SECT. I.

WE shall begin with Mr. Sidenham's Treatise. And First, Whereas Mr. Sidenham pretending to Answer that Argument of ours. That there is no express Command, nor any positive Example in all the New Testament, concerning the Baptism of Infants. For the Re­futation thereof, He tells us, That this Argument is built on this false Principle; That no direct Consequences from Scripture are Mandatory, and so obliging and of Divine Authority. Whereas we affirm no such thing, [Page 87] but only say; That in all Positive or Instituted Worship, such as Baptism is, which hath no other Rule nor Reason, than the meer will of the Law­giver, there must be either an express Command, or an express Example to enforce it. In all other Respects we justly allow such proper Con­sequences as are deducible from the Scriptures, for the enforcing of Duty, or for the Comfort of God's People: For therefore is Preach­ing, Expounding, and Searching the Scripture appointed unto us. But as it would have been a Sin for Abraham, upon bare Consequen­ces only, and without an express Warrant, to have Circumcised his Children: So it would be no less to us, without the same Divine Warrant, in respect of Baptism. And therefore Mr. Sidenham doth not well to say; That we may as well argue, That because Abraham was Circumcised when 99 Years old; Therefore old Persons are to be Circumci­sed, and none else: As because grown Persons. were Baptized, therefore not Infants. Whereas he knew, Abraham had an express Command, as for the Circumcision of himself, so for his Infants also: Which is that which we justly affirm to be wanting under the Gospel, in re­spect of Baptism.

SECT. II.

§ 1. BUT then Mr. Sidenham doth also tell us; That it is to be considered, that there is nothing in all the New Testament a­gainst the Baptizing of Infants; no hint from any express Word dropt from Christ, or his Apostles, nor any Phrase, which doth forbid such an Act. p. 1. And this Argument, both he and others do lay very much stress upon. But then Mr. Sidenham should have considered; That it is the Opinion of divers able and godly Divines: That what is not commanded in the Worship of God, is forbidden: And that every Affirmative command of Christ, includes a Negative. For (saith Tertullian) This is a certain Rule; if it be said 'tis lawful, because the Scripture doth not forbid it; It may equally be Retorted; It is therefore not lawful, because the Scripture doth not command it. And herein there­fore consisted the Sin of Nadab and Abihu, Lev. 10. who were de­stroyed for offering strange Fire, which God had not Commanded. They might have said, Lord 'tis true, Thou hast not commanded this strange Fire: But as thou hast not Commanded it; so neither hast thou Forbidden it. And by the same Reason might Abraham have Circum­cised his Children on the seventh day, as well as on the eighth; be­cause God had not forbidden it. For though God had commanded it to be done on the eighth day; yet he had no where expresly for­bidden the seventh. But since the eighth day was expresly appointed, [Page 88] and not the seventh, though the seventh was no where expresly for­bidden; therefore Abraham was bound to the former, and not to the latter; and it would have been his Sin to have varied from the Rule prescribed him. In like manner we say; The Baptism of Be­lievers is expresly commanded; That of Infants is not commanded; and therefore though it be not forbidden, yet since 'tis not com­manded, it would be our Sin to practise it. And so in the Passeover: Whereas God commanded a Lamb, a Male of the first year to be eaten; they might as well have made use of an Ewe, or a Ram of the second or third Year, because not forbidden; no express Word of God had forbidden it. So when David and the People of Israel had made a new Cart for the Carriage of the Ark, which was to have been born on the Priests Shoulders only; and when God smote Ʋzzah for holding the Ark, they might as well have Pleaded, that neither of these was expresly forbidden: But yet nevertheless, For this Cause the Lord made a Breach upon them, for that they did not seek him after the due order that he had expresly appointed, 1 Chron. 15. 13.

§ 2. We find no where in all the Scriptures; That ever any ex­press Word dropt from Christ or his Apostles, to the Prohibiting or Forbidding of Crucifixes, Beads, Altars, Praying to Saints, Pictures in Churches, Pilgrimages. Which things are still in use among Papists; but disowned by Protestants, because not commanded, though not expresly forbidden. The like may be said concerning Bowing at the Name of Jesus; the Cross in Baptism; Surplices in Preaching; Kneeling at the Sacrament; set Forms of Prayer. In respect of which it is no proper Argument; that therefore these things are lawful to be used in the Divine Service, because not forbidden; For as they are not forbidden, so neither are they commanded: Which is the very Argument made use of by the Generality of Dissenters, for their Justification, in Opposition to Prelatical Incroachments. And therefore thou art Inexcusable O Man! For wherein thou Judgest another, thou Condemnest thy self, Rom. 2. 1. There is no express Word of God against the Communicating of Infants in the Lord's Supper; And yet you your selves do not therefore count it lawful to admit them to that Ordinance, without an express Word to that purpose. And lastly, Bells are not expresly forbidden to be Baptized; and yet we do not reckon that a sufficient Argument for such a Practise. And whereas it is Objected as to this; That Bells are not Subjectum Capax: A fit or capable Subject for such an Ordinance, we would then ask, wherein lies their Incapacity? Cannot a Minister sprinkle a little Wa­ter upon a Bell, and use the Words of the Institution in as solemn a manner as he does when he Baptizes a Child? Or are they incapable for want of an Institution? We say the same of Infants. And if you say; they are not capable of the uses and ends of Baptism, as Men [Page 89] are; We Answer, If God had pleased, He could have made them by an Institution, capable of some sacred Usefulness; yea, capable of Relative Holiness, as well as Aaron's Bell: Or the Bells mentioned, Zech. 14. 20. upon which it was written; Holiness to the Lord. But it is well known, there are those in the World, who think themselves as wise as others, that judge Bells capable Subjects of Baptism, and have done so diverse Ages.

§ 3. Thus you see what Absurdities follow this Position, That those things are lawful in God's Worship, which are not forbidden by any express Word, dropt from Christ or his Apostles. But surely God is more jealous of his Honour, and tender of his Worship, than to leave it to Our Pleasure. And that God hath in all Ages testified his dislike, yea, Abhorrence of Will-Worship, and that for this very Reason, because he hath not Commanded it, is too evident to be denied. For this cause God threatens Judgments upon his People of Old. Ezek. 43. 8. They have set their Thresholds by my Threshold, and their Posts by my Post; wherefore I have Consumed them in mine Anger. Wherein we cannot but observe, that God discovers his severe displeasure against them, not for neglecting any part of his Worship that he had Commanded them: But for their Presumption in adding something thereto, which he had not Commanded them.

§ 4. And indeed Will-Worship must needs be a great Sin, when the same Person who is to perform the Obedience, shall dare to appoint the Laws; Implying a peremptory Purpose of no further Observance, than may consist with the Allowance of his own Judgment: Whereas true Obedience must be grounded on the Majesty of that Power that Commands; not on the Judgment of the Subject, or Benefit of the Precept proposed. Divine Laws, such as are the Positive Institutions concerning God's Worship, require Obedience not so much from the Quality of the things commanded, as from the Authority of him that commands them. We are all Servants of God; and Servants are but living Instruments, whose Property is to be governed by the Will of those in whose Pessession they are. Will-Worship and Super­stition, well they may flatter God; they cannot please him. He that requires us to deny our selves in his Service, doth therein teach us, that his Commands stand rather in fear than in need of us; In fear of our Boldness, lest we abuse them; not in need of our Judgment to Polish or Alter them. The Conquest of an Enemy without the Com­mand of the General, cost a Roman Gentleman his Life, though his own Father were the Judge. So the over-wise Industry of the Archi­tect, in bringing not the same, but as he thought, a fitter piece of Timber than he was commanded to the Roman Consul, was rewarded with nothing but a Bundle of Rods. So jealous and displeased are e­ven men themselves, to have their Laws undervalued by the [Page 90] private Judgments of those who rather Interpret than Obey them. Much more Impious then will it be for us, to mix Humane Inventi­ons, and Appointments of our own, with the Institutions of God, and to Impose them as Divine Duties, with a necessity of Obedience; whilst by that means, we take Christ's Divine Prerogative out of his Hands, and make our selves joynt Authors of his Ordinances, or rather the Destroyers of them: For to practise an Ordinance otherwise than Christ hath Instituted, is not to honour Christ's Appointments; but an Idol of our own making. Now this the Apostles durst not do. They tell us, that they declared the Counsel of God, but nothing else. And Paul tells the Corinthians, he delivered nothing unto them, but what he had received from the Lord, 1 Cor. 11. 23. And sure he did not receive Insants Baptism from the Lord: For he never declares it to them.

§ 5. This therefore should be a Boundary to all Christ's Ministers, that they deliver nothing to the People, but what they have recieved from the Lord. That Faith that was once delivered to the Saints, must be Preached and contended for, but nothing else. And if Christ's Ministers have not received Infants Baptism from the Lord; and if they cannot prove that it was once delivered to the Saints, it is not to be Preached. As for all humane Mixtures in God's Worship, they are useful only for these two purposes, either to slacken and abate something that is Excessive, or to supply something that is Deficient. And so all Heterogenious Mixtures do plainly intimate, either a Vi­tiousness to be Corrected, or a Defect to be Supplied. Now it were a great Impiety to charge either of these upon the pure and perfect Word of God; and by Consequence to use Deceit, by Adulterating of it, either by such Glosses, as diminish and take away the force of it; or by the Addition of Humane Traditions, as may argue any defect. So that to stamp any thing of a Humane Original, with a Divine Cha­racter, and obtrude it upon the Consciences of Men; to take any dead Child of ours, as the Harlot did, and lay it in the Bosom of the Scripture, and Father it upon God; to build any Structure of ours in the Road to Heaven, and to stop up the Way; is one of the great­est Presumptions that the Pride of Man can aspire unto. To Erect a Throne in the Consciences of his Fellow Creatures, and to counter­feit the great Seal of Heaven, for the countenancing of his Forgeries, is a Sin most severely provided against by God, with special Prohibi­tion and Threatnings. See Deut. 12. 32. What thing soever I Com­mand you, observe to do it; Thou shalt not add thereunto, nor diminish from it. Deut. 18. 20. The Prophet that shall speak a Word in my Name that I have not Commanded, even that Prophet shall die. Prov. 30. 6. Add not unto his Words, lest he Reprove thee, and thou be found a Liar.

§ 6. And yet further to demonstrate, That Will Worship is a Sin of no small Magnitude, consider the following Particulars.

First. It clearly proceeds as the Fruit of Pride. Men Love to have something of their own in God's Worship. They are not content with what the Infinite Wise God commands them; but will Presump­tiously be adding something of their own thereto. The Second Com­mandment shews that Man is prone to be medling and making some­thing in Worship, till he marres all. Israel provoked God with their In­ventions. Psal. 106. 29.

Secondly. Will Worship is a Sin greatly displeasing to God: For God is not pleased with any thing in Worship which is not his own: Nay the contrary is that which he hath signified to be greatly provoking to him. In this Respect, it is not the Work of Mens Hands, nor their Heads that can be at all Acceptable unto God. That which pleases God must come from God. what he Appoints he Approves, and nothing else.

Thirdly. Will Worship, and Mixtures of Mens Inventions with Gods Pure Ordinances, are the great Canons that batter Cities, and the Gun-Powder that blows them up. Those bring the Lord of Hosts to War against them. It was the Calves that wounded Israel, and laid their Cities waste. H [...]sea 10. 5. The Inhabitants of Samaria shall fear because of the Calves of Bethaven. 'Tis highly probable, Jeroboam might plead that he kept still to the Articles of Faith, and Funda­mentals of Religion, worshipping with Reverence the God of his Fa­thers: Making Alterations in things meerly Ceremonial, whereof no Express Law forbidding; and being variable as time, place, and per­son gave occasion. But however, he might mince the Matter, as others do in like Circumstances; yet God being a Jealous God, would not admit such Innovation, and Varying from his pure Worship, but Re­jects it. And in particular, he is Rebuked, For Offering upon the Altar which he had made in Bethel the 15th. day of the 8th. month; even in the Month which he had devised of his own Heart. 1 Kings 12. 33. So Isa. 24. 5, 6. Because they have transgressed the Laws, and changed the Or­dinance, therefore hath the Curse devoured the Earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate; therefore the Inhabitants of the Earth are burned and few Men left.

Fourthly. Will Worship Grieves God. Ezek. 6. 9. I am broken with their Whorish Heart. Their Superstitious and Corrupt Mixtures did not simply displease God; but Oppressed, Afflicted, and Broke his Heart. Great Injuries enter deep, and eat up the Spirits of any they are done unto. And what greater wrong can be done unto God, than to Invent and Impose that he never commanded in the Matters of his Worship? Yea it draws away the Heart of Men from God, and therefore they are said to go a Whoring from God by their Inventons.

Fifthly. Will Worship is a Work of Darkness, Ezek. 8. 12. See what the Antients of the House of Israel are doing in the dark.

Sixthly. Will Worship is that which God will not Honour with his presence. Neither Christ nor the Angels will be present at it. Teach them (saith Christ) to Observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo I am with you alway. If we step out of Christ's way, and go a whoring after our own Devices; neither can we groundedly expect the blessing of Christ's Preserce.

Seventhly, and Lastly. Will Worship, such as Infants Baptism is, hav­ing no Institution in the Word of God; is not only Evil in its self, but stands aggravated with this Circumstance, that it makes void the Commandment of God: For Will Worship doth usually oppose, or justle out some part of God's true Worship; as Infants Baptism doth that of Believers. And so Christ told the Pharisees, upon another like Occa­sion; That they made void the Commandments of God by their Tra­dition.

SECT. III.

§ 1. WHereas Mr. Sidenham affirms; that the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. was a pure Gospel Co­venant, to which the Seal of Circumcision was annexed. From hence he draws this Inference. That if that Covenant were a pure Gospel Cove­nant, reaching Gentile Believers, and their Children, as well as Abraham and his; then we cannot be denied the External Sign and Seal of the same Covenant: For (saith he) though the Outward Signs may be changed; yet there is no Change of the Priviledges, if the Covenant Remain entire. p. 9, 10.

§ 2. We Answer; First, There is no Evidence in all the New Te­stament of any Seal which God intended should be annexed unto the Gospel Covenant, but that of the Holy Spirit only. Much less are we left at Liberty to put what Mark, Sign, or Cognizance, we please, up­on our Infant Seed; under the Notion of an Ordinance of Christ, or as a Gospel Seal, without his Special Direction and Appointment.

§ 3. Secondly. It cannot be denied, but that Circumcision which was at first the Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham, and which was afterward annexed to the Covenant made at Sinai, is now Abolished. And it is as plain, that the Covenant, both the one and the other, which Circumcision was Annexed unto; was a Bondage Covenant: For so the Apostle assures us Gal. 4. 24. So likewise Gal. 5. 1, 2, 3. Stand fast therefore in the Liberty. wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not intangled again with the Yoke of Bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, [Page 93] that if ye be Circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing: For I testifie again to every Man that is Circumcised, that he is a debtour to do the whole Law. Now Circumcision being Abolished, and the Covenants also, where­unto it was Annexed, Heb. 8. 7. 13. there can be no just Inference drawn from the manner of God's dealing with them, to conclude that thus it must be now; it being an undue Supposition to conceive that the Proposition between Abraham and his Fleshly Seed, in the time when Circumcision was in date, should be the same to Abraham in the Spirit, which is Christ, and the Carnal Seed of every Believer, in that Season, when Circumcision is out of date.

Thirdly. Though it is Evident, that the Church of the Jews and Gentiles, in Respect of the Inward and Spititual part of either, are both the same, without any Variation, as is also the Covenant of Grace, on which both are founded; yet it doth not therefore follow, that there is no Variation or Change in Respect of External Admini­strations: It being Evident, that the External Priviledges the Jews once boasted of are now Repealed; their former Pretentions to Church-Ordinances upon the Account of their Birth-Priviledge, being now broken down. Else, why doth John the Baptist tell them as he doth. Mat. 3. 8, 9. Think not to say within your selves, we have Abra­ham to our Father. They had Abraham to their Father, as much now as before: But now it was too late for them to use that Plea any lon­ger: And there was good Reason why. For now (saith he) the Axe is laid at the Root of the Trees: Every Tree therefore that bringeth not forth good Fruit must be hewn down. Now the Axe is laid, &c. It seems then that the Axe was not laid at the Root of the Trees till now: But now the Axe must do its Work of that Kind; and so must the Gospel Fan also, at an other-guess Rate than formerly they had Experienc'd; in­asmuch, as Jesus Christ was now Resolved throughly to purge his Floor, and to gather the Wheat, only into his Garner the Church. So that from hence it plainly appears, that though the Church for the inward Sub­stance of it, is still the same that ever it was; yet as the Signs are changed, so there is as manifest a Change, in Respect of the Exter­nal Priviledges, belonging to the one and the other of them.

