not expresly Commanded provided they be not some way or other forbidden in the Word But as for the matters of God's Worship We have no such Rule but rather the contrary Render therefore to Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto GOD the things that are GOD's Mat. 22. 21. God having above all things expressed His Jealousie concerning the same and hath frequently given Testimonies of his severest Displeasure against His People because of their Presumptuous Additions thereunto Witness Deut. 12. 32. and 18. 20. Prov. 30. 6. Ezek. 43. 8. Mat. 15. 9. Exod. 39. 43. And among the rest to this purpose Remarkable is that Reprehension given by our Saviour unto the Scribes and Pharisees when he tells them that their Worship of this kind was but vain Worship Mark 7. 7. 8. Howbeit in vain do they Worship me Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. For laying aside the Commandment of God ye hold the Tradition of Men as the washing of Pots and Cups and many other such like things yee do And he said unto them ver 9. Full well ye reject the Commandment of God that ye may keep your own Tradition Neither indeed is there any Power on Earth that hath Authority sufficient to Innovate or Institute any thing in the Worship of God the highest Government that Christ hath ordained in His Church being but of a Subordinate and Ministerial Property and therefore not Absolute but limited in its Commands by the Word of God Deut. 12. 32. Whatsoever I command you Observe to do it thou shalt not add thereunto nor diminish from it Deut. 18. 20. The Prophet that shall speak a Word in my Name that I have not commanded even that Prophet shall Dye Ezek. 43. 7 8. Son of Man the place of my Throne and the place of the Soles of my Feet where I will dwell in the midst of the Children of Israel for ever and my Holy Name shall the House of Israel no more defile neither they nor their Kings by their Whoredom nor by the Carkases of their Kings in their high Places In their setting of their Threshold by my Thresholds and their Post by my Posts In the Work of the Tabernacle of Old nothing was to be Superadded but what God had Expressly appointed Exod. 39. 43. And the Reason is the same in the Gospel Ministration But by way of Opposition hereunto is that general direction of the Apostle urged 1 Cor. 14 40. Let all things be done decently and in order From whence it is Inferred that whatsoever Church Governours shall Judge decent and orderly in God's Worship ought to be submitted unto We Answer That this cannot be justly Inferred from these Words for the following Reasons For First To Worship GOD in a way that is not decent and orderly according to Scripture Rule is manifestly our Sin 1 Cor. 14. 40. But to Worship Him in the use of those enjoyned Ceremonies is to Worship Him in a way not decent and orderly according to Scripture Rule Therefore so to do would be manifestly our Sin The Major is proved the Minor is thus proved If to Worship GOD in the use of such Ceremonies be decent and orderly according to Scripture Rule then to Worship Him without such Ceremonies is not to Worship GOD decently and orderly according to Scripture Rule For one Rule cannot make the same Worship decent and undecent orderly and disorderly But to Worship Him without the use of these Ceremonies is to Worship Him decently and orderly according to Scripture Rule the Apostles and Primitive Christians Worshiping Him decently and orderly without them Ergo c. Second Argument To part with our Christian Liberty purchased for us by the Blood of CHRIST is our Sin But to submit unto the Injunction of such Indifferent things is to part with our Christian Liberty Therefore so to do is our Sin The Major is undeniable from Gal. 5. 1. Stand fast therefore in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us Free and be not intangled again with the Yoke of Bondage The Minor is Evident from Scripture 1 Cor. 7. 23. Ye are Bought with a Price be not ye the Servants of Men. And from Reason For all Actions fall into these three Classes viz. Things Commanded Things Forbidden and Things Indifferent In the two former we have no Liberty it remains therefore our Liberty must consist wholly in the Latter and to submit to the Injunction of those things as necessary is to part with that and consequently with all our Liberty which would therefore be our Sin Third Argument To Derogate from Christs Honour and Royal Authority is manifestly our Sin But to submit to the Imposition of unnecessary Rites in the Worship of God by the Authority of Man is to derogate from the Honour and Royal Authority of Christ Therefore to submit to their Imposition is Sin The Minor only needing Proof hath it abundantly from all those Scriptures that Assert Christ to be the only Lord and Lawgiver to His Church Mat. 23. 8. Be ye not called Rabbi For One is your Master even Christ Jam. 4. 12. There is One Lawgiver who is able to Save and to Destroy And all those Scriptures that Assert the Plenitude and Perfection of His Laws for Government Heb. 3. 5. 6. Moses verily was Faithful in all his House as a Servant But Christ as a Son over His own House c. 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of GOD and is profitable for Doctrine for Reproof for Correction for Instruction in Righteousness That the Man of GOD may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good Works And by all those Scriptures which Condemn the Observance of any Religious Rites Imposed by any other Authority 2 Col. 21 22 23. Touch not Tast not Handle not which all are to Perish with the using after the Commandments and Doctrines of Men. Which things have indeed a shew of Will-worship and Humility c. Mark 7. 7. For laying aside the Commandment of God ye hold the Tradition of Men as the Washing of Pots and Cups and many other such like things ye do Fourth Argument To cross the Imitable Example of Christ in our Practice is Sin But to submit to the Imposition of things Indifferent though by Men in a Lawful Authority is to cross the Imitable Example of Christ Therefore so to do would be our Sin The Major is plain from all those Precepts that make it our Duty to follow Treading in His Steps 1 Pet. 2. 21. To Walk as He Walked 1 John 2. 6. To be followers of God aâ— dear Children Ephe. 5. 1. The Minor is as Evident from Mat. 15. 2 3 11 13. Washing of Hands there spoken of was an Indifferent Ceremony The Authority Commanding it was Lawful the Elders or Sanhedrim who at this time were not only their Ecclesiastical but Civil Rulers Besides the Argument from Decency to Induce it yet all these Motives in a thing so Innocent and Small as that
was could not prevail with our Saviour to quit His Liberty of Eating with unwashed hands calls them Superstitious and Blind Guides who were offended at him And Justifies His Disciples non Compliance by 3 Arguments First that it was and Un-Scriptural Tradition ver 9. In vain do they Worship me Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. Secondly That the neglect of it Inferred no Moral Evil That these things did not defile a Man i. e. as to his Mind and Conscience v. 11. Thirdly That it being not of God's Appointing must be plucked up ver 13. Every Plant which my Heavenly Father hath not Planted shall be rooted up Whereby our Saviour intimates that as the Pharisees had no Divine Warrant to prescribe such a Toy as that was so God would at last declare His Indignation against their Supererogatory Worship by pulling it up Root and Branch From whence we gather this Rule That when once Humane Inventions become Impositions and lay a Necessity upon that which God hath left free then may we Lawfully reject them as Plants of Man's Setting and not of GOD's owning To Conclude The Apostles praised the Corinthians for that they had kept the Ordinances as he delivered them 1 Cor. 11. 1. 2. For surely GOD is more Jealous of His Honour and tender of His Worship than to leave it to our Pleasure to Invent or to Add what we shall Judge Decent thereunto beyond what Himself hath prescribed And though 't is true he hath not in so many Words Expressly forbidden the things in Controversie between us yet he hath in all Ages testified His Dislike yea Abhorrency of Will Worship and that for this very Reason because He had not Commanded it nor ever came it into His Mind So Jer. 7. 