blessings were of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham that they cannot in any fit sense be called the manner of the administration of the Covenant that the Covenant it self in the substance doth not hold out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to them and to us And all these things I thus prove 1. Those promises were of the substance of the Covenant which are in Scripture called the Covenant it self without mention of the spiritual promises but this is true of the promise of the Land of Canaan c. Psalm 105.8 9 10 11. Nehem. 9.8 Gen. 26.3 28.3 4 13 14. 1 Chron. 16.15 16 17 18 c. In which places the Text expresly saith God made a Covenant with Abraham and then recites the Covenant that it was to give the Land of the Canaanites c. which were temporal mercies not now promised or performed to us Ergo To deny those promises to be of the substance of the Covenant and to call them administrations which the Scripture calls the Covenant it self so often if it be not to thwart the Scripture sure it is unwarrantably to alter its expressions God himself so expresly calling the giving of Canaan his Covenant Exod. 5.45.8 refutes this conceit 2. Those promises are of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham which are integral parts of the Covenant But those promises of temporal blessings are integral parts of the Covenant made with Abraham Ergo the major is in it self manifest for the Covenant is nothing but a promise or an aggregate of promises and so if a Covenant have any substance in it it must be the integral parts The minor is apparant from the very words Gen. 17.4 c. where God having in general terms told Abraham My Covenant is with thee he expresseth to the 9. verse wherein his Covenant was with him and that is set down in those peculiar blessings to Abrahams natural posterity Verse 6.8 3. The promise of Canaan can be called no other way the administration of the Covenant of grace than in that in the hidden sense under that promise spiritual good was intended to be shadowed But this very thing shews that the promise of an earthly inheritance was in the first place thereby intended to Abrahams natural posterity and the other onely as an additament or appendix to the promise in its first meaning Now then if the promise of Canaan in the first sense be not of the substance of the Covenant neither is the promise onely implied mysteriously in the more hidden sense which is but an appendix to it of the substance of the Covenant 4. The Covenant made with Abraham holds not out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to Abrahams natural posterity and to us Ergo there is more difference than in the administration The Antecedent is apparant for the promise of the Land of Canaan the birth of Isaac Christ to come of him according to the flesh c. are not made to us Ergo But Mr. M. thinks to prevent this by telling us Godliness having all the promises both of this life and that which is to
come and that they and we have our right to all these promises upon the self same condition Answer Thess things are manifestly false for though godliness have the promise of this life and that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 yet the promises Levit. 26.6 c. are not made to every godly man that he shall ly down and none shall make him afraid that he shall chase his enemies c. but rather assurance is given that he shall be persecuted 2 Tim. 3.12 Mark 10.29 30. Nor have they promises upon the same condition for Exod. 34.24 it is promised that none should desire the Israelites Land while they did appear thrice in the year before the Lord but to us there is not that promise nor upon that condition But saith he earthly things indeed were to them promised more distinctly and fully heavenly things more generally and sparingly than they are now to us and on the contrary spiritual things are more fully and clearly promised to us than to them and earthly promises more generally and sparingly Answ. This is not all the difference for I have shewed that to us an earthly rest is not promised at all but the contrary assured to us to wit suffering persecution Mr. M. adds And that these temporal benefits which you mention viz. multiplying of Abrahams seed the bitth of Isaac and possession of Canaan were all of them administrations of the Covenant of grace they were figures signs and types of spiritual things to be enjoyed both by them and us These things I not onely asserted â—ut proved in my Sermon If you mean no more than this that all these temporal blessings were promised and given as flowing from the promise of Christ and were subservient to it or were types and shadows of it you mean no more than what we all grant who yet deny any more mixture in the Covenant made with Abraham for the substance of it than there is in that made with us and that the difference lies onely in the manner of administration Answer I deny not but that the possession of Canaan birth of Isaac multiplying Abrahams seed were figures signs and types of spiritual things to be enjoyed by elect Jews and Gentiles according to the mystical hiddenâ—sense of the words nor do I deny that they were subservient to the promise of Christ whether it be to be said they flowed from the promise of Christ or tended to the fore-signifying of Christ to come the grace of the Gospel and the heavenly inheritance and rest is a doubt Surely they flowed from Gods special love to Israel above any other people Deut. 7.6 7 8. And I grant that Circumcision ratified spiritual blessings chiefly that is as the chief thing promised yet in the sense in which I think Gameron meant it Thesi 78. de triplici foedere primarily that is according to the first and manifest sense of the words it sealed earthly promises peculiar to Abrahams natural posterity and that Ciacumcision of infants was specially for that reason to wit the peculiar promises to Abrahams natural posterity nor do I see cause to mislike Grotius his speech Annot. in Luc. 1.59 Infantium autem circumcisio ostendebat foedus esse gentilium And this mixture of the Covenant with Abraham to wit that it contained not onely promises common to all believers but also promises so peculiar to Abrahams natural posterity that all of them were not according to the Law to be made good to any Gentile though a Proselyte circumcised namely the inheritance of the Land of Canaan of which none but the natural progeny of Israel were to be inheritours is so manifest that the denial of it I can hardly impute to any thing but dulness or meer pertinacy Yet why these promises so peculiar to them should be denied to be of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham I see no reason they being integral parts Christ it is true is the substance of the things promised as they were Types yet the things promised in respect of their natural being had a substance besides and in relation to the Covenant were as much the substance or substantial parts of it as the spiritual promises yea sith those spiritual promises if I may so speak did subsist in the expressions of temporal blessings it follows in my apprehension that if the promises of the spiritual blessings were of the substance of the Covenant then surely the promises of temporal blessings which those very promises did express and under the shadow of which they were made should be much more of the substance of the Covenant Nor do I conceive any grosness in it to imagine of God that he should in a Covenant of grace founded in Christ intend in the seal of it to ratifie temporal blessings when he intended to assure spiritual blessings under the covert of words in the first sense importing onely temporal As for the terming of the administration of the Covenant of grace it is neither according to Scripture nor is it very handsom sense specially according to Mr. Ms. doctrine who calls Circumcision the old administration of the Covenant and if it were an administration of the promises which were administrations of the Covenant of grace then Circumcision was an administration of an administration But Mr M. speaks to me thus I desire to know of you what Scripture ever made circumcision a seal of Canaan we have express Scripture that it sealed the righteousness of faith whereby he was justified but I no where reade that it â—ealed the Land of Canaan Answer To gratifie him I tell him that I read Circumcision called a token of the Covenant Gen. 17.11 which Covenant was the Covenant mentioned before in that chapter and in that v. 8. the promise of the Land of Canaan is made and Acts 7.8 Stephen calls it The Covenant of Circumcision which he shews not how it was otherwise fulfilled in that speech but by bringing them out of Egypt and placing them in Canaan in which he fulfilled his promise to Abraham vers 6 7 16. It is true the Apostle calls Abrahams Circumcision A seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised Rom 4.11 But I finde not this said of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams surely it cannot be said truly of any ones Circumcision but a believers As for what he saith That we have now carnal promises and therefore our covenant may be as well mixt as that with Abraham I answer it is true We have promise of the life that now is and that which is to come and so our Covenant is in a sort mixt of spiritual and temporal promises but these promises are common to all godly persons both Jews and Gentiles not proper onely to Abrahams natural posterity inheriting in which sense I called it a mixt Covenant Exercit. pag. 2. Sect. 1. I grant we have outward privileges and ordinances as Baptism and the Lords Supper and that many now are members of
the visible Church and partake of them who are not elect nor true believers But none but elect persons have the promises of the new Covenant made to them none but an elect person hath the promise that God will write his Laws in his heart be his God c. And therefore none but such in truth are in the covenant of grace though others may be in shew in it and accounted so by us Mr. Josiah Church in his Book forenamed pag. 41. interposeth thus 1. Spiritual and temporal promises may be said to make a mixt Covenant but not a mixt Evangelical Covenant for a mixt Gospel Covenant is a Covenant partly of works and partly of grace and the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament was not mixed after that manner for the Law was not given untill four hunâ—red and thirty years after iâ— and then it was not mixed with it but onely annexed to it Gal. 3.17 Answer Mr. Church his Confession that spiritual and temporal promises may be said to make a mixt Covenant is as much as I need to justifie my speech Exercit. pag 2. who did not call the Covenant made with Abraham mixt in any other sense But saith he â— the difference was onely in the dispensation and not in the substance of the Covenant the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament was as pâ—rely Evangelical as this whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament for the Gospel is said to be preached unto them as well as to us and the temporal promises were Evangelical and belonged to believers as such for because of unbelief many obtained them not Heb. 3.19 Also there are temporal promises in this dispensation and the people of God have Christ and all other things by the same charter Matth. 5.5 6.33 Rom. 9.32 Ezek. 36.25 30. Answer If there were difference in the promises there was difference in the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham and ours It is proved from Gal. 3.8 that the covenant made with Abraham was Evangelical but not purely Evangelical It is not true that the temporal promises Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. belonged to believers as such For though many through unbelief entered not into Câ—naan Heb. 3.19 yet neither all nor onely believers entered in The Gospel was preached to them as well as to us Heb. 4.2 but not either by so purely Evangelical a covenant nor in so perspicuous a way We have temporal promises now but not the same nor by the same charter As for what he adds that the promises sealed in the former dispensation were principally spiritual I grant it but deny it any absurdity to say that no promise was sealed to many circumcised infants that their souls were not profited nor any benefit to them by circumcision though there was profit by it attainable and attained by many more than which to the present purpose is not gathered from Rom 2.1 2. I return to Mr. M. I take his grants pag. 99. That Circumcision was comprehended in his c. as belonging to the manner of administration af the Covenant together with sacrificeâ— and that the Covenant of grace was administred by sacrifices and other types before Circumcision was instituted and so blot out my second exception against his first conclusion onely it is to be observed that pag. 187. he doth cross himself For whereas here he grants it to belong to the manner of administration not to the substance of the covenant there he will have it to belong to the substance of the Covenant not as a part of it but as a means of applying it And this is in effect all one as in his language to say it belongs not to the substance of the covenant for of it onely are the parts but to the administration For how doth it administer it but as a means of applying it But my third Exception requires more reviewing Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 14. had mentioned besides Christ and true believers a third sort of Abrahams seed not born Jews but made Proselytes who were Abrahams seed by profession who sought justification by the works of the Law did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God and alleged â—al 4 29. for it Against this I excepted 1. that I thought he could not shew where in Scripture such are called Abrahams seed To this he replies 1. That he named not Proselytes to add any strength to the argument it had been enough for his purpose to have said Some in the Church of the Jews were visible members yet not inwardly godly and these were called Abraham's seed as well as others Answ. I should have yielded to call such if they were Jews by birth or nature Abrahams seed but not so of any Proselyte and so Mr. M. had not his purpose of applying the term Abrahams seed to Gentiles who were believers onely in profession much less to Gentiles who did not so much as profess faith in Christ but sought righteousness by the works of the Law 2. He saith He never expected to have met with a quarrel for calling them who joyned to the Church by that cowmon name whereby the Church-members were called viz. the seed of Abraham or the children of Israel Answer There was no quarrel in my words but if Mr. M. did not expect that his sayings in that Sermon would be sifted to the bran it was his oversight They that doubted of the divine warrant of Paedobaptism had very great cause to discuss that Sermon being preached and printed at that time by such a man and taken to be the sense of the Assembly of Divines then â—itting at Westminster He says The seed of Abraham or the children of Israel were the common name by which Church-members joyned to the Church of Israel were called but he proves it not and till he do prove it I reject it 3. Saith he And could no place of Scripture be produced where Proselytes are expresly called by this name the matter were noâ— Tanti Answer It would follow then that the promise Gen. 17.7 of being God to Abraham 's seed is not meant of Gentile Proselytes who were onely by profession Gods people not in reality much less of their natural seed and this would make most of the infants baptized unbaptizable by Paedobaptists own pâ—inciples for sure the do not take the natural infant children of them that are not Abrahams seed to be in the covenant Gen. 17.7 and therefore must confess them unbaptized 4. Saith he But if it were a thing of any mâ—menâ— it would be no hard matter to produce evidence sufficient to prove that Proselytes were called Israelites and the seed of Abraham as Acts 2.10 22. compared Acts 13.26 compared with v. 43. but I forbear Ans. Of what moment it is hath been said I think it would be a very hard matter out of those Texts to prove any Proselytes much less such as were onely visible Church-members of the Jews seeking justification by works not