SECT. IV.

§ 1. MR. Sidenham doth indeed tell us; That the forementioned Scripture, Mat. 3. 7, 8, 9. Concerns only the Adult, or Men at Age; the Scribes and Pharisees, who were degenerated from Abraham's Faith, a Generation of Vipers: And therefore rejected by John when they Desired to be Baptized of him. So that (saith he) John did not Refuse [Page 94] them because Abraham was their Father; or upon that Account that A­braham's Seed had no Right to the Promise; But only as pretending Abraham to be their Father, when they walk'd contrary to the Principles of Abraham's Faith.

§ 2. For the clearing of which, there are 3 Questions to be de­manded.

First. Why doth Mr. Sidenham say, that John did not Refuse them, because Abraham was their Father? Who ever affirmed, that John re­fused them, because Abraham was their Father? But as John did not Refuse them on that Score; so it is as evident, that neither would he now Receive them on that bottom. It cannot be denied, but that at the command of God, this was the ground of their Admission before, because Abraham was their Father; and this they still insisted on: But now (saith he) Think not to say within your selves, we have Abraham to our Father, &c. whereby he plainly lets them know, that that Plea would no longer avail them on that Account.

Secondly, Why doth Mr. Sidenham say, that John did not refuse them, upon that Account that Abraham's Seed had no right to the Pro­mise? We know of none that so affirm: But this we say; That as their Interest in the Promise, was not the Adequate, formal, or proper Reason of the Circumcising of them; (for Ishmael and others were to be Circumcised, to whom none of the Promises in Abraham's Covenant did belong: as is plain from Gen. 17. 21, 23. whereby 'tis evident, that the true Reason why any were Circumcised, was the Command, not Interest in the Promise) The like we say in respect of Baptism.

Thirdly, Why doth Mr. Sidenham say, That John refused them, be­cause they only pretended Abraham to be their Father? For were they not Abraham's Natural Off-spring now, as much as ever? And was not that the ground of their Admission formerly? We do not say, they were Abraham's Off-spring in a Spiritual sense, so as to walk in the steps of their Father Ahraham: For that was not the Ground of their Admission formerly; but the ground of their Admission then, was meerly by vertue of the Command of God, as they were Abraham's Natural Seed. The Question between us therefore, is only this; Whether because Abraham's Natural Off-spring, barely as such, were by the Express Command of God, admitted to Circumcision; Therefore without the like Command; so must ours to Baptism?

§ 3. 'Tis true Mr. Sidenham tells us; That John rejected the Scribes and Pharisees from Baptism: Because they only pretended Abra­ham to be their Father; when they walk'd contrary to the steps of Abra­ham's Faith. But then why were not such as these rejected before? For certain it is, none were rejected from Circumcision, how vile, or prophane soever. There was then no Faith nor Repentance, nor Fruits meet for Repentance, at all required of any to be admitted into [Page 95] the Jewish Church; whether they were Children, or Men at Age; It was enough in that respect, barely to be of Abraham's Seed, or Fa­mily; though only as Servants born in his House, or Strangers bought with Money; without any other Consideration. But now not so. Now saith John, You must bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance, if you ex­pect to be Baptized with the Baptism of Repentance. For to this pur­pose he bespeaks them. Verse 10. And now also, (saith he) is the Axe laid unto the Root of the Trees; therefore every Tree that bringeth not forth good Fruit, is hewn down. Plainly intimating, that their Birth Priviledge was now to be pulled up by the Roots; And God would no longer take it as he had in Times past; since now nothing short of their Actual Faithfulness in the Paths of Righteousness would serve the turn. A clear Argument that the External Administration of the Covenant, or the Grounds of Admission to the Priviledge of External Church-Membership, are now quite altered, to what they were in Abraham's Time.

§ 4. And indeed, for this very Reason is it, that the Natural Po­sterity of Abraham, are to this day rejected and Excluded from any Participation of Gospel-Church Ordinanees; as it is apparent they have been for many Generations; whereby 'tis evident, that the Birth-Priviledge, they formerly so much insisted on, and gloried in, is now at an end, and the Date thereof expired. And certain it is, that not only are those at Age rejected, but their Children also upon the same Ground; viz. for want of that Actual Faith and Fruitfulness, which the Gospel now requires. For otherwise it cannot be denied, but that both Parents and Children also, have as fair a Title to Abraham their Father, as any of their Progenitors ever had: But we see this Birth Pri­viledge of theirs, though it stood them instead, as to their Admission in­to the Legal Church, their Ʋnbelief and Ʋnfruitfulness notwithstand­ing; yet it avails them not under this more pure and Refined Admini­stration of the Gospel: But both Parents and Children also, are now broken off, and have no right upon the former Terms only, of standing any longer as Members of the Visible Church.

§. 5. And clear it is, that even you your selves would be apt e­nough to reject an Infant begotten of Jewish Parents from Christian Baptism, until capable of making an Actual Profession of the Christian Faith. And for the same reason you ought as well to refuse those born of Christian Parents, 'till capable of making the same Profession: Because in respect of Parentage or Natural Descent, the Jewish Infants have as much to plead as ours, and it may be more; since they are descended from Believing Abraham; who is called the Father of the Faithful, or the Father of all them that Believe: Which is more than any besides can pretend unto.

SECT. V.

§. 1. AS for Mr. Sidenham's Argument for Infants Baptism from Mat. 19. 13. 14. We deny not, but do believe that Jesus Christ hath a most compassionate regard to Children and little Infants; and it is our duty therefore to bring them to him, by Prayer and Sup­plication for them. But yet notwithstanding this, we dare not bring them to such a Gospel Ordinance as Baptism is, unless Christ had expresly Appointed, and called them to it; or signified his Pleasure that this Way they should have come unto him. Mr. Sidenham tells indeed, That the Reason why the Disciples forbad and rebuked those that brought those Children unto Christ. could not be out of any Cruelty to Infants, or that they had no Bowels for them, or Affections to them. But (saith he) It must be from some such Principle which those of a contrary Judgment take up; That they were not capable, and were first to be Taught; That only grown Men, and Professors of Faith, were fit for Ordinances: And therefore they rebuked or chod them, and forbade them to do so any more: As if they had said; What have we to do with Children as to outward Ordinances? They are not capable; they cannot Profess their Faith; and we must have Persons able to hold Forth Christ's Gos­pel, which must be the visible Subjects of Christ's Kingdom.

§ 2. But then Mr. Sidenham contradicts himself, and spoils all again afterward; when he tells us, ‘That whereas Christ took up those In­fants in his Arms, and laid his Hands upon them; it cannot be un­derstood, but in one of these 3 Senses; either First, in order to the Cure of Diseases by a Miraculous Power. Secondly, for Consecration of any to any Divine Work and Service; or Thirdly, for Confirmation after Baptism. And to this purpose (saith he) may we apply Christ's Act to these Infants, to confirm the Promise solemnly after Baptism. For (saith he) It was most generally used after Baptism; and pre­supposeth baptism to Precede. And (saith he) Let any that differ from us, shew any where in the Gospel, when Christ laid his Hands upon any Person, in this latter Sense, Ʋnbaptized. Wherein he’ doth expresly take it for granted, or at least he doth strongly sup­pose, that these Infants had been already Baptized; and that this Act of Christ, was for their Confirmation after Baptism. Now if those In­fants had been already Baptized, it must have been Administred to them, either by Christ himself, or his Disciples; Not by Christ him­self, who as Mr. Sidenham grants, Baptized no [...]e. And if they had been already Baptized by the Disciples, (which must be by vertue of some Special Order, or Commission from Christ) Then how doth this agree with what Mr. Sidenham had said before? When he tells us, p. 91. ‘That the reason why the Disciples forbad and rebuked those that brought these Children unto Christ, must needs be from some [Page 97] such Principle which those of a contrary Judgment take up; that they were not capable, and were first to be Taught; that only grown Men, and Professors of Faith were fit for Ordinances.’ For if they had been already Baptized upon Christ's special Order to that purpose to them; (which must be supposed if they had been Baptized at all) there had been then no room for such Scruples as these; Neither is it any way likely, that they would have at all Rebuked those that brought them; but rather have encouraged them so to do, and have been helpful themselves to have Introduced them into Christ's Presence, in order to the obtaining his Benediction on them, after the Administration of so Solemn an Ordinance.

§. 3. So that this doth clearly demonstrate to us, That at least, these little Children were not then Baptized; nor indeed can this Scri­pture be intended at all as a Rule unto us to that purpose: where no­thing of Baptism is at all mentioned, or can at all rationally be Supposed to have been Practised, either by Christ or his Disciples upon this Oc­casion. That they had not been Baptized by Christ himself, is evident from the very Letter of the Text; He Himself Baptizing not: And that they had not been Baptized by the Disciples is also as plain: for other­wise they had not express'd the unwillingness they did that such should be brought unto Christ for their Confirmation after Baptism; which as we see Mr. Sidenham doth so ungroundedly suppose had been already Ad­ministred unto them. Let us then bring our Infants to Christ in the way that himself hath appointed: But let us not of our own Heads Ad­minister such an Ordinance as Baptism to them, without his special Warrant; lest we incur the guilt of Will Worship; and lest he say un­to us at leaò, as he did unto the Jews upon another Account; Who hath required these things at your Hands?

But whereas Mr. Sidenham tells us, p. 99. That as for grown visible Professors, they are but probable Members themselves; and yet must we with scorn, poor probable Disciples our selves, deny a little Water to Infants.

§. 4. To this we Answer; We do not with scorn deny a little Water to Infants, or with scorn reject them from Christian Baptism; but it is the meer Conscience of our Duty and Allegiance to Christ, that makes us refrain without his special Warrant so to do; as being afraid of Pro­phaning so Sacred an Institution as Baptism is, by misapplying it to a wrong Subject. And whereas Mr. Sidenham calls grown, visible Profes­sors, but probable Members; We acknowledg that it is at best but a Judgment of Probability or Charity, that we can at all pretend unto in our admission of any such to Baptism: But then it cannot be denied, but that we are upon the surer ground when according to Christ's Rule we admit only grown visible Professors thereto, who besides that Birth Priviledge which you so much insist upon (which they may equally pretend unto as well as I [...]fa [...]ts) are capable of making also a verbal [Page 98] Profession of their Love to Christ, with an answerable Conversation; So that it cannot be denied but that we have a greater ground of hope that unto such belongeth the Kingdom of God, who have this double Ad­vantage, than we can have in respect of Infants, who have only a pre­tended Birth Priviledge to be insisting on; and concerning whom there is no Word of God that gives the least Warrant for their admission to Baptism upon that Account: For however some of them may belong to the Election of Grace; and though our Saviour doth assure us, that of such is the Kingdom of God; yet this is no sufficient ground to Ad­minister Baptism to them, 'till capable of making an answerable Pro­fession, as the Gospel directs. And therefore we do not refuse to Bap­tize them from a Principle of Scorn, as Mr. Sidenham suggesteth, but because we dare not take the Holy and Dreadful Name of God in vain, as it useth to be by those who presume to sprinkle Water upon the Face of an Infant, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without his special Direction or Appointment, in that respect. For as we have seen that the present Scripture doth not prove it; So neither doth any other that we can meet with, give any Warrant or Countenance at all unto such a Practice.

SECT. VI.

§. 1. MR. Sidenham Arguing from the Institution. Mat. 28. 19. tells us, p. 128, 129, 130. That if that place be the Prime Institution of Baptizing (from which place, we Exclude Infants, where Christ useth such universal and Comprehensive Expressions) We shall desire (saith he) but to deal with them on their ground, and the same Text will Serve to prove our Positions, more demonstratively than theirs. And this Text (saith he) shews that Christ gave Commission to the Apostles and Mi­nisters to Preach and Baptize, but in what order to do it; or what should be required, or the qualification of the Subject, as absolutely Necessary, is not at all discovered in this Scripture. They must look for another Text to Ex­clude Infants, besides this; Ele give up their Confidence. Either (saith he) this place is the full and Exact Rule, or Institution of Baptizing or it is not: If they say it is; then it would discribe the Persons and the maner; The matter and the form of Baptizing, and that in the usuall Phrase with other Scriptures: But here is only a General Commission to two great Acts, viz. To Preach, Teach and Baptize. And we may say in the same place; That whoever are outwardly Taught, or do but hear the Gospel (though they walk never so contrary) must be Baptized: For the Commission is, Teach and Baptize. Nothing of the Parties Entertainment of it is men­tioned in this 28 Mat. nor of the qualification of the Subject, with any distinguishing Character. If they say, This doth not hold forth all the Insti­tutions in every particular (as they must grant) then we may compare other Scriptures with this, to make out the full Institution; as these [...] Infants [Page 99] are mentioned so much Gracious Consideration [...], as hath been formerly ex­press'd.

§. To this we Reply; That notwithstanding all the Confidence which Mr. Sidenham here expresseth; both the Qualification of the Subjects of Baptism, as also the manner or form of Baptizing, are sufficiently set forth unto us in the present Institution: For;

First, If we enquire after the Subject; It is plain by this Commis­sion that none are to be Baptized, but such as are Taught, so as to be Discipled into the true Faith and Profession of Christianity. Go Teach all Nations, Baptizing them, &c. Infants being uncapable of being thus Taught, or Disciped; they are therefore Excluded: But all others that so hear the Gospel, as to understand it, Believe it, and be Discipled by it, are according to this Commission to be Baptized. But where­as Mr. Sidenham tells us, ‘That whosoever are outwardly Taught, or do but hear the Gospel (though they walk never so contrary) must be Baptized, inasmuch as in the Commission. Mat. 28. nothing of the Parties entertainment of it is there mentioned.’ With what shadow of Truth could Mr. Sidenham utter such a Sentence? When he could not but know; that as according to that very Institution, Mat. 28. Such as are Discipled by the Preaching of the Gospel are there appoint­ed to be Baptized. Go Teach all Nations, &c. That is, as your selves have acknowledged, Disciple all Nations, Baptizing them. So in that parallel place. Mark. 16. 16. (which is but a rehearsal of the same Commission by another of the Holy Pen Men) our Saviour there tells us; He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved. Plainly shewing, that those that are to be Baptized must be such, as so hear the Gospel, as to give a Believing entertainment to it. He had said before, Go Preach the Gospel to every Greature, And then it immediately follows, He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved. And if here be not a plain notice given of the qualification of such as are to be admitted to Bap­tism; Let such Judge whose Eyes are open.

Secondly; if we enquire after the manner or form of Baptizing, the very Word it self is plainly significant of Christ's Mind and Meaning therein. Go Teach all Nations, Baptizing them; that is, let them be dipt or plunged under Water; which is the native Sense and signification of the Greek Word, which we Translate Baptize, as hath been already proved. So that whatever Mr. Sidenham tells us; the Commission which Christ gave to his Apostles concerning Baptism doth afford sufficient Direction, both in respect of the qualification of the Subject, as also in reference to the manner of the Administration thereof.

§. 3. As for the rest of the Arguments made use of by Mr. Sidenham for the support of Infants Baptism, from the Nature of the Covenant made with Abraham, from Acts 2. 39. From Col. 2. 11, 12. From the Analogy between Circumcision and Infants Baptism; From the Baptizing, [Page 100] of the several Housholds mentioned in the New Testament: As also con­cerning the Signification and Ʋse of the Word, Baptism. Enough hath been already said in the first and second Parts of this Discourse for the Refutation of them, which needs not here to be repeated. Only there are two Arguments in Mr. Allen's Treatise before mentioned, which were then omitted; but must now be Answered.

SECT. VII.

§. 1. THE first hath Referrence to those several Titles of a Holy and peculiar People, which are frequently in the Scripture given to the whole Body of the Jewish Nation, Church and People; from whence he infers, that there is no such difference as we affirm there is, be­tween the Old and the New Testament Churches. For (saith he) ‘If those terms are frequently given in the Epistles to Church Members now, the same Epethites are frequently given to the Members of the Jewish Church. And therefore there is no such Difference as is Imagi­ned in the Constitution of either of them, they being both alike Spiritual.’