31. Chap. 19. 5. and 32 35. Deut. 12. 32. And so likewise in that fore-mentioned Scripture Ezek. 43. 8. Where God discovers His severe Displeasure against His People of Old not for neglecting any part of His Worship which He had Commanded them But for their Presumption in adding something to His Worship which He had not Commanded In setting their Threshold by GOD's Threshold and their Post by GOD's Posts It appears not that they justled out any thing that GOD required but only thought fit to Joyn something of their Own therewith But for this very Reason must they be Consumed in GOD's Anger as the following Words declare Certain it is that this very Principle is that which hath brought in all the Popish Ceremonies into the Romish Church It cannot be denied that those things which Christ or His Apostles have expresly Commanded we are to Receive and Practice as they have Comwanded them But if any others shall take upon them to appoint unto Mens Consciences any Rite or Ceremony on their own Conceived Reason because they are such things as themselves do reckon decent or comely in the Worship of God It is an high Presumption in such against Christ and against the Apostles Command to yield Obedience thereunto Col. 2. 20. Though it hath a shew of Wisdom ver 23. And not only doth the Apostles Example Gal. 2. 3 4 5. bind us to 〈◊〉 it but in the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ are we Commanded to with-draw our selves from such disorderly Walkers 2 Thess 3. 6. Now we Command you Brethren in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye with-draw your selves from every Brother that walketh Disorderly and not after the Tradition which he received of us THE SECOND PART Containing a Distinct and more Particular Consideration of the Arguments drawn from Rom. 11. 16 17. Together with all other the most Material Arguments which are usually urged for the Support of Infants Baptism WE shall begin with those Arguments which are drawn from Rom. 11. 16 17. Where the Apostle tells us That if the First Fruit be Holy the Lump is also Holy And if the Root be Holy so are the Branches And if some of the Branches be broken off and thou being a Wild Olive Tree wert graffed in among them and with them partakest of the Root and Fatness of the Olive Tree boast not against the Branches c. From whence 't is urged That We Gentiles have now the same Graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had and that our graffing is Answerable to their present Casting out Now when they were taken in they and their Children were taken in When they were broken off they and their Children were broken off And therefore if our graffing in be answerable to theirs We and our Children are graffed in together To this we Reply That the Incision or Ingraffing here Spoken of may be either into the Visible or Invisible Church The graffing in may be either by Faith or by Profession of Faith or by Some outward Ordinance Children may be either grown Men or Infants The graffing in may be either certain or probable Certain either by reason of Election the Covenant of Grace made unto them or their Natural birth being Children of Believers Probable as being likely either because frequently or for the most part it happens so though not necessary and so not certain The thing that is to be proved is That all the Infants of every Believer are in the Covenant of Free Grace in Christ and by Virtue thereof to be Baptized into the Communion of the Visible Church Now it may be granted that Infants of Believers are frequently or for the most part under the Election and Covenant of Grace and so in the Invisihle Church which whether it be so or no no meer Man can tell And yet it not follow that every Infant of a Believer in as much as he is the Child of a Believer is under the Covenant of Grace and therefore by Baptism is to be admitted into the visible Church Now let it be never so probable that God continues His Election in the Posterity of Believers and accordingly hath promised to be their God in the Covenant of Grace yet if this be the Rule of Baptizing then the Infants of Believers only and no other are to be Baptized For the Practice must agree with the Rule And so not all Infants of Believers neither are to be Baptized but the Elect in the Covenant of Grace only If it be said But we are to Judge all to be Elected and in the Covenant of Grace 'till the contrary appears We Answer That we are not to Judge all to be Elected or in the Covenant of Grace because we have the Declaration of GOD's Mind to the contrary Rom. 9. 6 7 8. And all Experience proves the contrary to be true Nor is the Administration of an Outward Ordinance Instituted by God according to such a Rule as is not possible to be known but according to that which is manifest to the Ministers of it And therefore since God conceals His Purpose of Election and the Covenant of Grace which is Congruous to it in respect of the Persons Elected It
Consequence of the former it will also naturally follow that it is only by the Actual Faith of both Parents and Children as an Instrumental means by which either of them shall be blessed with that their desired Restauration And this may serve also for a Confutation of that Groundless and Unscriptural conceit of Mr. Allen when he affirms that the Infants of Believers are Abraham's Spiritual Seed and that upon this Account it was that they were admitted to the Priviledge of Church-Membership under the Law For thus he tells us If such Infants are as much of the Church and as much Abraham's Spiritual Seed as ever Infants in the Old Testament-Church were then they can be no more uncapable than they were of a solemn Admission into the Church by the Ordinance of Initiation for the time being as Baptism is now and as Circumcision was then But this which Mr. Allen takes here for granted and is indeed the Foundation of his Argument we utterly deny as not having been at all proved nor indeed can be proved by him or any other to wit That the Infants of Believers have any where in Scripture the Denomination of Abraham's Spiritual Seed This is a most certain Truth that as Abraham himself had a double Capacity one of a Natural Father the other the Father of the Faithful So he had a two-fold Seed For First he had a Seed that proceeded from him according to the Course of Natural Generation only And Secondly some were his Natural and Spiritual Seed also such as was Isaac and all the Faithful who proceeded from Abrahams Loyns To which we must add a Third sort and that is all true Believers or the Elect of God in all Nations who by Vertue of their Interest in Christ have also in Scripture the Denomination of Abraham's Seed who yet can lay no claim to Abraham as their Father according to the common Course of Nature And to imagine that Abraham hath any Seed in any other Religious or Spiritual Consideration whatsoever under the Gospel is to be wise above what is written For whatever the Jewish Children were to say that the Children of Christians are Relatively Holy that they are Church-Members and as much Christians externally as the Children of the Jews were Jews externally as some have suggested All these are but unproved Figments and Unscriptural Dictates And therefore from hence to infer their Relation to Abraham as his Spiritual Seed and thence that they are the proper Subjects of Baptism is no other than to build a lofty Structure upon a Sandy Foundation If then we shall affirm that the Infants of Believers now are Abraham's Seed they must of Necessity come under one or another of these Heads To say that they are so in either of the two former Respects cannot be at all pretended unto if in the latter neither can this with any shadow of Truth be affirmed For thus it was not with all the Natural Seed of Abraham himself as the Apostle expresly affirms Rom. 9. 