and privileges made to all the Israelites he tells us not and so the Reader is left to guess 4. How Pauls trouble or the reason given should hold that forth is another Riddle which needs an Oedipus if such nonsense scribbling be counted worth ones study to unfold it 2. Saith he That it 's a most sad thing to be excluded from the outward and general administration of the Covenant Why should Paul thus break out in his affections for the loss of outward privileges if it were not such a mercy to be under them Answer It is I confess a sad thing to be excluded from any mercy of God much more to be excluded from though but an outward administration of the Covenant of grace But it is a sad thing to me that I finde a Teacher of a Church pretending so much zeal for truth to vent in print such a ridiculous conceit as if Pauls great sorrow and continual pain in his heart by reason of that for the remedy whereof he could wish himself accursed from Christ were for the exclusion from outward privileges which they might have and yet be damned and might want and yet be saved If the outward privilege were Circumcision they had it if Baptism they might have it and yet be damned And shall we think the Apostle so foolish as to be thus troubled for such a loss 3. Saith he The Apostle holds forth that persons may be under the outward administration of the Covenant and yet not get the efficacy of it vers 6. They are not all Israel that are of Israel the Covenant was with Abraham and his seed all that were of him and yet all were not Israel that is partakers of the inward life and efficacy of the Covenant An. That which the Apostle holds forth is not as this man dotingly scribles that persons may be under the outward administration of the Covenant that is circumcised c. and yet noâ— get the efficacy of it that is have the Circumcision of the heart justification and eternal life for though this be a truth yet there 's not a word in the Apostles answer v. 6 7 8. which gives any colour for such a Paraphrase there being no mention of Circumcision or any such rite as they call the outward administration of the Covenant nor any words equipollent thereto For to be of Israel is to be descended of Jacob by natural generation as in like manner v. 7. to be the seed of Abraham and v. 8. the children of the flesh nor could such an Answer have met with the Objection which was not if the Jews were deprived of the outward administration how could Gods word stand to be a God to Abraham and his seed But thus if they were not his people to be justified and saved by Christ how could the word of God stand Gen. 17.7 Jer. 31.36 37. which seemed to promise they should be his people to be justified and saved by Christ And therefore to answer they had the outward administration though not the inward efficacy is to confirm the Objection which is that they had not that inward efficacy which the Covenant promised nor doth the Apostle deny that those saving mercies were in the promises nor think the promises salved by alleging that all had outward privileges though not saving mercies but by shewing that the saving mercies in those promises were not assured to every natural childe of Abraham or of Israel but to the choice seed distinguished from the rest by promise and peculiar calling according to election whether of Jews or Gentiles and thereby made the Israel of God v. 7 8 11 24. and so Gods words of promise stands firm to that seed of Abraham and Israel to whom it was made though the natural seed of Abraham and Israel be rejected from being Gods people It is therefore expresly cross to what the Apostle saith v. 7. which Mr. Sidenham saith that the Covenant was with Abraham and his seed all that were of him And that which he saith And so though they were under the outward dispensation of the Covenant yet God was not mutable nor his promise though he rejected them because of their own degeneration is directly contrary to the Apostles determination that they were rejected meerly out of the absolute liberty of Gods will v. 18. which the Apostle proves in the rejection of Esau vers 11 12 13. afore he had done good or evil yea afore he was born and the speech to Moses v. 15. and the hardening of Pharaoh v. 17. And indeed if this Paraphrase of Mr. Sidenham were good then the Arminian doctrine of conditional reprobation were here expresly taught that their rejection was because of their own degeneration and consequently the election of the other to wit the Gentiles must be because of their own believing and Gods promise to be a God to them must presuppose their believing as the reason of his promise to them which is the very dregs of Pelagianism founding the difference between the called and rejected in mans will and not Gods What Mr. Sidenhaâ— saith that the Covenant was made in general with Abraham 's seed to all that came from him meaning by natural generation is contrary to the Apostles resolution v. 6 7 8. and would make God a breaker of his promise which was not of outward privileges but of saving grace and supposes the Covenant and the election not commensurate contrary to the Apostle yea to Mr. Sidenhams own words where he summs up the Apostles resolution when he saith that none are the children of the promise to whom the Covenant was made real saints but those that have the true effects of the Covenant in their hearts And what he saith to all children of believers the promise visibly belongs to them â—s to Abraham and his seed it 's a piece of non-sense gibberish such as Paedobaptists use according to their false Hypotheses no whit agreeing either with the promise Gen. 17.7 or the Apostles determination Rom. 9.6 7 8. so often refelled by me that it is superfluous to say of it any more now As for what he adds But here is nothing at all to demonstrate that infants because children of the flesh are not under the promise I gâ—ant it but say there is enough to demonstrate that the promise of being a God Gen. 17.1 is not made to every believers childe sith it was not made to all Abrahams natural seed but to the elect of them which is enough for our purpose Mr. Sidenhams proceeds to the Text Gal. 3.16 which he grants not to be meant barely of Christ personal if saith he the promises were to Christ mystical then to all the elect as in him and so to infants as well as grown persons which I grant but thus the promise is conveyed under ground as it were none knows the veins of it which I also grant untill the calling shews who were elect nor do I count it any absurdity to yield it But saith
he acknowledgeth that I grant in my Examen pag. 149. a lawfulness of admitting men into a visible communion upon a visible profession and that rightly even by a judgement of faith though their inward holiness be unknown to us And yet in the next pag. 111. he tells me This mistake runs through your whole Book that none are to be reputed to have a visible right to the Covenant of Grace but onily such as partake of the saving graces of it But of this calumny more may be seen in my Apologie Sect. 10. pag. 47. After all these expressions of his meaning in his Conclusion he adds pag. 111. This then was and is my meaning when I say that infants of Believers are confederates with their parents that they have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members as their parents have by being visible professors and are therefore to be admitted to all such externall priviledges as their infant-age is capable of and that the visible Church is made up of such visible professors and their children that the invisible takes in neither all of the one nor the other but some of both In answer whereto I say 1. Neither Mr M. in his pretended explication keeps the terms of his second Conclusion in which the words were not as Mr. M. sets them down That infants of believers are confederates with their parents Nor 2 do any of the words explain that proposition Far would any that knowes the meaning of words take this for a right paraphrase Infants of believers are confederate with their parents that is they have the same visible right c. Is confederate all one with to have visible right to be reputed Church-members to be admitted to externall Church-priviledges to be of the visible Church Yea would not a Grammarian count such a paraphrase to be quite besides the words paraphrased and the words paraphrased plainer than the paraphrase it self Sure Confederate is being in Covenamt together And yet in all this Paraphrase there is not so much as the term Covenant mentioned much lesse any explication in what covenant and in what manner by what act believing parents are in covenant together with their infants 3. By this Paraphrase we have 4 propositions of one like so many Hydra's heads rising up in the place of one The first is That Infants of believers have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members as their parents have by being visible professors But this is manifestly false For if the visible right be by being visible professors infants cannot have the same visible right but by being visible professors which to assert of them is all one as to say the snow is black The second And are therefore to be admitted to all such externall Church-priviledges as their infant age is capable of is ambiguous for the capacity of their infant-age may be understood of Capacity from the institution of God and so infants of Gentile-believers are to be admitted to no externall priviledges Sacramentall for none are appointed for them or naturall capacity in respect of receiving the Sacrament and then if by the Sacrament be meant not onely the outward element but also the use or signification by it they have not a naturall capacity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism if onely of the elements they are capable also of the Lords Supper as well as baptism For they may eat and drink bread and wine as well as be washed by baptism The third proposition is That the visible Church is made up of such visible professors and their children This is indeed the conclusion of the Assembly in their Confession of Faith ch 25. art 2. and they cite to prove it 1 Cor. 7.14 Acts 2.39 Ezek. 16.20 21. Rom. 11.16 The impertinency of which is shewed before in the first part of this Review and in that which goes before in this part of this Review Of the impertinency of two other texts to wit Gen. 3.15 Gen. 17.7 Somewhat is said also before and more is intended to be decla-in the remainder of this Review The fourth proposition That the invisible neither takes in all of the one nor the other but some of both I grant to be true After all these Mr M adds I beseech you stand no longer doubtfull of my meaning I mean of them as I mean of other visible professors they are taken into covenant both wayes respectively according as they are elect or not elect all of them are in covenant in respect of out-ward priviledges the elect over above the outward priviledges are in covenant with respect to saving graces and the same is to be said of visible members both parents and infants under the N. T. in this point of being in covenant as was to be said of visible members in the former administration whether Jewes and their children or Proselytes and their children Answer Here again Mr M. explains the term Of Infants being taken into Covenant which was not in his second conclusion However I note first That in respect of saving grace all the infants of believers are not taken into covenant but onely the elect 2. That when he asserts That all the infants of visibls professors are taken into covenant in respect of outward priviledges 1 He never shewes what those outward priviledges are 2. Nor any where â—lse that I know instanceth in any but the initiall seal which is now no other than baptism and this then being the antecedent in his Enthymeme his argument is this All infants of believers are taken into Covenant in respect of the outward priviledge of Baptism Ergo they are to be baptized which is all one as to say They are to be baptized Ergo they are to be baptized unlesse he mean they are taken into covenant de facto and so his assertion should be They are already baptized wich is false and if his inference be Ergo they are to be baptized his argument is They are already baptized Ergo they are to be baptised which were to assert Anabaptism 3. Nor doth Mr. M. tell where that covenant is that promiseth the outward Church-priviledge of an initiaall seal nor by whose act they are taken intoâ—covenant or who takes them into covenant 4. If he understand it of the outward covenant meaning thereby the outward administration he useth the word improperly by a Trope and so speaks obscurely in his main conclusion on which his whole dispute râ—sts which is contrary to Logick Rules and â—ll right Disputation Besides he doth but trifle thus in his arguings Iâ—fants of believers are taken into covenanâ— that is the outward covenant that is the outward administration that is now Baptism Ergo they are to be baptized which is to prove the same â—y the same Lastly if that speech of his be true That in respect of outward priviledges the same is to be said of visible members both parents and infants under the New Testament in this poynt of being in covenant as was to be said
14. art 2. The principall acts of saving faith are accepting receiving and resting upon Christ alone for justification sanctification and eternall life by vertue of the covenant of Grace ch 17. art 2. The perseverance of the Saints depends upon the nature of the covenant of grace The other speech he would clear is thus by me expressed Baptism seals onely the promise of saving grace remission of sins c. So in the Directory of Baptism That it is the seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ and of our union with him of remission of sins regeneration adoption and life eternall and after And that the seed and posterity of the faithfull born within the Church have by their birth interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it In the Rules of direction in the Ordinance Octob. 20. 1645. That the Sacraments are seals of the covenant of grace in the blood of Christ. And therefore if there be not a promise of saving grace to infants in vain are they baptized the seal is put to a blank as some use to speak To this saith Mr. M. I utterly deny your consequence that unlesse there be absolute promises of saving grace to infants the seal is set to a blank For give me leave but to put the same case First for the â—nfants of the Jewes was the seal put to a blank with them or had they all promises of saving graces Secondly let me put the same case in grown men who make an external visible profession and thereupon are admitâ—ed to baptism can any man say that all the saving graces of the covenant or the spirituall part of it is promised to all visible professors Is it not abundantly known that in all ages even in the best times even in the Apostles times multitudes were baptized to whom God yet never gave saving graces and therefore never promised them for had he made a promise he would have performed it Answer To the words in my Examen the seal is put to a blank was added as some speak which I did to intimate that it was Paedobaptists phraseology not mine and that they counted this an absurdity not that I did so So that my consequence was it being counted frequently in their writings an absurdity that the seal should be put to a blank that is that baptism should be administred to them that had not the promise and it seals onely the promise of saving grace if the promise of saving grace belong not to the infants baptized then in vain are they baptized according to Paedobaptists Hypothesis for the seal of the promise is put to them to whom it is confessed the promise is not made Mr. M himselfe in his Sermon pag. 43. Infants are capable of receiving the holy Ghost of union with Christ of adoption of forgivenesse of sins of regeneration of everlasting life all which things are signified and sealed in the Sacrament of Baptisme The covenant then sealed is the covenant of these saving graces which if it belong not to infants baptized but another outward covenant in vain are they baptized for they have not the covenant which baptisme seals And that this is the sense of other Writers appeares by the words of Ampsing Diolog eontra Anabapt p. 195. Dico ergo Omnibus fidelibus baptismum competere cum ipsorum semine tam mulieribus quam viris tam infantibus quam adultiâ— horum omnium enim se Deum fore declarat Deus his remissionem peccatorum in Christi sanguine his mentis renovatioâ—eÌ„ per spiritum sanctum his vitaÌ„ aeternam promittit ac regnum coelorum quare quoque ipsis obsignabitur hac Dei gratia Ames Bellarm. enervat tom 3. l. 1. c. 4. ch 9. Protest Circuâ—cisio à primâ suâ— institutione habuit promissionem illam annexam quâ nulla est major Ero Deus tuus seminis tui post te Gen. 17. quam Christus ita interpretatur Matth. 22. ut vitam aeternam illa doceat contineri Paulus Ephes. 2.12 Ostendit spem vivam ex illâ pendere I wil add the words of Calvin Epist. 229. which are in stead of many otheâ—s both because of the great eminency of the man being accounted almost an Oracle by many of my Antagonists and because they are full to the present purpose they are thus in English This principle is still to be held That baptism is not conferred on infants that they may be made sons and heirs of God but because they are already with God reckoned in that place and degree he grace of adoption is sealed in their flesh Otherwise the Anabaptists should rightly keep them from baptism For unlesse there should agree to them the truth of the outward sign it would be a meer profanation to call them to the participation of the sign it selfe Moreover if any deny baptism to them our answer is ready that they are already of the flock of Christ and of the family of God because the covenant of salvation which God maketh with believers is common also to the sons as also the words sound I will be thy God and of thy seed after thee Gen 17.7 unlesse this promse went before by which God adopteth the children of believers not yet born it is certain baptism is ill bestowed on them Which words do plainly express the covenant of salvation which is made by God with believers is common to the sons that so it is meant Gen. 17.7 that with God they are afore baptism reckoned in the place and degree of sons and heirs of God who adopteth them not yet born that unlesse the truth of the outward sign that is according to Mr. Ms. adoption regeneration remission of sins c. did agree to them it were profanation to call infants of believers to the participation of the sign and Anabaptists should rightly keep them from Baptism Therefore Calvin thought the covenant of saving grace Gen. 17.7 made by God to believers infanâ—s which Mr. M. disclaism and otherwise infant-baptism is profanation and it is rightly opposed Yea the shifts that are used to free their doctrine of infants interest in the covenant and the sealing of it from the difficulty of verefying it against the exceptions before alledged do all seem to suppose the covenant in which infants have interest is the covenant of saving grace As when Mr. Baxters plain Scripture c. pag. 223. will have Baptisme seal onely the conditionall promise Mr. Philips vind pag. 37. expresseth the sealing by offering Mr. Davenport's Confess of Faith p 39. maketh the benefits of the covenant not to be offered in the Sacraments but to be exhibited onely to true believers Mr. Cotton's grounds of Bapt. pag. 70 The covenant of grace doth not give them saving grace at all but onely offereth it and seals what it offereth Dr Homes that the administration of the covenant of grace belongs to believers children though not the efficacie Dr. Twisse that Infants are in the covenant