§. 2. To this we Answer; First, If there be no difference between the Old and New Testament Churches, in respect of the Constitution of either of them; but that there was the same Purity, Holiness, and Spiritu­ality, in the one, as in the other; Then what needed, or wherein consisted that Reformation, which the Apostle tells us was to take place in the Gospel day. Heb. 9. 8, 9, 10. The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first Tabernacle was yet standing; which was a Figure for the time then present: In which were offered both Gifts and Sacrifices that could not make him that did the Service perfect; as pertaining to the Conscience; which stood only in Meats and Drinks, and divers Washings, and Carnal Ordinances, Imposed on them until the time of Reformation. Plainly Inti­mating that there were many things faulty among them, and many things defective also, which were to be Reformed, Rectified, and Supplied, when the Day-light of the Gospel was to break upon them. And upon this account, not only doth the Spirit of God find fault with the Cove­nant it self which they were then under, which therefore was now to be done away, and a new One to take place. Heb. 8. 7, 8, 13. But for this Reason also was the Seed to be changed. The Carnal Seed being re­jected, and only the Spiritual Seed of Abraham admitted as Members of the Gopsel Church. A plain notice of which Change is given by John the Baptist, the Harbinger of the Gospel Dispensation. Mat. 3. 7, 8, 9, 10. Think not (saith he) to say within your selves, we have A­braham to our Father; For I say unto you, that GOD is able even of these Stones to raise up Children unto Abraham. And now also the Axe is laid unto the Root of the Trees; therefore every Tree that bringeth not forth good Fruit, is hewn down. Plainly requiring a personal and actual Fruitful­ness [Page 101] in all the Members of this new Church state; which is exclusive not only of all those that are such as the Pharisees and Sadduces were, whom he was now speaking to, who were a Generation of Vipers, and were actually debauch'd in their Conversations; but of all such also, as were either neglective, or are uncapable (as is the Case of Infants) of actual Fruitfulness in the Paths of Righteousness.

§. 3. So that when you tell us that the Legal and Gospel Church are alike Spiritual: We say not; For it is plain there was no such Inquisition concerning the good or bad qualities, the Fruitfulness, or Unfruitfulness of the Members of the former Church, in [...] to Ad­mission thereinto. It was enough barely to be of Abraham's Seed or Fa­mily to be so esteemed: But now saith John, the Axe is laid unto the Root of the Trees; And they must all be hewn down under the Gospel, that have nothing else to pretend unto but that of a Godly Parentage; which plainly excludes Infants, as well as all other unfruitful Bran­ches from the Gospel Church. And to this same purpose is it that he doth further assure them: ver. 12. That Jesus Christ was now resolv­ed with the Gospel Fan to Purge thoroghly the Floor of the Gospel Church; and to gather the Wheat into His Garner. Under the Law, and before also, even in Abrahmam's time, the Chaff and the Wheat remained together unsevered; but now the Fan must go to Work. We read of no such Fanning Work in the former Church state. And to what purpose is it else that Christ told the Woman of Samaria, as he doth. Jo. 4. 23. The Hour cometh, and now is, when the true Worshippers shall Worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth: For the Father seeketh such to Worship Him? Which plainly sheweth that God expecteth now greater Purity, Exactness, and Spirituality, in such as were to ap­proach His Presence in the Celebration of Gospel Worship. And indeed of this the whole fifth of Mat. is a sufficient and convincing Proof, giv­ing clear evidence concerning the refinedness and spirituality of the Gos­pel Administration above and beyond that of the Law. For then (saith our Saviour) it was thus and thus; but I am come to tell you a New Doctrine, and do call you up to greater Purity and Strictness.

§ 4. Secondly, We Answer, That that Holiness which was ascribed unto the whole Body of the Jewish Nation, was a Typical, Ceremonial Holiness; and was no other than was ascribed to the whole Land, Ci­ty, Temple, Altar, and divers other things, and is therefore now Abo­lished For if all things under the Law were but a Figure and Shadow of good things to come, then such was the Holiness of the Jewish Nation and People also. Now this the Apostle in the 9th and 10th Chapters to the Hebrews, proves at large, shewing that all things under the Law; all the Priviledges of the Old Covenànt, with all the Perquisites, Dependancies, and Appurtenances thereunto belonging; are called by such Names, as make them evidently appear to be Typical. As [Page 102] First, they are called a Figure. Heb. 9. 9. Which was a Figure for the time then present. So verse 24. For Christ is not Entered into the Holy Place made with Hands, which are the Figures of the true. Secondly, They are called a Pattern. Heb. 9. 23. It was necessary that the Pat­tern of things in the Heavens, &c. Thirdly, They are called a Shadow. Heb. 10. 1. For the Law having a Shadow of good things to come, and not the very Image of the thing [...], &c. Now the Holiness of the Jewish Nation being an Appurtenance belonging to the Law, or the Old Covenant. It was but a Figure, Pattern, or Shadow of all good things to come, and was therefore Typical, and is now Abolished. And if we will know what the Holiness of the Jewish Nation did serve, to Typifie or Represent unto us; It is evident, that as it Typified the Holiness of Christ himself; So of all Abraham's Spiritual Seed, who are made Holy by Believing in Christ.

§ 5. The Time of Reformation therefore, spoken of in the fore­mentioned Scripture. Heb. 9. 8, 9, 10. being come; wherein those Imperfect Gifts and Sacrifices, with all those Carnal Ordinances which were for a Season Imposed on the Jewish Nation, were to be done a­way; and the Gospel-Church taking place in the Room thereof: It cannot rationally be supposed, but the one doth far exceed the other, at least, in Purity and Inward Glory: For by how much Christ hath now obtained a more excellent Ministry than that of Moses; and by how much also he is the Mediatour of a better Covenant, Which is Established upon better Promises; as the Apostle affirmes. Heb. 8. 6. By so much of necessity must the gospell Church exceed in lustre, beauty, Refinedness and Spirituality, the former Administration.

SECT. VIII.

THE Second Argument in Mr. Allen's Book, remaining to be Answered, is this; ‘That all Persons, and so little Children, that were of the Legal Church, must needs, in one Respect or other, have been Persons of a Religious, or Spiritual Consideration. And this considered (saith he) I know not upon what better to place the Visible Church-Membership of Infants; or to Attribute it to, than God's Electing▪ and Calling them to his People, and their Parents De­dicating and Devoting them to God, and his Service. And the Scrip­ture useth to reckon little Children, as having begun to do this or that, when they are but placed in Circumstances, that will bring them to it Actually in the Issue. And thus the Children of the Koha­thites, of a Month Old, were numbred with their Fathers, as with them keeping the charge of the Sanctuary, when they were but in a way of being trained up to it. And for the same Reason, little Children were said to enter into Covenant with God when their Parents did so. Deut. 29. 11, 12’

§ 2. To this we Answer; First, By granting that it was in a Reli­gious [Page 103] Consideration, that Children were then Admitted Members of the Legal Church: But yet it doth not therefore follow, that they are to be admitted Members of the Gospel-Church; for the Reasons before rendered: The Terms of Admission into that, being far more strict and Spiritual, than were those under the Law.

Secondly, Whereas he tells us, That the Reason of their Admission into the Legal Church; was God's Electing, and Calling them to that Priviledge. This we also grant: But then we also say, that though the Call and Election of God, in Reference to the Inward Substance of the Covenant of Grace, or to an Invisible Membership in the Invisible Church, is Invariable; It doth not follow, that the Gifts and Callings of God in Reference to External Membership, are therefore also Inva­riable or Irrevokable; (as is afterward by Mr. Allen Asserted; and un­to which we have already in the Second Part of this Discourse given a sufficient Answer.) For we find by undeniable Evidence; that those External Gifts and Priviledges that the Natural Posterity of Abraham were once Invested with, are now Rescinded, Repealed, and Repented of; and it cannot be affirmed, that in any Religious Capacity whatso­ever, they are now at all owned by God, as his Church and People, as once they were, neither Parents nor Children: But for the most part remain broken off, and Unchurched to this Day. And if you say, That they and their Children being broken off, We and our Children are In­graffed in their Room; This is that which remains to be proved; and indeed the contrary is manifest, as hath been already with abundant Evidence Demonstrated, in the foregoing Parts of this Discourse; since the Axe of the Gospel is now laid unto the Root of the Trees; and every Tree that bringeth not forth good Fruit, is hewn down, in respect of any further Church Priviledge, which before was Indulged unto them: which clearly cuts off the pretence of Children unto any such Priviledge under the Gospel, as well as all other Ʋnfruitful Branches.

Thirdly, Whereas he tells us of their Parents Dedicating and Devo­ting them to God, and his Service; And that the Children of the Ro­athites of a Month Old, were numbred with their Fathers, as keeping the charge of the Sanctuary: And that for the same Reason, little Children were said to enter into Covenant with God, when their Parents did so. Deut. 29. 11, 12. To this we Answer; That it is indeed a very Pious and Commendable thing, for Parents to Dedicate and Devote their Children to God, and his Service; and to this Purpose, to train them up, as soon as they are capable in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. But it doth not therefore follow, that they can justly be Re­puted Church-Members now, till Converted, and wrought upon by the Preaching of the Gospel unto them, whatever they were under the Law, as hath been before demonstrated.

§ 3. And though the Kohathites of a Month Old were numbred [Page 104] with their Fathers, as keeping the charge of the Sanctuary; Evident it is, that this was the proper Work of the Kohathites, by God's special Direction in their several Generations; and as they became to grow up to the Competency of Years, an Actual discharge of that Duty was required of them; This being an External Service, which by God's special Direction, was peculiarly Incumbent on all that were of that Lineage: But what signifies this, to prove the Church-Membership of Infants under the Gospel?

§ 4. And as little signifies that which follows, when he tells us, That for the same Reason, little Children were said to enter into Cove­nant with God, when their Parents did so, Deut. 29. 11, 12. For though 'tis true, thus it was under the Law; yet this proves not the Point in dispute: For as we have already said; That Covenant which God made with his People when he took them by the Hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt, because of the Faultiness of it, is now Abolished. That Covenant, saith God, they brake, they continued not it, and I re­garded them not. So that though Infants were Visible Members of the Legal Church; yet that was by a Positive Law, and that which is now Abolished. Shew us the like now, or you say nothing.

SECT. IX.

MR. Baxter indeed tells us in his Book, called, Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism, p. 57, 58. That the Covenant mentioned in the fore-cited Text, Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. Where Children are Represented as Fellow-Covenanters with their Parents, was a Covenant of Grace, or a Gospel-Covenant; and that there­fore, neither it, nor the Church-Membership of Infants, (which, saith he, was built thereon, or inseparably Conjunct) is repealed. For thus runs his Argument. ‘[My 12th Argument (saith he) is from the forementioned Text, in Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. where all the Jews with all their little ones, were entred into Covenant with God: From whence I argue thus; if the Covenant which those Infants who were then Church-Members, were entred into with God, was a Covenant of Grace (or a Gospel-Covenant,) then it is not Repealed, (and consequently their Churchs▪Membership is not Repealed, as being built on the Covenant, or inseparably Conjunct.) But the said Covenant which the Infants who were then Church-Members did pass into, was a Covenant of Grace, (as distinct from the Law which is Repealed.) Where by the way, it may be observed, that though Mr. Baxter affirms the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. to be a Covenant of Grace, or a Gospel-Covenant, yet he doth here seem plainly to grant, that the Law, or Sinai Covenant, was no other than a Covenant of Works, and accordingly now Repealed. Where­in Mr. Baxter is undoubtedly in the right; though he therein di­rectly c [...]t [...]adicteth Mr. Roberts his Notion, who affirms the Law [Page 105] or Sinai Covenant it self, to be a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus The unsoundness whereof, we shall have Occasion to discover in the following parts of this Discourse. Therefore neither it, nor their Church-Membership is Repealed.]’

So that if we can substantially prove, that the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. was not a Covenant of Grace, nor a Gospel- [...]; but a legal Covenant, and that which is now Repealed; from hence it will unavoidably follow, and that according to Mr. Baxter's own Concession, that the Church-Membership of Infants (which as himself affirms, was built thereon, or inseparably Conjunct) is also Repealed with it.

§ 3. Now that the Covenant there mentioned (though there was Grace in it, as there was in all the Covenants that God ever made with Men) is not a Covenant of Grace, properly so called, whereof Christ is the Mediatour; nor a Gospel, but a Legal Covenant; is Evident; forasmuch as it is no other than a Repetition, or Renewal of the Covenant made with that People in Horeb, or at Mount Sinai; when God took them by the Hand to lead them out of Egypt; which was first mentioned, Exod. 19. and that in the very Words and Terms as it is there Expressed: That Covenant being now again solemnly Repeated, and afresh Transacted between God and them, in Deut. 29. as is manifest by comparing Exod. 19. 4, 5. with Deut. 29. from the 1st to the 13^th Verse. As also, the 24^th and 25^th verses of that Chapter. And accordingly, whereas in the first verse of this 29^th of Deut. We are there told, These are the Words of the Covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel, in the Land of Moab, beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. Mr. Pool in his Annotations upon this Text, paraphraseth the words thus: ‘These are the Terms or Conditions, upon which God hath made, that is, renewed Covenant with you.’ The Covenant (saith he) was but one in Substance, but various in the time and manner of its Administration: And indeed as it is Evident that it is the same Covenant for Substance, that was first made with them in Horeb: So it is as Evident from the words themselves in this forecited text. Deut- 29. 1. That it was not a Covenant of Grace; properly so ca­led; but a Covenant of Works, or a Legal Covenant, which God re­newed with the Israelites, in the Land of Moab; since Moses was the Mediator of it; In which respect, we are there expresly told, that these are the words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel beside the Covenant he made with them in Horeb. Whereas the Covenant of Grace, properly so called, hath no other Mediator than Christ himself. 1 Tim. 2, 5. Who is therefore said to have Obtained a more Excellent Ministry, viz. than that of Moses; by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant, which is established [Page 106] upon better Promises. Heb. 8. 6. Besides, we are expresly told. Jo. 1. 17. That the Law was given by Moses; but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. From whence; it plainly follows, that the Covenant insisted on, was not a Covenant of Grace, properly so called, not only for as much as Moses was the Mediator of it; But also forasmuch as the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ, is here so plainly Contra­distinguished, or opposed thereunto.

§ 4. But that this Covenant, which by the Mediation of Moses was thus Solemnly renewed and afresh transacted between God and them, in the land of Moab; was plainly a Covenant of Works, or a Legal Covenant; will be yet further undeniable, by comparing Exod. 1 [...], 5. with Deut. 29. 9. and both with Lev. 18. and Rom. 10. 5. For as in Exod. 19 (Where that Covenant is first mentioned which God made with Israel, by the Mediation of Moses, in Horeb, or at Mount Sinai; which the Apostle speaks of Heb. 8. when God took them by the hand to lead them out of Aegypt) He there tells them ver. 5. Now therefore if you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my Covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me, above all People: for all the Earth is mine. So in like mannner, upon the same terms, and by the hand of the same Mediator, is the same Covenant afterward renewed with them. Deut. 29. 9. Keep therefore (saith God there unto them) the words of this Covenant, and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do. Now that both these were but two several Repetitions of the same Co­venant of Works, the Apostle plainly shews. Rom. 10. 4. 5. Christ (saith he there) is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth: For Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the man which doth these things shall live by them, which he citeth from Lev. 18. 5. Where the Lord tells them, you shall therefore keep my Sta­tutes and Judgments, which if a man do he shall live in them. The same with Exod 19. 5. and Deut. 29. 9. And the same Apostle also assures us. Gal. 3. 10. that as many as are of the Works of the Law, are under the Curse; for it is written (saith he) Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are in the Book of the Law, to do them.