7 8. Neither saith he because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called that is they that are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed So likewise Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christs then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise Therefore to affirm that all the Infants of Believers are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham as there is no Scripture that proves it so it is directly contrary to the Scripture and indeed contrary to our own most common and obvious Experience whilst we consider with all that as for many of Abraham's own Natural Posterity they are so far from being his Spiritual Seed that as hath been already observed together with their Children they are Unchurched broken off and rejected by God because of their Vnbelief to this very day Which yet had not been had they been the Spiritual as well as the Natural Seed of Abraham For sure it is altogether Inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of Grace the Gifts and Callings whereof are without Repentance that Abraham's Spiritual Seed or that such as are Members of the Invisible as well as the Visible Church should be at all cast off rejected and forsaken as the Jews now are Upon the whole therefore of our Answer to the forementioned Objection That if this Interpretation hold good there would be a great change in the extent of the Covenant narrower under the Gospel than it was under the Law and yet no notice in all the Book of God given of such a Change We say that there is abundant notice given unto us in the Book of God and that both in the Old and New Testament also concerning the change in question viz. the disfranchisement of Infants from their so long enjoyed Priviledge of Church-Membership We grant that under the Law they were admitted thereunto with their Parents But the Scriptures already alledged do abundantly prove their Exclusion under the Gospel Administration Unto which we shall only at present add Heb. 7. 12. For the Priesthood heing changed there is made of Necessity a change also of the Law which Change of the Law there spoken of must needs include Circumcision with all the Priviledges and Appurtenances belonging to it And therefore as Infants Church-Membership came in with the Law of Circumcision so it went out and was Repealed with it Objection 3. If this Interpretation be true the Believing Jews should have loss upon their Repentance and Belief of the Gospel if their Children formerly Church Members should now be Excluded upon the Faith and Repentance of their Parents To this we Answer First It is true that insome Sence a Jew converted to the Gospel should have loss and particularly in that point of Signing his Fleshly Seed by an Ordinance together with the Fall of all the Glory of their Sanctuary and pompous Priest-hood so much and so long the joy and boasting of that Nation Which the Spirit of GOD fore-saw and fore-told Isa 8. 14. And hence it came to pass that Christ became so great an Offence and the Gospel so sore a Stone of Stumbling and Rock of Offence to them all yea even to many of them after they had submitted to the Gospel yea the Gentile Churches were scarce if at all preserved from Stumbling hereat with the Jews But all this Loss well considered would amount to no more than what befals a Man who from the Priviledges of a Servant is Invested into the Priviledges of a Son And this was the very Case Gal. 4. 4. God sent forth His Son c. Verse 5. To redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons Verse 7. Wherefore thou art no more a Servant but a Son And the Reason of this Change the Apostle plainly sheweth us Verse 23. He that was after the Bond-Woman was Born after the
if Circumcision the Seal of the Gospel Covenant belonged to the Seed of Believers under the Law Then doth Baptism much more appertain to the Seed of Believers under the Gospel We Reply by denying the Consequence of the Argument For though it should be granted that the Covenant of Circumcision mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8 9. is indeed a Gospel Covenant and that all the Infants of Believers are therein comprehended with their Parents Yet it follows not that they are therefore to have the Seal thereof For the consequence must be proved from this Vniversal All that are in Covenant must be Sealed Which is not true If it were true it must be so either by Reason of some necessary Connexion between the Terms which is none For it is but a common Accident to a Man that hath a Promise or a Covenant made to him that he should have a special Sign for the confirmation thereof It may be present or absent from the Subject God made a Special Promise to Joshua that he should bring Israel into the Land of Canaan To Phineas a Covenant of an Everlasting Priest-hood without any special Sign or Seal distinct from the Covenant Or else it must be so by reason of GOD's Will declared concerning the Covenant of Grace But that is not true The Promise made to Adam which was the same in substance with the Covenant of Grace had no special Sign or Seal annexed to it Noah and Abel were within the Covenant of Grace yet no special Sign appointed them Therefore it is not God's Will that all that are in the Covenant must be Sealed If they had it had been Wâ—ll Worship God not appointing it to them And if you say All that are in Covenant since Abraham's time should be Sealed But neither is that certain since we find no such thing concerning Melchâ—sidek and Lot that Lived in Abraham's time nor concerning Job that it s conceived lived after his time You will say but it is true of those that were in Covenant in Abraham's Family But neither is that true For Male Children before the eighth day and Women though in Covenant yet were not to be Sealed So that you see it is so far from being universally true that all that are in Covenant must be Sealed that this is all which is true All the Male Children of Abraham 's Family if they were eight days old must be signed with the Sign of Circumcision which will never be able to prove the Consequence of the Argument That therefore All the Children of Believers Males or Females must be Baptized unless there were an Express Command or Example in the New Testament signifying God's mind unto us therein The Covenant of Grace was Ratified and Confirmed unto Abraham a considerable time before the Covenant of Circumcision was given to him viz. about twenty five years before it and had then no outward Sign or Seal annexed thereunto And indeed that which hath been of late affirmed That the Covenant of Grace always had an Outward Sign or Seal added to it is so wide a Mistake that on the contrary it may be affirmed That although the Efficacy of its Grace did reach Believers in all Ages yet it was not filled up with Ordinances of Worship proper and peculiar to it self until the times of Reformation nor had till then any outward Sign or Token immediately belonging thereunto For had it been so this Sign or Token as the Covenant it self had remained without change and not vanished away with the other Shadows of the Mosaical Oeconomy Mr. Cox in his Discourse of the Covenants p. 83 84. If it be said That though the sign of Circumcision was Actually applyed only to the Males yet it must be understood that the Females were virtually Circumcised in them as the Nobler Sex We answer That the Conclusion to be proved is that Infants are to be Sealed Actually not Virtually For if a Virtual Sealing or Baptizing were all that you would prove we might grant it we may say Infants are virtually baptized in their Parents and yet it may be unlawful to Baptize them Actually as it would have been unlawful to have Circumcised Women Actually had they been capable thereof notwithstanding their Virtual Circumcision For it had been a Will-Worship there being no Command to do it And indeed to speak exactly Women were not Circumcised Virtually in the Males For he is said Virtually to have a thing by another as by a Proxy or Attorney that might receive it by himself yet according to the Effect of Law another's receiving it is as if he had received it But so the Males did not receive Circumcision for the Females For the Females had they been capable might not be Circumcised in their own Persons It had been their Sin if they had received it God not appointing it as it had been a Sin for a Child to be Circumcised before or after the eighth day in them that altered or swerved from the Appointment of God So that the Conclusion remains yet to be proved that all the Infants of Believing Parents are to be Actually Signed or Sealed by the Ordinance of Baptism unto which you give the term of the Gospel Seal For as there is no Command for the same in the New Testament nor any Example that may give