to all or believers onely and baptism by it must be of all men or onely believers And for a third covenant which they call outward Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake pag. 66 67 and elsewhere before cited hath proved it to be a signment and consequently there is no such to be sealed by baptism which may justifie baptizing of believers infants as their priviledge Nor if the covenant of saving grace be not made to all believers seed can the certainty of their salvation dying in infancy be thence gathered nor is the promise of salvation made to a believer and his seed universally then is the Anabaptists sentence no more bloody than Mr. Ms then do Mr Bailee and others in pri nt and pulpit clamorously abuse them accusing them of cruelty to infants of believers robbing parents of comfort concerning them when in truth we are as favourable in our sentence of infants as they and do give as much comfort as we truly can As for the visible membership which he ascribes to infants of believers in the Christian Church it will appear to be but a fancy in the examining what Mr. B. brings for it I objected that if the child of a Christian be a Christian then Christians are born Christians not made Christians whereas it was wont to be a current saying Christiani non nascuntur sed fiunt And if the Covenant of grace be a birth-priviledge how are they children of wrath by nature To this Mr. M. answers It is his birth-right to be so esteemed to be reputed within the covenant of grace or a member of the visible Church and alledgeth Gal. 2.15 Rom. 11.21 Naturall branches that is visible Church-members To which I say were I to write as a Geographer I should reckon the people of England old and young for Christians but as a Divine I should not so speak forasmuch as the Scripture no where calls any other Christians than disciples and professors of Christianity Acts 11 26. 26 28. 1 Pet. 4.16 The term Jew by nature Gal. 2.15 is not as much as visible Church-member by nature but by natural birth of that nation nor is the term Naturall branch Rom. 11.21 as much as visible Church-members by nature but onely descendents as branches from Abraham the root that is the father by naturall generation To be a visible Church-member I never took to be all one with to be in the covenant of grace but to be in the covenant of grace to be the same with a Child of the promise which is expressly contra-distinguished to a child of the flesh Rom. 9.8 The distinction of the outward and inward covenant is shewed before to be vain and to serve onely for a shift I said in my Examen Christianity is no mans birth-right and this I proved in that no where in Scripture is a person called Christian but he that is so made by preaching I said it is a carnall imagination that the Church of God is like to Civill Corporations as if persons were admitted to it by birth which my words shew to be meant of the Church of Christians invisible as well as visible Nor is it to the purpose to prove the contrary that Mr. M. tells me The Jewish Church was in that like Civil Corporations For I grant it was the whole nation being the same Politick and Ecclesiastick body but this Church-state was carnall as their ordinances whereas the Christian Church hath another constitution by preaching the Gospel Mr. M. his cavill at my words In this all is done by free election of grace had been prevented if the following words had been recited and according to Gods appointment nor is God tied or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnall respects as discent from men Christianity is no mans birth right Mr. M. shews not that God hath made it so in his Christian Church by any ordinance that the child should be baptized with the parent and therefore the objection still stands good The speech of Mr. Rutherfâ—rd are Mr. Cotton and not to be reconcâ—led without making contradictories true My answer beaâ—s not against the reason of the holy Ghost Gen. 17.7 Nor is it true but that the holy-Ghost makes this his argument why he would have the male children circumcised and thereby reckon'd to be in Covenant with him because their parents are in Covenant with him but it is refused by M's own Concession pag. 182. That the command was the formal reason of their being Circumcised Yet this was not it which I called a carnal imagination but the speech that it is in the church of God as in civil Corporations Mr. M. pag. 123 takes upon him to defend his speech that in the time of the Jewes if God did reject the parents out of the Covenant the children were cast out with them Against which I excepted that parents might be Idolatries Apostates from Iudaism draw up the foreskin again and yet the children were to be circumcised which he denies not but saith Is it not evident in the Iewes at this day that they and their children are cast out together I grant this but this doth not make good his own assertion or overthrow mine Then he tels me If I would shew the falsity of it I should have given some instance not of parents who remain Gods people in external profession though their lives might possibly be very wicked but of some who were cast off from being visible professors and yet their Infants remain in the visible society of the church or of some who were visibly thus taken in and their infants left out Answ. If he meanes this of the christian church it is easie to give instances of Infants of those who have turned Papists Mahometans excommunicate persons who are accounted baptizâ—ble by vertue of their Ancestors faith or for defect thereof because nationâ—s â—s Mr. Rutherfurd affirms in his Temperate plea ch 12. concl 1. arg 7· But Mr. M. his speech was of the time of the Iewes and of their times before Christ he must needs say the same â—â—less he will acknowledg Idolaters such as Ahab Ahaz c. to have remained still Gods people in external profession He concluds the reply to the fift Section of my Examen thus But instead of this you still go on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of grace taking it only of the Covenant of saving grace not including the external way of administration with it Answ. I do confess I do so take the word Covenant of grace not knowing any other Covenant of grace under the Gospel but that which is of saving grace and concieving I should speak false and nonsense if I should include in the Covenant of grace the external way of administration But to charge me with wanted equivocation whom he accuseth elswhere for destinguishing so much and equivocating in the use of a terme only one way â—s a ridiculous charge it being all one as to
accuse a man of nonsense because he speaks good sense to say I do equivocate because I do not equivocate For he that useth a word onely in one sense doth not aquivocate equivocation being when a word is used in more senses than one Fallaâ—ia aquivocationis est quando ex unius vocis multiplici fignificatione sophisticè concluditur Dr. Prideaux Hypomn Log tract 4. c. 7. Sect. 2. Arist Sophist Eleâ—ch l. 1. c. 3. reckons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equivocation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when with the same names and vowels we signifie not the same thing which evidently proves Mr M. guilty of equivocating from his own words For in the first conclusion of his Sermon he distinguisheth the covenant of grace for substance which he makes the Covenant of saving grace from the externall way of administration and yet blames me for not including it And if he by covenant of grace include the way of externall administraâ—ion how could he say in his Sermon pag. 26. in the recapitulation of his two first conclusions If the covenant be the same and the children belong to it Sure he will not say the way of externall administration is the same Wherefore from his own words he is deprehended to equivocate in the term Covenant of grace in the first conclusion meaning by it the covenant of saving graces and distinguishing it from the externall administration but in the second conclusion when he saith children belong to it he understands not the inward but the outward covenant not the covenant of saving grace buâ— the way of externall administration And yet he dare not say the â—nfant children of Gentile Christian believers belong to it that is the same way of externall administration for that is in the Jewish Legall Rites Asemblys Confess of Faith chap. 7. Art 5. Therefore he sophistically equivocates in the use of that term which is his frequent manner and yet he is not ashamed to accuse me of that of which his own words acquit me as if he had learned the Artifice in scolding to call another that first of which himself might be detected Nor is Mr. M. clear from equivocating in what follows in which I find muâ—h confusednesse and ambiguity CHAP. XXXVII That the promise Gen. 17.7 proves not an externall priviledge of visible Church-membership and initiall seal to infants of Gentile believers as Mr. M. asserts AFter twenty pages spent about the explication of his second Conclusion having varied it five or six times and as I have shewed in every of them still speaking ambiguously even then when he tells us he speaks as plain as he can possibly I pitch upon this which is pag. 116. as his second Conclusion Having said Infants of believers are made free according to Abrahams Copy he thus expounds himself True according to the promise made to Abraham I will be a God to thee and thy seed that look as Abraham the Proselytes and their seed upon their visible owning of God and his Covenant had this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Gods kingdom and houshold with their parents so it is here By which words it appears thar Mr. M. took this to be Abrahams Copy as he calls it that according to the promise made to Abraham I will be a God to thee and thy seed Abraham and his seed the proselytes and their seed upon their the parents visible owning of God and his Covenant had this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Godt Kingdom and Houshold with their parents 2. That so it is in the Christian Church by vertue of that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 Gentile believers upon their visibly owning of God and his Covenant have this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and Houshold with their parents Concerning which Conclusion I say still Mr. M. useth ambiguities of speech there being divers Covenants of God to wit the Old and the New and divers wayes of visibly owning God as by sacrificing circumcision c. by Baptism the Lords Supper frequenting the Church meetings of Christians c. divers kingdoms and housholds of God as the whole world and his Church the visible or invisible which might occasion various senses of Mr. M. his words But I ghesse his meaning to be thus As the Jewes and proselytes being circumcised their children were to be so also so Gentile-believers being baptized their children are to be baptized as visible Church-members which being the same with the Antecedent of Mr. M. his Enthymeme and the consequent it is evident Mr. M. his argument is a meer trifling tauâ—ology as I have often said But I shall not insist on it having in my Apologie Sect. 10. and elswhere shewed it That which I shall consider chiefly in his glosse on Gen. 1â— 7 which to me seems as or more absurd than the glosse of Papists Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church i. e. The Bishop of Rome shall be my Vicar generall of the Oecumenicall Church For 1. according to Mr. M. his Glosse Thee that is Abraham to whom the words were spoken is put for without all rule of Grammar or Divinity or as they speak in Logick supponit by every Jew or Proselyte and every believer or Christian Jew or Gentile who doth not visibly own God and his Covenant 2. According to this glosse the naturall seed of proselytes though but visibly owning God and his Covenant are called Abrahams seed without any use of Scripture which speak of no other seed of Abraham but 1. Christ Gal. 3.16 By excellency so called 2. by grace the elect Rom. 9.7 3. Believers Rom. 4 1â— 12 16 17. Gal. 3.29 4 By nature Gen. 21 12. Psal â—05 6 Gen. 15.13.18 Neither oâ— which are proselytes who do onely own God and his covenant 3. The promise of God to be a God to Abrahams seed is thus expounded The naturall seed of Abraham and the naturall seed of Proselytes and of Gentile Christians visibly owning God and his covenant shall have this visible priviledge that they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and Houshold with their parents In which paraphrase I note what he calls to be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom a visible priviledge Now to be accounted I must refer to some person who doth so account and the accounting must be either an act of opinion or science or faith and then to be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom is not a visible priviledg but invisible it being in the thoughts of anonother and the sense should be I will be a God to thy seed that is men as v. 9. administrators shall in their thoughts take proselytes and their children to belong to my Kingdom or it is some outward transâ—unt act and then it is an initial seal or I cannot conceive what it