§ 5. Now it having been thus proved that the Covenants Mentioned in both these forenamed Scriptures, were made by the hands of the same Mediator Moses; And that they were both also of one and the same tenor, requiring perfect Obedience as the Condition of Obtaining the Promised Mercy; And forasmuch as St. Paul doth so plainly assure us, that this was no other than a Covenant of Works, and that which he Contradistinguisheth or opposeth to the Righteousness of Faith, or the Gospel Covenant, which he afterward speaks of ver. 6, 7, 8, 9. of the same 10th to the Romans. From hence it plainly follows, That the formentioned Covenants, both that in Deut. 29. as well as that in Exod. 19. (which were but two several Repetitions of the same Co­venant of Works;) are now Repealed, and done away in Christ: [Page 107] For so he doth plainly assure us. Heb. 8. 8, 9, 13. where he tells us; That if that first Covenant had been faultless, then no place should have been sought for the second: For finding Fault with them, he saith, Behold the days come saith the Lord, when I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel, and the House of Judah; not according to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers, in the Day when I took them by the Hand, to lead them out of the Land of Egypt, because they continued not in my Covenant, and I regarded them not. And verse 13: In that he saith, a New Covenant he hath made the first Old. Now that which decayeth (saith he) and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. From whence it is plain that the old Covenant he there speaks of, which God made with his People when he took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, mentioned Exod. 19. 5. and Deut 29. 9. for the faultyness thereof is now Abollished: For there is verily (saith he) Heb. 7. 18. a disannulling of the Commandment going before, for the Weak­ness and unprofitableness thereof. Upon which Account a New Covenant was to take place, which was to be Established upon better Promises.

§ 6. And therefore though 'tis true, in Deut. 30. 6. (which Mr. Baxter urgeth, and alledgeth to prove, that the Covenant mentioned Chapter 29. is a Gospel-Covenant) The Lord then promiseth that he will Circumcise their Heart, and the Heart of their Seed, to love the Lord their God with all their Heart, and with all their Soul, that they might live. Which are plainly Gospel Promises, yet it is evident, that that is a distinct Covenant from that mentioned Chapter 29. the one being Conditional, the other Absolute: And it is as evident, that the Promises therein contained, were not to be fulfilled, till after the Lord had turned their threatned Captivity, for their Breach of the Covenant he now made with them; and till after he had return­ed and gathered them from all the Nations, and from the outmost Parts of Heaven, whether they should be scattered; and from whence the Lord there promiseth to gather, and to fetch them, as it is plainly Expressed in the 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5th Verses of that Chapter, compa­red with the 24th and 25th Verses of the 29th Chapter, which was never yet fulfilled.

§ 7. But saith Mr. Baxter [Did God Promise Spiritual Grace to the Jews after the Captivity and not before? Was not the Promise made to them that then were? Were not they Captivated oft in the time of the Judges, and so might at least be made good then? If God would do as much for them before they forsook him, and broke the Cove­nant by Rebellion, as he would do afterward when they Repented; then he would Circumcise their Hearts before as well as after: But the former is true, therefore the latter. Besides, some Divines say that the Promise. Deut. 30. 6. is Conditional: And if it be on Condition of Obedience, than it was made to more than the Elect; and if it were [Page 108] not performed to any but the Elect; no wonder, when it was a Con­ditional Promise, and the rest performed not the Condition, which God will Cause the Elect to perform.]

§8. To this we Reply; That as it is evident that the Promises mention­ed Deut. 30. 6. are Absolute, and therefore Essentially different from those mentioned ch. 29. which were Conditional; so they are as clearly to be understood in Reference to a time to come; and cannot without palpable streining be applied unto the time then present; nor indeed unto any time since, unto this very day. For thus run the Words, Deut. 30. 1. And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the Bles­sing and the Curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the Nations whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee? ver. 2. And shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy Children, with all thine Heart, and with all thy Soul. ver. 3. That then the Lord thy God will turn thy Captivity, and have Compassion upon thee, and will re­turn and gather thee from all the Nations whether the Lord thy God hath scattered thee, ver. 4. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of Heaven; from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee. ver. 5. And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the Land which thy Fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it, and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy Fathers. ver. 6. And the Lord thy God will Circumcise thine Heart, and the Heart of thy Seed, to Love the Lord thy God with all thine Heart, and with all thy Soul, that thou mayest Live. ver. 7. And the Lord thy God will put all these Curses upon thine Enemies, and on them that hate thee. ver 8. And thou shalt return, and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his Commandments which I command thee this day. ver. 9. And the Lord thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine Hand, in the fruit of thy Body, and in the fruit of thy Cattle, and in the fruit of thy Land for good: For the Lord will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy Fathers. ver. 10. Because thou shalt obey the voice of the Lord thy God in keeping his Commandments, and his Ordi­nances, which are written in the Book of this Law, when thou shalt return unto the Lord thy God, with all thine Heart, and with all thy Soul. For thus run the Words of this 10th. verse. according to the Old Translation, though they are rendred otherwise in the New.

§ 9. Wherein, First, we cannot but observe the Absoluteness of these Gospel Promises; since that which was the very Condition of the Le [...]l Covenant; Do this and live; And if ye be willing and obedient ye shall cut the good of the Land, is here made a main branch of the promised Blessing. ver. 6. The Lord thy God will Circumcise thine Heart, and the Heart of thy Seed, to Love the Lord thy God, with all thine Heart, and with all thy Soul, that thou mayst Live. And therefore when Moses tells them. ver. 1, 2. That when all these things were come upon them, the Bles­sing [Page 109] and the Curse which he had already set before them, and they should call them to Mind among all the Nations, whither the Lord their God had driven them; and they should return unto the Lord and obey his voice, with all their Heart, and with all their Soul, that then the Lord would return their Captivity. We are by no means to understand these Words as the Condition, upon the Account of which their Captivity should be re­turned: For then indeed it ha [...] been all one with the Covenant of Works mentioned, Exod. 19. 5. Deut. 29. 9. or that mentioned Gen. 2. 16, 17. And had been failable, as that was: But these Words are plainly spoken by way of Prediction, rather, of what should be; that at the same time when they should thus obey God's voice, their Capti­vity should be returned: But how? Is it left to an uncertainty. If ye will obey my voice then shall your Captivity be returned? No; for God un­dertakes even this also for them, to work up their Hearts to an answe­rable frame of Obedience, suitable to the Mercy to be bestowed on them. And therefore to prevent their Jealousie concerning any fur­ther forfeiture of the promised Blessing on their part, he is pleased to give them a full Assurance thereof by an absolute Promise. ver. 6. The Lord thy God will Circumcise thy Heart, and the Heart of thy Seed, to Love the Lord thy God with all thine Heart, and withal thy Soul, that thou mayest Live. And so also, ver. 8. Thou shalt return, and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his Commandments which I command thee this day.

§ 10. Mr. Baxter indeed suggesteth, that the Promises mentioned ver. 6. are Conditional, and therefore made to more than to the Elect. And if (saith he) they were not performed to more than the Elect, no wonder [...]hen they were Conditional: But that they are Absolute and not Condi­tional is plain; since no Condition can be Assigned of performing those Promises, but that of the good Pleasure of God's own Will; it being only brought forth as the Sovereign Effect of his own Purpose and Grace▪ and of that alone: For to say that God promiseth to Circumcise their Hearts, on Condition of their Obedience, is to put the Effect before the Cause: For therefore God promiseth that they shall be Obedient, be­cause he will Circumcise their Heart. (Neither indeed is there any true Gospel Obedience, but what flows from that Principle:) And what Condition can there be of that, but that of the good pleasure of God's own Goodness and Grace? Let the Heart once be Circumcised, so as that God's People be made a willing People in the day of his Power, and then their Obedience naturally and necessarily follows; till that be done, nothing is done; when that is done, all is done. And this is that which God here promiseth, viz. To Circumcise their Heart, and the Heart of their Seed. to Love and Serve the Lord their God, with all their Heart, and with all their Soul. Which therefore must needs be Absolute, since no Condition can be assigned, whereby God should be obliged to the performance thereof, but that of his own Purpose and Grace. Which being Obvious in the Words.

§ 11. We must in the next place take notice of the Time appoint­ed for the fulfilling of these Gospel Promises unto them. And that was not the time then present, as Mr. Baxter would have it: For (saith Moses, Deut 29. 4.) The Lord hath not given you an Heart to perceive and Eyes to see, and Ears to hear, unto this day. Nor in the time of the Judges, or the Prophets that followed after; nor indeed any time that is as yet past: But as Moses here tells them; when all these things should have come upon them, the Blessing and the Curse which he had be­fore spoken of; which must of necessity refer to the latter times, or the last Age of the World, when the Lord should turn their Captivity; return and gather them from all the Nations whether they should be scattered. And so it is plainly expressed, Deut. 4. 30. When thou art in Tribulation; and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, &c. For it is plain that Moses aims not at this or that particular Captivity, either in the time of the Judges, before or after, among the Philistines, E­gyptians, or Babylonians; since that had been of little Advantage to de­liver them from one Captivity, to let them fall into another, and there let them stick for ever: But the Words of the Promise are of a most Comprehensive Latitude, viz. If they be driven among all the Nations. ver. 1. Or any of them be driven to the outmost parts of Heaven. ver. 4. The Lord will gather them from all Nations. ver. 3. And will fetch them from the outmost parts of Heaven. ver. 4. And it is plain, that as the Promise is of a great Latitude; so of a great Length also. For this gathering them is promised after the Babilonian Captivity. Jer. 29 1. Jer. 31. 10. Nay after Christ was come in the Flesh, it is delivered as a Prophecy. Jo. 11. 51. That Christ should gather together into one the Children of God that were scattered abroad; as a thing to be fullfilled in after times.

§ 12. And in this Respect therefore is it that the Prophet Jer. Ch. 31. 31, 32, 33. Reciting the same Gospel Covenant spoken of in the forementioned 30 Deut. Expresly Represents it as a thing future, or as yet then to come, as it had been before so represented, Deut. 30. Be­hold the day [...]s come, (saith the Lord) that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel, and the House of Judah, not according to the Co­venant that I made with their Fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt (which my Covenant they brake, although I was an Husband unto them.) But this shall be the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their Hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my People. And they shall teach no more every Man his Neighbour, and every Man his Brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest of them, saith the Lord: For I will forgive their Iniquity, and I will remember their Sins no more. Where we have the same Promises for Substance with those mentioned Deut. 30. 6. And to the same purpose the Apostle also Re­presents [Page 111] it as a thing future, even after the Resurrection and Ascention of Christ. Rom. 11. 25, 26, 27. I would not Brethren that ye should be Ignorant of this Mystery, that Blindness in part is happened unto Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved. As it is written; there shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn a­way Ʋngodliness from Jacob. For this is my Covenant unto them, when I shall take away their Sins; wherein, as we may observe that the Cove­nant he here speaks of, is of the same Nature with the Promises men­tioned Deut. 30. 6. as also with those before mentioned, Jer. 31. So we cannot but take notice both there and here, of the Futurity of their Accomplishment; It being not to be fulfilled until the Fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved.

§ 13. And 'tis in vain to say that these Promises have already had their Partial and Gradual Accomplishment: For therein God promi­seth not only to Circumcise their Heart, but the Heart of their Seed also, to Love the Lord their God with all their Heart, and with all their Soul. Which as it must of necessity comprehend the whole Body of that Na­tion, Young and Old, of all Sorts, Ages, and Degrees, from the least unto the greatest, none exempted: So it doth as plainly express a time and state of Perfection; which no particular Person, much less a whole Generation of God's People, in this World; they and their Off-spring also, could ever yet truly or justly pretend unto. To insist therefore upon a Partial or Gradual Accomplishment of those Glorious Promises; and thence to conclude, that they might be made good or fulfilled in Moses his time; or as Mr. Baxter saith, in the time of the Judges, or the Prophets that followed after; would be no other than to darken Counsel by Words without Knowledge. For as Moses doth expresly assure us that those Glorious Promises were not fulfilled in his time, Deut. 29. 4. The Lord (saith he) hath not given you an Heart to perceive, and Eyes to see, and Ears to hear unto this day; and as the Prophet Jer. is so far from owning any Accomplishment of them in his time, that he doth plainly acquaint us, that the Covenant was not so much as struck up, or as yet Actually made betwixt God and them: But as he tells us; ‘Behold the dayes come, saith the Lord, that I will do it;’ So the A­postle Paul is as far from owning any Accomplishment of them in his Time: ‘For until this day (saith he) remaineth the same vail unta­ken away, 2 Cor. 3.’

§ 14. So that as it is clear, that the Mercies promised, Deut. 30. 6. were not fulfilled in Moses's, nor in Jeremy's, nor in the Apostle's Time; So there is no Experience or History that gives us any account that they were ever since fulfilled. And therefore neither indeed can we groun­dedly expect the Accomplishment of them till the second coming of the Deliverer, before spoken of, when that Prediction of the Apostle Rom. 11. 26. shall be fulfilled. ‘And so all Israel shall be saved. And no wonder, for this will be no other than the time of the [Page 112] New Heavens, and the New Earth, mentioned Isa. 65. 17, 18. For Behold I create new Heavens, and a New Earth, and the former shall not be remembred: But be you glad and rejoice for ever in that which I Create; for behold I create Jerusalem a Rejoicing, and her People a Joy; And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. And ver. 23. they shall not Labour in vain, nor bring forth for Trouble; for they are the Seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their Off-spring with them.’ With many other glorious Promises there Recorded, which are no way Applicable to the present state of things in the Heavens and Earth that now are. And indeed the whole 60th. chap. of Isaiah is taken up with Promises of this kind: And among the rest, we are told. ver. 21. ‘Thy People also shall be all Righteous, they shall inherit the Land for ever, the Branch of my Planting, that I may be glorified. So Chap. 61. 9. Their Seed also shall be known among the Gentiles, and their Off-spring among the People. All that see them shall acknowledge them that they are the Seed which the Lord hath blessed.’ All of them most plainly Promi­ses that were never yet fulfilled, and therefore remain as yet to be Accomplished.

§ 15. And indeed hitherto are to be Referred the several Passages that lie dispersed up and down the Scriptures, concerning the Blessed­ness of the Seed of the Righteous: For though no doubt, God hath a Gracious Respect unto many that are the Natural Descendants of Be­lievers now; and we may probably hope that the Grace of Election is for the most part continued in their Race; yet as God hath made no such Covenant with us, ‘That he will be a God unto us, and to all our Natural Off spring, during the present Administration of things, in the Heavens and the Earth that now are.’ So whatever Blessedness of that kind, God hath designed for his People, we have no Scripture ground to expect the Accomplishment thereof, nor the Jews neither, till the time of the New Heavens, and the New Earth before spoken off; wherein (as Peter tells us) Righteousness shall dwell. For then indeed, the People or Subjects of that state shall be all Righteous, the Branch of Gods planting that he may be glorified, both they and their Off-spring al­so. And therefore then, and not till then may we expect the fulfilling of those Gospel Promises before mentioned, concerning the ‘Circum­cising of the Heart, both of them and their Seed also, to Love the Lord their God, with all their Heart, and with all their Soul:’ Which be­speaks no other than a time and state of Perfection; when they shall have ‘no need any more to Teach every Man his Neighbour, nor eve­ry Man his Brother’ (as now we must, and therefore not to be un­derstood of the present state of things) ‘Saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know him from the least unto the greatest of them.’

§. 16. From all which, it clearly appears, that the Promises men­tioned, Deut. 30. 6. are of a vastly different Nature, from what they have been generally imagined to be. And indeed are so far from being a part of the Legal Covenant at Mount Sinai; or of that Covenant which the Israelites with their little ones, were en­tred into, Deut. 29. That they remain as yet to be fulfilled. They might be Fulfilled, saith Mr. Baxter in the time of the Judges. But why then were they so oft Captivated in the time of the Judges, as well as afterward by the Philistiues, Ammonites, &c? And why were the Ten Tribes after carried away Captive by Salma­nazer, King of Assyria, So as that they have never since been hear'd of in the World, that we can understand? And why were the two Tribes afterward also carried away Captive by the Babylonians, and since Dispersed by the Roman and Turkish Powers; and so still remain in a State of Dispersion; as also in a State of Impeni­tency and Opposition to the Gospel unto this day? A few indeed were Converted by John the Baptist, and Christ, in the day of his first Appearance: But the Generality of the Jews were in Blindness after that, in Paul's time, Rom. 11. and still so rémain. And what was the Conversion of a few to the Fulfilling of the All of these Promises to the All of the Jews. But as sure as God is True, and his Word most Faithful, there must be a time, when the forementioned Promises shall be Accomplished: When as the Fulness of the Gentiles shall come in, and be brought under the Obedience of Christ: So the Jews also must be Called, and the Fulness of them; by that Deliverer whom God hath promi­sed shall yet come out of Zion, to turn away Ʋngodliness from Jacob. For this is my Covenant unto them, saith God, when I shall take away their Sins.