hint unto us of the mind of God therein So neither can it be proved by any just Analogy or Proportion between that and Circumcision Together with which it must be considered that there are other signs of the Covenant besides Baptism As Circumcision and the Pass-over of old so the Lord's Supper now If then we should grant the Conclusion in general that the Infants of Believers are to be Signed yet you would say they are not to be Partakers of the Lord's Supper because it is not appointed for them So in like manner it follows not that they are to be Baptized unless you can prove that it is appointed to them And indeed there is as much reason for the one as for the other For if we must Examine our selves before we be admitted to the one wbich you say Infants cannot do So Faith and Repentance are required as the Condition of the other which Infants are as uncapable of and therefore cannot be duely admitted to either without some Express signifying God's Mind unto us therein For though it may be good to argue thus It is God's Mind therefore it is to be done yet it is too much for us to argue This should be and therefore God hath appointed it Inasmuch as no Reason of ours in Positive Worship such as Baptism is but God's Will alone gathered by some Express Command or Example in the New Testament can acquit an Action so performed from the Guilt of will-Will-Worship Seventhly Whereas you conceive that Circumcision and Baptism are appointed by God as common Seals of the New Covenant this is affirmed without Proof For no where doth the Scripture give that Character to them that
all just Contradiction and which hath accordingly been urged by multitudes of Protestant Divines by way of Opposition to the Papal Usurpation That in respect of all Positive or Instituted Worship such as Baptism is that hath no other Rule nor Reason than the meer Will of the Law-giver there must be something in the Scripture either by way of Precept or Example that alone can justly warrant our Practice therein The Reason is obvious because Baptism being a part of Instituted Worship not found in Natures Garden hath of it self no vertue but what it receives from the Institutor It being a right Note That Moral Laws are good and therefore commanded But Positive Worship is commanded and therefore good And accordingly though Moral Duties are easily deducible from their proper Premises yet we cannot possibly arrive unto any certain Knowledge of our Duty in reference to Positive Worship without some express signification of God's mind unto us therein True it is that in some Cases if an express Precept be wanting we may justly enough recurr to the Example of the Apostles as a sufficient Authority for our Practice As for Instance in the Case of the Observation of the Lord's day concerning which though we have no express Precept to warrant our Practice therein we are yet justifiable enough upon that Account in that we have the frequent Examples of the Apostles recorded in the Scripture to that purpose whose steps we are bid to follow But when Precept and President do both fail us as is most evidently the case with us in respect of Infants Baptism and which hath been accordingly ingeniously owned by some of the chiefest of the Paedobaptists themselves We do certainly step aside into a wrong Path in our Practices of that kind And justly enough therefore may our common Adversaries the Papists twit us in the Teeth with the Guilt of a Self condemned Practice while we blame that in them which yet we our selves do allow in other Cases And how can we call upon them to produce something oâ— other by way of Precept or President from the Scripture for the justification of their Ceremonies without the one or the other of which we justly condemn them as unlawful when we our selves are found highly guilty of the same Transgression and that in a greater degree in other Respects Object 18. But it is yet further Objected That Infants by God's express Command were to be Circumcised under the former Administration and all God's Commands about His Institutions then according to the Rules of Analogy or Proportion are equally binding unto us as well as to the Jews As in the case of the Christian Sabbath unto which the Fourth Commandment binds us as it did the Jews to the former And thus it is in reference to Infants Baptism in respect of which though there is no express Command to that purpose recorded in the New Testament yet we cannot but conclude that God's Command unto the Jews to Circumcise their Infants carries with it the force at least of a virtual Command unto us to Baptize ours To this we reply That certain it is that that which concerns the Worship of God which hath not an express Institution in the New Testament is now to be rejected by us which is to be understood as we have said before in respect of Positive Worship consisting in outward Rites such as Circumcision Baptism and the Lord's Supper are which have nothing Natural or Moral in them but are meerly Ceremonial For as for that which is Natural or Moral in God's Worship we allow that an Institution or Command in the Old Testament is Obligatory to Christians under the New And such do we conceive the Sabbath to be as being of the Law of Nature For outward Worship being due to God Days are due to God to that end and therefore even in Paradise appointed from the Creation and in all Nations in all Ages observed enough to prove so much to be of the Law of Nature And therefore the Fourth Commandment is justly put among the Morals which proves that at least a seventh Portion of time is to be dedicated more immediately to the Service of God Now Circumcision hath nothing Moral in it it is meerly Positive Neither was it so from the beginning nor observed by all Nations in all Ages nor is it in the Decalogue And therefore the Observation of the Lord's Day may stand though Circumcision fall and though there be no other Ordinance come in the room of it that bears Analogy or Proportion with it Secondly When we require express Institution in the New Testament in respect of the Matters of God's Worship now to be practised by us We do not mean that in all Positive Worship there must always be of necessity a positive Command in so many Words in form of a Precept But we conceive that the Example of the Apostles which hath not a meer temporary Reason is enough to prove that Institution from God to which that Practice doth relate And in this therefore as we said before in Answer to the foregoing Objection we reckon it a sufficient Warrant for the Justification of our Practise in the Observation of the Lord's Day that such was the Practise of the Apostles according to those plain Testimonies thereof recorded in the Holy Scripture though it be not expresly commanded Now if the one half of this Evidence could be brought for the Baptism of Infants we should make no question but readily subscribe unto it But Infants Baptism not consisting with the Order of Christ in the Institution being contrary to the Practice of John the Baptist and the Apostles there being no Foot-steps of it at all in the Scripture nor till about 200 years after Christ's Incarnation we dare not assent unto the Practise of it upon a supposed Analogy or Proportion between that and Circumcision And evident it is that it is a most dangerous Principle upon which they go that so argue to wit that in meer positive things such as Circumcision and Baptism are we may frame an Addition to God's Worship from Analogy or Resemblance conceived by us between two Ordinances whereof one is quite taken away without any Institution gathered by Precept or Apostolical Example For if we may do it in one thing why not in another Where shall we stop Certain it is that this very Principle hath brought in all the Popish Ceremonies into the Romish Church That which Christ and his Apostles have taken from the Jews and appointed unto us we are to receive as they have appointed But if any others shall take upon them to appoint to Mens Consciences any Rite in whole or in part on their own conceived Reason from Analogy with the Jewish Ceremonies It is an high Presumption in such against Christ and against the Apostles Command to yield to it Col. 2. 20. Though it hath a shew of Wisdom verse 23. And the Apostles Example binds us to oppose it Gal. 2. 3 4 5.