should be if an initial seal either of Circumcision or Baptism if either of these then this promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed hath this sense I will bring it to passe that thou thy seed proselytes believers of the Gentiles and their seed even infants shall be circumcised or baptized If any can make any other sense of the words I shall be his debtor And if this be the sense then the promise is made a preâ—iction of infant-Circumcision and Baptism which whether it be not a ridiculous exposition I leave it to any considerate man to judge The Apostle Rom 9.6 7 8. where he expounds this very Scripture understands being a God of saving grace according to election and by Abrahams seed the elect onely Rom. 4 11 12.13 16 justifying of believers by faith Gal. 3.16.29 inheritance and blessing to believers throâ—gh Christ Jesus Our Lord Christ Luke 20 36 37 38. Of being the children of God and of the resurrection Mr. M. his self in his Sermon pag. 7. makes these words a promise of salvation to the infants of believers dying in their infancy pag. 10. he saith The substance of the Covenant on Godâ— part was to be Abrahams God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion to be an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and sanctification and everlasting life And this he distinguisheth from the administration of the Covenant Yea in his Defence of his Sermon pag. 98. he conceives the right allegation of an expression of Cameron That Circumcision did seale primarily the temporall promise sanctification secondarily to have an untoward look as being incâ—ngruous to a covenant of grace in Christ to ratifie temporall blessings which they may have that shall have no portion in Christ. Hath it not then a more untoward look to make this pretended visible privilege to proselytes children though but visibly owning God and his covenanâ— of having an initiall seal Circumcision and Baptism communicated to them meant by the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 Much more to call this the Copy of Abraham the Father of believers Not that I deny temporall promises in that Covenant which I have proved to be mixt but I allege these passages onely to show the inconsistency of Mr. M. his speeches Besiâ—es the promise were not true so expounded for if this were the sense I will be the God of the posterity of proselytes owning God and his Covenant that they shall be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and his Houshold with their parents then God doth promise that visible privilege to them for the words are a promise of an event not a declaration of a right and show what God would do not what they might claim which in many he performs not there being may of the seed of proselytes that never had the privilege and many of the children of Christian gentile believers who never had the visible privilege of being accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom whereas the word of God must be so expounded that it do not fall as about this very text the Apostle resolves Rom. 9.6 Mr. M. Defence part 3. pag. 127. saith It was not a personall privilege to Abraham no nor to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posterity taken into covenant by vertue of that promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed and p. 129. This I add to make it more clear that that promise Gen. 17. I will be the God of thee and of thy seed is a Gospel promise which from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the naturall seed of believers Answer 1. What Mr. M. means by Taking into covenant is somewhat doubtfull to me by reason of his using the term Covenant sometimes for the outward covenant or administration sometimes for the promise of God and confounding these terms taking into covenant being in covenant belonging to the covenant being covenanters entring into covenant sometimes meaning these terms of the promise of grace sometimes of the initiall seal termed by him the Covenant and taking into covenant being in covenant belonging to the covenant sometimes being understood as they should always be in order to Gods act who alone takes into covenant and puts a man into covenant with himself but frequently though abusively by another mans act aâ— the administrators act of Circumcision and Baptism very seldom of being in covenant or belonging to the covenant by the circumcised or baptized persons own act of promise though in respect of it onely in right speech a person is said to be a Covenantâ—â— or to enter into covenant Of which thing I have often though in vain complained it causing obscurity which a man who is a teacher of others should avoid But concerning the promise Gen. 17 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee in their generations 1. I deny that Abrahams naturall posterity were taken into covenant that is circumcised as I conceive he means by vertue of that promise as I have often proved and is in effect confessed by Mr. M. Defence pag 182. when he saith The formall reason of their being circumcised was the command of God 2. I deny that under the term Thee is meant any other than Abrahams individual person 3. I deny that under the term Thy Seed is ever â—eant in Scripture the naturall seed of proselytes or Christian believing Gentiles 4. I deny that by the promise I wil be the God of thy seed can be concluded that which Mr M. asserts That thâ—s promise Gen. 17.7 I will be the God of thee and of thy seed is a Gospel promise wâ—iâ—h from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the natural seed of believer or that this was Abrahams Copy That upon his and the proselytes visibly owning God and his Covenant their posterity should have this visible privilege that they should be accounted to belong visibly to Gods Kingdom and his Houshold with their parents Nor doth Mr. M. prove this sense of that promise Gen 17.7 either from the words or their coherence or by comparing it with any other Scripture as yeelding that exposition of it elswhere but saith something pag. 127 128. of his Defence to which though I have answered it sufficiently in my Postscript to Mr. Blake Sest 6. pag. 119. yet I repeat it with addition because much of pleading of Paedobaptists is hence First saith he though Abraham was the Father of the faithful and so in some sense the root as you elsewhere call him yet the Covenant was made with him for his faiths sake and believers are his children and heires and pertake of those priviledges and promises which were made to him and therefore look as Abrahams faith justified him before God and gave him interest in the spiritual graces of the Covenant and none but himself yer it was so beneficial
might have known whether he takes it in the same notion which I do whose Examen Mr. Cotton in his letter to me certified me that he was to examine A covenant in the proper acception is a promise single or mutuall the covenant of grace is Gods covenant or promise of grace a term not used in Scripture though agreeably enough to it Every covenant of God may be well enough termed A covenant of grace It was of his grace that is free favour that God made any covenant with man in innocency that he entred into covenant with the Israelites at the giving the Law at Mount Sinai yet commonly Divines oppose the covenant of grace to either of these covenants It is true there are who make the covenant at Mount Sinai the covenant of grace with a different administration which to be a mistake is shewed in that which follows Usually difference is made between the covenant of grace and the covenant of works or of the Law which is agreeable to the Apostles expressions Gal. 3.17 4.24 The one promiseth justification by keeping the Law the other by believing in Christ. I for my part take the covenant of grace for Gods promise of Evangelicall saving grace to wit regeneration justification by Christ c. according to the doctrine of the Author to the Hebrews chap. 8 9 10 1â— 12. 10 16 17. which our Lord Christ calls The New Testament Matth. 26.28 I acknowledge also that Gen. 17.7 and elsewhere this covenant was made to Abraham under câ—vert expressions which in their first and most obvious sense held forth other things But I am put to ghesse what Mr Cobbet means by the covenant of grace and in which words Gen. 17. and in what sense he placeth the covenant of grace there He speaks of a visible politicall Church-covenant and conceives the covenant of grace Gen. 17. to be invested with it either explici or implicit The visible poliâ—icall Church-covenant as I conceive from sundry writings of the New England Elders is that promise of members in a particular Church gathered in a Congregationall way wherein over and besides the promise they make of faith in God and in the Lord Christ they explicitly or implicitly promise to each other to walk in holy communion of Gods Ordinances and subjection to those that are over them with the members of the congregation to which they adj in themseâ—ves as members Mr. C. supposeth this covenant as elsewhere so here Gen. 17. to be included I wiâ—h many others see no clear ground for such a covenant there or elswhere Besides what he means by the covenant of grace considered as invested with a visible politicall Church-covenant if not explicit yet implicit is obscure Invested is as much as clothed and it is used as a term of Law as in the great question about investures into Bishopricks in former ages and so it notes a legall admission But in what sense the covenant of grace is said to be invested is somewhat dark This I conceive is the meaning That the covenant of grace Gen. 17.7 is made to Abraham and his seed considered as joyned by a visible politicall Church-covenant But I conceive such a position neiâ—her true nor safe Not true for no mention either explicit or implicit of such a Church covenant is here or in any of the places he cites None â—here For though God made the promise in reference to the Church which was to remain in the posterity of Isaac v. 18 19 20 21 yet that Church might be joyned by common profession of the same God without a promise explicit or implicit of walking togeâ—her in communion under an eternall politie God ordained Circumcision as a sign of the Covenant made with Abraham But in what words or fâ—ct there 's any implied way of restâ—pulation confession or promise to God I am yet to seek much mâ—re wherein they did bind themselves in a nearer religiousâ—ie one to another For though God intended by Circumcision to bind them to leave sin and keep his precepts and to direct them to look for the Messiâ—h yet that they by any word or act of theirs did promise to do so I find not there nor is it likely that Ishmael did make any such profession or promise to God or to others of the family considering his after carriage to Isaac and his expulsion from Abrahams house As for the other texts Deut. 29.12 13 there 's mention of entring into covenant with the Lord not a word of entring into covenant one with another much less of submitting to any outward Ecclesiastical governors or government The same may be said of the Covenant 2 Chron. 15.12 13. 2 Chron. 34 31 32. there 's a covenant to God mentioned but not a Covenant to each other called a Church-covenant 2 Chron. 30 There 's no mention of any covenant but of keeping the Passover Nehem. 10.29 30. it is said They clave to their brethren their Nobles and entred into an Oath to walk in Gods Law but that they entred into a covenant one with another I find not If the words They clave to their brethren their Nobles be meant of a promise to them yet a promise of subjection to them as Ecclesiasticall superiors of holding communion with them in ordinances for admission to Church-membership I find not there but an engagement with them to reâ—orm certain abuses And then Ordinances not a Covenant were made to charge themselves with for the service of the Lord Ezek. 16.8 There 's no mention of mans promise to God or to one another but the promise of God to them that he sware to Israel and entred into covenant with them and they became his Nor is the position safe that the Covenant of grace Gen. 17.7 is made to Abraham and his seed considered as joyned by a visible politicall Church-covenant for then should not the proselytes of the gate as for instance Cornelius the Centurion be included in the promise of being a God to him because it is certain he was not jâ—yned by a visible politicall Church-covenant to the Jewish Church sith he was uncircumcised and counted unclean insomuch as that Peters going in to him Aâ—ts 11.3 was conceived as unwarrantable for that reason And what can be the issue of this doctrine if received but perplexing superstitious fears of their salvation in some if they be not in Church-covenant for without the promise of being God to a person no man is sâ—ved and injurious censures of those not in Church-covenant as out of the way of salvation which will make it like the grand Imposture â—s Dr. Morton calls it of the Romish â—hurch That out of communion with it is no salvation I do not make such a Church-covenant unlawfull for what we are bound to do we may lawfully promise to do nor do I deny its expediency and usefulness especiâ—lly if it be not in too strict and intangling a form But I think there 's no sufficiâ—nt proof that
according to men children of the promise as Mr C speaks Heb 4 1 4 proves not that the promise of grace and glory may be to one as his legacy or portion externally and according to men of the saving good whereof it is possible one may fall short For though there be mention of a promise left yet not of a promise left to any that come short of it unless by being left be meant propounded or tendered onely Antipaedobaptists do grant they admit false brethren to baptism and the Lords Supper called by Mr Cobbet seals of Church and Covenant fellowship but it is not in them to admit them into the fellowship of covenant meaning the covenant of grace for that is Gods peculiar We admit them to baptism on this ground not because to us they are in covenant we suspend any judgement about their interest in the covenant as being out of our cognizance and no Rule for us to admit or keep back from baptism but because we know them to be professors of faith in Christ. If by Blanks be meant such as to whom the promise of the covenant of grace is not made and by Seals Baptism and the Lords Supper we think we do ordinarily put seals to a blank nor do we make scruple thereof or think it true that the seal must follow the covenant or that Gen 17.9 10 11 13. Acts 2 38 39. 1 Cor 11 25 prove it That it is not taught Gen 17.7 10 11 13 Ast 28 39 is shewed in the fore part of this Review Sect 5 and in this part Sect 5 8 13 20 21 22 23 37 and elswhere 1 Cor. 11 25 the cup in the Lords Supper is called the new Testament in Christs blood but that all or onely those who are in the covenant of grace must have the the cup is not proved thence and the falshood of it is shewed above often We do not say when we admitted persons to baptism we judged them to be in the covenant of grace else we had not admitted them but we knew they professed faith in Christ and so were Disciples of Christ and thereupon admitted them according to our Rule Matth. 28 19 leaving it to the Lord whether they be in the covenant of Grace or no we being not directed to enquire whether they were in the covenant of grace but whether believers and disciples by profession I for my part agree not to it that either according to Scripture or the best Protestants any are said to be children of the promise or that the covenant of Evangelicall grace in the N. T. confirmed by Christs blood is made to them or belongs to them besides the elect Such Doctrine gives great advantage to the Arminians undermines perseverance in grace and the Polemicall Doctrine of our choice Divines as I shewed Exâ—men part 3. Sect. 4. and elswhere in this part of the Review Mr. Norton Mr C. his Colleague commended by Mr Cotton with Mr Cobbet as a prime writer in the New English Churches Resp. ad syl quaest Apollon p. 30. saith Objectum faederis gratiae sunt soli electi objectum faederis Ecclesiastici sunt tum electi tum reprobi My own Tertulliâ—n in his book de Anima chap. 21 22 when he urgeth that Texâ— 1 Cor 7 14 for a peculiar cleanness of believers children by privilege of seed means not the federall holiness Mr C. teacheth but holiness by reason of the freedom from that unholiness in their procreation which the Infidels children had from the many gross idolatrous superstitions by which they were defiled and as it were dedâ—cated to the Divell as I shew in my Apologie Sect 16 page 85. Paraeus Peter Martyr Bucer Melancthon Mr. Philpot are all Neotericks Cyprian Gregory Nazianzen Jerom Austin though they did plead for Paedobaptism from the Argument of Circumcision yet did not mâ—inâ—ain Infants covenant-estate as Mr. C. but a necessity of baptism to Infants ready to die because of the Text The soul that is not circumcised shall be cut off from his people Gen 17 1â— Instances whereof in Augustine and others are many cited by Chamier Pausir Tom 4 l 3 c. 3 Sect 39 40 41. And they thought the Infant dying baptized was infallibly saved whether believers child or not As for others they denied their entring into the kingdom of heaven as I shew you in my Examen part 1. Sect 7 8 9 10. I have often considered Zech 11 10 and I conceive the sense as Mr C. makes it of the covenant of grace in respect at least of the externall administration thereof amongst them as verse 9 and their externall right in that his covevenant to be very vain For if it be meant of the covenant of grace then it is as much as to say That I might not write my Lawes in their heart forgive their sins c. as I â—romised them Jer. 31.33 and then God should break his promise theâ—e should be falling from the covenant of grace c. If the sense be of the covenant of grace in respect of externall administration thereof amongst them and their externall right in that his covenanâ— then it is as if he had said That I might take away Circumcision the Passover and the rest of the Temple-service and the peoples right to them For what is the externall administration of the covenant of grace but the seals as they call them and the rest of the service of the Sanctuary Now this neither agrees to the phrase for Circumcision is never called Gods covenant with all the people and to break circumcision what is it but either to draw up the fore-skin and to forbid circumcision If this be referred to the time of Christs coming this had not been a prediction of an evill to them but of a benefit to be eased of that yoak verse 9 mentions not externall administration of the covenant of grace or externall right there o. But whenever it was accomplished whether at the siege of Jerusalem or at some other time it was the taking away of some who might be their protectors whereby they were exposed to destruction which whether they were the Maccabees or some others may be doubted However it is so frigid an interpretation to interpert it as Mr C. doth that methinks he should be ashamed to blot paper with it The Covenant ch 10. whether it were that Gen. 17. or that Exod. 19. or 24. or Deut. 29. â—t is certain it is meant not of the Covenant of grace common to all believers Gentiles or Jews but of the covenant which he made with the Israelitish nation which he brake by taking away their Leaders whether Governors or Teachers Maccabees or some other and so exposing them to ruin by the Grecian or Roman Lords or some other Psal. 44.17 Dan. 11.30 31 32 33. to deal falsly in Gods Covenant and to forsake the holy Covenant and to do wickedly against the Covenant do not intimate that Mr. C. would infer that there are some said