§. 17. And therefore, though Mr. Baxter saith true, when he tells us, p. 58. That Deut. 3 [...]. is a Gospel Covenant; since the Apostle, Rom. 10. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. shews it in Express Words: ‘(For saith he) when the Apostle had shewed, that the Righteousness of the Law lieth in Perfect Obedience. He that doeth these things, shall live by them. He then sheweth the Difference thus. But the Righteousness which is of Faith, speaketh on this wise: Say not in thine Heart, who shall Ascend up to Heaven, to bring down Christ from Above, &c. But what saith it? The Word is nigh thee; even in thy Mouth, and in thy Heart; that is, the Word of Faith which we Preach. Now these words of Faith (saith he) the Apoststle Citeth out of this very Covenant, Deut. 30. 11, 12, 13, 14.’ But then it doth not therefore follow, that the Covenant mentioned, Deut. 30. and that, Chap. 29. is one [Page 114] and the same Covenant. Mr. Baxter indeed takes it for granted that they are one and the same: And therefore to prove that that mentioned in the 29th. Chapter is a Covenant of Grace, or a Go­pel Covenant; he Alledgeth these words in the 6th. ver. of the 30th. Chapter, for the Confirmation thereof; and hereon Bottoms his Argument; ‘[That because the Jews with their little Ones, were entred into Covenant with God, in the 29th. Chapter, and con­sequently were all Church-members; and forasmuch as the Cove­nant which the Infants who were then Church-members did pass into, was a Covenant of Grace, or a Gospel Covenant, (as distinct from the Law, which is Repealed;) therefore neither it, nor their Church-membership is Repealed.’

§ 18. It cannot be denied but this is a Principal Argument which Mr. Baxter urgeth for the support of his New Doctrine of the Church membership of Infants, and consequently their Baptism under the Gospel: But how unjustly Urged, and how little it sig­nifies to the Proof of what he intends it for, may by this time be easily Discerned; since by what hath been said, it plainly appears, that the forementioned Scriptures in Deuteronomy, which he Bot­toms it on, are by him greatly Abused and Mis-represented, con­trary to the plain Scope of the Spirit of God in them: The Co­venant mentioned in the 29th. Chapter, and that in the 30th. being not one and the same, as he would have it, but two Distinct and Essentially differrent Covenants The one being a Covenant of Works as hath been plainly proved, from Rom. 10. 5. which had Moses for the Mediator of it, Deut. 29. 1. For the Faultiness whereof it is now Abolished, Heb. 8. 13. The other, a Covenant of Grace, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. Deut. 30. 11, 12, 13, 14. which hath Christ alone for the Mediator of it, Heb. 8. 6, 7, 8, 9. And shall therefore never be Abolished, Psal. 89. 34, 35, 36. The one be­ing plainly of a Legal Stamp; the other Evangelical. The one Con­ditional; the other Absolute. The one having its Existence but for a time, upon an Occasional Temporary Principle; the other suited to answer a Principle, Existing from Everlasting, to Ever­lasting. The one being appointed only for the time then present, till the Incarnation of Christ; the other respecting a time that is as yet to come. From all which it plainly follows, that the Co­venant spoken of Deut. 30. 6. is Essentinlly different from that which the Jews with their Little Ones, were then entered into Chap. 29. as being Established upon better Promises. So that there can be no just Inferrence drawn; that because Infants were Fellow Covenanters with their Parents under the Legal Administration, that thus it is now under the Gospel: For since it is Evident that [Page 115] the Law or Covenant it self is changed; (as the Apostle Expresly affirms it is, Heb. 7. 12.) It doth as plainly follow, that the Seed is changed: The Gospel Covenant that Believers are now under, requiring other manner of Subjects than the Legal did; as hath been already proved in the foregoing parts of this Discourse.

§. 19. 'Tis true. in the time of the New Heavens and the New Earth, before spoken of, God hath promised not only to Circum­cise the Heart of his People, but of their Seed also, to love the Lord their God with all their Heart, and with all their Soul. That they shall teach no more every Man his Neighbour, and every Man his Brother, saying, know the Lord: For they shall all know him, from the least of them, to the greatest of them. That they shall be all Righteous, they and their Offspring, also the Branch of God's Planting, that he may be Glorified. But that will be such a time and state of Perfection, as we cannot now pretend unto. And therefore as the State and Condition of God's People now, is vastly different from what it was with them under the Law; so it is no less vastly different from that State of Blessedness, which both they and their Offspring also shall be Advanced unto, at the time before mentioned. So that what ever Priviledge the Off­spring of God's People shall then be Invested with; It hath been already proved, that God hath now appointed, that such only as are Capable of making a Profession of Faith and Repentance, are to be accounted as Visible Members of the Gospel Church, accor­ding to the present Frame and Constitution thereof.

§. 20. To conclude the present Point: Since it hath been now so plainly proved; That the Covenant which the Infants who were then Church-members, did pass into, was not a Covenant of Grace, properly so called, whereof Christ is Mediator; nor a Gospel, but a Legal Covenant, or a Covenant of Works, and that which is now Repealed. From hence it unavoidably follows, (and that accor­ding to Mr. Baxter's own Grant) that the Church-membership of Infants▪ which was built upon it, or, as he saith, Inseparably Conjunct, is also Repealed with it. And since the main Pillar for the support of this new Doctrine, of the Church-membership of Infants under the Gospel, fails as it doth, it of necessity follows, that all the other Arguments which Mr. Baxter hath mustered up to the same purpose, to the number of no less than 26. and those again Multiplied and Sub-divided into a great many more, are all of them wholly Insignificant also: Since no other consideration whatsoever can sufficiently demonstrate the continuance of it un­der the Gospel, unless it could have been proved, that in its [...] Institution, it had a Gospel Covenant for the Foundation the [...] [Page 116] But the Contrary having been so plainly proved, it follows with an equal necessity, (and that according to Mr. Baxter's own Con­cession) that there is no shadow of pretence left to assert the Church-membership of Infants under the Gospel Administration that now is. And if the Arguments for their Church-membership do all of them fail, as we cannot but see they do: From hence it also plainly follows, that the Practice of Infants Baptism, which is Built thereon, must of necessity fall to the Ground, as having no Scripture Foundation left it for the Support thereof. And conse­quently it is as Evident, that Mr. Baxter's Book, called, Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-membership and Baptism; carries with it nothing else but an empty Title. Vox & praeterea nihil.

SECT. X.

FRom what hath been already said, it appears, that Mr. Baxter and others, have much to Answer for, that [...] are guilty of such gross Mis-applications of the word of Truth, for the uphold ing of Infants Baptism, (besides the unrighteous charges of Mur­der and Adultery, which he and they have so strongly Laboured to fasten upon those of a contrary Practice from themselves in respect of Baptism) as is Evident in reference to the foregoing Argument; and as hath been already also manifested, in respect of his and their Corrupt Glosses upon Acts 15. 10. concerning the Disc [...]plesh [...]p of Infants. Now therefore, why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples; which neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear? As if Infants were intended by the Disciples there mentioned; when not only in that Chapter, but in the whole New Testament besides, those only are meant by Disciples, who being taught, professed the Doctrine Preached by such a one; As John's Disciples, Christ's Disciples; the Dis­ciples of the Pharises, and the Disciples of the Perverters. And accordingly Baptism was Administred unto such as were made the Disciples of Christ by Instruction, and unto none other pursuant of the Commission, Mat. 28. 19, 20. as hath been sufficiently opened and Explained in the foregoing parts of this Discourse. And no less Blameworthy is he and they, in respect of their Corrupt In­terpretations of those Scriptures, Luke 9. 47, 48. Mat. 18. 5. [...]nd Mark 9. 41. which speak of the Receiving little Children [...] Christ's Name, &c. As if all those Scriptures were intended [Page 117] of Young Sucking Infants; whereas, they are plainly spoken of such little Children only, as were capable of Believing in Christ; which tender Sucking Infants, after an ordinary rate, are utterly uncapable of. And therefore when Mat. 18. 2. we are told that Jesus called a little Child, and set him in the midst of them; and tells them, ver. 5. Who so shall Receive one such little Child in my Name, Receiveth me. It is Expressly Added ver. 6. Who so shall offend one of these little ones that believeth in me, &c. Whereby we may easily perceive what kind of little Children Christ would have us Receive in his Name, or under the Notion of his Disciples; not Infants, that are uncapable of Faith, or of Disc [...]plesh [...]p by Instruction, without which it is impossible (after an ordinary rate) to be a Disciple, according to the true and proper acceptation of the Word. But such little Children as did actually Believe in Christ. And who can deny but that such are Christ's Disciples, Church-members, and the proper Subjects of Baptism? And the very same Expression with that in Mat. 18. 6. we meet with, Mark 9. 42. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that Believe in me, &c. Upon the very same occasion, ver. 37. the like Abuse hath been put upon those Words 1. Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean, but now are they Holy. As hath been already also Manifested in the foregoing parts of this Dis­course; which needs not here to be repeated.

§. 2. As for Mr. Baxter's Argument for the Church-member­ship of Infants under the Gospel, from Rev. 11. 15. where we are told, that upon the Sounding of the Seventh Angel, there were great Voices in Heaven, saying the Kingdoms of this World are become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ. Which (saith he) Includes Infants as well as others that were to be the Members of Christ's Church, or Kingdom. To this we shall only give this brief Reply; That this Scripture hath a plain reference to the time of the New Heavens, and the New Earth, which we have before spoken of; wherein all the Kingdoms of the World shall become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; and all the Dominions of the Earth shall actually Serve and Obey him: For then indeed God hath promised, that his People shall be all Righteous, they and their Offspring also, the Branch of his Planting, that he may be Glorified, Isa. 60. 21. which cannot be applied unto the present Administration of things in the Heavens and Earth that now are; wherein we cannot say, that one of a Hundred, much less that the whole Race of Believers are subject unto the Scepter of Christ, and consequently far from the true Gospel Characters of Church-membership in the Gospel Church.

§ 3. As for Mr Allen's other Instance concerning the Cove­nant of the Rechabites; wherein the Infants as well as those of Age were Included: It is altogether as Insignificant in our present Case, as the former concerning the Kohathites; or his other In­stance concerning those little Children who were said to enter into Covenant with God when their Parents did so, Deut 29. 11, 12, which hath been already Discussed. For doth it follow that be-because the Children of the Rechahites were Engaged in a severe Ceremonial Covenant, together with their Parents, that therefore the Children of Believers are comprehended with themselves in the Covenant of Grace? This would be indeed to make Christi­anity to be Hereditary: But certain it is, that Grace doth not now run in a Blood, what ever it shall do; neither is the Grace of God now Tied or Entailed unto any Lineage of Men whtsoever. Though if it could be proved that all the Children of Believers were really and absolutely Included in the same Covenant of Grace with their Parents; yet it follows not therefore that Baptism belongs unto them, till capable of making an Actual Profession of their Faith in Christ, as hath been already proved. For it cannot justly be denied but that the Administration of Ordinances depends meerly upon the Law of Institution, and hath varied in several Ages. From Adam to Abraham there was no Ordinance to be Admini­stred to Infants. In Abraham's time indeed Circumcision was Instituted; which belongs peculiarly to the old Testament Admi­nistration, and was part of Moses his Law, which is now Abo­lished, and done away. This was the first Ordinance that was Administred to Infants, and not to all Infants, but only to Male Infants, living in Abraham's Family, if they did Live to the Eighth day; otherwise they had no Right to it; though many of them doubtless in the Covenant of Grace, and so Saved: For want of an Institution the like may be said of Infants now; many of whom are in the Covenant of Grace, and so Saved by virtue of the Free-Promise; yet not to be Baptized, if they do not live to the time of Repenting, and Believing, the only time appointed for Baptism. For none ever had a Right to the Administrations of the Covenant, any otherwise than by virtue of a Positive Law. Now if the Natural Branches the Seed of Abraham, had no Pri­viledge to be Circumcised, though in Covenant with their Father, but by virtue of a Divine Law, Expresly requiring the same; neither can we expect that our Infants should have any Right to Baptism, without the same Divine Warrant.

SECT. I.

WE should here have put a Period to the present Discourse, but that there remains yet something further of great Im­portance, which requires a Solemn Discussion, and Determination, according to the Light that shall be afforded unto us from the [Page 120] Holy Scriptures: And that is; Whereas Dr. Burthogge in his late Printed Discourse upon the Subject of Infants Baptism; Asserts (as many others have done before him) that the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. is the Covenant of Grace; or that Original Grant and Great Charter, by which Be­lieving Gentiles always did and do claim Heaven and Earth, and all the Promises they have Title to. From whence he infers, that they are to keep God's Covenant in the Gospel Sign of it, that is Baptism; and that both by wearing of it themselves, and also by putting it on all theirs; as Abraham was commanded to do, in respect of Circumcision. And forasmuch as the Mistakes which the Generality of the World hath for some season Labour­ed under, in reference to the true Nature of the Covenant made with Abraham, in the fore-cited Text, have been the very Ground and Foundation of most of the Arguments, which have of late (at least) been insisted on in order to the Justification of Infants Baptism: We shall therefore the more Solemnly apply our selves toward a Substantial Discovery, or Detection threof; additional unto what hath been already offered in that respect, in the fore­going parts of this Discourse. And if it can be Substantially pro­ved that the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. was not a Covenant of Grace, nor a Gospel, but a Legal Cove­nant, or a Covenant of Works; and consequently that the Gentiles are not concerned therein: From hence it will unavoidably fol­low, that all the Arguments thence deduced, for the support of the fore-mentioned Practice, howsoever they may be formed, or framed, do of themselves fall to the Ground.

§ 2. In the first place then; though we do acknowledge, that God did indeed make a Covenant of Grace with Believing Abra­ham: Which is the Great Charter, by which Believing Gentiles al­ways did, and do claim both Heaven and Earth, and all the Pro­mises they have Title to; yet that the Covenant of Circumci­sion, (for so it is called by Stephen, Acts. 7. 8.) which God made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. 8, 9, 10. (though there was Grace in it, as there was in all the Covenants that God ever made with Men, as hath been before noted) is not a Covenant of Grace properly so called; nor a Gospel Covenant, whereof Christ is the Mediator: And consequently that the Gentiles are not concerned therein, is thus proved.

If that Covenant was as much a Covenant of Works, as the Covenant of Mount Sinai, mentioned Exod. 19. 4, 5. and Edod. 20. and the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. 9, 10, 11. Nay, as much as the Covenant made with Adam before his Fall, Gen. 2. [Page 121] 16. 17. where God tells him; Of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not Eat: For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely Die. All which Were but several Edi­tions of the same Covenant of Works; then it is not a Gospel Covenant, nor a Covenant of Grace, properly so called; whereof Christ is the Mediator.

But it was as much a Covenant of Works as either of the Co-Covenants before mentioned were; therefore it is not a Covenant of Grace, nor a Gospel Covenant, properly so called, whereof Christ alone is Mediator.

§. 3. That the Covenant last mentioned, Gen. 2. 16, 17. was a Covenant of Works: We suppose none will (or can at least Ra­tionally) deny: Forasmuch as Life was Implicitely promised unto our First Parent upon his Obedience, and Death was Explicitely threatned, or denounced upon him, in case of his Disobedience. And upon these terms he was to Stand or Fall; which was plainly and undeniably a Covenant of Works, whereof Christ was not the Mediator. That the Covenant mentioned Exod. 19. 4, 5. and Ch. 20. which God made with the Israelites at Mount Sinai, was of the same Stamp; the Scriptures are every where full in the Proof thereof. And as clear it is, that the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. 9, 10, 11. is but a Repetition of that made Exod. 19. &c. As hath been already proved. In respect of both which, it is Evi­dent; that as Blessings were therein pronounced, and promised to the Obedient, upon Condition of their Obedience: So a Curse was pronounced upon the Disobedient. And thus Paul tells us, Rom. 10. 5. Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law; that the Man which doeth these things shall live by them. Which is a plain description of a Covenant of Works; which he Citeth from Lev.. 18. 5. You shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgments; which if a Man do, he shall live in them. And accordingly the Apostle doth also tell us, Gal. 3. 10. That as many as are of the Works of the Law, are under the Curse: For it is Written, (saith he, (Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are contained in the Book of the Law, to do them. And so like­wise ver. 11, 12. That no man is Justified by the Law in the fight of God, is evident; for the Just shall Live by Faith. And the Law is not of Faith, but the Man that doeth them. shall live in them. Those therefore that tell us that the Lavv is a Covenant of Faith, do plainly contradict the Apostle, vvho Expresly tells us, that the Law is not of Faith; but the man that doeth them, shall live in them. And therefore plainly and undeniably a Covenant of Works. Thus it was with Adam in Paradice, when God gave him [Page 122] the Command before mentioned, Gen, 2. 16. and denounced the Sentence of Death upon him, in case of Disobedience: upon the Account of which, it is generally Acknowledged, that he was then under a Covenant of Works. It is Evident therefore, that the Covenant mentioned Exod. 19. and Chap. 20. and that mentioned Deut. 29. were but two several Repetitions of the same Cove­nant of Works made with our First Parent; and are frequently therefore in the Scripture Represented unto us under the Deno­mination of the First, or Old Covenant, Heb. 8. 7. 13. Ch. 9. 15. 18. there being therein a clear and a plain Manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the First.