Object 19. But if the Baptism of Believers be the only Baptism which Christ hath appointed How comes it to pass that so many learned and pious Men should for so long a Season and throughout so many Generations cleave to Infants Baptism whilst so few in Comparison do embrace the contrary Practise For Answer hereunto First It is to be duly noted that as the Scripture hath clearly foretold us of a Defection or an Apostacy from the Primitive Purity and Simplicity of the Gospel in respect both of Doctrine and Discipline which was to happen when the Man of Sin was to be Revealed and the Mystery of Iniquity was to be discovered in the World even that Lawless one who should sit in the Temple of God as God Opposing and Exalting himself above all that is called God or that is Worshipped And as Paul doth also forewarn the Elders of the Church at Ephesus not only that grievous Wolves should enter in among them after his Departure not sparing the Flock But also that of their own selves should Men arise speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them Which should lessen our Wonder in this Respect So it is no less observable that as the Apostacy came in gradually the Mystery of Iniquity prevailing step by step so doth the Wisdom of the Lord seem to order the Recovery thereof And therefore so it is that in these last Ages when the Reformation first began to be set on foot in the World the Doctrinal part of the Gospel was first notably cleared up whilst yet there remained a very great Corruption in point of Discipline or in respect of the Primitive Purity of Gospel-Worship As in the Case of Luther and many others of the first Reformers who notwithstanding their zealous Pleading for the Doctrine of free Justification by the Blood of Christ in Opposition to Popish Merits c. yet held fast Images in Churches Consubstantiation Bowing to the high Altar the Surplice in Preaching the Cross in Baptism and many other things which the After Reformers could not but see them to be clearly defective in So that the light of God's People comes not up to its proper Acme all at once but by degrees And suitably hath the Reformation advanced and the Truths and Ordinances of Christ been cleared up and recovered from the Encroachments and Corruptions of the Man of Sin One Age recovering one part and another another making good that Word Prov. 4. 18. The Path of the just is as the shining Light that shineth more and more unto the perfect Day which holds good in reference to the general Dispensations of God's Providence toward his People as well as in particular Cases Secondly We must follow no Man's Example therefore no not the Apostles themselves further than it can be made out unto us that they were followers of Christ 1 Cor. 11. 1. And certain it is that the Examples of the best Men living will be no sufficient Justification to us in the matters of Divine Worship when contradicting an express Word Jehoshaphat and Asa were both good King 's of Israel and great Reformers yet in many things they did prevaricate and transgressed the Commandments of the Lord and particularly in their not removing the High Places and for which they are both taxed by the Holy Spirit 1 Kings 15. 14. and Chap. 22. 43. And indeed as the High Places then ought to have been removed so the same ought to have been done by our first Reformers in respect of Infants Baptism and other Ceremonies of the Romish Church Which other Ceremonies they retained in hope 't is true of gaining over the Papists to a Compliance with the then Established Discipline though it succeeded far otherwise than was expected For the retaining of those Ceremonies did but so much the more harden the Papal Party in their other Devices We must follow no mans Example therefore against the Word of God upon an undue Presumption that any of the Sons of Men how Pious or Learned soever are infallible either in point of Doctrine or Practise Humanum est errare must not be forgotten Thirdly To lay the stress of your Argument upon the Unlikelyhood that so great a Number of God's People in so many Ages should be left in the dark in Reference to such a Gospel Ordinance as Baptism is As it proceeds from the want of a due Consideration of that Apostacy of the Church from its Primitive Purity in respect both of Doctrine and Worship which the Scripture do so clearly foretel us concerning So the Language of it sounds no other than this That we cannot miss of doing right and well if we follow the Pious Examples of those that are gone before us not considering that as they were Men and Men of like Infirmities with our selves So that it no way follows that because there is a beginning Reformation in respect of the forementioned Apostacy we must go no further True it is that we are to give no Entertainment unto any New Light or Doctrine in these Respects that hath not been already declared unto us in the Holy Scriptures But if upon a due search it can be made appear unto us from the Word of God that we have hitherto gone astray in a point of such Importance to the Worship and Service of God as Baptism is As we ought not to shut our Eyes against the Light so shining upon us so it will not excuse our Continuance in such a Path of Errour that we have the Company of so many Wise Learned and Holy Men that are therein Fellow Transgressours with us Fourthly We have not been without the Testimony of many Learned Pious and Holy Men who have born Witness unto the Truth we are now pleading for and that in many former Ages as well as in this For it is well known that Infants Baptism was very early opposed if not so soon as it was born for no Antiquity mentions it to have had any peaceable being in the World any long time before it was opposed And if it be said that it was not opposed at the beginning assoon as it came into the World it may be so For Christ saith Whilst the Servants slept the Evil One Sowed Tares And surely it was a sleepy Time amongst Christians when it came in but when they began to awake they opposed it Besides which Fifthly We have the Witness of some of your own Party whose Tongues and Pens God hath at least so over-ruled that they have born a Famous Testimony for our Practise First Dr. Taylor saith This indeed is true Baptism when it is both in the Symbol and the Mystery Whatsoever is less than this is but the Symbole only and a meer Ceremony an Opus Operatum a dead Letter an empty Shadow an Instrument without an Agent to manage it Lib. of Proph p. 242. Secondly Baptism is never propounded mentioned or enjoyned as a means of Remission of Sins or of Eternal Life but something
Decency of the Practice will find Cause sufficiently to Vindicate it from the Reproach of Unseemliness and be able to convince Gainsayers of their Unchristian Slauders in that Respect So as for the hazarding of Health to the Weak the constant and known Experience of Thousands doth amply refute it as a groundless Suggestion THE THIRD PART Containing some Animadversions on Mr. Sidenham 's Treatise of Baptism wherein that of Infants is further Disproved Together with some further Reflections on Mr. Allen 's forementioned Discourse to the same Purpose Whereunto is Annexed an Answer at large unto Mr. Baxter 's chief Argument for the Church-membership of Infants from the Nature of the Covenant made with Israel in the Land of Moab Deut. 29. where Children are Represented as Fellow-Covenanters with their Parents which saith he was a Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant And therefore neither it nor the Church-membership of Infants which was built thereon Repealed SECT I. WE shall begin with Mr. Sidenham's Treatise And First Whereas Mr. Sidenham pretending to Answer that Argument of ours That there is no express Command nor any positive Example in all the New Testament concerning the Baptism of Infants For the Refutation thereof He tells us That this Argument is built on this false Principle That no direct Consequences from Scripture are Mandatory and so obliging and of Divine Authority Whereas we affirm no such thing but only say That in all Positive or Instituted Worship such as Baptism is which hath no other Rule nor Reason than the meer will of the Law-giver there must be either an express Command or an express Example to enforce