Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3
His opinion I prove unsound, thus, 1. If the Sacrament rightly administered to an hypocrite, have all in it that is essential to God's actual sealing, then it is his actual sealing, &c. But, &c. Therefore, &c. A seal is an engaging or obliging sign, or at least a testifying. He that actually useth a sign to such an end, doth actually seal. Now 1. God useth this sign. 2. And to this end. He useth the sign while his Ministers use it in his Name at his command; for immediately he never useth or applieth it to any. 2. He commandeth it to be used to this end, to engage himself to make good his promises. For 1. To what other end should God command them? 2 Else he should command them to be used to one end to one, and to another end to another, which cannot be shown that he hath done, (I speak of the end of the Ordinance, not of the event which God hath decreed shall follow.)
Answer. The Minor of this Argument is denied. And to the proof I say, 1. That it is not always true, That he that actually useth a sign to such an end, doth actually seal. For if actual sea • ing be actual assuring • as it is conceived to be 〈◊〉 Rom. 4.11. whence this phrase is taken) the actual sealing must be denominated, not only from the end but also from the event, as if God use a sign to comfort, he doth not actually comfort except the person be comforted. 2. That it is not universally true, that God useth the sign while his Ministers use it in his name at his command, but then when they represent his person. As for instance, when Aaron offered sacrifice, burned Incense, &c. which were to signify Christ, they did these things in God's name, that is, to his honor, at his command, yet I do not conceive it can be said that God did offer Sacrifice or burn Incense. And for baptism, though I confess it is commanded by God to be done by his Ministers, and that it is to be done into his name, yet it is nowhere intimated as if they did it instead of God, or Christ, as their act. 3. But let it be granted that baptism done right • y according to God's command by his Ministers, is his act; how is it proved that it is used by God to this end▪ to engage himself to make good his promises? For my part I read not anywhere in Scripture, that God used baptism for this end, to engage himself to make good his promises, nor doth Mr. B. prove that end by any passage of Scripture. And to his reasons I answer, 1. To the first, though neither I nor Mr. B. know any orher end, yet doth not this prove, that that is the end. Besids, if I should assign no other end, yet it were enough to answer Mr. B. his question to say, it is to try obedience, as in Abraham's offering his son. But Mr. B. might easily know if he would heed the Scripture, that there are other ends of God in commanding baptism; to wit, the owning of Christ as our Lord, 1 Cor. 1.13. Gal. 3.27 joining all Christians into one body, 1 Cor. 12.13. Ephes. 4.5· The 19, and 27 Atricle of the Curch of England acknowledge this to be one end of baptism, to be a sign of profession, and to be a mark of difference of Christians from others. To the second, though it were granted to be absurd, that God should command the Sacraments to be used to one end to one, and to another end to another, yet this doth no whit prove that this is the end which Mr. B▪ assigns for the fore-going reasons. Yet sure if infant-baptism were granted, baptism must needs be to one end, to wit, a sign of profession to the aged, which it is not, nor can be to an infant. Lastly if it yielded that the end of baptism were to engage God to make good his promises, it is a good argument against Mr. B. t • at God seals not actually to an hyppocrite, since he doth not promise, and co • sequently not to engage himself, by the S • crament to make good his promise unto them. But Mr. B. adds thus.
Answer: I read, tha • to Abraham & his seed were the promises made or said, Gal. 3.16. That the promise through the faith of Christ might be given to them that believe v. 22. If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed & heirs according to the promise v. 29. Whereby are given unto us exceeding great & precious promises 2 Pet. 1▪4. The children of the promise are counted for the seed Rom. 9.8. Strangers from the Covenants of promise Ephes. 2.12. But this is to use Mr. B. His own words of my doctrine, str • ng and wild dostrine to say that God promises to unbelievers, the promise of salvation is made to unbelievers, that to them he engageth himself to perform: nor do I see how he can avoid Antinomianism, which he so much abhors, to wit the justification of Infidels, if i • be true, that this promise is made to unbelievers. Nor is he relieved by saying, the promise is made to them though the good promised is not to be enjoyed, For what is this but to say the promise is made to them by God, but not performed, which is to make God false? Nor is he relieved by saying it is made conditionally only to unbelievers (if thou believe thou shalt be justified.) For this is equivalent to this he that bel • eveth shall be justified, and so the promise is made only to the believer: though it may be said to be offered, tendered, propounded as a Law, or ordinance of God to unbelievers. yet neither Scripture language, nor any other approved Au • hors speech, will I concieve warrant this speech, God promiseth, engageth himself to perform, this pormise (of salvation, justification,) is made to unbelievers. As for his dictates in his appendix, and the next question, the futility of them is already shown. He goes on thus.
Answ. It was assayed to be proved before, but not proved that God commandeth ministers to deliver or apply the Lord's Supper to them that desire to renew their Covenant, or baptism to believers infant children; what I said of the right act of the administrator I spake particularly of baptism. Nor is it true that God maketh promise to hypocrites, or commandeth ministers to publish it, and how is it from Scripture speech, or truths to say, God hath instituted the Sacraments as mutual engaging signs or seals, and how destructive this is to infant baptism is shown before. To this puestion, I answer, The witness of the spirit is a further act of God necessary to his sealing as I meant my words, and express myself in my Postscript. Sest: 21. Pag 153. what saith Mr. B. to this?
If it be said that he add the seal of his spirit; that is nothing to the question, seeing we are speaking only of the outward seal. Answ. though Mr. B. spake only of the outward seal, yet he should have spoken of the inward also. If he would have opposed my saying, he should have proved that God actually seals by the outward Sacrament without the inward testimony of the spirit, till then, he spake nothing to the question.
But saith he. If it be said that he assureth the conscience of the truth of the promise, and maketh the outward seal effectual. I Answ. 1. That is still the inward seal, and so nothing to this. Answ. He should rather have said it is all in all to this, since my words deny God's actual sealing withou • ▪
Answ. 1. However it be in men's sealing, yet God's actual sealing is still effectual, they seal only to the eye, he to the heart, 2 Cor. 1.21, 22. 2. He makes no deed of gift but to believers, nor seals to any but them Ephes. 1.13. and • 4.30. Rom. 4.11. and 8.15, 16.
Answ. though God do not always actually seal to believers, yet this doth neither prove that his actually sealing is ineffectual, nor to any others.
Mr. B. hath answer to his demand, and were it not that I much pity the souls of many ministers and poeple who are by this notion of [seal of the Covenant of grace] partly perverted to uphold and continue as manifest a Corruption as ever was in the Christian church, I mean infant-baptism, being by all, most by Mr. B. Confessed to be without institution and example in Bible, parly perplexed about delivering and recieving the Lord's-supper, it would much trouble me that I have spent so much time de lanâ Caprinâ, a new devised notion▪ But overshooes over boots, I must needs add few lines more in answer to Mr. B. whose page 1 • 6 saith thus.
Answer. I am so used to Mr. B. his snarling at me, that I think it not worth while to take notice of all the noise he makes, and methinks a wise Reader should be no whit moved with these frivolous accusations of me, as darkening the thing with a maze of words (which is a pretty phrase) which are very few and very plain, intimating as if▪ I would needs use those terms though improperly, which were used of necessity when I was to set down M M. his meaning, not as mine, but his, even his very expressions, except it be to observe the quarrelsome vein he was in when he wrote that book against me. If the expression be not proper, let him blame Mr. M. yet let it be observed, that the speech of the nullifying the covenant, was neither mine nor Mr. Ms, but nullifying all, which is to be understood of the sealing and privilege mentioned. As for his reference of me to Gibeo • f and Bradwardine to show the impropriety of the use of the term [Liberty] I am not likely to be taught by them, except I had the books (one of which I have lost by the plunder of above three hundred books never recovered) and Mr. B. had given me better directions where to find my Lesson. I conceive it liberty of will properly so called, whereby men are moved to choose evil, though the persons be in a state of servitude, John 8.33. Else it were not penal to choose evil. And for what Mr. B asserts, I have shown before that God's covenant of grace is neither made nor sealed by God to any but the elect; and I say, that though wicked men may perish as covenant-breakers with Christ, that is, as breaking their own covenant or promise with Christ, yet no man ever breaks the covenant of grace, that is God's new covenant or promise of saving grace in Christ, it being the very end of the making of the new covenant, that whereas the old occasioned God to complain of Israel as not continuing in it, there might be another covenant established or made a Law on better promises, that it might be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which we read faultless, but more rightly Plaintless, that is, not occasioning God to complain by reason of the breach of it, as the Author to the Hebrews plainly shows, Heb. 8.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, &c. And this is expressly called God's covenant to turn away ungodliness from Jacob, Rom. 11.26, 27. So that to deny the promise of the first grace of regeneration, conversion, or effectual calling to be properly God's covenant of grace, and to make a conditional after to be God's Covenant of grace, and to say God's covenant of grace may be broken, and persons with whom it is made not continue therein, is to alter or deny the new covenant, and to make void the grace of God and the comfort of his people, and to my understanding to symbolize with Arminians.
Mr. B. adds, 5. It is unworthily said, That God affordeth these but a while the favor and privilege of being in covenant with him, seeing it is their own willful act to cast themselves out of this privilege; they might have continued it, and proceeded further in it if they would.
Answer. I agree that it is unworthily said; but by this censure though he aim at me, yet heedlessly he hits Mr. M, whose speech this was. But whoever be in the fault, it seems while the rod is in Mr. B. his hand, I must be lashed. Yet Mr. B. his reason is so far from proving it unworthily said, that it seems rather to be worthily said, that God affords them but a while the favor of being in covenant with him, since it is their own willful act to cast themselves out I rather think it unworthily said, because God should fail them to perform his covenant of putting his fear into their heart, so as that they shall not depart from him ; nor his covenant be everlasting contrary to Jer. 32.40.
6. Saith Mr. B. Yet withal we affirm, That to his elect God freely giveth, as leave, so a will to enter sincerely into Covenant with him, and faithfully to keep covenant, and so the continuance of the privileges of the covenant
Answer. If Mr. B. had as the Scripture doth, ascribed this to God's covenant, and understood the difference between the covenant of grace under the Gospel, and the national covenant made with the people of Israel, much of the opposition between us had been saved. But since things are as they are, I am resolved with God's assistance to try his strength in what is yet unanswered of his second main argument, after I have examined the remainder of what Paedobaptists say after the old way of arguing from Covenant and Seal.
SECT. XXXVI. Christianity is not by Birth, or the Church, nor the Church at Civil Corporations, as Mr. M. his equivocation in the use of the term Covenant of grace.
I Return now to Mr. M. whom I meet in his Defense, pag 119. passing over my six Arguments, and thus answering me, I join with you that it is an error to say, that all infants of believers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the Covenant, for although I find abundance of promises in the Scripture, of God's giving saving grace unto the posterity of his people, and that experience teacheth us, that God uses to continue his Church in their posterity, and that God's election is more among their seed than others, yet neither to Jew nor Gentile was the Covenant so made at any time, that the spiritual part and grace of the covenant should be conferred upon them all.
Which if true, then all have not interest in the saving grace of the Covenant, but so many as are elect, and then the baptism of them all cannot be deduced thence: And for the conditional covenant, it is either to all, or believers only, and baptism by it must be of all men or only 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 justify baptizing of believers infants, as their privilege. 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 favorable 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-privilege, 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. Natural 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 nowhere 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 [ Natural branch, Rom. 11.21.] as much as visible Church-members by nature, but only descendents as branches from Abraham the root, that is the father by natural 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 shown before to be vain, and to serve only for a shift. I said in my Examen Christianity is no man's birth-right, and this I proved in that nowhere in Scripture is a person called Christian, but he that is so made by preaching.