to be in the Covenant of grace only externally For to deal falsly in Gods Covenant is no more than not to keep Gods Commands as the term Covenant is oft put Synecdochically Psal. 25.10 and 131.12 To forsake the holy Covenant is to forsake the Law to do against it is to do against the Law as Anticohus had imagination against the holy Covenant that is the Law of the Jews And that this is the meaning is apparent Psal. 44.18 where v. 17. is thus explained our heart is not turned back nor our steps declined from thy way This Covenant then was no other than the Law of Moses the Covenant made in Horeb specially the Decalogue whence the Ark called the Ark of the Covenant 1 Kings 8.1 the Decalogue the words of the Covenant Exod. 34.28 And it is apparent in that Antiochus endeavored to compel them to break that Law as to sacrafice to Idols to eat Swines flesh and now this Covenant was not the Covenant of grace For the Apostle plainly distinguisheth the Law from the promise 400 years before Gal. 3.17 and the Covenant at Sinai is opposed to that of grace called the Jerusalem above Gal 4 24. Nor is there any difficulty in that which Mr. C. objects that believers then might be in a free Covenant of grace and at the same time under the contrary Covenant of bondage For the believing Jews to wit David and the rest of those that believed Heb. 11. were under the command of the Covenant in Sinai yet under the Ceremonial part yea were not under the sentence or judgment of the Covenant of the Law so as to be justified or condemned by it The everlasting Covenant Isai. 24.5 is no other than the Law as is proved above It is said Rom 3.3 not 7. as it is printed If some believed not shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect But the inference of Mr. C. is frivolous the faith of God was plighted to them and they were externally in the Covenant though the faith of God took saving effect only in the elect and in the believing For I would know what the faith of God was whether it were the Covenant of saving grace or the outward Covenant If it were only the outward how did it take saving effect in the elect Did the faith of God take effect in that which was never promised The outward Covenant me thinks Mr. C. should not say did promise saving grace but externall right and administrations therefore saving grace is not the effect of that Covenant And indeed the outward Covenant is but a meer notion except understood Metonymically as Circumcision is called the Covenant as being the sign of it there being no faith of God plighted to any Gentile believer and his seed wherein God promiseth that they shall be accounted visible Church members and as having external right or enjoyment of Church administrations If he should it would be false many of them never attaining them or having right to them If it were the inward Covenant in which God plighted his faith then it took effect only in the elect and they only were in covenant Nor doth Rom. 9.6 intimate what Mr. C. dreames that the word or Covenant of grace took effect in all the Jews in some externally in the elect savingly But as the stream of Protestant writers whereof some are alleged in my Examen part 3 Sest 4. and others before in this part of the Review and the very words shew it took effect only in the elect who are therefore callâ—d v. 8 the Children of the promise distinguishingly from others and the Apostle plainly resolves that the seed Gen. 17.7 as not Ishmael but Isaac not Esau but Jacob and consequently no believers natural seed except elected As for Rom. 9.4 it is often shewed that the Covenants there are meant of the Tables of the Covenant and the promises the special promises made to the Israelites after the flesh as is manifest v. 4.5 expressing peculiar privileges to them distinct from what the Gentiles though believers have which Mr. C. saith the Covenant of grace and an outward Covenant are not two distinct Covenants but the Covenant of grace made with the elect in respect of their saving interest in that I wil be a God to them the same is made with others in respect both of visible interest and the visible administration of it I see no truth in it For there is no Scripture that ever expounds I will be a God to them that is they shall have visible interest and the visible administration of it that is they shall be circumcised c. many have the promise of saving intrest who neither have nor ever had visible or visible administration as their language is of the Covenant of grace and on the contrary many have no saving Interest yet have the visible intrest and administration Mr. C. speaks of which in truth follows the command not the Covenant Nor is it consistent with Mr. C's own suppositions that a man may be in the external Covenanâ— who is not in the Covenant of grace savingly that the one is only the visible interest and administration the other the promise of saving grace if they be not two distinct Covenants For they must needs be distinct Covenants which are made to different persons of different things as these are supposed to be by Mr. C himself Nor doth Mr. C. prove by any text that there is any other wâ—y of entring into the Covenant of grace ordinarily but by a true and lively faith It is true Ezek. 16.20 21 23. the children of the Israelites were Gods children by special right as his servants Levit. 25.55 because he redeemed them out of Egypt and he had entred a special Covenant with them and they the whole nation had also engaged themselves in a special Covenant to be his and it is true the Covenants and promises were theirs Rom. 9.4 and they were the children of the Prophets and the children of the Covenant which God made to Abraham Act. 3.25 that is the people among whom and out of whom Christ came to whom he was at first made known to whom the Prophets were sent but this doth not prove that they were all internally or externally in the Covenant of grace They had no right to be babtized yea the greatest part of them for this is spooken of the people of the Jews whether believers or not even of them that offered their sons and daughters to Divils denied Christ and were broken off by unbelief Rom. 11.20 Gal. 4.28 is impertinently brought to prove a bare external being in the Covenant of grace For it is meant only of believers born after the spirit v. 29. who by the spirit do wait for the hope of the righteousness which is by faith Gal. 5.5 It is not true that any of the 〈◊〉 members from the Churh of Ephesus Acts 20.30 are said to be purchased by the blood of Christ. It was judged
the promise indefinitly as Deut 30.6 Jerem 31.37 Gen. 17.7 In which answer 1. he makes a distinction to include them in the promise whom the Apostle excludes from it 2. Whereas the Apostle determines the elect onely to be included in the promise taken in an Evangelicall sense Mr. C. includes the elect and non-elect even the worst of the Iewes whom the Apostle excludes 3. He abuseth Acts 3.25 26 Deut 30.6 by interpreting them as belonging to the worst of the Jewes in respect of externall right which are express about turning from iniquities and circumcising the heart The second objection is better framed yet not so fully as had been requisite Mr C. his conclusion is That the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenaâ—nt belonged to all the Iewes even the worst of them in respect of externall right to outward ordinances But that is false For it did not belong to the children after the flesh to the Jerusalem that then was which was in bondage with her children they were to be cast out being of the bondâ—woman Gal. 3.23 25 28 30 31. Ergo the covenant of grace c. Again They to whom belongs the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenant in respect of externall right are children of the promise Gen. 17.7 But many of the Iewes were not children of the promise Gen. 17.7 as is proved from Gal. 4.28 29 Rom. 9 8. Ergo Now what doth Mr. C. answer He tells us That they are called children of the flesh not begotten by naturall generation for then Isaac also should be a child of the flesh But he is called a child of the flesh who though born by naturall generation of Abraham yet sought righteousness by the Law which was not Ierusalem of old but Ierusalem which was when Paul wrote this long after Christs time Res. But was not it true also of the Ierusalem that was when Christ was Did not our Lord Christ deny them to be Abrahams childreÌ„ told them they were the Divels children Iohn 8.39 44. though he granted them to be Abrahams seed by natural generation v. 37. and yet Mr C calls them Abrahams Church-seed or Church-seed of the promise instated in the covenant of grace as invested also with Church-cavenant children even of that free covenant of blessing in Christ Acts 3.25 26 and had the promises indefinitly as Deut. 30 6. Jer. 31 37. Gen. 17.7 c. beloaging to them Rom. 9.4 and were children of God Christs Matth. 15 26. I deny not but Iohn 1.12 those that rejected Christ are called Christs own but not because of their right in him or promise to them to own them as in the covenant of grace but as they were ingaged to him in respect of his deliverance out of Aegypt and other mercies to them and their nearness of consanguinity to him as Paul calls Israel his flesh Rom. 11.14 Christ being from them according to the flesh Rom. 9 5. But to say that even then they were in the covenant of grace when they received not Christ is to conceive they were in the Olive when they were broken off And yet I deny not that they had in Christs time a right to circumcision but no externall right to the covenant of grace as Mr C. dreams SECT LXIII That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Works and not of Evangelical grace and that the Iewish Church and State were but one body A Third objection against Mr C. his sixth Conclusion is they were under the old and first covenant which was formerly c. and not under the new or in the covenant of grace To this he answers That even Sinai covenant could not disanull that covenant formerly made with them in Abraham and being much later than it Gal 3.16 17. And after when the covenant is said to be new and old it is not divisio generis in species but subjecti in adjuncta So the phrases first and second Heb. 9 note not two Testaments specifically different but numerically Besides it 's called a first and second Testament scil in order of succession so the former is said to be faulty comparatively not absolutely In a word in way and manner of dispensation that was different from the covenant now dispensed in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials Reply The answer of Mr C. I conceive is reduced to these two points 1. That the Jewes were under both covenants that of Sinai and that of Abraham 2. That these two covenants the first and the second the New and Old mentioned Heb 8 9. differ in the way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials To which I reply That this is contrary to the Apostles supposition that the same men which were under the covenant of mount Sinai should be under the promise For he supposeth them to be cast out Gal 4.21 30 and saith v. 31 we are not children of the bondwoman that is under the Law v 23 but of the free that is the promise Yea cha 5.18 If yee be led by the Spirit ye are not under the Law The like whereto is said Rom 6 14 Gal 3 10 11 12 I deny not but that the Iews who were under the covenant of grace that is believers in Christ were both under the obedience of the Law and the hope of the Gospel and under the covenant of the Law so far as concerned their prosperity in Canaan but not in respect of righteousness and life or any other Ecclesiasticall privilege As for the other part of the answer I find Mr Perkins on Gal 5 24 25 saying it is a main pillar in Popish Religion that the Law of Moses and the Gospel are all one in substance c. Which I know not well how to distinguish from Mr C. his position that the new and old covenant differ not in essentials But let 's examine it The essentials of a thing are the genus and difference It is granted that the new and old first and second covenant differ not in the genus no more doth the covenant with Adam in innocency with Noah after the Flood they are all covenants of God But that there is no essentiall difference distinguishing between the covenant at mount Sinai and the new covenanâ— and that they differ in way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials â—s I am assured a manifest error both against Scripture and I think the Authors themselves though not only Mr C. here but also the Assembly Confession of Faith c. 7. Art 5. saith The covenant of grace was administred c. and is called the old Testament which to be meant of the covenant of mount Sinai I conceive from these words of Mr M Dâ—fâ—nce page 188. Alas Sir why do you run into this needless and erroneous digression I said in my Sermon that the Morall Law was added 430 years after the covenant with Abraham
not as a part of that covenant but as a School-master to whip them to Christ that they finding the impossibility of keeping the Law might more earnestly long after Christ exhibited in those shadowes of rites and sacrifices c. But to say that this covenant mentioned in the eighth of the Hebrews was the covenant of works is a most erroneous doctrine Look into the text and you shall find that the covenant which is there mentioned which God finds fault with and calls the first covenant in opposition to this better covenant had ordinances of divine worship had a Sanctuary a Tabernacle Priests and High-priests Sacrifices and other rites belonging to the administration of it Sir was this the covenant of works I hope you will not own it in your next Mr Anthony Burgess another Assembly man Vindic. Legis Lect. 24 maintains with a distinction the Law at mount Sinai to be a covenant of grace Like whereto are the opinions of Mr John Ball of the covenant of grace ch 7 page 102 Dr. Samuel Boulton True bounds of Christian freedom page 130 c. Mr Thomas Blake Vindic. Foeder c. 24 c. But as in other things there is much dictating besides the Scriptures in the received writings of men so in this Mr C. saith The difference between the old and new Covenant is in the way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials Concerning which it is to be observed that to dispense is to lay out as a Steward doth lay out money To dispense a Covenant may be understood either by making it known or performing the things promised on either side the same may be conceived to be meant by administration The ceremony of administration I understand not what it is unless by it be meant the rites of the Old and New Testament This then seems to be either all or the main difference Mr C. makes between the covenant made with Israel at mount Sinai and the new covenant confirmed in the blood of Christ with Jewes and Gentiles that the former had Circumcision the Passover Sacrifices c. by which the covenant of grace was made or the things promised conferred the new covenent had Baptism and the Lords Supper A Covenant is a promise and so an action and when mutuall there 's a reciprocall action I know not what other predicament to place it in The essentials of a thing are in corporeall substances matter and forme in other beings those things which in proportion to them shew what it is and wherein it is differenced from others under the same genus which essentials the Logicians call the genus and difference The essentiall difference of one action from another is the terminus or effect as heating from cooling in the object subject end A Covenant being essentially a promise differs essetntially from another promise when the things promised are different as the promise of land differs essentially from the promise of life and when the conditions are different though the things promised be the same as the promise of land to one for so much money is essentially different from the promise of land upon the condition of thanks The covenant of works and of grace are terms not used in Scripture But Rom. 11.5 6 Election by grace and of works Rom 4 4 it is said to him that worketh the reward is reckoned not according to grace but according to debt Ephes. 