it In all other Respects we justly allow such proper Consequences as are deducible from the Scriptures for the enforcing of Duty or for the Comfort of God's People For therefore is Preaching Expounding and Searching the Scripture appointed unto us But as it would have been a Sin for Abraham upon bare Consequences only and without an express Warrant to have Circumcised his Children So it would be no less to us without the same Divine Warrant in respect of Baptism And therefore Mr. Sidenham doth not well to say That we may as well argue That because Abraham was Circumcised when 99 Years old Therefore old Persons are to be Circumcised and none else As because grown Persons were Baptized therefore not Infants Whereas he knew Abraham had an express Command as for the Circumcision of himself so for his Infants also Which is that which we justly affirm to be wanting under the Gospel in respect of Baptism SECT II. § 1. BUT then Mr. Sidenham doth also tell us That it is to be considered that there is nothing in all the New Testament against the Baptizing of Infants no hint from any express Word dropt from Christ or his Apostles nor any Phrase which doth forbid such an Act. p. 1. And this Argument both he and others do lay very much stress upon But then Mr. Sidenham should have considered That it is the Opinion of divers able and godly Divines That what is not commanded in the Worship of God is forbidden And that every Affirmative command of Christ includes a Negative For saith Tertullian This is a certain Rule if it be said 't is lawful because the Scripture doth not forbid it It may equally be Retorted It is therefore not lawful because the Scripture doth not command it And herein therefore consisted the Sin of Nadab and Abihu Lev. 10. who were destroyed for offering strange Fire which God had not Commanded They might have said Lord 't is true Thou hast not commanded this strange Fire But as thou hast not Commanded it so neither hast thou Forbidden it And by the same Reason might Abraham have Circumcised his Children on the seventh day as well as on the eighth because God had not forbidden it For though God had commanded it to be done on the eighth day yet he had no where expresly forbidden the seventh But since the eighth day was expresly appointed and not the seventh though the seventh was no where expresly forbidden therefore Abraham was bound to the former and not to the latter and it would have been his Sin to have varied from the Rule prescribed him In like manner we say The Baptism of Believers is expresly commanded That of Infants is not commanded and therefore though it be not forbidden yet since 't is not commanded it would be our Sin to practise it And so in the Passeover Whereas God commanded a Lamb a Male of the first year to be eaten they might as well have made use of an Ewe or a Ram of the second or third Year because not forbidden no express Word of God had forbidden it So when David and the People of Israel had made a new Cart for the Carriage of the Ark which was to have been born on the Priests Shoulders only and when God smote Vzzah for holding the Ark they might as well have Pleaded that neither of these was expresly forbidden But yet nevertheless For this Cause the Lord made a Breach upon them for that they did not seek him after the due order that he had expresly appointed 1 Chron. 15. 13. § 2. We find no where in all the Scriptures That ever any express Word dropt from Christ or his Apostles to the Prohibiting or Forbidding of Crucifixes Beads Altars Praying to Saints Pictures in Churches Pilgrimages Which things are still in use among Papists but disowned by Protestants because not commanded though not expresly forbidden The like may be said concerning Bowing at the Name of Jesus the Cross in Baptism Surplices in Preaching Kneeling at the Sacrament set Forms of Prayer In respect of which it is no proper Argument that therefore these things are lawful to be used in the Divine Service because not forbidden For as they are not forbidden so neither are they commanded Which is the very Argument made use of by the Generality of Dissenters for their Justification in Opposition to Prelatical Incroachments And therefore thou art Inexcusable O Man For wherein thou Judgest another thou Condemnest thy self Rom. 2. 1. There is no express Word of God against the Communicating of Infants in the Lord's Supper And yet you your selves do not therefore count it lawful to admit them to that Ordinance without an express Word to that purpose And lastly Bells are not expresly forbidden to be Baptized and yet we do not reckon that a sufficient Argument for such a Practise And whereas it is Objected as to this That Bells are not Subjectum Capax A fit or capable Subject for such an Ordinance we would then ask wherein lies their Incapacity Cannot a Minister sprinkle a little Water upon a Bell and use the Words of the Institution in as solemn a manner as he does when he Baptizes a Child Or are they incapable for want of an Institution We say the same of Infants And if you say they are not capable of the uses and ends of
the Mediator And consequently that the Gentiles are not concerned therein is thus proved If that Covenant was as much a Covenant of Works as the Covenant of Mount Sinai mentioned Exod. 19. 4 5. and Edod 20. and the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. 9 10 11. Nay as much as the Covenant made with Adam before his Fall Gen. 2. 16. 17. where God tells him Of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not Eat For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely Die All which Were but several Editions of the same Covenant of Works then it is not a Gospel Covenant nor a Covenant of Grace properly so called whereof Christ is the Mediator But it was as much a Covenant of Works as either of the Co-Covenants before mentioned were therefore it is not a Covenant of Grace nor a Gospel Covenant properly so called whereof Christ alone is Mediator § 3. That the Covenant last mentioned Gen. 2. 16 17. was a Covenant of Works We suppose none will or can at least Rationally deny Forasmuch as Life was Implicitely promised unto our First Parent upon his Obedience and Death was Explicitely threatned or denounced upon him in case of his Disobedience And upon these terms he was to Stand or Fall which was plainly and undeniably a Covenant of Works whereof Christ was not the Mediator That the Covenant mentioned Exod. 19. 4 5. and Ch. 20. which God made with the Israelites at Mount Sinai was of the same Stamp the Scriptures are every where full in the Proof thereof And as clear it is that the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. 9 10 11. is but a Repetition of that made Exod. 19. c. As hath been already proved In respect of both which it is Evident that as Blessings were therein pronounced and promised to the Obedient upon Condition of their Obedience So a Curse was pronounced upon the Disobedient And thus Paul tells us Rom. 10. 5. Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man which doeth these things shall live by them Which is a plain description of a Covenant of Works which he Citeth from Lev. 18. 5. You shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgments which if a Man do he shall live in them And accordingly the Apostle doth also tell us Gal. 3. 10. That as many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse For it is Written saith he Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are contained in the Book of the Law to do them And so likewise ver 11 12. That no man is Justified by the Law in the fight of God is evident for the Just shall Live by Faith And the Law is not of Faith but the Man that doeth them shall live in them Those therefore that tell us that the Lavv is a Covenant of Faith do plainly contradict the Apostle vvho Expresly tells us that the Law is not of Faith but the man that doeth them shall live in them And therefore plainly and undeniably a Covenant of Works Thus it was with Adam in Paradice when God gave him the Command before mentioned Gen 2. 