I said, it is a carnal imagination, that the Church of God is like to Civil Corporations, as if persons were admitted to it by birth, which my words show 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 Ecclesiastic body, but this Church-state was carnal as their ordinances▪ whereas the Christian Church hath another constitution by preaching the Gospel. Mr. M. his cavil 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 God's appointment: nor is God tied, or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnal respects, as descent from men, Christianity is no man's birth right.] Mr. M. shows 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. Rutherf • rd ▪ are Mr. Cotton. and not to be reconc • led without making contradictories true. My answer bea • 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 reckoned to be in Covenant with him, because their parents are in Covenant with him, but it is refused by Mr. 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 Jews, 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 Judaism, 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 Jews 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 tells me, If I would show the falsity of it I should have given some instance; not of parents, who remain God's 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 means this of the Christian church it is easy to give instances of Infants of those who have turned Papists▪ Mohammedans, excommunicate persons, who are accounted baptize • ble by virtue of their Ancestors faith, or for defect thereof because they are of a chosen nation • s Mr. Rutherford affirms in his Temperate plea ch. 12. concl. 1. arg. 7· But Mr. M. his speech was of the time of the Jews, and of their times before Christ he must needs say the same •• less he will acknowledge Idolaters such as Ahab, Ahaz, &c. to have remained still God's people in external profession. He concluds the reply to the fifth 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 elsewhere for destinguishing so much, and equivocating in the use of a term only one way • 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 only in one sense doth not aquivocate, equivocation being when a word is used in more senses than one. Falla • ia aquivocationis est quando ex unius vocis multiplici fignificatione sophistice concluditur. Dr. Prideaux Hypomn. Log: tract: 4. c. 7. Sect. 2. Arist: Sophist: Ele • ch. l. 1. c. 3. reckons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or equivocation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when with the same names and vowels we signify 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 external way of administration, and yet blames me for not including it. And if he by covenant of grace include the way of external administra • 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 external 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 external 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, bu • the way of external administration. And yet he dare not say, the • nfant children of Gentile Christian believers belong to it, that is the same way of external administration, for that is in the Jewish Legal 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 mu • h confusednesse and ambiguity.
CHAP. XXXVII. That the promise Gen. 17.7. proves not an external privilege of visible Church membership, and initial 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 shown 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 Abraham's 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 privilege for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to God's kingdom and household with their parents, so it is here. By which words it appears, thar Mr. M. took this to be Abraham's 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 privilege for their posterity, that they should be accounted to belong to Godt Kingdom and Household with their parents. 2. That so it is in the Christian Church by virtue 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 privilege for their posterity, that they should be accounted to belong to God's Kingdom and Household 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 ways of visibly owning God, as by sacrificing, circumcision, &c. by Baptism, the Lord's Supper, frequenting the Church meetings of Christians, &c. divers kingdoms and households 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 guess his meaning to be thus; As the Jews 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 mere trifling tau • ology, as I have often said. But I shall not insist on it, having in my Apology, Sect. 10. and elsewhere shown it, That which I shall consider chiefly in his gloss on Gen. 1 • .7. which to me seems as (or more) absurd than the gloss of Papists, Thou art Peter, and on this Rock will I build my Church : i. e. The Bishop of Rome shall be my Vicar general of the Ecumenical Church. For 1. according to Mr. M. his Gloss, [ 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 Logic 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 gloss the natural seed of proselytes though but visibly owning God and his Covenant, are called Abraham's 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. 4.1 • , 12, 16, 17. Gal. 3.29. 4 By nature, Gen. 21▪12. Psal▪ • 05.6. Gen. 15.13.18. Neither o • which are proselytes who do only own God and his covenant.
3. The promise of God to be a God to Abraham's seed is thus expounded, The natural seed of Abraham and the natural seed of Proselytes, and of Gentile Christians visibly owning God and his covenant, shall have this visible privilege, that they should be accounted to belong to God's Kingdom and Household with their parents. In which paraphrase I note what he calls to be accounted to belong to God's Kingdom a visible privilege. 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 God's Kingdom, is not a visible privilege, 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 trans • 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 pass 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 pre • 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 Abraham's seed the elect only. Rom. 4 11, 12.13, 16 justifying of believers by faith, Gal. 3.16.29. inheritance and blessing to believers thro • 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 God • part was to be Abraham's 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 Defense of his Sermon, pag. 98. he conceives the right allegation of an expression of Cameron, That Circumcision did seal primarily the temporal promise, sanctification secondarily, to have an untoward look, as being inc • ngruous to a covenant of grace in Christ to ratify temporal 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 covenan • , of having an initial 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 temporal promises in that Covenant, which I have proved to be mixed, but I allege these passages only to show the inconsistency of Mr. M. his speeches. Besi • 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 God's Kingdom and his Household 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 God's 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. Defense part, 3. pag. 127. saith, It was not a personal privilege to Abraham, no nor to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to have their posterity taken into covenant by virtue 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 natural seed of believers.
Answer. 1. What Mr. M. means by Taking into covenant, is somewhat doubtful 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, entering into covenant ] sometimes meaning these terms of the promise of grace, sometimes of the initial 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 God's act, who alone takes into covenant, and puts a man into covenant with himself; but frequently, though abusively, by another man's act, a • 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 only, in right speech, a person is said to be a Covenant •• , 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 Abraham's natural posterity were taken into covenant, that is, circumcised, (as I conceive he means) by virtue of that promise, as I have often proved, and is in effect confessed by Mr. M. Defense pag 182. when he saith, The formal reason of their being circumcised, was the command of God. 2. I deny that under the term [ Thee ] is meant any other than Abraham's individual person. 3. I deny that under the term Thy Seed, is ever • eant in Scripture the natural seed of proselytes, or Christian believing Gentiles. 4. I deny that by the promise, I will be the God of thy seed, can be concluded that which Mr M. asserts, That th • s promise Gen. 17.7. I will be the God of thee and of thy seed, is a Gospel promise, w • i • h from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the natural seed of believer, or that this was Abraham's 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 God's Kingdom and his Household 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 yielding that exposition of it elsewhere: but saith something pag. 127, 128. of his Defense, 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.
Ans. 1. Privileges of Abraham in that promise [ I will be thy God and the God of thy seed ] are either Evangelical belonging to Abraham's spiritual seed, that is elect persons or true believers; or domestic and political, as that of multiplying his seed, the birth of Jsaac, continuation of his church in and from him in his inhereting posterity till Christ's coming. the birth of Christ, deliverance out of Egypt, possession of Canaan, these belong to Abraham's natural seed, yet not to all but to the inheriting, not to Jshmael, nor the sons of Keturah. The former all are partakers of it who follow the faith of Abraham whether Jews or Gentiles, but none are in refference to these promises reckoned Abraham's seed, but those who are real believers in Christ. A Proselyte owning barely God and his covenant vissibly is not either Abraham's seed or partaker of the spiritual privileges of sanctification, justification, salvation. The latter sort of promises belonged to Abraham's natural posterity, yet not to all but to the • eed inheriting, nor to all of them, but to the Jews, and in them for one of them to the line from whence after the flesh Christ came. None of these were made to the bare vissible Proselytes and their children, though I grant their children where taken into the polli • y of Israel, and were to be circumcised and to eat the Passover, yet neither did this privilege belong to them by virtue of the covenant, but the command, nor for their faiths sake as the immediate adequate reason (for then these shou • d have belonged to pr • selites of the gate who believed in God as Cornelius the Centurion, who was a believer, but they did not, for he was not Circu • cised, nor to be circumcised with his children if, he had any, nor blamed for defect of it) but merely (so far as is expressed in Scripture) because it was Go • s w • l • to have it so. Now Mr. M. brings not a word to prove either that the children of prosylites vissibly owning God and his covenant, or the natural post • ri • y of Christian pro • essors of the Gentiles are either Abraham's seed, or have such an Interest in ex • ernal church privileges as Mr. M. asser • s by virtue of that promise, or tha • wha • agrees to Abraham in respect of ex • ernal church privileges for his faiths sake must agree either to only vissible prosylites, or Christians, or real believers, but speaks like a dictator not a disputer. Nor is there any good consequence in this, what, agreed to Abraham for his faith's sake agrees to every believer, For then every believer should be Father of the faithful as Abraham was for his faith's sake. It is true that if the truth of Abraham's f • ith were the immediate adequate reason of external privileges as i • was of justification, it would follow them, what ex • ernal privileges agree to Abraham for his faith's sake should agree to every believer, but such believers then must be true real believers as Abraham was, not bare vissible prosy • i • s or Christian professors. But surly Mr. M. means no more by [for Abraham's faiths sake] but this, that Abraham's faith was the motive or occasion God took to enter into covenant with him, nor was it simply his real true faith, but his remarkable exemplary faith described Rom. 4.18, 19. which was the motive or occasion of God's entering into covenant with him, which is not verified of every true believer, and the motive or occasion was not barely the truth, but the eminent degree of his faith. In my Postscript Pag. 119. I gave a like instance Matth. 16.18, 19. the keys of the kingdom of heaven, binding and loosing were given to Peter for his confession sake, yet it follows not the keys are given to everyone that makes the same confession as he did. And the reason because the confession was eminent and exemplary at a special time, and it was but the occasion, not the immediate adequate reason of that gift to him▪ for that was only the special grace and purpose of God's will.
2ly, saith Mr. M. had it been a perculiar privilege to Abraham 's natural seed prosilites of other nations could never by virtue of their becoming followers of Abraham's faith have brought their children into covenant with them so as to have a visible Church-member-ship, as we know they did.
Answ. I do not know that the proselytes natural seed had the visible church-member-ship Mr. M. Mentions by virtue of the promise Gen. 17.7. and their parents faith, but of God's command Exod 12 48.
Answ: That which I say is no elusion of the texts, but so plain and evident, that Paedo-baptists of note do concur with me. Mr. Rich. Baxter. in his letter to Mr. Bedford in the friendly accommodation between them. To this and that which followeth I answer; 1. These following arguments persuade me that you err; 1. no such promise (tha • give • h certainly Cornovum or the first effectual grace to all the rightly baptized or to all the children of believers) can be shown in Scripture; I will circumcise thy heart and of thy seed, seems to me to be none such 1. because else it should not be the same circumcision that is promised to the parent of the child: but there is no intimation of two circumcisions in the texr: one to the father, being only an increase or actuating of grace; and the other to the child being the giving the first renewing grace: 2. the text seems plainly to speak of [their seed] not in their infant state but in their adult Deut. 30. For. 1. v. 2. The conditon of the promise is expressly required, not only of the parents, but of the child • en themselves by name. 2. And that condition is the personal performance of the sam acts which are tequired of the parents viz : to return to the Lord and obey his voice with all their heart and soul. 3. The circumcision of heart promised is so annexed to the act that it appeareth to be meant only of those that were capable of the act v. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God So that it is not meant of those that are uncapable of so loving, And after, A new heart is given to the elect only. By this doctrine you feign a new heart not to be proper to the elect, which is contrary to all the Anti-arminians that I know of. Out of which it plainly appears that Deut. 30.6. Speaks not of an external privilege, but a spiritual grace proper to the elect, nor can be meant of the seed of believers in their infant sta • e, but in their adult.
In the text Jsai. 44.2, 3. speaking of God's pouring his spirit on the seed of Jacob his servant. And Ieshrim whom he had chosen (whom he bids not to fear) and his blessing on his offspring and that they shall spring up as amongst the grass &c. the terms Jacob and Jeshurim are taken not personally (for it were in vain to bid Jacob dead long before not to fear) but Collectively either for the nation of Israel, or the church of God called the Israel of God. Gal. 6.16. In the former acception the seed and offspring must be meant of the children of Israel, that is the Israelites by natural generation, and then the sense is (as Mr. Gataker in his Annot. on that text) my spirit, that is my blessing (the one expoundeth the other) whereby they and their state should thrive and flourish, and mul • iply, and increase, that had been almost clean exhaust and exceedingly impaired in a manner beyond all hopes of recovery before ch. 26.19 Ezek. 37.3. 11, 14. So of their land ch. 32.15. and of their • eed ch. 61.9 He followeth still the comparison taken from grounds well watered as ch. 58.11. and the seed sown in soil ch. 32.10▪ In the latter 〈◊〉 he, it is a type o • that spiritual growth and increase of God's church, and the members 〈◊〉 under the Messiah, by the graces and comfort • o • his spirit Acts. 9.31. E • hes. 4.12.15. Col. 2.19.2 • et. 3.18. S • e ch. 2 • .6. and 37.3 • . and 61.9.21. Take it either way it makes no • hi • g for a • external vissible privilege from age to age belonging to the natural seed even o • 〈◊〉 believers: but in the first acception it n •• es a future multiplying of the Jews then much wast • d, in the la • ter spiritual graces and comforts to 〈…〉 .