§. 4. Now, that the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abra­ham and his Seed, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10. is of the same stamp or tenor with the three fore-mentioned Covenants, in Gen. Exod. and Deut. is also as Evident: For though 'tis true, God there promiseth to be a God to Abraham, and to his Seed; yet still it was upon Condition of Obedience, with an answerable threatning in case of Disobedience: As it was with Adam before the Fall. In the day that thou Eatest thereof, thou shalt surely Die. And as it was with them in the Wilderness; Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them. So here ver. 9. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed after thee, in their Gene­rations. ver. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep be­tween me and you, and thy Seed after thee; every Man-Child among you shall be Circumcised. And ver. 14. The Ʋncircum­cised Man-child, whose Flesh of his Fore-skin is not Circumci­sed, that Soul shall be cut off from his People: He hath broken my Covenant. The same terms with the former. Besides, it is Evident that Circumcision indispensibly Obliged all that were un­der it to a Perfect and Universal Obedience to the whole Reveal­ed Will and Law of God, Gal. 5. 3. For I testifie to every man that is Circumcised, that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law. If it was so in Paul's time, it was so in Moses's time: And then it cannot be justly denied, but it was so in Abrahams also, accor­ding to what of the Law, Mind, or Will of God, was then Re­vealed unto them. So that in this Covenant which God made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10. 14. As Blessings are pronoun­ced upon the Obedient upon Condition of their Obedience; so as great a Curse is pronounced upon the Disobedient. And as we have already said is therefore of the same tenor with the Three fore-mentioned Covenants, in Genesis, Exodus, and Deu­teronomy. For did God tell our First Parent in the Garden of [Page 123] Eden, concerning the Forbidden Fruit. In the day that thou Eatest thereof thou shalt surely Die? (and so in the rest) we have the like Threatning here. He that is Ʋncircumcised, that Soul shall be Cut off from his People: He hath broken my Covenant. And if that, were a Covenant of Works, why not this?

§ [...]. And therefore though 'tis true God promised to Establish his Covenant betwixt himself and Abraham, and his Seed after him in their Generations▪ for an Everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto him, and to his Seed after him, ver. 7, &c. Yet still it was provided they kept his Covenant, and fulfilled the Condi­tion thereof on their parts, ver. 9. 10. Else they were to be Cut off. And indeed the same Promises, for the Substance of them, were made unto the same People at Mount Sinai; and upon the same Condition, Exod. 19. 4. 5. You have seen (saith God there) what I did unto the Aegyptians, and how I bear you on Eagles Wings, and brought you unto my self. Now therefore, if ye will Obey my Voice indeed, and keep my Covenant. then ye shall be a peculiar Treasure unto me, above all People, for all the Earth is mine. ve. 6. And ye shall be unto me a Kingdom of Priests, and an Holy Nation. And if this was a Covenant of Works, as the Apostle doth plainly Affirm it is, Rom. 10. 5. from Lev. 18. 5. Why not that made with Abraham also, since the terms are the same, as well as the Promises are the same? The like account the Scripture gives us of the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. You have seen (saith Moses there) ver. 2, 3. all that the Lord did before your Eyes in the Land of Egypt, unto Pha­raoh, and all his Servants; the great Temptations which thine Eyes have seen, and those great Miracles, ver. 4. Yet the Lord hath not given you an Heart to perceive, and Eyes to see, and Ears to hear, unto this day. ver. 5. 6. And I have led you forty years in the Wilderness; your clothes are not waxen old upon you,—That ye might know, that I am the Lord your God, ver. 9. Keep therefore the words of this Covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do. The same Language with that Exod, 19. 5. and Lev. 18. 5. compared with Rom. 10. 5. So that we cannot but plainly see, that all those fore-mentioned Co­venants, are of one and the same Nature; what the one is, the others are the same. And therefore if the Covenant made with our First Parent before the Fall, and that made with Israel, at Mount Sinai, were neither of them a Covenant of Grace, nor a Gospel Covenant; whereof Christ is the alone and only Medi­ator: For the same Reason, neither was that mentioned Deut. 29. nor that Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. as being all of the same tenor, [Page 124] and the Promises in them all of a like Nature.

§ 6. ‘The whole entire Nature, (saith Dr. Owen) of the Covenant of Works, consisted in this; That upon our Personal Obedience, according unto the Law and Rule of it, we should be Accepted with God, and Rewarded with him. Herein the Essence of it did consist. And what ever Covenant proceedeth on these terms, or hath the Nature of them in it; however it may be varied with Additions or Alterations, is the same Covenant stiil, and not another. As in the Renovation of the Promise, wherein the Essence of the Covenant of Grace was contained, God did oft times make other Additions unto it, as unto Abraham and David; yet was it still the same Covenant, for the Substance of it, and not another: So whatever Variations may be made in, or Additions unto the Dispensation of the First Covenant, so long as this Rule is retained, Do this and Live; it is still the same Covenant for the Substance and Essence of it.’ Dr. Owen in his late Discourse Entituled, The Doctrine of Justi­fication, by Imputed Righteousness. p. 397.

SECT. II.

BUt forasmuch as Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sedgwick and many other Divines who have Written upon the Covenants, do affirm, that the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Faith; or, which is all one, a Covenant of Grace: At least that it was Subserviently the Covenant of Grace: Or a Covenant of Grace for the Substance of it, though propounded in a more dark way, and in a manner fitting for the State of that People, and that present time and Condition of the Church. And for as much as it will unavoida­bly follow that if that was a Covenant of Grace: So also was that made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. We shall therefore the more Intently apply our selves toward the Discovery of their great Mistakes in this Respect; it being of so vast an Importance to the Church of God, to be set at rights herein; on which (as all will grant) So much of the Superstructure of the Christian Faith and Practice depends. For this purpose therefore (Additional unto what hath been already said (we shall only premise two Argu­ments, proving that the Covenant at Mount Sinai mentioned, Exod. 19. and Exod 20. was no other than a Covenant of Works. And then proceed to Answer those Scripture Objections which are usual­ly urged by way of Opposition hereunto.

§. 2. In the first place then; that the Covenant at Mount Sinai before mentioned was no other then a Covenant of Works: We thus prove.

First, that Covenant that is not of Faith, cannot be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works: But the Apostle doth Expresly affirm, that the Law is not of Faith, Gal. 3. 11, 12. Which is most plainly to be understood of Mount Sinai Covenant; therefore that Covenant cannot be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works.

Secondly, that Covenant which is now Repealed, could not be a Covenant of Grace, but of Works. But the Apostle doth plainly Affirm, that the Covenant which God made with his People at Mount Sinai, when he took them by the Hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt for the faultiness thereof, is now Repealed, Heb. 7. 18. Chap. 8. 7. 13. 2. Cor. 3. 7. 11. Col. 2. 14. There­fore it could not be a Covenant of Grace, but of Works. The Covenant of Grace being every way Immutable and perfect, and therefore unrepealable, and Eternal, 2. Sam. 23. 5. Isa. 55. 3. Heb. 7. 21, 22, 24, 25. Heb. 13. 20. And the Gifts and Call­ings thereof without Repentance, Rom. 11. 27. 29. And if Mount Sinai Covenant, was no other than a Covenant of Works, and accordingly now Repealed: It cannt be denied but that the Cove­nant Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. Was of the same Nature, and therefore also now Repealed, Act. 15. 10. 24. Col. 2. 14.

§. 3. If any shall Object that it is unlikely that the Covenant of Works should be Renewed after Mans fall, and after the Cove­nant of Grace had actually taken place, as it did, in the first pro­mise Concerning the Womans Seed, that was to bruise the Serpents Head. We answer that how absur'd so ever it may seem to us, it is plain matter of fact that so it was; and we ought not to Im­peach Infinite Wisdome, that so appointed it. And if we will know the reason why the Covenant of Works should be thus Re­newed after the Fall; the Scripture Expresly tells us: That the Law was added because of Transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made, Gal. 3. 19. The Apostle had before told us, ver. 17. That the Covenant that was Confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was 430. Years after, could not Disannul that it should make the Promise of none Effect, wherefore then (saith he, ver. 19.) Serveth the Law? To which himself gives this Resolution: That it was added because of Transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made. And elsevvhere the same Apostle Informs us: That the Law entered that the Offence might abound, Rom. 5. 20. Or as he Expresseth it, Chap. 7. 13. That Sin by the Commandment might become exceeding Sinful. It being Evident that the Lavv vvas appointed as a School-master to Christ, Gal. 3. 24. For so it vvas to the Jevvs; that is, to shevv them the Nature of Sin, and the [Page 126] Holiness and Righteousness of God; to convince them of their Sin and Misery vvithout Christ, and their necessity therefore of a Saviour, Rom. 7. 7, 12. 13. And for this purpose it still serves to all Men in an unregenerate State Rom. 3. 19. But though the Lavv doth indeed shevv us our Necessity of Christ, and our Misery vvithout him; yet it doth not bring us to Christ (as our Transla­tion hath it) for that is the Work of the Covenant of Faith only, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8, 9. And that as it stands opposed unto the Legal Covenant, ver. 5, 6, &c.

§ 4. ‘There is a double Enquiry made by the Apostle (saith Dr. Owen, on Gal. 3.) vvith respect unto the Law, or the Cove­nant of Sinai. [1.] Ʋnto what end in General it served? [2] Whether it were not contrary to the Promise of God? Unto both these the Apostle ansvvereth from the Nature, Office, and Work of that Covenant. For there vvere tvvo things in it; First a Revival and Representation of the first Covenant of Works vvith its Sanction and Curse. Secondly, A Direction of the Church unto the Accomplishment of the Promise From these tvvo doth the Apostle frame his Ansvver unto the double Enquiry laid dovvn. And unto the first Enquiry, Ʋnto what [...]nd it served? He Ansvvers, It was added because of Trans­gressions. The Promise being given, there seems to have been no need of it: Why then vvas it added to it at that Season? It was added because of Transgressions. The fulness of time vvas not yet come vvherein the Promise vvas to be Fulfilled, Accomplished, and Established, as the only Covenant wherein the Church was to Walk with God, or the Seed was not yet come; as the Apostle here speaks to whom the Promise vvas made. In the mean time, some Order must be taken about Sin and Transgression, that all the Order of things appointed of God, vvere not Overflovved by them. And this vvas done tvvo vvays by the Lavv. [1.] By Reviving the Commands of the Covenant of Works, vvith the Sanction of Death, it put an Avve on the minds of Men, and set Bounds unto their Lusts, that they should not dare to run forth into that Excess vvhich they vvere Naturally inclined unto. It vvas therefore added because of Transgressions, that in the Declaration of God's Seve­rity against them some Bounds might be fixed unto them: For the knowledge of Sin is by the Law. [2.] To shut up Ʋnbe­lievers, and such as vvould not seek for Righteousness, Life, and Salvation by the Promise, under the Povver of the Cove­nant of Works, and Curse attending it. It concluded, or shut up all under Sin, saith the Apostle, ver. 20. This vvas the end [Page 127] of the Lavv for this end vvas it Added, as it gave a Reviveal unto the Covenant of Works.’ Dr. Owen's Exposition on the, Hebrews. 3d. Vol. p. 231.

§. 5. It is true, that Scripture, Gal. 3. 24. vvhere the Apostle tells us that the Law was our School-Master to Christ, that we might be Justified by Faith, is strongly urged by some, to prove that the Law must needs be therefore a Covenant of Faith. But it is Evident, that the School mastership of the Lavv, and the Co­venant of Faith are tvvo quite different things; as appears by the Words before and after. ver. 23. Before Faith came saith he, we were kept under the Law, shut up unto the Faith which should afterward be Revealed. ver. 24. Wherefore the Law was our School-master to Christ, that we might be justified by Faith. ver. 25. But after that Faith is come, we are no longer under a School-master. So that the Schol mastership of the Lavv is one thing, and the Covenant of Faith another: For vvhen the one cometh, the other ceaseth. When the one takes place the other vanisheth. The Lavv therefore could not be a Covenant of Faith, it being here so plainly Opposed or Contra distinguished thereunto. Ac­cordingly the Apostle elsevvhere assures us, that the Law Written and Engraven in Stones was a Ministration of Death and Con­demnation, 2. Cor. 3. 6. 7. 9. And consequently gave no hopes of Relief to the Miserable Sinner as the Covenant of Faith doth. It convinc'd him indeed of the dreadful Nature of Sin; and of the Infinite Purity and Holiness of Gods Nature and Being, against whom it had Sinned; but it left no Room for Repentance. For Cursed is every one (saith the Law) that Continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them. Therefore it is calld the Hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us; which Christ took out of the way, nailing it to his Cross, Col. 2. 14. So that the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith: It being constantly represented to us in the Scripture, as being of a vastly different Nature therefrom, and that in the very Essence or Substance thereof. The one being a Ministration of Death and Condemnation, the other a Ministration of Life and Peace.

SECT. III.

WE are told indeed by Mr. Obadiah Segdwick, in his Dis­course upon the Covenant of Grace, p. 175. ‘That the Covenant made with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai, was at least subserviently the Covenant of Grace; a Covenant of Grace for the Substance of it though propounded in a more dark way, and in a manner, fitting for the State of that People, and that present time and condition of the Church.’

§. 2. But this is but an Evasion, and serves for no other purpose than to darken the Truth: For the thing is plain, that the Law was as much a Covenant of Works, as that made with our First Parent. ‘The Jewish Legal Covenant (saith Dr. Annesly in his Sermon upon the Covenant of Grace; Morning Exercise, p. 122) Neither admitted of Faith in the Redeemer, nor Repentance of Sin: For Pardon of sin and Curse for Sin are Inconsistent, Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse: For it is Written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them. As many as depend upon the Works of the Law for Justification, are under the Curse. And the Law (saith he) discovered no other way of Justification, but by Works.’ Mr. Cooper also in the same Morning Exercise, p. 117. tells us, ‘That Moses his Law is opposed to the Covenant of Grace, as another Covenant, upon this very distinguishing account of Obedience and Faith, Works and Grace; as you may see (saith he) at large among other Places, Heb. 8. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, &c.’

§. 3. The Law therefore was not so much as Subserviently a Covenant of Faith, much less for the Substance of it so; for it is quite another thing, and is constantly so represented unto us in the Scriptures. The Apostle saith indeed, The Law was our School-master to Christ [...] He doth not say to bring us to Christ, as our Translation hath it: (For as we have already said, that is the Work of the Covenant of Faith only) And therefore that Notion, that the Law was Subserviently a Covenant of Faith hath no Foun­dation: Those Words [to bring us] being unduly added to the Original Text, and are accordingly put in a Different Character in our Translation thereof. But, (saith the Apostle in the words im­mediately following) After that Faith is come, we are no longer [Page 129] under a School-master. But how can that be if the Law was a Cove­nant of Faith? Must the Covenant of Faith cease; at least in this World? Must the Covenant of Faith Vanish, be Blotted out; taken out of the way, and done away, as the Apostle speaks of the Law? Or was the Covenant of Faith against us, and contrary to us, as he speaks of the Hand-writing of Ordinances, that is now Blot­ted out. And indeed therefore, neither could the Law be so much as Subserviently a Covenant of Faith: For if it had, the Apostle would never have described it as hath been now declared.