16. and denounced the Sentence of Death upon him in case of Disobedience upon the Account of which it is generally Acknowledged that he was then under a Covenant of Works It is Evident therefore that the Covenant mentioned Exod. 19. and Chap. 20. and that mentioned Deut. 29. were but two several Repetitions of the same Covenant of Works made with our First Parent and are frequently therefore in the Scripture Represented unto us under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant Heb. 8. 7. 13. Ch. 9. 15. 18. there being therein a clear and a plain Manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the First § 4. Now that the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham and his Seed Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. is of the same stamp or tenor with the three fore-mentioned Covenants in Gen. Exod. and Deut. is also as Evident For though 't is true God there promiseth to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed yet still it was upon Condition of Obedience with an answerable threatning in case of Disobedience As it was with Adam before the Fall In the day that thou Eatest thereof thou shalt surely Die. And as it was with them in the Wilderness Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them So here ver 9. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations ver 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee every Man-Child among you shall be Circumcised And ver 14. The Vncircumcised Man-child whose Flesh of his Fore-skin is not Circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his People He hath broken my Covenant The same terms with the former Besides it is Evident that Circumcision indispensibly Obliged all that were under it to a Perfect and Universal Obedience to the whole Revealed Will and Law of God Gal. 5. 3. For I testifie to every man that is Circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law If it was so in Paul's time it was so in Moses's time And then it cannot be justly denied but it was so in Abrahams also according to what of the Law Mind or Will of God was then Revealed unto them So that in this Covenant which God made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. 14. As Blessings are pronounced upon the Obedient upon Condition of their Obedience so as great a Curse is pronounced upon the Disobedient And as we have already said is therefore of the same tenor with the Three fore-mentioned Covenants in Genesis Exodus and Deuteronomy For did God tell our First Parent in the Garden of Eden concerning the Forbidden Fruit. In the day that thou Eatest thereof thou shalt surely Die and so in the rest we have the like Threatning here He that is Vncircumcised that Soul shall be Cut off from his People He hath broken my Covenant And if that were a Covenant of Works why not this § ◠And therefore though 't is true God promised to Establish his Covenant betwixt himself and Abraham and his Seed after him in their Generations for an Everlasting Covenant to be a God unto him and to his Seed after him ver 7 c. Yet still it was provided they kept his Covenant and fulfilled the Condition thereof on their parts ver 9. 10. Else they were to be Cut off And indeed the same Promises for the Substance of them were made unto the same People at Mount Sinai and upon the same Condition Exod. 19. 4. 5. You have seen saith God there what I did unto the Aegyptians and how I bear you on Eagles Wings and brought you unto my self Now therefore if ye will Obey my Voice indeed and keep my Covenant then ye
Therefore that Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works Ninthly That Covenant that is plainly and in direct terms opposed unto Grace cannot be a Covenant of Grace But the Law is by the Apostle directly opposed unto Grace Rom. 6. 14. Sin shall not have Dominion over you For ye are not under the Law but under Grace Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Grace Tenthly That Covenant that was not onely by the Jews Estimated as a Covenant of Works but was so by Gods own Appointment must needs be a Covenant of Works But the Law was not onely by the Jews so Reckoned but by Gods own Appointment it was expresly so designed Lev. 18. 4 5. Deut. 27. 26. Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 10 12. Therefore that Covenant must needs be a Covenant of Works Eleventhly That Covenant through which Abrahams Inheritance was not derived could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle doth expresly tell us That if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise But God gave it to Abraham by Promise Gal. 3. 18. Therefore the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twelfthly That Covenant through which had the Inheritance been conveyed would have made void Faith and made the Promise of none effect could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith But the Apostle doth expresly tell us That if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise made of none effect Rom. 4. 14. Therefore the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith Thirteenthly That Covenant from the Curse whereof we were Redeemed by Christ could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works But the Apostle Informs us That Christ hath Redeemed us from the Curse of the Law himself being made a Curse for us Gal. 3. 13. chap. 4. 4 5. Therefore the Law could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Fourteenthly That Covenant that is set forth by the Apostle as a Ministration of Death and Condemnation could be no other than a Covenant of Works But the Apostle doth assure us that the Law Written in Stones was a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 7 9. Therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works Fifteenthly That Covenant in which 〈◊〉 the Hand writing of Ordinances contained was against us and contrary to us which is therefore now Blotted out and taken out of the way being Nailed to the Cross of Christ could be no other than a Covenant of Works But such is the Nature of the Law Col. 2. 14. 2 Cor. 3. 6 7 8 9. Therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works Sixteenthly That Covenant which when it comes Revives Sin and kills the Sinner And which though it was Ordained to Life is by Experience found to be unto Death could not be a Covenant of Grace But Paul doth expresly tell us That when the Commandment came Sin Revived and he died And the Commandment which was Ordained to Life he found to be unto Death Rom. 7. 9 10. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Seventeenthly That Covenant that is a Bondage Covenant which gendereth to Bondage all whose Children also are in Bondage cannot possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle doth Expresly Inform us that Mount Sinai Covenant is a Bondage Covenant that is gendereth to Bondage and that her Children also are in Bondage Gal. 4. 21 22 23 24 26. Therefore Mount Sinai Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works Eighteenthly That Covenant that admitted not of Faith in the Redeemer nor Repentance of Sin Since Pardon of Sin and Curse for Sin are Inconsistent could not be a Covenant of Grace But the Scripture doth expresly assure us That as many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse For it is Written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Nineteenthly That Covenant that had not Christ for the Mediator of it could never be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But the Apostle speaking of the Legal Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai tells us That Christ hath obtained a more Excellent Ministry by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant which was Established upon better Promises Heb. 8. 6 7 8. 9. From whence it plainly follows that Christ was not the Mediator of the Legal Covenant Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twentiethly That Covenant that was not Confirmed by the Blood of Christ which alone can cleanse us from all unrighteousness but onely by the Bloud of Bulls and Goats and Calves and the Ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean which onely Sanctified to the Purifying of the Flesh and could never take away Sins nor make him that did the Service perfect as pertaining to the Conscience could not be a Covenant of Faith But the Ceremonial Law was of this Nature and the Sacrifices thereof wherewith alone it was Dedicated Heb. 9. 