And for the last t • xt Ames. Coro • ▪ Acts. 5 c. 2 • versum vicesimum, quem in hanc partem Remonstrantes trahunt, in alteran part • m accipit Apostolus Paulus Rom. 11.27. promissionem absolute • m & electorum propriam in eo Contineri manifestis verbis confirmans: Exterm • n nihil son • t spiritus meus qui est in 〈◊〉 . • eminis etiam inculcatio solos electos & ••• caciter vocatos notari docet Apostolo sic hunc citulum interpretante Rom. 9. • . Gal 3.16. & 4.28. Mr. Gataker annot: on Isaiah. 59 21. thy seed] the faithful the seed according to the promise Deut. 30.6▪ Rom. 9.6, 8 Gal. 3.16.29. Se Dr. Owen of Perseverance ch. 3. Sect. 41. ch. 4. Sect. 3. ch. 5. Sect. 9. ch. 7. Sect. 23.
And for what Mr M counts absurd I yield i • that my answer cuts off Abraham's Isaac 's and Jacob's natural posterity from these promises except they be elect. And as for Mr. M. deprehending me in absurdity and trifling such as I cenceive in Mr. Cottons • words, I tell him that his discourse runs upon a mistake of my words and meaning (which he doth almost in everything he repea • s of m • n • and censu • es out of hast to frame his book as I am willing to conceive.) For where do I say that which he ascribes to me, and from which he would infer like triflin • and absurdity as was in Mr. Cottons speech, that God made this promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to be the God of them and their seed in all generations? And yet if I had said it, such trif • ing as Mr. Cotton used, would not have follow • d on those words ascribed to me, unless I had said also, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were put for every believer and [ • heir seed ] had been meant in • hat proposition ascribed to me, of their spiritual seed by faith. And for the close of that discourse in which he tells me, Thus by your own argument you cut off all the Jews but such as were elect and inwardly holy, as much as you do the Gentiles from having any visible communion in external privileges, I say Mr. M. fathers on me his own brats, first a proposition I deliver not, then an argument which was none of mine as he makes it, and then a conclusion I never owned, nor would follow on that proposition or that argument he would father on me. For if it were granted that I asserted that God promised to Abrahaham, Isaac, and Jacob, to be the God of them and their seed in all generations, and that my reasoning on Mr. Cottons words would prove this proposition must be meant only of the elect, and inwardly holy (as Mr. M. falsely imagines) I do not cut off the Gentiles from having any visible communion in external privileges, unless I had said the elect Jews or Gentiles only had visible communion in external privileges by virtue of that promise, Gen. 17.7. whereas I never said that external privileges, as v. 9. of the initial seal of Circumcision was proper to the elect, and inwardly holy, or derived it from the promise, Gen. 17.7, but only from the command, v. 9.10.
SECT. XXXVIII. Animadversions on the third Chapter of the first part of Mr. T. Cobbe • s Jus •• Vindic. Sect. 1, 2, 3. about Gen. 17. whereby his positions about Church-Covenant and external privileges of the covenant of grace are refelled.
TO how little purpose Mr. M. hath alleged the promise, Gen. 17, 7. hath been considered▪ I shall now view what Mr, Cobbe • Just. Vindic. part 1. • hap. 3. brings for his doctrine of federal holiness of Church-members children from thence. First he begins, Sect. 1. with certain distinctions, The Covenant of grace, saith he, is considered either nakedly or as invested with a visile political Church covenant, if not explicit, yet implicit. We are to consider this place, Gen. 17. not so much in the former as the later sense; God making of it with ference to the Church, which was to remain in the posterity of Isaac, v. 18, 19, 20, 21. albeit at present it be to be contained in Abraham's own family, whence also he ordaineth an initiatory seal, and way of restipulation, to which they submitting together as one selected body collectively, and as members thereof distributively, they did implicitly make confession and promise to God and bind themselves in a nearer religious tie one unto another. Hence then renewed Deut. 29. 2 Chron. 15. & 30. & 34. Nehem. 10. Ezek. 16, 8.
Answer. It had been well if Mr. C. had defined the covenant of grace in this sense, and how it is fe • cht from Gen. 17.7. that I 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 mutual, the covenant of grace is God's 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 favor, that God made any covenant with man in innocence, that he entered 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 shown 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 God's promise of Evangelical saving grace, to wit, regeneration, justification by Christ, &c. according to the doctrine of the Author to the Hebrews, chap. 8, 9, 10, 1 • ▪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 c • vert expressions, which in their first and most obvious sense held forth other things. But I am put to guess 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 political Church-covenant, and conceives the covenant of grace, Gen. 17. to be invested with it either explici. or implicit. The visible poli • 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 Congregational 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 God's Ordinances, and subjection to those that are over them with the members of the congregation to which they adj in themse • ves as members.
Mr. C. supposeth this covenant as elsewhere so here, Gen. 17. to be included, I wi • h many others see no clear ground for such a covenant there or elsewhere. Besides, what he means by the covenant of grace considered as invested with a visible political 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 Bishoprics in former ages, and so it notes a legal 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 joined by a visible political Church-covenant. But I conceive such a position nei • 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 • 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 joined by common profession of the same God, without a promise explicit or implicit of walking toge • her in communion under an eternal polity. God ordained Circumcision as a sign of the Covenant made with Abraham : But in what words or f • ct there's any implied way of rest • pulation, confession, or promise to God, I am yet to seek, much m • re wherein they did bind themselves in a nearer religious • 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 Messi • 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 Abraham's house. As for the other texts, Deut. 29.12, 13, there's mention of entering into covenant with the Lord, not a word of entering 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 entered into an Oath to walk in God's Law : but that they entered 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 Ecclesiastical superiors, of holding communion with them in ordinances for admission to Church-membership, I find not there, but an engagement with them to re • 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 man's promise to God, or to one another, but the promise of God to them, that he sware to Israel, and entered 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 joined by a visible political 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 j • yned by a visible political Church-covenant to the Jewish Church, since he was uncircumcised, and counted unclean, insomuch as that Peters going in to him, A • 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 s • 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 ( • s Dr. Morton calls it) of the Romish • hurch That out of communion with it is no salvation. I do not make such a Church-covenant unlawful, for what we are bound to do, we may lawfully promise to do, nor do I deny its expediency and usefulness, especi • lly if it be not in too strict and entangling a form. But I think there's no suffici • nt proof that it is of Divine institution, or the form of a particular Church ei • her in resp • ct of its true • h or purity, much less that it is a condition of interest in the covenant of grace, as if the promises thereof were m • de under that condition. But I conceive this speech of Mr. C. he • e together wi • h • hat other excepted against m • 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 itself, 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. • 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 administering the promise itself, 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 in • 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 since circumcision is said to be both, circumcision must not only 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. refu • e him when he s • i • h, Everyone that ha • h read Catechetical 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 usu • 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 b • t a branch of the covenant, or condition of the covenant on their part. As for the tex • Jer. 13.11. there's not a word of ci • cumcision in 〈◊〉 , only it is said that God had caused to cleave to him the whole house of Israel, as the girdle cleav • th to the • yns of a man, but to refer this to circumcision is frivolous▪ God had by his Covenant, Providence and actings for them in wonderful ma • er made them to cleave to hi • , That • hey might be unto him for a people, as i • follows in the v • rse. In the other text, Isai. 24 5 it is said the Jews had broken the everlasting covenant ▪ which if it be und • rstood of the covenant of grace, then may it be br • ken, a • d persons may fa • l from grace; if of circumcision, as Mr. C. seems to und • rstand it▪ then it is no more but they had uncircumcised • hemselves, which were both fa • se: for at that time and after, even unto this day, • he Jews keep the ordinance of circumcisioon very strictly, • nd frivol • s as if this h • d been the great ma • ter for which the earth mourned, did fade away, languished, was utterly emptied and spoiled. But • the covenant here is meant of the covenant of • he Law a 〈…〉 ▪ which was everlasting, that is, to continue as long as their p •• i • y stood, Exod 24.7, 8. as Ex • n. 27, 21, & 12.24. & 28.43, 2 Chron. 6.2.2. & 7.16. the word [ forever ] is used for a long time, or the continuance of the Jewish S • ate. So Jer : 11, 3, 4, Jer : 31, 32, they are accused to break the covenant at m • un • Sinai by disobedience, chiefly by idolatry, and therefore neither of the T • x • s yield anything to prove circumcision to be the covenant of grace in the administration of it. That God's breaking of his Covenant, Zach 11.10: hath no reference to the Covenant of grace, either as invested wi •• Church-covenant or Church-administration thereof, is shown 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 o • being in Covenant internally and savingly, and only externally in respect, of men, though I find not Ishmael anywhere 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 shown 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 Abraham's seed, nowhere Proselytes of old (not true believers) in their Generations▪ and (were) visible enchurched believers in their Generations scil. parents & children together are terms Abraham's 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 • f grace, and the same in nature with that Covenant of grace n • w h • ld • orth to us. But Mr. C. hath a further meaning to wit that the Covenant as it is a Covenant of Evangelical grace contains a promise to a Gentile believere of the external privilege of an initial seal or external • ight to outward ordinances to them and their natural seed, and accordingly saith Pag. 41 The Covenant then of the Gospel hath outward privileges of God's Tabernacle annexed as well as Abraham's Covenant, yea in that it's the same with it. Which conclusion in this sense were manifestly false, for the Lord hath of purpose taken away such a Tabernacle according to Christ's prediction John 4.21. that there might be no distinction of Jews and Gentiles all having one access by one Spirit to the Father Eph. 2.18. As for his proofs I intend not to construe every speech of Mr C. there being many of them if they be good sense yet very dark, but only show the impertinency of his Texts to this purpose.
Le • i. 26.11, 1 • . Containes a promise proper to the Israelites obeying God v, as v 13 &c. and shows, and it is a promise of that which is not now to be performed to us or settling his Tabernacle among us, the Tabernacle and Temple being now taken away since Christ's incarnation. God hath settled no Tabernacle now among us but Christ's body or heavens John. 2.21. Heb. 8.2. and 9.24 or the C • urch of God. 1 Cor. 3.6, 17. and 6.19 and his settling this Tabernacle or Temple is by saving grace, hath no reference to ou • w • rd Church privileges, such as Mr. C. means.
Revel. 21.3. is a promise of something to be performed in the last time whether at the calling of the Jews, or after the judgment. whatever it be it notes another thing than external right to outward ordinances common to elect and Reprobate, though it be expressed by a term illusive to the material Tabernacle of the Jews.
Ephes. 2.11, 12. It is said the Gentiles were without God in the world after their Conversion; not because their children wanted an external right to an initial seal, for Cornelius the Centurions children and such Proselytes of the gate wanted such a right, and yet were not without God in the world; but because they knew not the true God, and his will concerning them that believe in Christ, Piscat: Analys: loci, or or worshiped not the true God after, his will as the new Annot. even as Galat. 4.8 the Galatians before their Conversion are said not to have known God, but to do service to them that by nature were not God's.
Exod. 29.45 is a promise to the Israelites whom he brought out of Egypt v. 46. and from whom he had sanctified A • ron and his sons.
Revel. 21.4. as v. 3. is neither m •• nt of ou • ward ordinances, nor of an esta • e which is yet pertaining to the godly who are still under persecutions.
Levite : 26.41, 42, 45. Certain promises of restoring the Israelites from Captivity and bringing them back to Canaan as v. 43, 44. show.
Zech. 9.11. whether meant of temporal deliverance or spiritual it is another thing than outward ordinances, in the former sense it is proper to the Jews carried to Babylon, in the latter to the elect only. The like may be • aid of Gen. 17.5.5.8 Psal. 111.5. Ierem. 33.31, 51. (likely v. 35.36.) 2 Cor. 6.16▪ 18. Exod. 3.6. compared with Levi • 20.37, 38. Heb: • 1.6. In none of wh • ch their's a word of a right of Infants or mere professing parents to the visible administration by virtue of God's Covenant Gen: 17.7. to be Abraham and his seed ; nor doth it follow because God saith my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant Gen : 17.13. therefore ou • ward ordinances and right to them as then are to be perpetual, for then Circumcision of which those wods are spoken must con • inue still, but ra • her as Mr: L • y in his Annot : on Gen: 17.13. The Covenant may be said to be everlasting in respect of the spiritual part for which Circumcision was ordained, and in respect of the long continuance of the outward ceremony.