2.8 9 Yee are saved by grace not of works 2 Tim 1.9 who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace Titus 3.5 He saved us not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his own mercy Yet I think the distinction right and good of the covenant of grace and the covenant of works And the difference between them is 1. in the thing promised the one promiseth life upon obedience to the Law given but not strength to do it the other promiseth the Spirit to inable for doing 2. in the condition the one promiseth life upon perfect obedience the other upon faith in Christ. These differences are confirmed from sundry Texts Rom 10.5 2 Cor. 3.6 10 Gal. 3.10 12 22 c. I think in a promise the different end of the promiser makes not an essential difference I think it is the same promise essentially when one promiseth land upon condition of giving thanks to shew his bounty and another to engage him to his party though the ends be different My determination in this Writing is as it was in the former Exam. page 102. That the new Covenant is not the old renewed but that they differ specifically in the essentials and not onely in Rites and that the Covenant at mount Sinai was a covenant of works And this I prove 1. From that Text which here Mr. C. Mr M. the Assembly and others stand so much upon to wit Heb 8 8 9. 10. The old covenant there meant is the covenant made with Israel at mount Sinai which appears in that it was the covenant which God made with the Fathers of the Iewes in the day that he took them by their hand to bring them out of the land of Aegypt Now that covenant differs essentially more than in Rites from the new covenant yea as a covenant of works is diffrent from the covenant of Evangelical grace â— Because the new covenant is said to be established or setled as a Law â—n better promises Heb 8.6 Now if the promises be better promises it is because they be of better things and if of better things then of different things and so the difference is more than in Rites yea it is in essentials for promises of different things essentially make different covenants essentially And that the difference is in the meliority of promises and that these promises be of better things is apparent from the recitall of the promises Heb â— 10 11 12. 10. â—â— â—7 where also by the offering of Christ that Testament is said to be of force By this also the covenant at mount Sinai is proved not to be the covenant of Gospel-grace For then it had had as good promises yea the same promises 2. If it had been the covenant of grace they had abode in it For that is a covenant which they that are in continue in But in the old covenant or that at mount Sinai they abode not v. 9. Ergo c. 3. That is not the covenant of grace which is faulty or which is the meaning of â—t occasioning God to complain for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Faultless is that which is without complaint and the meaning is the first covenant occasioned complaint of the Israelites as it is v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 complaining of them he doth not say it as Mr. M. seems to have understood it as if God had found fault with the covenant that 's a
they take them to be the same or heed not what they cite chap. 19. Art 6. True believers are not under the law as a covenant of works not as due to them by the Law as a Covenant of works Greater Catech page 25. The regenerate are delivered from the Morall law as a covenant of works Yea Mr M. his words denying the law to be part of the covenant made to Abraham but as a Schoolmaster to whip them to Christ impossible to be kept which are not to be â—rid of the covenant of grace doth in effect make it the covenant of works Mr Anthony Burgess when he distinguisheth vindic legis lect 24. pag. 223 saith the law considered more largly as that whole Doctrine delivered on mount Sinai with the preface and promises adjoyned and all things that may be reduced to it was a covenant of grace but more strictly as it is an abstracted rule of righteousness holding forth life upon no terms but perfect obedience abstracted from Moses his administration of it was not of grace but of works In which words he denies not that it held forth life upon no terms but perfect obedience and so it was a Covenant not of grace but of works 2 he shews not that it was given as a Covenant upon any other terms or that it did propound or promise righteousness before God upon condition of faith in Christ but only tels us take the Law for the whole doctrine c. Which is in effect all one as to say The covenant God made was of works yet withal he delivered many things which shewed he would also have them look at Christ which we grant true but no where that he promised righteousness through Christ in that Covenant Mr. Blake Vindic. Faed c 24. pag. 174. the Law is taken sometimes in that strict sense as containing a Covenant of works and holding forth life upon condition of perfect obedience So Rom. 10.5 6. and 3.21 22. Gal 3.18 It were no hard matter to shew many of Protestant Writers who call the Covenant of the Law at mount Sinai the Covenant of works but these suffice What is objected to the contrary is not from the tenor of the covâ—nant but from some adjuncts of it as 1 because there were sacrafices other rites appointed it must be a Covenant of grace Answer the sacrafices as they were commanded so they did belong to the Covenant of works But as God used them as shadows and types of Christ to come so they signifie Gods purpose oâ— Gospel-grace in Christ but by another Covenant not that at mount Sinai 2 Gods end was not to give life by the Law but to direct to Christ. Answer 1 I grant the first and thence it appears he intended it not for a covenant of grace 2. it directed not to Christ as it was propounded Covenant-wise but by accident in that it made known sin and so made Christ appear necessary and this also proves that it was of it self as propounded a Covenant of workes 3 God could not enter into a Covenant of works with man fallen Answer True so as to justifie him by it yet for other ends he may as to discover sin shew mans impotency As Christ said to the young man Matth. â—9 16. if thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements though he knew he could not have life that way and v 21. commands him to sel all though it did but shew his covetousness not make him perfect The covenant of grace is to be judged such from the tenor of the promise and condition not from Gods ends For if so then the Gospel it self being sent to some to harden them should be a Covenant of works because the end was to to condemn them by it 4 That God begins the Decalogue with I am the Lord thy God c. Answ 1 He is said to be the God of the spirits of all flesh Numb 16.22 yet thereby is not proved all are in the Covenant of grace 2 It may be understood that he was their God de jure that he had right to command them because he brough them out of Egypt 3 the plain answer is that he was their God according to the Covenant of grace made with Abraham antecedently to the giving of the Law not by the Covenant of the Law And for that which is often objected that in the second commandement God promised mercy to thousands but he promiseth no mercy but in a Covenant of grace I know how that can be proved I concieve that God did and doth shew temporall mercies out of his long patience by the Covenant of the Law though no man be justified by it before God neither Psal. 105.8 nor any other prove that the Covenant at mount Sinai was the same with that to Abraham though the promise of Canaan was to a 1000 generations yet on condition of obedience Dan. 9.4 Ierem. 11.4 6 7 8. when they brake Gods Laws they were expelled and so when they slew the heir of the Lord of the vicâ—ard he took his kingdome from them and gave it to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it Matth. 21.43 I do not say that a naturall covenant ex natura rei is a covenant of works but it is undoubted that the covenant on mount Sinai was a covenant made with the whole nation of the Jewes and it is proved before to have been a covenant of works It is untruly said That the Gospelâ—covenant Gal. 3.9 was of a national nature For that is a national Covenant which is made with a whole nation that is all the people descended from such a stâ—â—k whereas v. 9. the Apostle by saying so then they that are of the faith of Abraham are blessed with faithful Abraham plainly expounds who he means by all nations v. 8. to wit not whole nations but believers of all nations The Covenant of works at mount Sinai though it did not justifie before God yet it held that nation in Canaan till they set up other Gods and revolted from the true God and upon their forsaking Idols they might plead it for the restoring of them to their own land or continuance in it Yea God did condescend so far that if there had been in Ierusalem a man that had executed judgment and sought truth he would have pardoned it and not brought the Chaldeans upon it to burn it Ierem 5.1 It is true the Gospel threatens and executes corporal punishments and promiseth rewards to the disobeying or obeying of it but not an expulsion out of or setling in any one Country of an entire nation but personal evils or rewards upon personal disobedience or obedience The Covenant of grace admits of no carnal hypocrites nor is it so said Gal 4.21 22 23. though it 's not denied but many who are admitted into the visible Church are such To the eight objection That was in the flesh this in the heart Mr. C. speaks thus Answ. was that only in their flesh was
commanded and observed as that which was a priviledge and duty belonging to the Covenant and they used it as being in Covenant the objection is wholly taken off To which I reply 1. The Covenant of grace might be in some sense and the Church state of Abrahams house in some respect that is to bee a sign of it might be the end why God appointed Circumcision to Abrahams house but motive that is impulsive cause I see not how the Covenant of grace and the Church state can be termed there being nothing but his own will according to the counsel of which he worketh all things Ephes. 1.11 that can be rightly termed a motive to him to command it 2. But be it in the sense I allow it termed motive or end and a duty belonging to the Covenant as a sign of it and the persons who used it as Abraham Isaac and Jacob used it as being in Covenant yet neither is it true that all that used it were in the Covenant of grace nor was it appointed as a duty to be used by them to all and they onely that were in the Covenant of grace nor did God by the use of it seal signifie assure or confer an estate in the Covenant of grace to every person whom hee appointed to bee circumcised and therefore no part of the objection is taken off that Circumcision was not the seal of the Covenant of grace to all circumcised persons but was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of grace and denied to persons that were and consequently Mr. Ms. proposition not true All that were in the Covenant were to bee sealed When Mr. M. said persons were bound to conform to the manner of administration and this manner of administration he made to bee temporal blessings and punishmenst I took it he meant they should conform to them He tels me p. 183. That though I confidently asserted heretofore that Ishmael and Esau and others were circumcised for some temporal respects that Circumcision sealed the temporal or political promises but yet in saying they received Circumcision neither in relation to outward things onely nor at all either as temporal blessings or types but because God commanded I do as good as deny it sith if they were circumcised with respect to noâ—hing but the command it sealed nothing it was no seal at all To which I reply I find not that I asserted any where that Ishmael and Esau were circumcised for some temporal respects and though I alledged Cameron saying that it sealed earthly promises yet I never said it sealed them to Ishmael and Esau Nor do I count it any absurdity to say it sealed nothing to them or it was no seal at all to them And I conceive that Baptism which is no seal of such earthly promises nor can be a seal of spiritual and saving grace to every natural child of a believer of which he will not assert p. 116. of his Defence there is a promise made to them when it is administred to reprobates is no seal of the Covenant of grace to them nor any seal at all and that he must as well as I do if he will speak congruously to his own doctrine say that such persons are to bee baptized by reason of Gods command and no other Yet I do not say the command of Circumcision was not in reference to the Covenant of grace as Mr. M. intimates but this I say though God commanded Circumcision that he might signifie Christ to come and Evangelical grace by him yet neither the circumciser nor the circumcised did circumcise or were to be circumcised because of the persons interest in the Covenant of grace as the proper and adequate reason of the duâ—y of Circumcision but because of Gods command and yet I nothing doubt but that in the use of it they and others that were neither circumcisers nor circumcised as e gr women were by faith to look on the Covenant of grace through these administrations that is to expect Christ to come and blessing by him which speeches are very easily consistent with my own words and Scripture doctrine though Mr. M. did not understand it When Mr. M. alledged that Circumcision could be no seal of Canaan to Proselites and I answered that yet the Covenant to Abraham had promises of temporal blessings and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the Covenant of grace he tels me 1. That he was proving that Circumcision was no seal of the land of Canaan which I grant if he mean it to some that were circumcised yet if he mean it to none it is false 2. He grants temporal blessings belong to the Covenant of grace according to that 1 Tim. 4.8 But neither this nor any other Text proves that the promises of a setled abode in a fruitful land with peace prosperity and outward greatness and dominion therein is promised to a Christian believer now as it was to Abraham and Israel after the flesh Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. but the promise of this life is upon the loss of outward things of a recompense in this life by receiving more yet with persecution Mark 10.30 which can bee understood of no other then spiritual comforts which may bee termed temporal blessings distinct from the everlasting life which in the world to come they shall have 3. It was not his drift to prove that all that were circumcised had part in the spiritual graces of the Covenant but that they had a visible membership and right to bee reputed as belonging to the Church But this is not that whiâ—h hee was to prove that they were in the Covenant of grace Lastly when I excepted agaiâ—st his speech that Ishmael was really taken into the Covenant of grace and Esau till by their Apostaâ—e they discovenanted themselves 1. That hee opposed the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. Gal 4.28 29. Gen. 17.19 20. Heb. 11.9 To this he replâ—es not 2. That by this speech he asserts falling from grace this he denies because hee meant by their taking into the Covenant of grace not being under the spiritual grace of the Covenant but the outward administration But 1. this is but non-sense and delusory For the outward administration is not the Covenant of grace Circumcision is not the Covenant of grace nor visible profession nor indeed could he mean it without trifling and mocking his reader when he argued Infants of Believers are in the Covenant of grace therefore are to bee sealed with Baptism or Circumcision For infants of believers make no visible profession and if his argument were they were under the outward administration that it to be Circumcised or Baptized and therefore they were to be sealed that is to be Circumcised or Baptized is mere trifling and delusory of the reader who expects from his words a proof that Gods promise of righteousness and eternal life by Christ which is and nothing else the Covenant of grace is made to every infant child of a believer 2.