§. 4. And 'tis in vain to say, ‘That the Law was a Covenant of Faith, though propunded in a more dark way, and in a manner, fitting for the State of that People, and that present Time and Condition of the Church, (as Mr. Sedgwick speaks.)’ For the Apostle Expresly affirms, that the Law is not of Faith: (It is not of Faith Absolutely, not Comparatively) but the man that doth them, shall live in them, Gal. 3. 12. The Law therefore was no other than a Covenant of Works, since not only the Apostle doth here assure us, that it is not of Faith, but also the same Rule, Do this and Live, is that still retained therein as at first. And it is therefore different from the Covenant of Faith; not barely in respect of the Degrees or clearness of the Revelation of Gospel-Grace, (as is commonly Suggested:) For the Law, as hath been already proved, discovers none at all, but leaves the guilty Sinner wholly Remediless, without the least glimps of Light or Comfort. The Law therefore differs from the Covenant of Faith Specifically, in respect of the whole Nature or Essence of it. In which respect the Law could never be appointed as a School-master to bring us to Christ. Well it may convince us of our Necessity of him; but bring us to him it cannot.

§ 5. So that then these are the Reasons which the Holy Spirit himself Suggesteth, why the Law was added? Or why the Cove­nant of Works was Revived after Man's Fall, and even after the Proclaiming of the first Promise concerning the Womans Seed, Gen, 3. 15. which was renewed to Abraham, Gen. 22. 18. It was added, (saith the Apostle) because of Transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made. And it entered that the Offence might abound. It being appointed as a School-master to Christ, to convince the Jews of their necessity of a Saviour. And since it cannot be denied, but that all the Sons and Daughters of Adam must of Necessity be under one or another of the two Co­venants; either that of Works, or that of Grace; And since all Men by Nature are Children of Wrath, Eph. 2, 3. And since it would be utterly absurd to affirm, that such are under a Covenant of Grace till-Converted: It of necessity follows, that unto such the [Page 130] Covenant of Works is still in force, and under it they are till wrought upon by the Grace of the Gospel; the Law abating nothing, but still exacting the utmost Farthing. Neither from the Impossibility of Man's yielding that perfect Obedience which that Covenant re­quires; can we justly conclude that therefore it is not still in Force: For God hath not forfeited or lost his Right of Dominion, though we have lost our Strength or Capacity of Obedience. So that it is evident, that the Law given upon Mount Sinai to the People of the Wilderness; or the Law written in Stones, (which was a plain and clear Manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the first) was no other than a Covenant of Works. Thus it was to the Jews, and thus it still continues in its full Power, Force and Virtue to all Men in an Unregenerate State. For what things so­ever the Law saith, it saith to them that are under the Law, that every Month may be stopped, and all the World may become Guilty before God, Rom. 3. 19.

SECT. IV.

NEither was the Law by the Jews only Interpreted as a Cove­nant of Works, but as it is evident by Moses himself, and by Paul also▪ We are told indeed by Mr. Sedgwick in his fore-menti­oned Discourse upon the Covenants, p. 173. ‘That we must distin­guish between the intention of God in giving the Law, and the Abuse or Perverting of the Law. We grant (saith he) that many of the Jews did set up a Legal Righteousness for their Justificati­ons, and rested upon the Works of the Law, as if Life came by them; against which Paul doth notably Argue in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians.) But this, saith he, was not the in­tention of God in the Sanction of Law. They could never find a justifying Righteousness by the Law, or Works of the Law, under the Notion of a Covenant of Works; nor did God ever propound it for that end.’

§ 2. For Answer hereunto we say; That since, by Mr. Sedgwicks own confession, the Jews could never find a Justifying Righteous­ness by the Law, or by the Works of it. From hence it inevitably follows, that it could not be a Covenant of Faith. Sure it is that the Covenant of Faith Justifies all that are under it: For being Justified by Faith, we have Peace with God, &c. Rom. 5. 1. That Covenant therefore that could never Justifie any that were under it, could never be a Covenant of Faith: But the Scripture is Ex­press, that by the deeds of the Law there shall no Flesh be Justi­fied in God's sight, Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith. And yet again, that Covenant under [Page 131] which though many were Justified; yet none were ever Justified by it, or by virtue of it, could never be a Covenant of Faith: But such was the nature of the Law, that though many were Justified under it, yet none were ever Justified by it, or by virtue of it, Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith. And if the Law was not a Covenant of Faith, then, [...]t must of necessity follow, that it could be no other than a Cove­nant of Works. And indeed so it was appointed and declared by God himself, Lev. 18. 5. Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgments; which if a man do, he shall live in them. And this the Spirit of God by the Apostle Paul takes special notice of, Rom. 10. 5. For Moses (saith he) describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law, That the man that doth these things shall live by them. And what can be a more plain Description of a Covenant of Works, and that of God's own Designation and Appointment? And that not in the way of a Partial imperfect Obedience: But as it is Writ­ten; Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them, Gal. 3. 10. which the Apostle quotes from Deut. 27. 26. Cursed be be that Confirm­eth not all the words of this Law to do them. And all the People shall say Amen.

§. 3. So that the Jews were right enough in their Notion con­cerning the Law, in reference to the true Nature thereof, that it was indeed a Covenant of Works, (For Paul doth plainly acknow­ledge it to be such, and God himself by the Mouth of his Servant Moses as plainly expresseth it so to be, in the very first Sanction of it) though they were out in respect of its proper use and intention; which was not that any should attain unto Life and Righteousness thereby: but as we have before observed, to shew them the Nature of Sin, and the Holiness and Righteousness of God; to convince them of their Sin and Misery without Christ, and their necessity therefore of a Saviour; which they being ignorant of and still go­ing about to Establish their own Righteousness, which was of the Law; and refusing to submit themselves unto the Righteousness of God, (which was now Manifested without the Law, as it had been before Witnessed by the Law and the Prophets) They Stumbled at that Stumbling-stone, and were accordingly Broken and Snared and Taken, Rom, 9. 31, 32, 33. Chap. 10. 3. And this was the true ground of the Dispute between the Apostle and them.

§ 4. But all this notwithstanding; it is evident that the Law was a Covenant of Works still. And it is also as evident, that it was Appointed and Established by God as a distinct Covenant from the Promise of Grace, and essentially different therefrom, under which the Natural Posterity of Abraham were for a Season to be Subject­ed, [Page 132] until the time appointed of the Father, Gal. 4. 1, 2, &c. as the Fruit of infinite Wisdom, who thought fit to impose this Bur­then upon them, notwithstanding, or rather Additional unto those Discoveries of Grace: (For the Law is said to have been Added un­to the Promise) that had been otherwise Revealed unto them, and whereby they were Saved. So that the forementioned Objection notwithstanding it still remains Firm and Unshaken, that the Law was no other than a Covenant of Works: So it was designed and appointed by God himself; and constantly in the Scripture is it Represented to us under that Character.

SECT. V.

BUt whereas the Apostle tells us, that the Law is not against the Promises, Gal. 3. 21. Mr. Sedgwick will needs hence con­clude, that the Law was not a Covenant of Works: ‘For (saith he) The Law is not against the Promises; nor doth Faith make void the Law. Both these can very well agree together; but so they could not if the Law had been given as a Covenant of Works: For now the Law would be Expresly against the Pro­mises, and Faith will certainly make void the Law. The Pro­mises of God are contrary to a Covenant of Works, and Faith is Destructive to a Covenant of Works. If therefore the Promises and Faith, and the Law can consist, then the Law cannot be set up as a Covenant of Works.’

§. 2. To this we Reply; First, That it ought to be duly Obser­ved, that the Law and the Promise having divers ends, it doth not therefore follow that there is an Inconsistency between them: For although there is nothing that can be clearer than this, That the Law was set up and appointed by God, as a Covenant of Works to the Jews, to convince them of Sin, and the necessity of a Saviour; yet did God never intend it as a Means to give Life and Righte­ousness: nor was it able so to do. The end of the Primise was to give Life, Righteousness, Justification and Salvation; all by Christ; to whom, and concerning whom it was made. But this was not the end for which the Covenant of Works was Revived, in the Covenant of Sinai. For although in its self it requires a perfect Righteousness, and gives a promise of Life thereon, He that doth these things, shall live in them; yet it could give neither Righte­ousness nor Life to any in a State of Sin, Rom. 8. 3. Chap. 10. 4. Wherefore the Promise and the Law having divers ends, they are not contrary to one another. Nay, rather the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works, instead of being against the Promise, it tends to the Establishment of it, by declaring the Impossibility of obtain­ing [Page 133] Reconciliation and Peace with God, any other way, but by the Promise: For representing the Commands of the Covenant of Works, requiring perfect Sin-less Obedience, under the Penalty of the Curse; it convinced Men, that this was no way for Sinners to seek for Life and Salvation by. And herewith it so urged the Con­sciences of Men, that they could have no Rest nor Peace in them­selves, but what the Promise would afford them; whereunto there­fore they saw a necessity of betaking themselves. So that though we affirm the Law to be no other than a Covenant of Works, as the Apostle himself doth; yet it doth not therefore follow that it is against the Promise, it having so Blessed a Subserviency toward the Establishment thereof.

§. 3. Secondly, though the Apostle doth indeed tell us, Gal. 3. 21. That the Law is not against the Promises. The following Words do sufficiently clear his Meaning to be of quite another Nature than Mr. Sedgwick in his forementioned Discourse, appre­hends it to be. Mr. Sedgwick indeed will by no-means allow that the Law was set up as a Covenant of Works; and then it must of necessity follow, that it is a Covenant of Faith. But the Apostle seems to be of another mind: For having told us, ver. 18. That if the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise: But God gave it to Abraham by Promise. And having answered the Que­stion, or Objection, ver. 19. Wherefore then serveth the Law? To which himself gives this Resolution, That it was added because of Transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made. He brings in this further Objection, ver. 21. against what he had before Asserted, viz. That if the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise, &c. Is the Law then against the Promises? God forbid, (saith he.) For if there had been a Law given which could have given Life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law: But the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin, that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. In the first place then it is Evident and Undeniable, that Abraham's Inheritance was not derived unto him through the Law: For, (saith our Apostle) If the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise; but God gave it to Abra­ham by Promise. So that it clearly appears by the scope of the Apostle's Argument, that the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith: For if it had, it would have been honoured as an Instrument for the conveyance of Abraham's Inheritance: But, saith he, God gave it to Abraham by Promise, not by the Law; therefore the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith. But is the Law then against the Promises? God forbid, (saith he.) For if there had been a Law given, which could have given Life, verily [Page 134] Righteousness should have been by the Law; but the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin, that the Promise of Faith by Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe. So that the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith, since the Apostle doth here so plainly distinguish between them; setting forth the Weakness of the one, and the Strength and Perfection of the other. The Law (saith he) Could not give Life; but the Covenant of Faith doth. The Law indeed would, but could not: It promiseth Life, but it could not perform it through the Weakness of the Flesh. (So there is no Repugnancy in the Law against the Promises) but what the Law could not do, the Covenant of Faith performeth: For it not only promiseth Life, but accomplisheth what it hath pro­mised, and sets the Soul in Safety.

§ 4. According to the plain and clear Scope of the Apostle's Reasoning, therefore; the Law is so far from being a Covenant of Faith, that it is quite another thing. For if it had been a Cove­nant of Faith, it would have given Life, as the Covenant of Faith doth: But it could not give Life, therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works. But is the Law then against the Pro­mises? God forbid, saith Paul; and so say we. For supposing the Law to be, as it is indeed, a pure Covenant of Works; yet through the Satisfaction of Christ, there is no Repugnancy, or Hostile Contrariety betwixt the Law and the Promises, or between the Law and Faith, which hath respect to the Promises. There is only a difference of Deficiency, in respect of that Strength that there is in the one, to what there was in the other. The one being Weak through the Flesh; the other Strong and Powerful, and goes through-stitch with its Work. But what the Law could not do through our Weakness, that Christ hath performed, by fulfilling its Commands, and submitting to its Curse, on our behalf; where­by God's Justice is satisfied, and Everlasting Righteousness obtain­ed, for the Salvation of Sinners. And indeed herein consisteth the Covenant of Faith; here is the Object of it, and in this path is the very Law and Justice of God it self most highly Glorified. Shall we say then, that because the Law is a Covenant of Works, that it is therefore against the Promises? God forbid. For who shall lay any thing to the Charge of God's Elect, so as to hinder the accomplish­ment of the Promises upon them? The Law it self doth not, cannot Impeach them, since it is God that Justifieth. Or, Who shall Condemn them? The Law it self cannot; since it is Christ that Died. It is true, the Law saith, That the man that doth these things, shall Live by them. And indeed herein the very Essence of the Covenant of Works consisteth. But the Covenant of Faith leads us to what Christ hath done and performed for us; [Page 135] which the Covenant of Works doth not. But though the Law leads us not to Christ; yet Christ being made under it, and giv­ing it its due honour on our behalf; hence it follows, that the Law it self that was before our Enemy, stands up as our Friend: Even that Law that was before against us, which was Contrary to us, and which was in it self no other than the Ministration of Death and Condemnation; even that Law stands up as our Friend, through the Mediation of Christ, whom God therefore hath set forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood to declare his Righteousness that he might be Just, and the Justifier of him that Believeth in Jesus, Rom. 3. 24, 25, 26. So that the Law (through the Satisfaction of Christ; though it be, as it is indeed a Covenant of Works; yet) is not against the Promises; there is no Real Re­pugnancy, or Contrariety between them, whatever there seems to be: Which made the Apostle Propound the Question as he doth.

§ 5. Besides, the same Apostle that tells us, The Law is not against the Promises, doth also expresly Assure us, That the Law is not of Faith, but the Man that doth them shall live by them, Gal. 3. 12. So that though it is true, the Law is not against the Promises, Since Mercy and Truth, Righteousness and Peace are met together in Christ; yet it is as true, that the Law is not of Faith. And if the Law is not of Faith; then neither can it be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works; as the same Apostle doth plain­ly affirm it is, Rom. 3. 27, 28. And therefore neither could it give Life: For if it could, Righteousness should have been by it: But (saith he) The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin, that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe. The Law therefore was not a Covenant of Faith: For if it had, it would have given Life, and so Righteousness should have been by the Law: But it could not give Life, and so Righte­ousness was not by the Law, therefore it was not a Covenant of Faith. The like Inference may be clearly drawn from Rom. 10. 5, 6, &c. Moses (saith the Apostle) Describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the Man which doth these things shall live by them. But the Righteousness which is of Faith, (or Gospel Covenant) speaketh on this wise, &c. If thou Believest, thou shalt be Saved. Wherein we cannot but observe, that the Apostle maketh a plain difference betwixt the Righteousness of the Law, and the Righte­ousness of Faith. The one, saith he, speaketh after this sort; the other speaketh after quite another rate, From whence also it plain­ly follows, that the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith; since the Righteousness of the one is here so plainly Opposed to the Righ­teousness of the other; which yet it would not be, had the Law been a Covenant of Faith; nay, though it had been so only more [Page 136] Darkly, and not with that clearness of Demonstration as the Gos­pel Reveals it; had it been so Subserviently only; much more if it had been such for the Substance of it, as it Affirmed. For it can­not be imagined, that if it had been a Covenant of Grace, or a Covenant of Faith Subserviently, much more if it had been such for the Substance of it; that ever it would have been set in point blank Opposition to it, as quite another thing, as it is. When the Apostle tells us therefore, that the Righteousness which is of the Law saith, Do this, and Live; but the Righteousness of Faith speak­eth in quite another Dialect: It is plain there is a difference between them toto Genere; or in the whole Kind, or Substance thereof, and not barely in the several Degrees of Manifestation; as is sug­gested: For as the Apostle Reasoneth concerning Election, Rom. 11. 6. So it is here. If it be of Works, then it is no more Grace; otherwise Work is no more Work. And if by Grace, then it is no more of Works; otherwise Grace is no more Grace. Either there­fore the Law was a Covenant of Grace, or it was a Covenant of Works: If it was a Covenant of Grace, then according to the scope of the Apostle's Reasoning, it was not a Covenant of Works; or it is no more of Works; that is, it is not of Works at all: And consequently Moses doth not describe the Righteousness which is of the Law as he doth, that the Man that doth these things, shall live by them. But if this be absurd, and it be evident that it is, as it is indeed, a Covenant of Works: For the same Reason there­fore neither can it in any Sence, be a Covenant of Gospel-Grace; otherwise (as the Apostle speaks) Work is no more Work. For these two, Grace and Works, or Faith and Works, are con­stantly in the Scripture opposed the one unto the other, in point of our Justification before God's Presence, (which is our present case) and admit of no Mixture.