If Ezek : 37.25, 27. be meant of the Jews calling in the time yet to come, and the same phrases be used, yet that ei • h • r the promise should be meant v: 25. of their children's having • n in •• ial seal, v: 27. their having a material Tabernacle or Temple and outward ordinances as in the former time is but a vain conceit: For then they must by the same reason have David the son of Jesse to be their king. wherefore as by David is meant Christ typified by David, so Circumcision is continued in the mortifying of sins Col. 2 11. and God's placing his Tabernacle is as Piscat: sch. in Ez • h : 37.27. The gracious inhabiting of God in the hearts of the elect 2 Cor: 6.16. And if because in the New Testament such allusive phrases are found as are in the same language with those used in the old, therefore such outward things are imported by them as were in the Law, then outward privileges, offices, rites should be meant by presenting our bodies as Sacrifices, being Priests to God &c. It is in my apprehension a manifest Anti-evangelical and Judaizing assertion which Mr: C. hath, that the Covenant of the Gospel hath outward privileges of God's Tabernacle annexed as well as Abraham's Covenant, yea itn that it is the same with it.
Sect : 3 •• when he saith Conc : 2. that the Covenant of grace Gen : 17. is to be considered as invested with Church Covenant, it is such an ambiguous expression as I know not well how to understand what I imagine to be the meaning I have refuted before in this Section. Nor doth that which is here said, that there is mention of this Covenant to be kept by them v: 9. and further expressed in one particular thereof v: 10. and that this was required as an initiatory sign incorporating them into one instituted Church body, whereby they were made capable of further Church-ordinances and other duties which lay upon them virtually by it, prove the Church-covenant he speaks of, unless it be proved (which I think he cannot do) they did tie themselves thereby to walk with one another in holy Communion with subjection to their Superiors as a distinct visible political Church.
SECT. XXXIX. Animadversions on Sect: 4. of the same Chapter: whereby the Co • ceits of Mr. C about external being in the Covenant of grace are shown to be vain.
Sect: 4 Mr. C. sets down this conclusion, that there is a bare external being in the Covenant of grace of persons who possibly never shall be saved. But he nowhere shown in Scripture either the term Covena • of grace, or the phrase of being in the Covenant of grace externally or in • ernally. Did Mr: C. and other Paedobaptists distinctly set down 1. What th • y mean by [ the Covenant of grace ] 2. What they mean by [ being ex • ernally in the Covenant of grace ] whether it be any o • her thing than to be Baptized or Circumcised, and what it is distinct from one of these or Title to one of them. 3. By what act • t is that a person is externally in the Covenant of grace, whether God's or his own, or others as v. 9. The administra • ors, parents, or the Churches, we might more easily judge of his position. If he mean no more than this, that there is a being in the Covenant of grace in respect of men, that is, men as administrators and others do think or judge some to be in the Covenant of grace, that is, that God hath promised saving grace to some to whom he hath not, I grant it, and I might say in the like manner, some are excernally elected, regenerated, justified, adopted who are not so savingly. And I should grant that such as are taken to be in the Covenant of grace by reason of th • ir own profession of faith in Christ are rightly judged by us to be in the Covenant of grace and may be baptized, though perhaps they shall not be saved. But such as are taken by us to be in the Covenant of grace without God's promise or act of their own Profession of faith, by an administrators of baptism and others mistake. Concerning the promise Gen : 17. As if it were made to every believing Gentile by profession enchurched, and his natural seed as Abraham's Church seed (as Mr. C. calls them) are not therefore rightly judged to be in the Covenant of grace, nor rightly judged to be fit subjects of baptism which appears to be Mr: C's. meaning by his words Pag. 51. when he saith, the Covenant is theirs externally and quoad homines considered as invested with Church Covenant, and in reference to Covenant-ordinances whereof they are capable as of old they were of Circumcision and are now of baptism. Let us consider what Mr. C. brings to this purpose.
what he saith the promise is said to belong to those Jews Rom: 9.4. on whom yet the word took no saving effect v: 6. is not right. For v: 4. is not meant by [ the promises ] he promise by excellency called the promise of the spirit Gal : 3.14. given to Abraham v: 17. distinct from the Law v: 18. But the peculiar promises which are made to the Israelites upon the obeying of the Law that they should possess Canaan, live long in it, and prosperously as Deut, 5.16. and 28.3, &c. For all that which is said Rom: 9.4. is meant of what was proper co the Israelites after the flesh. But the Covenant of grace is established or made a Law on better promises Heb : 8.6. And the phrase Rom : 9.6. [ not as if the woe • d of God had taken none effect, which is word by word, not as if or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it may not be, that is : it is not possible, or it may not be yielded that the word of God fell or was not verified] is meant not of the promises, v: 4, but of the promises mentioned v: 8. to wit that Gen : 17.7. Which he doth not say did belong to any exte • nally on whom it had no saving effect: but supp • se it to have been verified and made good to all to whom it was made, who in Go • s intention were only the elect, ca • led therefore Children of the promise v: • that is those that were bego • t • n by the promise, not to every child of Abraham by natural generation, in particular not to Ishmael, nor Esau. Nor is it right which he adds, Hence Rom : 9.4. By opposition to the Gentiles, hey (the Jews meant v: 4.) where those which were not strangers to the Church, but of it, if he mean it of the Christian Church.
I grant the Jews were not strangers to the covenants of promise, but in the same, Eph. 2: 11, 12. But that all the Gentile believers and their children were then that which they were not before, is not a • ight collection. For as they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , uncircumcised in the flesh, so th • y were still; nor were they ever of the polity of Israel. And if the Covenants of promise be meant of the Tables of the covenants, and if the word [ promise ] be placed thus (as some place it) not having hope of the promise, they might be still said to be strangers from the Covenants. However, if then they were acquainted with, and partakers of the Covenants of promise, this can be understood of none but true believers and the covenant as it was spiritual, which is nothing to the being externally in the covenant of graces.
Mr. C. adds, Hence God makes his covenant with them all, Deut. 29:10, 12, 13, 14, 15. speaking there of that solemn renewal of the covenant of grace, as Deut. 30:6, 10, 12, 13▪ 14. compared with Rom. 10, 6, 7, 8. evinceth.
Answer. The more ample discussing this place, and vindicating my Exceptions from what Mr. B. replies, I reserve till I answer his Plain Scripture proof, &c. part 1. c. 17 and his Corrective, Sect. 5. For present I say, If God did make his covenant with them all, and it appears to have been the covenant of grace, as Deut : 30.6, 10, 12, 13, 14. compared with Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. evinceth, then all must be not only externally in the covenant of grace, but also internally: For the promise Deut. 30.6. is to circumcise the heart to love the Lord, cannot be expounded of the external being in the covenant of grace, but internal. Mr B. in his Friendly Accommodation, A new heart is given to the elect only, which is all one with the circumcised heart.
Answer. The thing that Mr. C. should prove is an external being in the covenant of grace quoad homines. But Ezek. 16.8. neither speaks of the covenant of grace, but the covenant of the Law, which was made in mount Sinai Junius the new Annot: refer to Exod. 19. & 24. Piscat. Schol. in locum, visitari te per Mosen, educendo te ex Aegypto, & pangendo tecum fedus, atque ita ducendo te in uxorem : Nor is this meant of external being in covenant in respect of men, but of God's promise to them, as the words plainly import,, I sware unto thee and entered into covenant with thee, saith the Lord. As for the reason why the covenant v. 8 must be the covenant of grace, because he will deal graciously with them for that his covenant, v. 60. it goes on this supposition, that the covenant v. 8, is the same with the covenant v. 60. But Piscat. Schol. on the place reckons that v. 60, to be the covenant made in the times of Araham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Levite. 26.42, leads to it. But were it granted to be the covenant by Moses, it follows not that the covenant must be the covenant of Evangelical grace. For in Moses his renewing the covenant in the land of Moab, there's a promise of reduction of them, Deut. 30.3. which being upon condition of their returning to God, and obeying his voice according to all that Moses commanded that day, must be understood of the Covenant of the Law, which had its promises of such temporal favors, and not of the covenant of Evangelical grace. That which Mr. C. saith, That he did not thus properly, for the sake of that investure of his covenant annexed, scil. this covenant, the Churches covenant abstractively considered, v. 61. I know not what sense to make of it. There's not a word of Church-covenant, or investure with it. The plain meaning is either this, Not by that covenant of the Law which thou hast broken, but by the new covenant of the Gospel, as Junius in his Annot. in locum, Diodati, the new Annot. or this as Piscat. Schol. in locum, not because thou art worthy of this aggregation of the nations, as if thou hadst kept covenant with me, as if he had said, but of my grace or free favor, or as Grotius▪ It is a Metonymy as if it were said, not because on thy part thou hast stood to the covenant.
I have seen Ezek 36. from v. 17. to the chapters end, and I see nothing there to Mr C. his purpose to prove a bare external being in the covenant of grace▪ There's not the word Covenant in all the passage: But on the contrary, there are promises, v. 25, 26, 27. of a new heart giving his Spirit, which as Mr. B. saith truly, is proper to the elect, and notes an internal being in the covenant of grace. There's little but muddiness and impertinency in the rest.
He speaks of an external being in Christ, John 15.2. (which is not denied in respect of profession of those that are so) and of an external partaking of Christ, for which it's likely he cites (not as it is printed, Heb. 13.14.) but Heb. 3.14. But sure that partaking is a saving partaking to which is required the holding fast to the end the beginning of our confidence. For an external partaking may be without condition.
The Jewish refusers, Ios. 1.11. are called Christ's own, either by kindred or right to them from the old engagements of them to be his by their Ancestors, or by virtue of this redeeming them from Egypt, the land of the North, or some other way. Surely not because they did externally belong to Christ, or were externally in the covenant of grace & were to be baptized. For they expressly denied Christ, and rejected the counsel of God against themselves being not baptized by John, Luke 7:30.
I grant there is an external being called, Matth: 22.14, but this not competent to infants: I doubt whether Heb : 10, 29, be to be interpreted of an external being sanctified quoad homines in respect of others by the blo • d of the Covenant. The New Annot : say thus, In regard of the meritorious sufficient satisfaction purchased by it. Piscat: Schol. in locum per quem vide batur esse sanctificatus quamdiu, scil. Christum confitebatur. Dictum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I think it is meant of the same sanctification of which he speaks in the same chapter, v. 10.14. ch. 13, 12, to wit, an effectual sanctification by remission of sins, and purging their consciences from dead works, chap: 9, 14, (which alone, and not an external sanctificacion I find ascribed to the blood of the Covenant) and the person there said to be sanctified with this sanctification not in reality but according to his profession and opinion of himself, as Luke 15.7. some are said to be just persons that need no repentance, that is, according to their own profession and opinion.
The purging from sin, 2 Pet. 1.9. was external I grant, not inward in the heart, yet it was not a mere purging by the outward ordinance of baptism, but their own profession, and partial reformation of themselves not competent to infants.
2 Pet : 2. • It's doubt • full whether it note an external being purchased by Christ, or a purchase by Christ only sufficient, or an effectual purchase, yet said of them only according to what they professed and conceived of themselves, as Luke 15, 7, Heb: 10, 29, or others conceived of them.
That Deut: 33, 3, should be meant of an external Saintship, is supposed, not proved, though it it were applied to the body of Israel, yet it might be understood in respect of the better part, that the people were called God's Saints.
Psa : 50, 5, The Saints of God, and those that had made a covenant with him by Sacrifice were Israel. verse 7, & it is true there were many hypocrites; but as the new Annot: God in respect of his elect calleth the whole body Holy, Saints, and his people, not merely from an external Saintship. To which I add, if it be referred to the covenant, Exod: 24.8. to which Mr Ainsworth in his Note on the place directs▪ it was the covenant of the law, not the covenant of grace which is meant, Psal: 50, 5,
It is true, There are invisible Churches, which are as Isaac was, Children of the Promise, Gal: 4, 28, Children of the Gospel-church, v. 31, & 26. But that this should be verified in all the members of the Galatian Churches, unto whom Paul wrote that Episte, Gal : 1, 2, is not true, nor is it proved by Mr C, that the Apos •• e spake what he saith, v▪ 28, 31, of every member of the Churches of Galatia. It is true that Jerusalem above is the mother of us all : but that [ us all] should signify every profession of the faith in the Churches of Galatia, is false: for then everyone of them should be born after the spirit, v: 29. and inherit, v. 3 • . The new Annot : on Gal : 4.24.6. therefore say, The Christian Church is the mother of all the faithful who are heirs of the kingdom of Heaven whether they be I • wes or Gentiles. So that to be mother of us all, Gal. 4.26. is not to be mother of every professed Christian in Galatia, but of so many as held the right faith with Paul, and were born after the Spirit. Thus in like manner Rom: 8, 3, 21 when it is said, who spared not his own Son, but gave him up for us all, it is not meant of every professor of Faith in Rome, but all the elect and true believers, as that which follows in the same verse and verse 33 shows: So that we need not assert ei • her that every professor of faith in the Galatian Churches was a child of the Jerusalem above effectually and savingly, or that there were some particular visible Churches in which were no hypocrites (which yet may be true notwithstanding the Parables Matth : 13 and 25. or 1 Tim: 3, 15. compared with 2 Tim: 2, 20) o • that such as are savingly interested in the Covenant of grace, should fall from grace, or that all were externally and 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 only.