If this were Mr. Ms. meaning Ishmael and Esau did not discovenant themselves for they did uncircumcise themselves but shewed that they regarded not the blessing of Isaac But saith Mr. M. I have no doubt but that all indifferent Readers well enough understand what I meant by being taken into the Covenant of grace even such a taking in as when the Gentiles were taken in instead of the Jews who were broken off they were under the outward administration visible professours had an external calling which is Gods act though a common one To which I reply 1. If they were taken into the Covenant of grace as the ingraffed Gentiles they were elect and true believers if Esau and Ishmael fell from that state of the Covenant of grace Arminian Apostasie is asserted 2. Neither the outward administration of Circumcision to Ishmael and Esau nor their visible profession whatever it were was Gods act which Mr. M. denies not taking into the Covenant of grace to be therefore by neither of these can they with good sense be said to be taken really into the Covenant of grace 3. What external call which should be Gods act distinct from the outward administration and visible profession mentioned from which Ishmael and Esau fell I understand not 4. What ever external calling it be which he means and terms Gods act though a common one sure I am Mr. M. hath not shewed nor can shew that it is a real taking into the Covenant of grace which I said truly nor hath Mr. M. disproved or gain-said it is Gods act either of election or promise or some act executing either of these and the objection still stands good persons were to bee circumcised who were in the Covenant of grace Ishmael was appointed to be circumcised though it were declared Gods Covenant did not belong to him and therefore the reason of Circumcising persons was not the Covenant of grace but onely the will and command of God to have it so SECT LXXXIV The enlargement of our priviledges proves not Infant Baptism as Mr. M. in his 5th conclusion would have it MR. Ms. 5th Conclusion was The priviledges of Believers under this last and best administration of the Covenant of grace are many wayes inlarged made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Jews administration For examining of which I set down something about priviledges which Mr. M. grants and saith what 's all this to the purpose I reply I told him it was to uncover the ambiguity of his speeches in which all the strength of his conclusion lay To what I said that if he meant his conclusion of priviledges of the substance of the Covenant of grace it is to be denied Mr. M. confessed they were the sameboth to Jews and Gentiles but in respect of the administration I granted it hee answers 1. if this were granted it hurts not him it 's sufficient if the administration be now more comfortable to Believers and their children To which I reply that this grant enervates the argument to which this conclusion tends For if the priviledges of the Covenant of grace belonging to the substance of it be not enlarged but the same in substance to Jews and Gentiles then no priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged for all the priviledges of the Covenant of grace belong to the substance of it and to true believers or elect onely the visible membership and initial seal contended for were no priviledges of the Covenant of grace nor such as all believers could claim for their children they were personal priviledges to the Church of the Jews and belonging to that administration as Mr. Ms. phrase is or as I would speak to that peculiar national Church state which God vouchsafed that people out of special ends and respect to that people of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came and consequently by denying those priviledges we deny no priviledges of the Covenant of grace to believers for their children nor ascribe less grace to them then the Jews had And if the administration be now more comfortable to believers and their children it being in that Circumcision and the yoke of the Law are taken away it follows it is more comfortable to us that no such thing as Circumcision was is put on our children Mr. M. and Paedobaptists do grosly mistake as if Circumcision did belong to Jewes and their Children because of their interest in the Covenant of grace which neither is nor ever will be proved 2ly Saith Mr. M. If there be no more honourableness in those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant how comes it to pass that in your answers to those several texts which I and others bring to prove the enlargement of priviledges under this last administration you interpret them of those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant or the spiritual part of it Answ. In those answers I do not so interpret those texts of those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant or the spiritual part of it as more honourable then the priviledges belonging to the substance of the Covenant of grace or spiritual part of it now then to believers afore Christ but say that the promises of the new Covenant which is the Covenant of grace are better then the promises of the Covenant at Mount Sinai which was the Covenant of works Thirdly saith Mr M. Seeing that under this last administration these priviledges are communicated not onely with more clearness but in greater abundance I wonder you should say they are no more honourable and comfortable now then they were then is not abundance of grace more honourable and comfortable then a little grace Answ. It is but yet not priviledges belonging to the substance of the Covenant of grace For this clearness and abundance comes not from the substance of the Covenant of grace but to use his phrase from the administration in respect of which I granted they are many wayes enlarged and made more honourable But then saith Mr. M. This will serve our turn well enough for this was a priviledge belonging to their administration that their infants were under it as well as themselves yeild that for ours and the controversie is ended Answ. The yeilding that the priviledges of believers under the N. T. are enlarged more honourable and more comfortable in respect of the administration will not serve Mr. Ms. turn except it be yeilded of this particular that the infants of Christian believers are visible Christian Churchmembers and to be entred by Baptism as well as the Hebrew infants of and into the Church of Israel by Circumcision which would indeed end the controversie if yeilded but was not so by me who granted priviledges of believers now more enlarged in respect of the administration because the preaching of the Gospel which is that whereby the Covenant of grace is administred is enlarged to Gentiles as well as Jewes and more honourable
because preached by Christ himself and more comfortable because in plain words without shadows Mr. M. adds To have nothing in lieu of the administrations then as they were shadowes of the substance which is Christ is very right But to say it is our priviledge to have nothing in lieu of them as they were external Ordinances to apply Christ is to say it is our priviledge to have no Ordinances to apply Christ to us and thereby to make us compleat in him which were a most absurd thing to affirm Answ. Those external Ordinances applied Christ to them no otherwise then as shadows of the substance which is Christ nor doth Mr. M. in his Sermon p. 10 11. express their administrations of the Covenant of grace otherwise then as figures signs types and sacraments of spiritual things so that if we have nothing in lieu of them as they were shadows but Christ we have nothing in lieu of them as external Ordinances to apply Christ to us nor did they make us compleat in Christ nor is it absurd to affirm that no external Ordinances now do But saith Mr. M. Circumcision was indeed a part of that administration and obliged them to the rest of that manner of administration as Baptism doth now to ours but did it not also belong to the substance Answ. No. Was it not a seal of the righteousness of faith of Circumcision of heart c. Answ. Abrahams was not every ones Circumcision Doth not the seal belong to the thing sealed the conveyance and seal annexed to it are no part of the purchased inheritance but do they not belong to it Answ. They do but not as of the substance of the thing sealed or the inheritance purchased or the Covenant whereby it is promised but as the sign whereby the futurity of it is confirmed Now surely he should use non sense who should â—erm the sign or seal the substance of the Covenant or thing promised being neither essential nor integral parts of them but onely adjuncts without which they may be or not be entirely To my saying That 't is so far from being a priviledge to our children to have them baptized to have Baptism succeed in the stead of Circumcision that it is a benefit to want it God not appointing it I answer saith Mr. M. then belike our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are so far from being enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism that it had been a priviledge to have wanted Baptism if God had not appointed it and by as good a reason at least you might have said that Circumcision was so far from being a privilegde to the Jews and their children that it had been a benefit for them to have wanted it if God had not commanded it Sure that is a strange kind of priviledge of which I may truly say that it had been a greater be to them who have it to have wanted it if the Donor had not commanded it Answ. Mr. M. by clipping my words hath misrepresented my speech he hath left out that Circumcision was a priviledge belonging not to the substance of the Covenant but to the administration which then was a priviledge to the Jews in comparison of the heathens but a burthen in comparison of us which was in that it signified Christ to come the obligation of the law for which reasons I judged it a great priviledge to us and our children that they have neither it nor any other thing in the place and uâ—e of it but Christ manifested in the flesh because if we had any thing in the use of it Christ must be expected to come in the flesh and Jesus denied to be the Christ and we debtors to keep the whole law And then I determined absolutely that the want of infant Baptism is no loss to us and our children not a loss in respect of duty God having not appointed it nor of priviledge God making no promise of grace to be confirmed by it to the infants of believers which last words being left out by Mr. M. the reason of my words is omitted and my speech misrepresented but thus set down Mr. Ms. exceptions appear but cavils For he supposeth our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism but I know not any priviledges of the Covenant of grace but effectual calling justification adoption sanctification glorification and if there be any other termed saving graces or which accompany salvation and to say these are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism especially when administred to infants is as much as to say it confers grace ex opere operato And I grant for us to have wanted Baptism had been a priviledge God not appointing it nor promising any thing upon the use of it nor declaring his acceptance of it which is the case of infant Baptism Sure I know none but would think it a burthen to be baptized or be covered with water though but for a moment were it not God commanded it and accepted of it as a service to him And the like is true of Circumcision the want of which being so painfull was a benefit but for the command and promise of God signified by it Such actions as are no way priviledges but sins without Gods precept and promise it is better to want them then have them or act them such is infant Baptism and if it be in the place and use of Circumcision it is a heavy burthen no benefit now but a yoke of bondage I said Mr. M. was to prove either that Circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace and he answers That Circumcision though a part of their administration did yet belong to the substance not as a part of it but as a means of applying it Which speech how frivolous it is is shewed before sect 25. p. 165 166. and in this section Or that the want of Circumcision or some Ordinance in the place and use of it is a loss of priviledge of the Covenant of grace to us and our children To this he saith And I have also proved that though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration yet it is a priviledge to have somewhat succeed it as a seal of the Covenant in as much as a Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal Answ. 1. If it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration then it is a priviledge to have nothing succeed it in its use which confirms my before speech carped at by M. M. 2. How vain the talk of Paedobaptists is about Sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace is shewed before sect 31. 3. A Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal when there is more assurance and better estate thereby procured but if as good assurance and estate be by a
Covenant without a seal it is no greater benefit to have a seal then to have a Covenant without it 4. There is a seal of the Covenant of grace which succeeds Circumcision as the substance the shadow and that is Christs Cirumcision Col. 2.11 and his bloudshedding Mat. 26.28 Heb. 9.15 c. besides the seal of Gods spirit But saith Mr. M. the thing I was to prove was that our priviledges are enlarged not extenuated which appears partly in that we have freedome in what was burdensome to them in their manner of administration which he meant of Circumcision by his alledging Act. 15.10 and thereby it is manifest that it is false which he said before that Circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant as a means of applying it For that speech doth imply that the Covenant of grace could not be applied without Circumcision for that which is of the substance of a thing what way it is of the substance of it is necessary to the being of that of which it is of the substance otherwise it were a common accident not of the substance of it But without Circumcision the Covenant of grace might be applied yea according to Mr. M. it is and may be better applied for otherwise our priviledges were not enlarged in being freed from it Partly saith Mr. M. because our Covenant is established upon better promises Heb. 8.6 To this I answered the Covenant which had not so good promises was the Covenant at Mount Sinai v. 9. which was not the Covenant of grace for then it should have the best promises there being no better promises then are in the Covenant of grace nor could it be broken as that was nor occasion finding fâ—ult as that did but it must needs be the Covenant of works as the Scripture doth plainly deliver Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.10 12 4.24 Heb. 12.18 c. and for this I alledged some of Mr. Ms. own words in his Sermon p. 10. That the Law was added not as a part of Abrahams Covenant that in that giving the Law there was something of the Covenant of works made with Adam in Paradise To this Mr. M. returns an answer bemoaning me as running into a needless and erroneous digression that he said indeed in his sermon that the moral Law was added 430 years after the Covenant was made with Abraham not as a part of that Covenant but as a Schoolmaster to whip them to Christ that they finding the impossibility of keeping the Law might more earnestly long after Christ exhibited in those shadows of rites and sacrifices c. But to say that this Covenant mentioned Heb. 8. was the Covenant of works is a most erroneous doctrine look into the Text and you shall find that the Covenant which is there mentioned which God finds fault with and calls the first Covenant in opposition to this better Covenant had Ordinances of Divine worship had a Sanctuary a Tabernacle Priests and High Priests Sacrifices and other rites belonging to the administration of it Sir was this the Covenant of works I hope you will not own it in your next Answ. It is and I do still own it in the 43d section of this part of my Review and do requite Mr. Ms. pitty of me with the like bemoaning his ignorance and if I mistake not the Assemblies errour about this in their Confession of faith ch 7. art 5. I have looked into the Texts and I find Mr. M. mistaken in the meaning of Gal. 3.24 perhaps following the unnecessary supplement in our last English translation where is added to bring us which the Text hath not but onely the law was our boy-leader unto Christ that is until Christ as v. 23 25. shew and the meaning is plain that the Apostle compares the Law to a teacher or guide or overseeer of a child in his minority to which the Israelites were confined not in respect of its severity as Mr. M. makes it to whip them to Christ but as a teacher directing them though imperfectly by figures and types untill Christ and faith in him were revealed In like manner he mistakes when he saith God finds fault with the first Covenant the words being For complaining of them Heb. 8 8. nor complaining or finding fault with it and when it is translated v. 7. if the first Covenant had been faultless it is not intimated as if it were faulty but they were faulty as vers 8. shews and the Covenant is termed non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not from the fault of it but of them which occasioned complaints of them and therefore it were better translated without complaint or plaintless then faultless As for what Mr. M. alledgeth from Heb. 9.1 it no more proves that the Covenant at Mount Sinai was the Covenant of Gospel grace and not of works then because the tree of life was a symbole type or shadow of Christ or our blessed estate in him therefore the Covenant made with Adam in Paradise before his fall was not a Covenant of works but of Gospel grace or Noahs Ark typified Baptism therefore the Covenant with Noah Gen. 9. was a Covenant of Evangelical grace The Covenant of grace and of works are denominated from the promise and condition not from Gods intent in some things commanded When our Lord Christ Mar. 10.19 told the young man of entring into life he propounded the Covenant of works yet he had another end therein to wit to try and discover him Though the commands about the Sacrifices High Priest c. were to typyfie Christ yet the Law as it was propounded Covenant wise is manifestly declared to be the Covenant of works Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.10 12. yea Mr. Ms. own words prove it For 1. where he cites the addition of the Law Gal. 3.17 the Law is not restrained to the moral Law but contains all the commands of the Sacrifices c. as well as the moral Law which were added because of transgressions not onely to restrain them but also for the expiating of some offences against the Law so as to obtain a partial temporary forgiveness by them as is manifest from Levit. 4. c. Now the whole Law as delivered 430 years after the Covenant with Abraham is contradistinct to the Covenant confirmed before in Christ or the promises therefore as it was a Covenant Exod. 19.5 8 it was a Covenant of works 2. If it were not a part of the Covenant with Abraham it was not the Covenant of grace for such was Abrahams Covenant but according to Mr. M. the Law was no part of that Covenant Ergo. 3. That which was a Schoolmaster to whip was not the Covenant of grace for the Covenant of grace doth not terrifie or whip but such is the Law according to Mr. M. Ergo. 4. That which was impossible to bee kept was not the Covenant of grace for that is never broken but such was the Law or Covenant at Mount Sinai according to Mr. M. Ergo. 5. If