9 10. 11 12 13 14. Chap. 10. 1 2 3 4 c. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twenty first That Covenant that was not confirmed by the Bloud of Christ No nor so much as by the Bloud of Bulls or Goats or Calves which was plainly Typical thereof could never be a Covenant of Grace but of Works But the Law Written in Stones was so far from being confirmed by the Bloud of Christ that it was never that we read of Dedicated with any other sort of Bloud whatsoever Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Works Twenty second That Covenant that is Represented to us in the Scripture as a Fiery Burning Law the Proclamation also whereof was attended with dreadful Thunderings and Lightenings with Blackness and Darkness and Tempest And such a Voice of Words as could not be endured which made Moses himself exceedingly to quake and tremble could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works But such was the Nature and Quality of the Legal Covenant at Mount Sinai Exod. 20. 18. 19. Deut. 33. 2. Heb. 12. 18 19 20 21. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works Twenty third That Covenant that is just opposite to the Gospel Covenant which the Scripture represents unto us as a Covenant of Peace and Liberty making a Joyful found and speaking with a small still comfortable and alluring Voice in the Ears and to the Hearts of Sinners that hath also Jesus for the Mediator thereof and speaketh better things than the Bloud of Abel Proclaiming the Lord the Lord God Gracious and Merciful Abundant in Goodness and in Truth forgiving Iniquity
requires Perfect and Universal Obedience to the whole Revealed Will and Law of God and Pronounceth a Curse upon the least Transgression or Dis-obedience must needs be a Covenant of Works or else there was never any such thing Extant in the World And of this Nature we have already proved the forementioned Covenants to be viz. that made with Israel at Mount Sinai that in the Land of Moab and that made with Abraham also Gen. 17. 7 8 9. Our present Question therefore whereon the Main Hinge of the Paedo-baptismal Controversy doth depend and which we would therefore drive to an Issue is onely this Whether that Covenant that will not admit of a Partial though Sincere Obedience but strictly requires that which is Perfect and Universal as the Condition of Salvation be not a plain Covenant of Works If so then it cannot be justly denyed but that the several forementioned Covenants are such And Consequently they are all of them now Repealed as hath been already proved From whence it plainly follows that no Just Argument can be drawn from either of these Covenants for the Establishment or Regulation of Gospel Worship For since the Law it self is changed and dis-annulled as the Scriptures do plainly affirm it is Heb. 7. 12 18. Chap. 8. 7 13. there follows of necessity a change of the whole Fabrick and Constitution of the Ordinances thereunto once belonging For so the Apostle himself Reasons Heb. 7. 12. The Priesthood saith he being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law And if the Law is changed there follows with an equal necessity a change also of the Ordinances thereon depending and that news ones take place suitable to the Nature of the Gospel Covenant that Succeeds it And Consequently the Plea for Infants Baptism as founded on either of those forementioned Covenants must of necessity fail Forasmuch as what ever Right Infants had to the Ordinance of Circumcision which you say was Analogous therewith the Right they then had was onely by vertue of those forementioned Covenants which being now Repealed it unavoidably follows that all the Arguments thence deduced for the Establishment of Infants Church Member-ship and Baptism under the Gospel must of necessity also vanish SECT XV. § 1. AS to what Concerns the Covenant of Grace or the Gospel Covenant before Insisted on We are told indeed by some that to affirm that it is wholly free and Absolute and to make that the Covenant of Grace properly so called which God made with Christ is to destroy the whole Tenor of the Gospel and to lay the Foundation of all Libertinism and Looseness of Conversation In Reference whereunto we shall take leave to Insert a Passage or two of the late Worthy Dr. Owen in his Third Volumn upon the Epistle to the Hebrews page 15. It cannot be denyed saith he but that some Men may and it is justly to be feared that some Men do abuse the Doctrine of the Gospel to Countenance themselves in a vain Expectation of Mercy and Pardon whilst they willingly live in a Course of Sin But as this in their Management is the principal means of their Ruine So in the Righteous Judgment of God it will be the greatest Aggravation of their Condemnation And whereas some have charged the Preachers of Gospel Grace as those who thereby give Countenance unto this Presumption It is an Accusation that hath more of the Hatred of Grace in it than of the Love of Holiness For none do or can press the Relinquishment of Sin and Repentance of it upon such Assured Grounds and with such Cogent Arguments as those by whom the Grace of Jesus Christ in the Gospel is fully opened and declared § 2. And as to what concerns the freeness or Absoluteness of the Gospel Covenant The Doctor in his-Exposition of the 12th Verse of Heb. 8. For I will be Merciful to their Vnrighteousness and their Sins and Iniquities will I Remember no more page 290. of his forementioned Discourse Observes That free and Soveraign and undeserved Grace in the Pardon of Sin is the Original Spring and Foundation of all New Covenant Mercies and Blessings Hereby saith he and hereby alone is the Glory of God and the safety of the Church provided for And those who like not Gods Covenant on those Terms will Eternally fall short of the Grace of it Hereby all Glorying and all Boasting in our selves is Excluded which was that which God aimed at in the contrivance and Establishment of this Covenant Rom. 3. 27. 1 Cor. 1. 29 30 31. For this could not be if the Fundamental Grace of it did depend on any Condition or Qualification in our selves Some speak of an Vniversal Conditional Covenant made with all Mankind If there be any such thing it is not that here Intended For they are all actually Pardoned with whom this Covenant is made And the Indefinite Declaration of the Nature and Terms of the Covenant is not the making a Covenant with any And what should be the Condition of this Grace here promised of the Pardon of Sin It is say they that Men Repent and Believe and turn to God and yield Obedience unto the Gospel If so then Men must do all these things before they Receive the Remission of Sins Yes Then must they do them whilst they are under the Law and the Curse of it For so are all Men whose Sins are not Pardoned This is to make Obedience unto the Law and that to be performed by Men whilst under the Curse of it to be the Condition of Gospel Mercy which is to overthrow both the Law and Gospel But then on the other hand it will follow they say that Men are Pardoned before they do Believe But then it must be considered 1. That the Communication and Donation of Faith unto us is an Effect of the same Grace whereby our Sins are Pardoned and they are both bestowed on us by vertue of the same Covenant 2. That though the Application of Pardoning Mercy unto our Souls is in order of Nature consequent unto Believing yet in time they go together 3. That Faith is not required unto the Procuring of the Pardon of our Sins but unto the Receiving of it § 3. To the same purpose He also speaks page 223. 224. of the same Discourse The Promises of the Covenant of Grace saith he are better than those of any other Covenant as for many other Resons so especially because the Grace of them prevents any Condition or Qualification on our part I do not say the Covenant of Grace is Absolute without Conditions if by Conditions we intend the Duties of Obedience which God requireth of us in and by vertue of thâ—t Covenant But this I say the Principal Promises thereof are not in the first place Remunerative of our Obedience in the Covenant but Efficaciously Assumptive of us into Covenant and Establishing or Confirming in the Covenant The Covenant of Works had its Promises but they were all Remunerative