Antipaedobaptists do grant they admit false brethren to baptism and the Lord's 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 God's peculiar. We admit them to baptism on this ground, not because to us they are in covenant (we suspend any judgment 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 Lord's 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 shown in the fore part of this Review, Sect 5▪ and in this part, Sect 5 8, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 37, and elsewhere, 1 Cor. 11, 25▪ the cup in the Lord's Supper is called the New Testament in Christ's blood ; but that all, or only those who are in the covenant of grace must have the the cup, is not proved thence, and the falsehood of it is shown 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 inquire 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 Evangelical grace in the N. T. confirmed by Christ's 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 shown Ex • men part 3. Sect. 4. and elsewhere 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 Tertulli • n in his book de Anima, chap. 21, 22, when he urgeth that Tex • , 1 Cor : 7▪ 14, for a peculiar cleanness of believers children by privilege of seed, means not the federal 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 ded • cated to the Devil, as I show in my Apology, Sect 16, page 85. Pareus, Peter Martyr, Bucer, Melancthon, Mr. Philpot, are all Neotericks. Cyprian, Gregory, Nazianzen, Jerome, Austin, though they did plead for Paedobaptism from the Argument of Circumcision, yet did not m • in • 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, 1 • , 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 entering into the kingdom of heaven, as I show 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 external administration thereof amongst them, as verse 9, and their external 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 Laws in their heart, forgive their sins, &c. as I • romised them, Jer. 31.33. and then God should break his promise, the • e should be falling from the covenant of grace, &c. If the sense be of the covenant of grace in respect of external administration thereof amongst them, and their external right in that his covenan • , 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 people's right to them. (For what is the external 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 God's 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 Christ's coming, this had not been a prediction of an evil to them, but of a benefit to be eased of that yoke, verse 9, mentions not external administration of the covenant of grace, or external 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. • 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 Lord's or some other.
Psal. 44.17. Dan. 11.30, 31, 32, 33. to deal falsely in God's 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 falsely in God's Covenant is no more than not to keep God's 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 external right and administrations, therefore saving grace is not the effect of that Covenant.
And indeed the outward Covenant is but a mere 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. dreams; 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 show it took effect only in the elect, who are therefore call • 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 shown 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 will 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 interest 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 interest 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 Covenan • 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 w • y of entering 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 God's children by special right as his servants Levite. 25.55. because he redeemed them out of Egypt, and he had entered 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 Devils▪) 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 Church of Ephesus Acts 20.30. are said to be purchased by the blood of Christ. It was judged an abuse in Stapleton by Dr. Reynold, Apol. Thess. Sect: 20. to interpret the flock of God redeemed by his blood, of any reprobates. Of 2 Pet. 2.1. I have spoken before.
An external being in the covenant of grace, quoad homines, by the parties profession, I never denied, but an external being in the covenant of grace of believers infants by virtue of the parents faith in the New Testament, I still deny.
Answer. The position I intended to prove by the Dilemma, was set down page 48. That the Covenant of saving grace in Christ expressed Gen 17 7. in these words, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, is not made to a believer and his na • urall seed, to which Mr C. his answer is, by telling me▪ The covenant is theirs externally &c. which is to answer nothing to the Argument which proceeded against the asserting God's Covenant, Gen. 17.7. as a promise of saving grace to belong to a believers natural seed. Nor doth he prove, but dictate that Gen. 17.7.
These Dictates are hatched in Mr. C. his nest, but have nothing in the Text for them, nor doth he attempt to prove them in that chapter which is termed, The Explication of Gen. 17.7, &c. In like manner he dictates in that which follows.
I had said, if the covenant of grace to believers seed be absolute, then either God keeps it or not: • f he do not keep it, then he breaks his word, which is blasphemy; if he do keep it, then it follows, that all the posterity of believers are saved, contrary to Rom. 9.13. Or if some are not saved though they be in the covenant of grace, there may be Apostasy of persons in the covenant of grace.
Whereto I reply, The promise is to Abraham's seed, Gen. 17. • . But that the promise is to be a God to any Gentile believers natural indefinite collective seed in respect of the internal saving interest, as such, is not true. The promise is not made indefinitely but definitely to Ahrahams seed, under whom none but believers of the Gentiles, or elect persons are meant, nor is it made specifically to a sort of men, but to such and such numerical persons as were Abraham's seed by nature or grace: Nor is it made collectively to any of them as part of the whole number of Gentile-believers natural seed, but as Abraham's seed by grace, and if any of them be elect, it is made also to Gentile unbelievers natural seed under the same consideration. It is true, some of the believing Gentiles seed dying infants are saved; nor can we say that none of the unbelievers infants, dying in infancy, are saved, notwithstanding the Arguments brought to prove their perishing. But none of them are saved by virtue of a promise made to that sort of persons, that is, believers natural children (for there is no such promise) but by virtue of God's election, conformable to which is the promise of saving grace, Gen. 17.7. as the Apostle expressly determines, Rom. 9.6, 7.8, and consequently as election is of individual persons (not of a collective indefinite specifical seed as Mr. C. speaks) so is the covenant. M. C. goes on thus.
Supposing they are the Israel of God, a part of the elect seed, yet the means of saving effect in and upon them, is the word of the Covenant, Rom. 9.6. It's through the effectual word and engaged truth of God that that part of the Church are savingly purged, Eph. 5.25, 26.
Answ. I grant this to be true, yet conceive that Eph. 5.25, 26. speaks of the word of promise, not barely as made, but also as accomplished in Christ's performance, and published by preaching, whereupon baptism follows, by both which Christ sanctifies and purgeth his Church savingly by the one as the means, by the other as the sign.
He adds, The covenant is to the individual seed of all and each of them in respect of external interest, and yet many of them not saved.
Answer. This is an exposition which is without proof, or example of the like, 1. That where God saith, I will be a God to Abraham's seed, he means other believers, even Gentiles natural seed. 2 That he means this in respect of external interest only to some. 3. That some of those to whom he promiseth to be a God according to the covenant of grace in Christ, may not be saved. 4 That by Abraham's seed he meaneth in respect of saving effects, the indefinite collective seed of Gent • le-believers, so as that it is only made good to that sort of persons (which were true if none but Isaac and Jacob were saved; For if the promise of salvation be only to the sort of persons, it is made good in one or two of believers seed) but in respect of external interest to the individual seed all and each of them, yea though the parents be but hypocrites, and not savingly in the covenant of grace themselves. He goes on.
Nor yet is God's faithfulness impeached or impaired, nor need the faith of believers be shaken, if this or that child should prove, live and die wicked, the force of the covenant is not to be measured by the fatal miscarriage of many of Abraham's Church-seed.
Answer. Neither is God's faithfulness impeached, nor need the faith of believers be shaken, though all their chidren die wicked. It is not true, That the Apostles reasoning, Rom. 9.4, 6. compared mentions any such Church-seed of Abraham, or takes them in as such, but only the elect. Mr C. doth falsely charge his adversaries doctrine, as denying any interest at all to any believers infants in the covenant. I have often granted it to the elect, but to none as believers infants. Mr Baillee charged me with this thing, to which I answered in my Letter to him, Sect. 1. our doctrine is as comfortable as theirs when they speak truth. It is no Gospel but a dream to affirm what Mr. C. doth of Abraham's fancied Church-seed, though it be Gospel to say, God will be a God to Abraham's spiritual seed elect and true believers.
SECT. XL. Animadversions on Sect. 5. of the same Chapter, showing that Mr. C. his supposed visible interest in God's covenant is not the rule in baptizing.
SEct. 5, Mr. C. sets down this conclusion, That the Church in dispensing an enjoined initiatory seal of the covenant of grace, looketh unto visibility of interest in the covenant, to guide her in the application thereof. Nor is the saving interest of persons in view, which is her rule by which she is therein to proceed.
Concerning which I say, that I grant it if the terms be altered into plainer expressions as thus: The baptizer in the admitting a person to baptism, is not bound to stay baptism till he know a person hath saving interest in God's covenant of grace; but it is sufficient, if he be a visible disciple or believer to admit him to baptism. And that M. C. may cease his wonder, he who confessed that it's not to be denied that God would hav • infants of believers in some sense to be counted his, to belong to his Church and Family, & not to the Devils as true in facie Ecclesiae visibles, &c. doth not oppose his fourth Conclusion reduced to the plain terms I have set it down 〈◊〉 . Yet there are sundry things in which I oppose him. 1. That he makes it the Churches business to dispense the initiatory seal (as he calls it) of the covenant of grace, which I • ache to belong to him that is sent or used to make disciples by preaching the Gospel, not to the Church.
2. That he maketh the rule of baptizing to be visible interest in the covenant, which according to the institution is visible discipleship, or faith.
3. That he takes that person to have visible interest in the covenant of grace, so as to have right thereby to baptism, who neither by extraordinary revelation from God, nor by any act of his own, but barely by his parents profession hath a pretended visible interest in the covenant. But let's examine what he saith, because he seems to be the selected man in New England to plead for Infant-baptism.
Whether John the Baptist did admit to baptism those which he knew would prove false and frothy, is doubtful. Mr Norton Mr Cs. Colleague. Resp. ad▪ Appollon. c. Prop▪ 1. seems to hold the negative, and cites to that purpose, Paraus and Aretius. I agree with Mr. C. in his position, That person • may be bapti • ed upon visible profession without knowledge of the saving state of the party, yet I do not think Ananias and Sapphira, or Simon Magus were known hypo •• ites when • hey were b • ptized, nor do I think the Texts Mr C. allegeth, Acts 21.20, &c, or 22, 20, &c. or 23, 12, 13, prove, that any of those baptized, Acts 2.41, or 4.1, 2.3; 4. were of the number of them that opposed Paul, or proved false. If Christ did say to Judas that his body was broken or given f • r him, and his blood shed, it will be hard to avoid thence the proof of universal redemption. I think it the safest and most likely tenent that Judas went out afore the Lord's Supper. For the Passover it was not administered to Judas by Christ, nor do I know what warrant we have to make it a seal of the covenant, or to belong to a Minister of the seals, as they speak. It was a rite instituted to remember the delivery out of Egypt, ond appointed to be used by each family without any other administration than the providing, slaying, dressing and bringing to the Table: If the Prist did anything in it, it was at the Temple not at the Table, each person was to take himself according to his eating, Abraeham and Isaac did circumcise Ishmael & Esau rightly according to God's command, which is the rule in administering ordinances, not covenant-in • erest. But that they did circumcise as Prophets or Priests at that time, to the Church in their families, it is said without proof. The business of circumcising was not the work of a person as a Prophet or Priest to his family, but did belong to the parent or some other in his stead, though no Prophet nor Priest. Chamier Paustr. cath. tom. 4 l 5 c. 14. sect 9, 10, saith, We read of no certain Minister of Circumcision either in the institution or elsewhere, so that there's no obstacle but that Zipporah, and the woman in the second of Maccabees, c. 6. might circumcise. So there is nothing read by which the immolation of the Paschal Lamb was wont to be done in each family, is prohibited, though no Priests were used. Ishmael and Esau, and Judas, were not visibly interested in the covenant ; being discovered by God and Christ to be such as had no interest in it. That a Minister cannot of himself admit to baptism, or reject from it regularly, but by and with the Churches consent, is dictated without proof. I grant that if particular persons saving interest in God's covenant and promise of grace, were the Rule to baptize by, administrators could not observe the rule in faith, but doubtingly. But that such visible interest in the Covenant as Mr C. means, is therefore the rule to baptize by, follows not. What or where A. R. suggests to the contrary I find not, nor doth Mr C. tell us. What he adds, I say visibility of the parties interest in the covenant, I say not mere visibility of faith and repentance, is quite besides the Scripture, which never appoints persons to be baptized because of their visible interest in the covenant, but their visible faith and repentance.