in the giving the Law there was something of the Covenant of works made with Adam in paradise then it was a Covenant of works this he must grant unless he will have a mixt Covenant partly of grace and partly of works which he opposeth in his answer to me about Abrahams Covenant But in the giving that Law according to Mr. M there was something of the Covenant of workes made with Adam in Paradise Ergo. 6. That which God finds fault with is not the Covenant of grace but accâ—rding to Mr. M. God finds fault with it Ergo. 7. That which is termed the first Covenant in opposition to this Covenant is not the Covenant of grace But such according to Mr. M. is that at Mount Sinai Ergo. 8. The Covenant of grace is the better Covenant But such was not that at Mount Sinai according to Mr. M. Ergo. And truely I finde so many Protestant Divines terming the Covenant at Mount Sinai the Covenant of works Perkins on Gal. 4.24 Pemble of Justification sect 4. c. â— Cotton in his way of Congregational Churches cleered p. 46 47. however in some respect hee will have it to have been a Covenant of grace yet to the carnal seed â—aith it was a Covenant of workes and proves it out of Paul And adds And so have the chiefest German Divines as well as Piscator and Polanus tâ—ken the Covenant on mount Sinai to bee a Covenant of works See Piscator Ezek. 16. observat ult in v. 60. and 62. and Polanus ibidem and Synt. Th. l. 6 c. 33. Pisc. observ e v. 6. Heb. 8. Dicson paraph. Gal 4.21 22 23 24. Hebr 8.6 9. Becman Th Exercit. 5. p. 67 De saedere operum aut legis legimus Exod 19.5 Deut. 5.2 1 Reg. 8.21 Jer. 31.32 Heb 8.8 9 10. To whom I add my Antagonists Mr. Geree vindic vindic p. 9. Mr. Baillâ—e in his Anabaptism pag. 141. and might do many more if it were necessary This is enough to shew my doctrine to have been unjustly termed most erroneous by Mr. M. beeing Pauls Mr. Ms. and others named and therefore rightly owned by me To my words Exam. p. 10 The next Scripture you thus express The glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours 2 Cor. 3.10 But this passage is plainly meant of the Covenant at Mount Sinai which is called the letter v. 6 The ministration of death written and ingraven in stones so glorious that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance which glory was to be done away v. 7. The ministration of condemnation v 9. which I suppose you do not understand of the Covenant of grace and therefore it is impertinently alledged Mr. M answers thus Sir I wonder at your confidence in it the Reader will easily discern that the whole scope of that Chapter clearly holds forth the preheminence of the Ministery of the Gospel above the Ministery of Moses his vailed Ceremonies belike then with you Moses Ceremonies were the Covenant of works Answ. I wonder that a man of such note should wonder at that of which the reason is given and should take upon him to defend his own Sermon and yet pass by my reason against his allegation without rehearsal or answer to it In form it stands thus That which was the letter which killeth written in Tables of stone opposite to the New Testament and the spirit which giveth life the ministration of death of condemnation by Moses was the Law or Covenant of works for it is onely the Covenant of works not that of grace how darkly soever delivered of which these things can be said But such was the Law or Covenant at Mount Sinai Ergo. 'T is true it was the Apostles scope to hold forth the preheminence of the Ministry of the Gospel but not barely above the Ministry of Moses vailed Ceremonies for the Apostle prefers it before the Ministry of the Letter written and ingraven in stone v. 3 7. which was the moral Law but above the Ministry of the whole Law which comprehending all the commands Mosaical promulged Covenant-wise and not singly Moses ceremonies are by me termed the Covenant of works and of this I am still confident Mr. M. skips over his impertinent allegation of Gal. 4.1 c. and grants 1 Pet. 2.9 the spiritual part to belong onely to the invisible Church of which he denies not the whole v. to be meant but onely tels me the whole nation of the Jews who had the honour to be termed holy the children of God Deut. 14.1 to have the adoption Rom. 9.4 were not inwardly holy or effectually called which I readily grant nor need I prove that Rom. 9.4 Deut. 14.1 were not priviledges which the visible Church of the Jewes enjoyed having not denied it but do expresly grant of Rom. 9.4 that it speaks of peculiar priviledges of the Jews and prove thence the Jewes had some priviledges above us and that the want of some priviledges they had may bee recompensed by some priviledges wee have and thence gathered that is a feeble reason from the Jewish priviledge of infant Circumcision to prove infant Baptism yet nothing that Mr. M brings shews 1 Pet. 2.9 to bee meant of any other then the elect nor that believers priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged What he saith that the comfortable manner of administration and baptism are enlarged beyond Circumcision to females and all nations is granted but this groves not priviledges of the Covenant of grace to be enlarged to each believer now although there are more believers now And for Gal 3.28 the words there is neither male nor female are not added to shew Baptism to be administred to whom Circumcision was not for then neither bond nor free should be added for the same reason which had not been right for bondmen were circumcised formerly as well as then baptized But to shew a general equality of all believers in Christ and therefore that passage is meant onely of true believers Having shewed the impertinency of Mr. Ms. allegations for his 5th conclusion I answered the argument drawn thence for infant Baptism thus 1. It is no good argument God gave such a priviledge to the Jewes Ergo we must have such a priviledge too without Gods institution but arrogant presumption to claim it 2. That God gave many peculiar priviledges to the Jewes which we have not as that Abraham was the father of the Faithfull Mary the Mother of CHRIST no family out of which CHRIST came but Abrahams no nation that God hath promised after many hundred years rejection to re-ingraff besides the Jewes This Mr. M. endeavoured to prevent in his Sermon by saying These were personal priviledges belonging to some particular persons not the whole Church of the Jewes nor from the Covenant but that to have infants belong to his Church and to have the initial seal are and if that we have it not for ours the
Gospel Covenant and that in him all nations shall be blessed and is directly for me for it asserts the Covenant and in that justification to the believing Gentiles not onely from Abrahamâ— promise but also a promise to them and their seed which plainly shews that he imagines Gal. 3.8 the Gospel Covenant to be a promise to believers and their seed who are their natural seed as in Abraham his seed is implied which conformably must be his natural And if Mr. Cr. did not in the dispute mean Abrahams natural seed he went from the point to be proved and by me denied that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 was not simply everlasting to the natural seed of Abraham sith they were dispossessed of Canaan His suggestions therefore of my using officious untruths and pious frauds are but the venome of his spirit which throughout his book he discovers and most pestilently in that Section for which the Lord rebuke him What he next saith that when I say the thing promised Gal. 3.8 was justification and that of the heathen and that through faith therefore this text proves not Abrahams natural seed in Covenant under the Gospel is As if all this might not be and yet some of the natural seed of Abraham be in covenant under the Gospel who professed were justified and had faith as well as the heathen which I grant but then they were not onely Abrahams natural seed but also his spiritual to which I grant the Covenant is made Gen. 17.7 and is everlasting and if he can prove infants of believers to be such there 's no question but they are in Covenant under the Gospel and to be baptized till then he can never prove either from Gen. 17.7 or Gal. 3.8 that Abrahams natural seed much less infants of believing parents to be in the Gospel covenant which whether hee had reason to bee ashamed of attempting the Reader may judge That the entring into Covenant Deut. 29.10 11. was a tranâ—â—unt fact and not a thing perpetually binding I had thought none would deny nor argue as Mr. Crag doth it was by command Deut. 29.1 they werâ— v. 29. to do the words of the Law and that was a command and the revealed things belong to them and their children for ever therefore the entring into Covenant v. 10 11. was a command perpetually binding under the Gospel which is too frivolous to spend time in answering and his argument that if wives and servants were in Covenant under the Gospel much more infants is alike frivolous â—ith he himself makes no other then believing wives and servants in Covenant under the Gospel which when he proves of infants their being in Covenant will not be denied This is enough in answer to that Section and most of the 8th and 9th Sections of the third part I said his allegation is vain of Heb. 8.6 to prove that if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospel whereas the meliority of the Covenant is not placed in the extent to the sort of persons He asks me what then will it follow if a Covenant was made to no more then before therefore not to all that were before Answ. No yet it will follow that the text is vainly alledged to prove the co-extension to persons that speaks not at all of that thing nor is it at all to the purpose that it is extended to more to wit to Gentiles For 1. however that text speaks not of it 2. It is extended to more nations of the world besides the Jews but to none but believers of those nations and consequently not to infants of believing parents as such That the new Covenant contains promises of better things then the old Covenant and differs more then in administrations is shewed before Sect. 43. and yet theâ—e is no such thing implied as if there were salvation in any other then Jesus Christ unless he could prove salvation were by the promises of the Law My third Paradox as he cals it that the promises of the Gospel are not to any other then the elect and true believers is proved before Sect. 33. That there are in the Gospel Covenant promises of external ordinances made to all visible members is more then Mr. Cr. proves or any other and therefore I count it a figment I know none but spiritual promises in it which Mr. Cr. grants are made absolutely and terminated or performed onely to the elect and invisible members which is the same with my Paradox but hath more assertors then his most gross speech that the meliority of the Covenant consists principally in outward ordinances manner of administration and dispensation extent and amplitude of the proposal not of grace and glory He adds of which there was alwayes the same reason Enoch Abraham Eliah Moses were as well justified by faith which is true but not according to the Covenant of the Law but by the Covenant of the Gospel which it seems Mr. Cr. understands not though he assume the title of a Preacher of the Gospel Mr. Cr. saith of me His last assertion is that because the promises of the Gospel are not to any other then the elect and true believers therefore they are not to infants as the natural seed of believers The antecedent is proved to be false for though the spiritual part of Gospel promises is absolutely performed and terminated to the elect yet they are conditionally proposed to all Professors and the external part which consists in administration of ordinances is equally belonging to all visible members But are the promises to all professors because they are conditionally proposed to them If so we may say the promises are to the most obstinate infidels to eveâ—y man in the world for to them they are conditionally proposed Sure this is not according to the doctrine of the Scripture which makes the promises to bee the believers inheritance 2 Cor. 1.20 2 Pet. 1.4 Gal. 3.16 4.28 Heb 6.12 17. according to the doctrine of Protestanâ—s the Saints Legacy yea Paedobaptists make them their priviledge Rom. 9.4 though the promises there were other promises As for an external part of Gospel promises which consists in administration of ordinances equally belonging to all visible members it is a mere figment no where in Scripture And the sayings of Mr. Cr. Part. 3. Sect. 11. p. 261. Christ is said Heb. 8.6 to be a Mediator of a better Covenant which could noâ— be if infants that were in covenant under the Law were out of covenant under the Gospel and is grounded upon this impregnable rock which the Anabaptists will never overthrow that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in visible covenant that the reason of baptizing or circumcising a person is their birth right tuition self-profession whereby they are visibly admitted into covenant that what he hath said Examen part 3. sect 1. Antipaed part 1. sect 5. touches not the true state of the Controversie but is a confused
in his exercitation ch 5. are considered I Shall adde a consideration of what Master Sidenham notes on Acts 2.39 that I may at once shew the impertinency of its allegation for connexion between the covenant and baptism and infants of believeâ—s covenant-interest upon that consideration I agree with him that the promise is of remission of sins and so of salvation Nor do I deny it to be suitable to what is promised Gen. 17.7 understanding it not as Paedobaptists and among them Master Sidenham conceives as a promise to each believer and his natural seed but as a promise to Abraham as the â—ather of believers and his spiritual seed by the following of his faith of righteousness before God repeated at large Jerem. 31.34 Nor do I mistake his making it the same with the promise of Christ and the Spirit as Gal. 3.14 is meant including justification sanctification and all graces And his words I conceive very opposite to overthrow Master Cobbets and others conceit of external right and administration when he saith it would be but a poor comfort to a wounded soul for to tell him of a promise of gifts not of spiritual grace and the Holy Ghost is a better Physician then to imply such a raw improper plaister to a wounded heart which would hardly heal the skin this promise is brought in as a Cordial to keep them from fainting and to give them spirits to believe and lay hold on Jesus Christ. And truly no other promise but that of Free-grace in order to Salvation can be imagined to give them comfort in that condition And after and it must needs have been a mighty low and disproportionable way of perswasion to put them upon such high things in the former verse and to encourage them onely by the narration of some temporary gifts in the following when their eye and heart was set on remission of sins and salvation by Jesus Christ and nothing but a promise holding forth these mercies could have been considerable to them Nor do I deny that the children as well as the Parents are included in this promise nor do I deny but that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as well as the parents But I deny 1. That the mention of the promise to them and their children was allusive to the expressions in the Old Testament when God said to Abraham I will be the God of thee and thy seed Gen. 17.7 or that Isai 44.3 and such like nor hath Mr. Sidenham proved it and there is this reason against it For in those expressions the Fathers are mentioned as righteous persons and believers but here the parents could not be considered as righteous and believing persons for they were not such but then charged by Peter and at that time under the sense of the great sin of killing Christ and admonished to repent of it and therefore the words have clearly this sense The promise is to you and your children as bad as you have been and the mention of their children is not allusive to Gods expressions in the Old Testament but to their own curse on them and their children Matth. 27.25 and so cannot note a priviledge to them and their children as persons better then others but an assurance to them of that good which they feared their sin debarred them of by telling them of Gods inrent for good according to his promise though they meant it for evil as the same Apostle doth Acts 3.17 18 19. and Joseph did Gen. 45.5 and 50.20 2. I deny that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as giving title to baptism of it self for the promise is urged as a motive to a duty not as a plea whereby they might claim nor was their interest in the promise the antecedent to baptism but the consequent on it For the promise whether it be of remission of sins or of the saving gift of the holy Ghost allowing Master Sidenhams observation that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is certain that Peter did assure them of it not as yet already attained but as attainable not before but upon their repentance and baptism neither to them nor to their children as their children but to them and their children and all afar off as many as the Lord should call 3. He doth not invite them to baptism but so as that he first puts them in minde of repentance Now if the promise had been alledged as giving title of it self to baptism he had left out repentance But putting it in first he plainly shewes that the alledging of the promise was as well to move them to repentance as to baptism and first to repentance then to baptism nor is any other course taken with the children then the parents the promise and duty are declared in like manner to both And therefore Master Sidenhams talk of Peters speaking in the known dialect of the Old Testament that if he had not meant upon their believing and baptism without any other consideration of Gods calling or their repentance the children to be in the promise he had deceived them and that there was no other intent in mentioning the promise but to intimate that as the Jewes and their infant males were circumcised by vertue of the promise so it should be to them in baptism is but vaiâ— without proof and without truth But Master Sidenham asserts that the words as many as the Lord shall call can in no sense be referred to the former part of the verse either to parents or children which if true then according to his own interpretation of the promise the Apostle asserts that the promise of remission of sins and of the Spirit including justification sanctification and all graces was to them and their children whether called or no. But let 's view his reasons for this audacious assertion For saith he 1. He changes the sense in both parts of the verse in the first part unto the Jewes he speaks de praesenti of the present application of the promise repent you and be baptized for the promise is to you and your children even now the promise is offered to you and they were then under the call of God But when he speaks of the Gentiles because they were yet afar off and not at all called he speak de futuro as many as God shall call even of them also which is the first hint of the calling of the Gentiles in all the Acts of the Apostles Ans. The Apostle changeth not the tense of the same veâ—b in either part of v. 39. For there are but two verbs in the verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and neither used above once so that he might have said he useth two verbs in two tenses but neither changeâ—h in one or both parts of the verse the same verb or the same tense of the same verb. But what if he had changed the tense and had said the promise is