He tells us,
Answ. The inititory seal is a late devised term not found in Scripture and it is used upon an erroneous conceit as if the nature of Sacraments were to be seals of the Covenant, and baptism were the initiatory seal. But the term [ initiatory seal ] is chosen rather than the word [ baptism ] (though it be the Scripture term) by Mr. C. and others, that they may shuffle what they say in and out under the term of ininitiatory seal, sometimes understanding by it Circumcision sometimes baptism as if they were the same and what is said of the one were meant of the other, which is mere fallacious arguing. But setting aside Mr. C's lately devised term, the end of Christian baptism is in the first place, that thereby the party baptize • d may testify his repentance, faith and hope in Christ, love to the people of God, and resolution to follow Christ to the death. And this is proved in my Exercit: in the twelfth reason of my doubting about Pedobaptism pag. 33. in the 2 part of this Review Sect. 5. from these Scriptures Rom. 6.3▪ 4.5. 1 Cor. 12.13. Gal. 3.26, 27. Ephe. 4.5. Col. 2 12. 1 Pet. 3.20. where the phrase of the answer of a good conscience, as Beza rightly observes in his Annot. on that place, alludes to the manner of the primitive baptizing after the answer to the questions propounded concerning the parties repentance, faith and obedience: which were held so necessary to baptism in the first ages of the Christian Church that none was baptized without it; yea and when infant baptism came up even till our days, and in some places according to the Common prayer Book even to the infants the same questions are propounded, yea the Lutherans confess that without faith in infants it is in vain to baptize them. The continuance of which questions, as Lud: Vives Comment: in Augustine: de civit: Dei l. 1. c. 27. rightly saith, proves the original use of baptism to be of those only that could answer those questions. In respect of which Basil and others call baptism the seal of faith, Tertullian of repen • ance, the sealing of faith, Chamier: Paustr: Cath. tom. 4. l. 2. c. 8. cites the treatise of the spirit under the name of Bazil ch. 12. saying, Confession goes before bringing to salvation, baptism follows sealing our consent. whence he infers thus manifestly salvation is ascribed to confession, but baptism is the seal of confession. No where that ever I could find among the Ancients is baptism termed the seal of the Covenant. Bucer on Acts. 2.38. To be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ▪ is by the sign of baptism to testify that were the believers in Christ for remission of sins. Grot: Annot : on Mark. 16.16. [ And is baptized] he that believeth, and by baptism maketh profession of his faith. So that the profession of faith by it is the primary end and use of baptism nor is there any place of Scripture that I know which doth make the end of baptism to be the sealing of God's Covenant to us▪ And here by the way it is to be noted what shifting is used in this matter by Pedobaptist. They say the seal follows the Covenant and the parties interest in it, and this Covenant they make the righteousness of faith as Mr. C. here, but when they are pressed that then in vain are infants non-elect and non-believers baptized, who are not in that Covenant, they fly to an imaginary external Covenant, and visible interest in that as sealed by it, and there by a right to be baptized; which yet by their own confession is not the Covenant of grace, nor by sealing that interest is the Covenant of grace sealed, for that is God's Covenant of righteousness by faith, not the baptized persons Covenant, or his right. As for Mr. C's. observations here they are false and slighty. For neither is it true that it is hence (because baptism is not primarily the seal of man's faith and repentance, but of God's Covenant rather) Abraham's circumcision was called a seal of the righteousness of faith : but the contrary rather is true. For if it were a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised, it sealed rather his own faith, and the righteousness by it already obtained, than God's covenant to him of something to come. And if circumcision be called God's Covenant, yet it follows not that baptism is rather a seal of God's covenant, than of man's faith and repentance. That which he saith of Acts. 2.38.39. is as vain: For the promise is not alleged there as sealed in baptism, or giving any right to baptism, but merely as a motive to them to repent and to be baptized in the sense I give Antipaedobapt. part. 1. Sect. 5. In this part of the Review Sect. 5.8.21, 22, 23▪ wherein Mr· C's frivolous interpretation is examined. And though the Apostle do not bid them be baptized because they had repented, yet he bids them first to repent and then be baptized.
Infants have no visible title to baptism because they make no visible personal profession. Parental faith in the Covenant made to them and their children is but a delusion. What ever may be said of the texts Deuteronomy. 26.17. Deuteronomy. 29.10, 11, 12. &c. Concerning taking it of children (of which in the examining of Mr. B's remainder) there is no visibility of infants Church-membership in the Christian churches mentioned in Scripture. I know not how the believing God's testimony is the assent of charity. I still say there is no judgment of charity concerning infants who do nothing which may be interpreted to the better or the worse. Mr. C. if he had recited my words fully in my Examen Pag. 41. might have found my words to yield him no help for his fourth Conclusion. I pass on to the fifth.
SECT. XLI. Sect. 41. Animadversions on the sixth sect. of the same ch: showing that Christ is not head of any unsound members, no • parents profession of faith unites children to Christ so as to entitle them to baptism.
SEct. sixthly he sets down this conclusion, That Christ is in Scripture considered as head of the visible Church in which are many members of Christ the • ead in that respect, which prove unsound, as well as in other respects he is considered as head of the visible Church, wherein are none but elect ones.
Concerning which I say, that part of the invisible Church which is on earth professing faith, being both visible and invisible, visible in respect of their profession, invisible in respect of their sincere believing▪ • t must needs follow that Christ is head of the visible, being head of the invisible Church in respect of those persons which are of both. And I grant that Christ's headship being a Metaphor and nothing, sundry things as Superiority, Goverment, direction, union, participation • of the same life, sense, motion &c. In respect of some of these Christ may be said to be head of that part which is only visible, as in giving them officers, outward order, direction, help against persecutors &c. But that in Scripture Christ is made head to any unsound members I find not. Mr. C. urgeth Gal. 3.16. that to Abraham and his seed were the promises made; that is to Christ, yet not to Christ personally, for the promise of pardon of sin did not belong to him, and to Christ personal were not the promises made, but in him confirmed, Gal. 3.7. with 16. But rather of Christ collectively head and members, Gentiles and Jews, v. 14.28. as Gen. 3.15. The seed of Eve is Christ, with his members in and with him.
Answer. I stick not to grant Gal. 3.16, by [ Christ ] to be meant not only Christ personally considered, but also collectively, as Beza, • iseator, & others conceive; yet I do not think the Arguments brought by them so cogent for that sense, but that it may be understood of Christ personal as a common person receiving promises for all his members. For the scope of the Apostle to prove Gen • iles and Jews to have one manner of justification, is obtained by understanding the promises made to his person as a common person in behalf of all as well as to them as in him, and eternal life is promised to all the members of Christ if it be promised to Christ as a common person standing in their stead as the second Adam. As for Mr C. his reasons, the former is against his own opinion. For if by Christ be meant Christ collectively, that is, Christ and his Church, then the promises be made to Christ's person with his Church; for what is Christ collectively but Christ's person with his Church. And if the pardon of sin be a promise, then it must be made known to Christ's person included in Christ collective: Therefore either it must be said, that the promises were made to Christ collective respectively, to wit, some to his person, as that he would uphold him, raise him from the dead, give him glory, others to his Church, to pardon their sins, renew their nature, &c. or that Christ's person had the promise of pardon of sin made to himself as a common person, but not for himself as needing it, but for his Church or in their stead, as 2 Cor. 5.21. The promises might be said to be given to Christ's person as a common person, Gal. 3.16 and yet confirmed in Christ as a surety of them, v 17. yet in this place the term [ Head ] is not used, and therefore not apposite to Mr. C. his purpose.
But Mr C. propounds a question,
Answer. Mr. C. a little before said, The promise Gal • 3.16, could not be made to Christ's person, because the promise of the pardon of sin is not made to Christ personal, which goes upon this supposition, that the pardon of sin is promised to the seed, Gal. 3.16. But sure this promise is made only to the elect, not to all Galatian visible Church-members: Yea the very scope and coherence of what goes before and after, show that the promises v. 16. were of the spirit, v. 1 • . of the inheritance, v. 18. of life, v. 21. which are proper to the elect. And therefore to apply the speech, Gal. 3.16. to the unfound members of the visible Church, showeth mere oscitancy. Nor is it necessary that because it is said, Gal. 3.28. Ye are all one in Christ Jesus, that this must be understood of every Galatian Church-member, but of all those of whom he had said, v. 26. That they were all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus. And after, v. 29. that they were heirs according to the promise, which is true only of the elect of them. And for what he adds, Secondly in that he speaks of them all as sacramentally one with Christ in baptism, Gal. 3.27, 28. compared, so 1 Cor. 12, 13, as if because he saith, they were all baptized, he meant it of all that are baptized, it is refuted from the very words [ by one spirit made to drink into one spirit, put on Christ ] which, if there were no more, do show that these speeches though indefinite, yet pro subjecta materia, must be limited to those visible baptized persons, who were sincere believers, and united to Christ by his Spirit, and so those words, Ephes. 1.23 & 4.6. Col. 3.11. and many more are to be understood. And to the other reasons, That Christ hath headlike influences into the Officers and Members, many whereof are not savingly joined to him, and that it is the Church wherein he hath set diversity of Officers, which is the visible Church, not the invisible.
I answer, Christ as a Superior, and in some other respects, may have headlike influences of command, governing, &c. on some not savingly joined to him, but not the influence of union by his Spirit, which is that which makes any members of Christ, of his flesh and of his bones, Ephes. 4.4. & 5.30. Nor is it true, that Christ doth not set Officers in the invisible Church, though it be true that he sets no Officers in the Church that is only invisible, but indeed he sets Officers in the Church invisible, and chiefly to and for them, while they are visible. And therefore the Apostle, 2 Tim. 2.10. said, He endured all things for the elects sake. Hence, saith Mr. C. Profession of Faith unites a man to Christ as head of the visible Church without sincerity. But the Scripture saith not so, that any is united to Christ as head without the inhabitation of the Spirit. Mr. C. adds.
Answer. Mr. C. tells us, Hence, &c. and this is the consectary he would infer from his fifth Conclusion, and minding discourse about it: But how from anything said before [ That Christ is the head of the visible Church, that visible Professors, though not sincere, are united to Christ as visible head ] this follows, That Parents profession unites the child to Christ, so as to give him right to baptism, is a riddle to me. If it were formed into an Argument thus, If the visible professors confession of faith unites him to Christ as visible head, Then it unites the child so far as to give him right to baptism: But the visible professors, &c. Ergo. I should deny the consequence of the Major, and expect it to be proved ad Graecas Calendas, nor is there any proof in that which follows: For were it granted that the parents act were the child's act, yet it follows not that it is the child's act to give a right or title to baptism without an institution. None of the texts produced, no nor any other do show, that the parents act of professing faith, did entitle the child to circumcision, much less to baptism. Cornelius his child was not entitled to circumcision, though he and his house feared God, was a devout man, gave much alms to the poor, and prayed to God always, Acts. 10.2. Even in circumcisi on the use of it had its rule only from the command, as I have often poved. Not one of Mr. C. his Texts mentions the parents acts as entitling the child to fellowship of the church, but obliging to duty, Deut. 16.16, 17, theres an injunction, That all the Males should thrice a year appear before God ; but this was enjoined not to parents only, but also to children married or unmarried.
And if it prove anything like what Mr. C. would, it proves rather the males act to stand for the females, than the parents for the children. More likely in this the younger males did appear instead of the aged weak, & so the child's act went for the parents. However here's nothing of the parents act giving right to initiation into fellowship of the Church, there was nothing required to that in the national Church of Israel but their descent. Deut. 26.17, 18. there's no mention of a parents act for his child intitling him to solemn initiation into fellowship of the Church. What is said [ Thou hast avouched this day the Lord to be thy God ] is not said to be done by the parents for the children, nor to be done to entitle them to solemn initiation into the fellowship of the Church. Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. whose act soever is mentioned whether of the parents, or Captains, Elders, Officers, or men of Israel. It was an act done in behalf of the nation both those born already and those to be born after, not to entitle them to initiation into fellowship of the Church, but to bind them the more firmly to their duty, and therefore none of these instances are to the point of parents acts in the face of the visible Church taken as the Children's acts for solemn initiation in Church fellowship. Yet if they had, that this had been enough for baptism and Church-membership in the Christian Gentile Churches will not be proved, till the rule about Circumcision, and the constitution of the Jewish Church be a rule to us about baptism, and the Church-membership of the Christian Church, which neither agrees with Christ's or his Apostles appointment or the practice in the N. T. nor with the new english principles of Church constitution & Goverment, but Judiazing notions opposi • e to the Gospel. What he saith the parents omission to circumcise his child is counted the child's act of breaking God's Conant Gen. 17.14. depends on this that the parents omission of circumcision is the child's act of breaking Covenant. but many Protestant Divines and others understand it of persons of years as Piscat. Schol. in locum. Diodati, new Annot. Grotius &c. And though Chamier counted it to be understood of the Infant Tom 4 Paustrat: Cath. l. 3. c. 2. Sect. 20. &c. Yet he expounds the verse passively thus, the male, the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people: my Covenant is broken. Either way expounded it is inpertinent to Mr. Cs. purpose. they that expound it (as Ibn Ezrae, apud Christoph. Cartwright on the place) of the parent understand both the fault and the punishment to be his. It is true John. 4.50, 51. Matth. 15.22, to 29. Mark. 9.12, to 18. parents believing is accepted for the cure of children, and so Mark. 2.5. the faith of the bringers of the palsy man was accepted, but this doth not prove a title to baptism by the parents confession anymore than by the Midwives or Gossips bringing to the Fo •• ▪ nor was it the confession of faith, but reality; though not known to men, which Christ lookd on, so that if this be a good reason▪ the Fathers praying in Secret though not in the face of the visible Church should give Title to Baptism.
After many dictates without proof he tells us,
Answer. Though this reasoning contain nothing but dictates unproved, and incoherent, yet since it carries some show of an Argument à comparatis, I shall say somewhat to it. 1. There's not aword in the texts alleged, that shows what Mr C. here asserts, that the covenant laid hold upon by the lively faith of gracious parents as made with respect to their children, hath mighty force to effect very gracious things in the elect seed : Nor is there a word in those Texts to prove such a covnnant made to any gracious parent concerning his natural children. It is true, Rom. 9.6 it is said, the word took effect ; and this I deny not to be the word of promise to Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. But then it is expressly said, v. 7, 8. that this seed of Abraham is not his children by natural generation, but the special choice seed whether they were his seed according to nature, or engraffed: there's not a word of the efficacy of this covenant by the lively faith of the parents, but by virtue of God's election, v. 11. The Text, Ephes. 5.26. seems to me to contain not only the word of promise, as sanctifying or purifying the Church, but also the word of narration contained in the Gospel, as Luke 1.2 Acts 8.4. & 10.36.44. Joh. 17.8.17. Rom. 10.8. preached and believed, not by the parents but the parties purified, Acts 15.9. who as they hear the word and believe, so are baptized upon their believing. It is true that the Jews hereafter to be engraffed again, are said, according to the election to be beloved for the Fathers, Rom. 11.28. But this is meant of the Jews only, and it is not at all meant of the immediate parents of those Jews reingraffed (for they doubtless will be Infidels) but of the ancient Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, out of the remembrance of their following God, and God's covenant to them, which were both singular, and therefore cannot be verrified of every believers natural children as it is there meant and shall be verified of them. 2. There's not a proof for the other part of the comparison, that there is any such validity in the Covenant invested with Church-Covenant albeit unworthyly oftentimes held forth by the parents to beget upon the children an external filial relation unto God and to his spouse the Church visible. For Ezek. 16 8. mentions God's covenant which he swear, not their's, by which they became his, and those whose sons and daughters were born to him v. 20. are said to sacrafice them to be devoured, had caused them to be slain, and delivered them to pass through the fire for them. Mr. C. confesseth they were Idolatrous members, and the text mentions their Idolatry to be of the highest kind, even the sacraficing their children, and if these were in the Covenant of grace and in Church-covenanant, and did thereby beget an external filial relation to God, and to his spouse the visible Church, then may the worst of men even open Idolatrers that offer their children to Moloch and sacrafice them to the Devil be in the Covenant of grace, and in Church-covenant, and thereby in those whom God hates and who go a whoring after Idols, yea the Devils in a most horrid manner, there may be validity in this horrid estate to beget an external filial relation unto God & to his spouse, the visible Church for their children. Horrendum dictu! The meaning of the text, and the impertinency of its allegation by the Assembly, by Mr. C. and others hath been often shown. Jerem. 13.11. makes nothing to the purpose. God in the wilderness had made the whole house of Israel to cleave to him in the Covenant at mount Sinai, and by his special deliverances and providences for them. What is this to prove that the Idolatrous posterity of that people are by the Covenant clothed with Church-covenant held to God they and theirs in external Church-communion until either that church be devorced from God, o • the particular members disfranchised by some Church censure of a Church covenant privilege? 3. were the first part of the comparison proved, that the Covenant laid hold on 〈◊〉 the lively faith of the parents as made with respect to their elect children hath mighty force to effect very gracious things in the elect seed, yet there is not any liklyhood that the other part should be true, that a bare dissembled profession should make such an external relation to God and his Church, as if because Peters faith and confession obtains from God a special privilege, Judas his profession must obtain something of God for his children though he were a Devil. If there be strength in these dictates of Mr. C. their's weakness is nothing. The answers to the objections of I. S. proceed upon a conceit of a relative grace, and implicit calling, and of in-being in Christ without either Christ's spirit, or faith, or profession of faith, which are things that have no Scripture grounds. The absurdity objected against his opinion that it entails grace to generation, that it upholds a national Church, • e puts off only thus, He knows we in N. E. which hold the one, yet do not maintain the other in the usual sense of a national Church. But this shows not how he will acquit his doctrine from maintaining that by consequence, which is disavowed by those of N. E. For if there be such a covenant and Church covenant now as there was Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. and Ezek 16.20.21.22. of validity to beget an external filial relation to God and to his visible spouse the Church, it cannot be denied, but that the worst Idolaters even Papists are visible Church-members, and by consequent the whole nation elder and • onger are in the Church. Which what it makes less than such a national Church as was of the Jews I understand not.
SECT. XLII. Animadversions on Sect. 7: of the same chap. showing that the body of the Jewish Church even the worst of them was not under the Covenant of grace in respect of external Interest therein.
IN the seventh Sect. Mr. C▪ sets down this conclusion, that the body of the Jewish Church was under the Covenant of grace as invested with Church Covenant, in respect of external interest therein. In which as almost in all his writings about this point, there's much ambiguity. He neither showeth whom he means by the body of the Jewish Church whether every Jew or some only, and if some who those are whether the most part or the chiefest; nor what he means by the Covenant of grace, what promise they are under nor how they are under it: Nor doth explain what he means by Church-Covenant or investing with it, nor what is the external interest therein which they have, nor how they are under the Covenant of grace as invested with Church covant in respect of external interest therein, and not with respect to internal interest. For my part so far as I am able to discern his meaning this is it, that all the Jews from the promise made to Abraham I will be thy God & the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7. have this privilege; that all should be accounted members of that Church and the males circumcised. But I know not how it comes to pass, this author either affects, or it is his vein to use ambiguous expressions when he might use plain, and to talk in a new phrases hard to be understood of the Covenant, seal, Church-seed &c. And not to explain his conclusions afore he proves, nor to show how he proves out of the text he allegeth, but leaves his reader to fish out his meaning as he can from scattered passages. However I shall view his dictates.
He denies that the Jews had only a Covenant of grace among them which was made to some choice ones among them. And yet the Apostle directly teacheth that the promise I will be a God to thee and thy seed as a promise of saving grace was not made to all Israel, but the elect only Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. And clear it is that the Covenant made with the body of the Israelites at mount Sinai was the Covenant of works, as is plain from Rom. 10.5. 2 Cor. 3.6, 7, 9. Gal. 3.12, and 4.24, 25. Heb. 8▪ 9, 10, 11. &c. and 12.18, 19, 21.
It is false that he hath anywhere proved that the external & Ecclesiastical right to circumcision came from the circumcised persons interest in the Covenant of grace invested with Church-covenant. Neither did God appoint all them to receive the visible seal thereof meaning Circumcision: for he did not appoint the females or males under eight days old to be circumcised though in the Covenant as well as the infant male of eight days old.
He bids us see Gen. 17.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. and 26.3, 4, 5. and 28.12, 13, 14. But I can see none of his dictates in those texts. I find there that God made a covenant with Abraham. after renewed it to Isaac and Jacob assuring to their inheriting posterity the inheritance of Canaan, the multiplying of them &c. that God enjoined circumcision to them for a memorial and assurance of that covenant. This covenant as, containing the promise of Canaan &c. to the natural postority of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ▪ is expressed to be by reason of Abraham's obedience Gen. 26.5. circumcision is required Gen. 17. and Exod. 19. Levite. 26. obedience is required to the laws given by Moses. They that term the Covenant Exo. 19. a covenant of works speak suitable to the Apostle Rom. 10.5. Gal. 3.12. yet I deny not but in Covert expressions Gen. 17. and elswere God promised Christ to the elect whether Jews or Gentiles and blessing that is righteousness and eternal life by faith in him Gal. 3.16. &c. which Abraham and all the ancient Saints expressed by faith John. 8.56. and elsewhere. Now it is not true, that those covenant Fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob received the covenant Evaneglical in referrence to their natural children : nor in respect of justification before God and external life had a contrary covenant of life and death, grace and works made with them. For though the Jews succeeding were under the whole law of Moses because of transgressions, yet not so as to have life by it Gal. 3.17, 18, 19, 21. no • is it any absurdity to say that the legal justitiaries who rested in the law were at one and the same time externally under the blessing of God in respect of their outward prosperity in Canaan, and yet internally under the curse of God Gal. 3.10. as seeking righteousness before God by their observing the Law.
It is, nowhere said that any other than Abraham is the root or first fruits to his seed Rom 11.16. nor they termed his seed, lump, branches any other way than either naturally or spiritually, that is by natural generation or by following his faith by virtue of election Rom. 11 16. doth not say, Abraham was the root as recieving the covenant for the branches, but as propagating the branches. Nor need we say that he either received a covenant o • works alone, in referrence to them all elected, or that he received the Covenant of grace with Ecclesiastical respect to them all. The plain doctrine of the Scripture is set down above, Mr. C's. dictates are mere phantasms without Scripture.
The substance of the Covenan • is a novel expression, and ambiguous. I deny not the covenant Gen. 17. to be evangelical. yet I concieve it not purely such, but as I say in my Exercit. pag. 2. mixed, that is containing political and Evangelical promises. I deny not but it was the jews covenant-right to have the Tabernacle of God or their ordinances as their privilege, yea and his presence therein until the Messiah came, yet so as that when they set up Idols the glory of God departed from them Ezek. 11.22, 23. They had also God's oracles with them, deliverance from Egypt, Christ to be with them in the wilderness: nor do I deny these to have been by virtue of Christ's mediation, yet so far as these were national mercies they were proper to the Jews. What ever be meant by the Covenant & the promise Rom 9 4. they do not agree to Gentile believers. And though I say they were by virtue of Christ's mediation, yet I concieve the mediation of Christ was directly for the elect only, for others only obliquely, by consequent, and by accident by reason of the Cohabitation of them on earth. I deny not that filling the Temple with smoke Rev. 15.8. allusively to that which was 1 Kings. 8.10, 11. Isai. 6.1, 2, 3, 4. might restifie the presence of God in the Churches after Christ's ascension in a way of mercy to his people, and for their sakes in a way of justice against his and their enemies.
I neither do, nor need say that Canaan was all which God promised the Jews I grant it was promised to them as an everlasting possession Gen. 17.8. But the▪ wrod 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which the Gr : translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , everlasting, notes freequently but a duration of some age or ages as 2 Chron. 2.4. &c. I deny not but the Patriarchs looked futher than Canaan Heb. 11.9, 10. I deny not that the promise of Canaan was in some sense ratified in Christ, and all other temporal blessings to the elect now 1 Cor. 3.21, 22, 23. that Christ is said to drive out their enemies Exod. 23.20, 21. and that the land they possessed was called Immanuel • land Es • i 8.8 that sundry were excluded from thence for unbelief Heb. 3▪ la •• compared with ch. 4 2. though if it be not warily explained Moses and Aaron should be guilty of the Gospel sin of unbelief. If God promised to be a God to them, and as one branch thereof instanceth in giving them Canaan Gen. 17, 7, 8. then the promise of Canaan is a branch of the promise, I will be a God to them▪ If the Proselyted strangers were to have Abraham's Covenant sealed to them and theirs by circumcision, yet had no lots in Can • an, then persons were to be circumcised to whom the promise belonged not.
I grant that Christ was mediator of the Covenant with Abraham so far as it contains evangelical promises, but deny that it was held out to all the Jews by the sacrafices. For though the typical sacr • fices in respect of purif • ing the flesh did purge the whole Congregation, yet none were pur • ed by Christ's blood, but the elect. The high Priest bare the names of the 12. tribes and these represented the elect for whom Christ made intercession, and atonement not every I • raelite Rom. 9.6.
What Mr. C. saith, the Covenant of works holds out pardon or mercy to transgress I do much question. It seems to me that A • ab, though under a Covenant of works yet, had some mercy 1 Kings 21.29. And whether the offense against some of the laws were not in some respect forgiven Levite. 4. to them, who had not faith in Christ, for the sacrafice they offered ( which were all offered according to the Law Heb. 10.8.) I do make question. Nor do I think but that by the Covenant of the law in respect of temporal evils there was some pardon by virtue of obedience to legal prescriptions, though some sins as of presumption Num 15. were not, no not to them that were in the covenant of grace, as its li • ely in Eli. his Case 1 Sam. 3.24. see Gethard. John. Voss. resp. ad Judic. Ravensp. c. 22.23. Concerning the Covenant of the Law though it require no faith in Christ, or repentance for justification, yet whether according to the covenant of the law some repentance were not accepted for revoking some temporal evils contrary to the promises of the Covenant with the Jews at mount Sinai may be doubted from Deut. 29 21.25. and 30.2, 3, 8, 9, 10. But of these Chapters. more hereafter in answer to M. B. I grant no salvation but by Christ, but denies that therefore all the Jews best & worst had salvation & external covenant-right : nor though all the Jews best, & worst, had the same dispensers of the covenant mentioned Exod. 19.5.6. & 24.7.8. will it follow they had all right at least externally in the covenant of grace. For that speaks of the covenant of the law. I grant that the first Covenant of works was made withal in Adam, and that the Covenant Gen. 17. was a particular covenant made with the seed of Abraham, yet the Covenant at mount Sinai was not made with all men, without distinction, but only with Israel, whom he brought out of Egypt ▪ the Jews Ro. 11.20. were broken off from the invisible church of true believers, which was in that nation in their progenitors, as I show in the first part of this Review Sect. 2. &c. I agree with Mr. C. that the Covenant in Horeb Deut. 29.1.2. with Deut. 30.6. had the stipulation of, do this and live, and that the Covenant of the law was differnt from the promise, Gen. 17. that it held out temporals, this externals. How the Gentiles were engraffed in the room of the Jews, and not into the external right & privilege, as by Mr C. imagines is shown in the Review, ubi supra, That the covenant of Sinai was without mercy, I question as above. And methinks, Ezek. 16.60. proves, That God would remember his covenant with Israel in the days of their youth, and show them mercy for it.
Now the covenant made with Israel in the days of its youth, is meant of the covenant made with them when they came out of Egypt: for so the whole description of their pitiful estate (which can be referred to no other than the time of their bondage in Egypt, v. 4, 5, 6, 7. after which was his covenant in the days of their youth, v. 8) shows the covenant in the days of their youth to have been the covenant at mount Sinai.
Which what it is else but this, that they should all have a right to circumcision, and other Ecclesiastical privileges, I know not: Whereas the covenant was of prosperity in Canaan, continuance of long life, &c. to them upon obedience to the law he gave them by Moses, which notwithstanding they had broken, & were carried captive; yet he would remember his covenant made with that people when he brought them out of Egypt, and upon the prayers of Daniel, &c. restore them to their own land, Isaiah 48 1, 2, 3, &c. teacheth the Jews, that notwithstanding they were evil, yet he would for his names sake, that the heathens might not say that God could not deliver them and bring them from the north, v. 10, 11, 14. The like is, Ezek. 20, 14.
The objection from Rom. 9 7, 8, is ill framed, and as ill answered: 1. it is proved from the Text, that the promise of full •• lling, of which the Apostle speaks, was the promise to Abraham, I will be the God of thy seed, Gen. 17.7. from the terms used Rom. 9.7, 8. which shows that the question was, how God's word could be true concerning Abraham's seed, if the Jews were rejected, as the Apostle supposeth, v. • . 2. That the answer is directly this, that this promise was not made to all Israel, or to all the children of the flesh, that is, begotten of Abraham by natural generation, for it was not promised to Ishmael and Esau, but to the elect as Isaac and Jacob, whence this proposition ariseth, They only are children of the promise (that is by an usual Hebra • sm) subjects of the promise to whom it belong, as children of wrath to whom wrath belongs, a son of perdition to whom perdition belongs) who are elect, therefore not all the natural seed of Abraham. And consequently the promise. Gen. 17.7. belonged not in the Evangelical sense to the body of the Jews, even the worst.
Now what doth Mr. C. answer?
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 only to be included in the promise taken in an Evangelical sense, Mr. C. includes the elect and non-elect, even the worst of the Jews whom the Apostle excludes. 3. He abuseth Acts 3.25, 26, Deut: 30.6, by interpreting them as belonging to the worst of the Jews in respect of external 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,
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 bond • 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 external right, are children of the promise, Gen. 17.7. But many of the Jews 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?
Res. But was not it true also of the Jerusalem that was when Christ was? Did not our Lord Christ deny them to be Abraham's childrē, & told them they were the Devils children, John 8.39, 44. though he granted them to be Abraham's seed by natural generation, v. 37. and yet Mr C calls them Abraham's 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 indefinitely, as Deut. 30, 6. Jer. 31, 37. Gen. 17.7. &c. beloaging to them, Rom. 9.4. and were children of God, Christ's, Matth. 15, 26. I deny not but John 1.12. those that rejected Christ are called Christ's 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 engaged to him in respect of his deliverance out of Egypt, 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 Christ's time a right to circumcision, but no external 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 Jewish 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,
Reply, The answer of Mr C. I conceive is reduced to these two points, 1. That the Jews 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 ye 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 Jews 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 Ecclesiastical 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 innocence with Noah after the Flood, they are all covenants of God: But that there is no essential difference distinguishing between the covenant at mount Sinai, and the new covenan • ; and that they differ in way and manner of dispensation, in respect of ceremony of administration, not in the essentials, • 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 administered, &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: D • f • nce page 188.
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 Jews 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 Lord's Supper. A Covenant is a promise, and so an action; and when mutual there's a reciprocal action. I know not what other predicament to place it in. The essentials of a thing are in corporeal substances, matter and form, in other beings those things which in proportion to them show what it is, and wherein it is differenced from others under the same genus, which essentials the Logicians call the genus and difference. The essential 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, Ye 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 enable 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 show 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 only 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 Jews in the day that he took them by their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. 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, • . Because the new covenant is said to be established or settled as a Law • 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 recital of the promises, Heb : • .10, 11, 12. & 10. •• . • 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 • t) occasioning God to complain, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 mistake, he should then have found fault with his own act) he saith, therefore for remedy of such complaint and jarring, a second covenant was established, which should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , plaintless, and therefore the covenant of grace takes away occasion of complaint, or finding fault, because it provides for them to whom it was made, that they should not occasion God to complain by their breaking of it, as the first covenant had done, which was faulty, occasioning God to complain in that it was broken. Mr. C. saith, it was faulty comparatively, not absolutely, and his meaning seems to be that the first covenant was faulty because of its imperfect manner of teaching the Gospel. But he is therein mistaken: For, as I shown from the words, the first covenant is said to be faulty, because of the complaint of God against the Israelites, as not keeping • t, as the holy Ghost expounds the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , v. 7. by the expression v. 8. proving it not to have been faultless, that is, without complaint, because he complained of them, v. 8, to wit, that they abode not in it. v. 9. which if it had been the covenant of Evangelical grace, they should certainly have done, because that provides for the keeping and perseverance in it, by writing the laws in their hearts, and forgiving their sins.
2. The same is further proved from chap. 12.18, &c. where 1. the covenant at mount Sinai is set down as given with horror, to show that it begat nothing but affrightments even in the best Moses himself, whereas the covenant of grace begets joy and gladness before God. 2. It is said the Hebrew Christians were not come to, therefore it was not the covenant of grace. 3. That they were come to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, v. 24. in opposition to Moses the Mediator of the old.
3. From ch. 10, 29. where the blood of the new covenant is said to sanctify. And ch. 13.20. Christ brings back the sheep by the blood of he everlasting covenant. This everlasting covenant is that which was confirmed by the blood of Christ oppositly, or in contradistinction to that which was confirmed by the blood of Calves and Goats, Heb. 9.19. Therefore that covenant was not everlasting, nor confirmed by Christ's blood, and consequen • y not the Covenant of grace
4. The same is the express doctrine of Paul, Gal. 4.24. where he saith, Agar and Sara are two covenants, and he saith, Agar, or one Covenant, was▪ from mount Sinai, and that this genders to bondage, and is in bondage with her children, v. 25. calls them that are under it such as are begotten according to the flesh, v. 29. to be cast out, v. 30. and opposeth it to Sarah, that is, the promise, the Jerusalem above who is free, mother of all believers, begetting children of the promise, born after the spirit, children of the free woman. Now what is this but the covenant of grace, and the other of works. For the covenant of grace never genders to bondage, nor is in bondage with her children, who are not according to the flesh to be cast out, but free, the mother of believers, bringing forth children of the promise born after the Spirit, children of the free woman. Therefore the covenant at mount Sinai, was not the same with the covenant of Gospel-grace, but a covenant of works.
5. In the same Epistle, chap. 3.12. he saith, the Law is not of Faith, that is the covenant of the Law doth not promise righteousness before God upon faith, but by works▪ v. 13. therefore the covenant of the Law was not the covenant of Gospel-grace.
6. The same is expressed v. 16, 17, 18, 21, where the Law is opposed to the promises, the inheritance is denied to be by it, or that it could give life, or righteousness by it, therefore it is not the covenant of grace, for life, righteousness and inheritance is by it. The like is Gal : 2.21. Rom : 4.13, 14, 15, 16, & 3, 20, 21.
7. From Rom 10.5. where the Apostle expressly saith, that Moses described the righteousness of the law that the man that doth them shall live in them, and this he makes opposite to the word of Faith : whence it follows it was the covenant of works, which was the Law: For what is the covenant of works but that which promiseth life by doing the Law? Nor doth it make against it to say, the Apostle, v. 4. saith, Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth: for in whatsoever sense that be meant, yet it is certain the denomination of a covenant of grace or of works, is not taken from the end of the Covenanter, or the consequent on the covenant or command, but the promise and condition; therefore what ever end God had in giving the law, or what event soever fell out upon it, yet the covenant of the law promising righteousness upon perfect obedience to the law, and not otherwise, it is to be termed a covenant of works, not of Gospel-grace.
8. From Rom. 6.14. where the Apostle saith, Sin shall not have dominion • ver you, for ye are not under the law, but under grace, which supposeth that they who are under the law, are not under grace; which cannot be understood of the command of the law, for men may be and are under the command of it, and yet under grace: therefore by the law is meant the covenant of the law, and then they which are under the covenant of the law, are not under grace, which they should be, i • the covenant of the law were generally the same with the covenant of grace.
9. From Rom : 7.4. We are dead to the Law by the body of Christ, v. 6, We are delivered, or as I would read it, we are discharged ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) from the law, even the Moral law, v. 7. not as a rule of obedience, but as a Husband, or Covenant, on which we depend for maintenance, help, supply, sentence, countenance, reward. But if the law were the covenant of grace, we should not be dead to it, or delivered from it: Ergo.
10. From 2 Cor. 3, 6, the covenant of the law is called the letter which killeth, opposite to the new covenant in which the Spirit which quickeneth is ministered, and v 7. he expressly calls it the ministration of death graven in stones, the ministration of condemnation, v. 9, opposite to the ministration of righteousness, of which Paul denies himself to be a Minister, therefore it was not the covenant 〈◊〉 Evangelical grace, but of works.
Yea Mr Cobbet himself, page 65. The covenant in Horeb had the stipulation of. Do so and live, not so in the covenant of grace that was imbondaging, shown the way of worship, gave not grace to act it, was against us, &c. The Assembly Confess. of Faith, c. 7. Art. 2. ch. 19, Art. • , cite Gal : 3.12, Rom. 10▪ 5, Gal. 3, 10, which speak of the covenant of the law to show the covenant of works made with Adam, which shows 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 Moral 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 • 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 largely, as that whole Doctrine delivered on mount Sinai with the preface and promises adjoined, 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 shows 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 tells 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 shown he would also have them look at Christ, (which we grant true) but nowhere 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 show 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 cov • 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 signify God's purpose o