§. 6. So that though the Law (even as it is a Covenant of Works) is not against the Promises; that is, there is no Repugnancy be­tween them; there being a sweet Harmony and Conjunction of all the Blessed Attributes of God in Christ in the way of the Salva­tion of Sinners; yet the Law is constantly in the Scripture repre­sented in a way of Contradistinction to the Promises; and so it is in the words foregoing, as hath been already observed, ver. 18. If (saith the Apostle) the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise; but God gave it to Abraham by Promise. And (which is yet clearer) the same Apostle doth also assure us, Rom. 4. 14. That if they which are of the Law be heirs, Faith is made void, and the Promise made of none Effect. Therefore the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works.

SECT. VI.

ANd whereas the Apostle doth also tell us, Rom. 3. 31. That we do not make Void the Law through Faith, but Establish it. This also is true, and no way Contradicteth, but is Consistent enough with what hath been Asserted, viz. That the Law is no other than a Covenant of Works: Forasmuch as Christ our surety hath fulfilled it for us, given it its due Honour, and satisfied its Pe­nalty on our behalf. So that we are so far from making void the Law, through Faith; that it is rather thereby Established; as hav­ing received greater Honour by the obedience and Sufferings of Christ, than ever could have been given it by us.

§. 2. And yet further, (which is also Objected to the same pur­pole as before) whereas the Apostle doth also tell us, Rom. 10. 4. That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth. The Sence is Evident: Forasmuch as what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the Flesh; God sending his own Son in the likeness of Sinful Flesh, and for Sin (or by a Sacrifice for Sin) Condemned Sin in the Flesh, that the Righteousness of the Law might be fullfilled in us (that is in the Person of our surety for us) Rom. 8, 3, 4. And thus Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth, by fulfilling its Commands, and answering its Penalty on our behalf. But doth it therefore follow that the Law is a Covenant of Faith? It is Evident that Christ Submitted to it as a Covenant of Works. And if it was so to Christ, it was so to us, and would have been so, and the Curse thereof had accordingly lighted on us, had not Christ Interposed for our Relief. But, (saith the Apostle) when the Fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son made of a Wo­man, made under the Law, to Redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the Adoption of Sons, Gal. 4. 4, 5. From whence it clearly appears, that the Law was not a Covenant of Faith: For if it had, what necessity was there for Christ to have Redeemed us from under it? Can we imagine that Christ ever shed his Blood to Redeem us from being under a Covenant of Faith, or from being under a Gospel Covenant? The Law was therefore no other than a Covenant of Works, from which Christ hath now Redeemed us, by his Blood and Sufferings for us. The Law indeed shews us our Sin and Misery without Christ, but Relieves us not, Rom. 7. 7, 8, 9, 10. which the Covenant of Faith doth, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8, 9. Nay the Law, instead of Relieving or Curing us, it brings us under the Curse, which the Covenant of Faith delivers us from, Gal. 3. 8, 9, 10. But though we are delivered from the Law as a [Page 138] Covenant of Life, Do this, and live; yet it is also as true, that All true Believers are still under the Law to Christ, as a Rule of Life, 1 Cor. 9. 21.

SECT. VII.

MR. Sedgwick doth indeed also tell us in his forementioned Discourse upon the Covenants, p. 174. ‘That that Cove­nant which God made with Moses, and under which Moses stood, was no Covenant of Works: But Moses and the People of Israel were both under the same Covenant. Exod. 34. 27. I have made a Covenant with thee and with Israel. If any doubt under what Covenant Moses stood, (whether of Works or Grace) let him peruse Heb. 11. 26. What a Description he shall there find of Moses. He shall there find him to be a Choice and Eminent Be­liever in Christ; Esteeming the Reproach of Christ greater Riches than the Treasures in Aegypt, and having respect to the Recom­pence of Reward, &c. Now, certainly such a Choice Believer in Christ, was not under a Covenant of Works. And p. 175, 176. speaking of the immediate Introduction unto the giving of the Law, Exod. 20. 2. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt. Why (saith he) there is the ve­ry Covenant of Grace. Here is God as our God; (And Blessed are the People who have the Lord to be their God.) And here is Jesus Christ the Mediator of the Covenant implied; for in Christ doth God become our God. And there is our Redemption from Sin and Satan▪ intimated, by their Deliverance out of Aegypt. And presently there is the Worship of God Instituted and Ap­pointed, which if Acceptable to God▪ must be performed with Faith: For without Faith it is impossible to please God. And (saith he) upon the Breaking of the Tables of the Covenant, be­fore they were Written again, there is such a Preface made by God, as can no way fit any Covenant but that of Grace, as you may see in Exod. 34. 7. The Lord, the Lord, Gracious and Mer­ciful, Long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving Iniquities, Transgressions and Sin.’

§ 2. To this we Reply, that it is indeed most certain and unde­niable, that both Moses and all the Elect among that People of Old, were under the same Covenant of Grace with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the rest of the Holy Patriarchs before; and by that they were Saved; and without it there had been no Salvation for them. And accordingly we are told, Exod. 33. That upon Moses his earnest request unto God, that he might see his Glory; and that he would afford unto him his Gracious Presence, for the more comfor­table Conduct of that great and mighty People through that vast and [Page 139] howling Wilderness: The Lord is pleased ver. 17. to Promise, that he would do this thing that Moses had spoken: For (saith he) thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name, And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee, and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious; and will shew Mercy to whom I will shew Mercy. And ac­cordingly, Chap. 34. 5, 6, 7. The Lord descended in the Cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before him, and Proclaimed, the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and Gracious, Long-suffering, and abundant in good­ness and truth; keeping mercy for thousands; forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin. Which was absolutely and undeniably a Co­venant of Grace, which God then made and confirmed unto Moses by Name, and unto all that were Elected among that People; (for it was not to all, since God expresly tells Moses, that he would be gra­cious to whom he would be gracious, and would shew mercy to whom he would shew mercy.) And accordingly this was that that God's Peo­ple then lived upon, and were saved by: For if there had been no other Covenant made with them than that that was contained in the two Tables of Stone, it had been utterly impossible that either Moses or any of the rest could ever have been Saved. And this Gospel Cor­dial seems to have been purposely afforded unto Moses and the rest of the Faithful with him, for the Relief of their sinking Spirits under the dread and terror of that Fiery Burning Law, Deut. 33, 2. The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran; and he came with ten thousands of Saints: From his right-hand went a Fier [...]e Law, that had been before proclai­med by the Mouth of God himself, and had been also written with God's own Finger; and was now about to be renewed, upon the break­ing of the first Tables of Stone. Which discovery of Gods Infinite Ho­liness, Justice and Righteousness, proclaimed with so much Majesty and Glory, attended with such Thunderings, Blackness, Darkness and Tempest, was so dreadful and terrible, that Moses himself ex­ceedingly fears, and quakes at the Sight and Hearing thereof: And is accordingly taken Notice of and represented by the Apostle as a Dis­criminating, or Distinguishing Character between that and the Gos­pel Covenant, Heb. 12. 18. &c. You are not come (saith he) to the Mount that might be touched, and that Burned with Fire, nor unto Blackness, and Darkness, and Tempest, and the sound of a Trumpet, and the voice of Words; which Voice they that heard, intreated that the Word should not be spoken to them any more. And so terri­ble was the Sight, that Moses himself said, I exceedingly fear and quake. But ye are come unto Mount Sion, to the City of the Living God, to the Heavenly Jerusalem, to God the Judge of all; to Jesus [Page 140] the Mediator of the New Covenant, &c. From whence it is evident that there is an Essential difference between these two, the Law and the Gospel; so as that what the one is, the other is not; the Law is not the Gospel, nor the Gospel the Law. You are not come (saith he) unto the Legal, but unto the Gospel Covenant. The Legal Covenant discover'd nothing but Blackness, and Darkness and Tempest, and a voice of Words that could not be endured: For according to the Apostle's own present Description or Character thereof, it made no discovery of the least glimps of Gospel Grace at all. The Legal Co­venant therefore could not be a Covenant of Grace, or a Covenant of Faith, that made no discovery of any such thing, but rather the contrary; so as that it makes Moses himself exceedingly Quake and Tremble.

§. 3. However, it is certain that both Moses, and all the Elect among that People of Old, were under the Covenant of Grace, as we have already said, and by that were saved: And accordingly we are told, that they did all (that is, all the Elect among them) Eat the same spiritual Meat, and did all Drink the same spiritual Drink: For they Drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. And it is as Evident that it was no other than Christ himself that was the Angel of Gods presence, that was to go before them and Conduct them in the way they were to go. But yet all this notwithstanding, it is plain that the Law was a Covenant of Works still; and it is also as Evident that it was a distinct Covenant, and Essentially different from the Covenant of Grace: And was accordingly made with Moses, and the whole Body of the Congregation, and not with Moses and those that were Elected among them only; as the Covenant of Grace was. And therefore Exod. 19. 5, 6. (Saith God, there to the whole Body of the Congregation of Israel, at the foot of Mount Sinai. Now therefore if ye will Obey my voice indeed, and keep my Cove­nant, then ye shall be a Peculiar Treasure unto me above all People: for all the Earth is mine: And ye shall be to me a Kingdom of Priests, and a Holy Nation. These are the Words that thou shalt speak unto the Children of Israel. Mark it: These are the words that thou shalt speak unto the Children of Israel, that is, unto the whole Body of that People, without Exception of any, as being of Universal Concernment unto them all. And these are the Words, that is, these are the Terms on which thou shalt propound these my Pro­mises to them, viz. If you will Obey my Voice indeed, and keep my Covenant with all your Heart, and with all your Soul; so as not in the least to vary, or step aside from what I have now Commanded you; then I will do thus and thus, unto, and for you, and I will give you a Convincing Discovery, that I am indeed the Lord your God, which [Page 141] have brought you out of the Land of Egypt. For upon these and no other terms do I now enter into Covenant with you. And Cursed shall he be that Confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them: The promises I now make you, are full and Glorious enough: But these are the Terms on which you must Expect if ever you come to the Fruition of them. This is the Substance of the Preface, and after Explication, that God himself makes, unto, and concerning the Cove­nant which he now made with Moses, and with Israel, even with the whole Body of that People; which was by the Finger of God himself Written and Ingraven in Stones: And is accordingly mentioned at large, Exod. 20. In the several ten Branches, Commandments, or main Heads thereof.

§ 4. In the next place, if we Enquire into the Nature of this Co­venant: What sort of Covenant it was? Whether a Covenant of Grace, or a Covenant of Works: As it is Evident that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works; since we see it required perfect Obedi­ence as the condition of obtaning the mercies therein promis'd; where­in the very Essence of that Covenant Consisted: So in order to a fur­ther discovery of the true nature of the Covenant in question, We must compare some passages in Exod. 34. with 2 Cor. 3. and Col. 2. 14. In Exod. 34. 1. The Lord said unto Moses, hew the two Tables of Stone like unto the first: And I will Write upon these Tables the words that were in the first Tables, ver. 4. And he hewed two Tables of Stone like unto the first: And Moses went up unto the Mount Sinai, as the Lord Commanded him, and took in his hand the two Tables of Stone. ver. 28. And he was there with the Lord 40 days and 40 nights; and he Wrote upon the Tables, the words of the Covenant, the ten Commandments. And it came to pass, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai (with the two Tables of Testimony in Moses's hand, when he came down from the Mount) that Moses Wist not that the Skin of his Face shone, while he talked with him. And when Aaron and all the Children of Israel saw Moses, behold the Skin of his Face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. If we will know therefore the true Na­ture of the Covenant, we shall find that the Spirit of God by the Apostle, doth give us a clear determination thereof in the fore-men­tioned, 2. Cor. 3. 5, 6. Our Sufficiency (saith he) is of God, who hath also made us able Ministers of the New Testament; not of the Letter, but of the Spirit; (that is, not of the Law, but of the Gospel) For the Letter Killeth, but the Spirit giveth Life. But (saith he, ver. 7.) If the Ministration of Death Written and Engraven in Stones was Glorious, so that the Children of Israel could not sted­fastly behold the Face of Moses for the Glory of his Countenance, which Glory was to be done away; how shall not the Ministration [Page 142] of the Spirit be rather Glorious. So again, ver. 9. If the Ministra­tion of Condemnation be Glory, much more doth the Ministration of Righteousness exceed in Glory. Wherein we cannot but observe, that the Apostle doth evidently Reflect upon the fore mentioned Passage in Exod. 34▪ 28, 29, &c. Where we are told, that Moses Received from God the two Tables of Stone, wherein the words of the Covenant, even the Ten Commandments, were Written and En­graven by the Finger of God himself; and this Expresly under the Denomination of the Covenant, which God then made with Israel, Deut. 4. 13. Which made Moses his Face to shine, so that Aaron and all the Children of Israel were afraid to come nigh him. 'Tis clear then, that this is the Covenant that Paul hear speaks of. And what Character or Description doth he give thereof? Why (saith he) The Law Written and Engraven in Stones, (how Glorious soever it was in it self) was of a Killing Nature; it was the Ministration of Death and Condemnation; and that which was to be done away. To which same purpose, the same Apostle also tells us, Col. 2. 14. That Christ hath Blotted out the Hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and hath took it out of the way, nail­ing it to his Cross. Where the Apostle speaks plainly of the same thing and to the same purpose, as he doth to the Corinthians; for there he speaks of the Law Written in Stones, which (saith he) was a Ministration of Death and Condemnation. And hereof the Hand­writing of Ordinances that was against us, and contrary to us, (as the Law must needs be, if it was indeed no other than a Ministrati­on of Death and Condemnation, as the Apostle describes it.) But is the Covenant of Faith of this Nature? Or was the Covenant of Grace a Ministration of Death and Condemnation, as the Apostle Affirms the Law written in Stones to be? Was the Covenant of Grace against us, Contrary to us, and therefore now Blotted out, done away, taken out of the way, and Nailed to the Cross of Christ, as the Apostle speaks of the Hand-writing of Ordinances, or the Law written in Stones? These are Sol [...]cisms too strong for Digestion. It can never be imagined. And yet all this must needs follow, if the Law was a Covenant of Grace, as is Affirmed. 'Tis true, there was a Covenant of Grace that ran Current therewith, (as hath been before declared) whereby Moses and all the Elect among that People, were delivered from the Curse of that Fiery Burning Law, that was thus given them. But shall we therefore call the Ministration of Death, a Mini­stration of Grace? Or the ministration of Condemnation, a Ministra­tion of Life and Righteousness, which the Apostle doth so plainly set in Opposition thereunto? Or shall we say, that that which was against us, and contrary to us, was a Covenant of Grace, or for the Substance of it such? The Apostle (as we have already seen) tells us the quite [Page 143] contrary. And so he doth Rom. 7. 9, 10. When the Commandment came (saith he) Sin Revived, and I Died: And the Commandment which was Ordained to Life, I found to be unto Death. And how then can it be justly Affirmed, that the Law was a Covenant of Gos­pel-Grace, or that it was such for the Substance thereof, when the Apostle found it by Experience to be a Ministration of Death.

§. 5. Indeed the World Groans under the Burthen of such Subtile Sophistical Distinctions, whereby the Truths of the Gospel have been so long Obscured, as they have been, and are, in respect of the pre­sent Point; a Point of such vast Consequence and Concernment to the Church of God. For what can be of greater Moment than the Two Covenants; the Truths concerning which, are as the two Ma­ster Veins that branch themselves forth, and lye dispersed up and down, throughout the whole Body of the Scriptures? If therefore it shall be found that we have been all this while Mistaken in our Notion about the Covenants, what they are, and which they be; or that we have given the Appellation of the Covenant of Grace, to a Covenant of Works; and hereon have built up an Answerable Su­perstructure of Faith and Practice; how great will such a Miscarri­age prove to be at last? Indeed, there is no part of the Christian Faith or Practice, but must one way or other have been Influenced and Corrupted thereby. Accordingly hence hath sprung that Jumb­ling or Confounding of Law and Gospel together, which the Spirit of God doth so Distinguishingly represent unto us in the Word of Truth; and which the Apostle doth so severely Rebuke the Teachers among the Galatians, concerning. I Marvel (saith he, Gal. 1. 6, 7.) that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the Grace of Christ, unto another Gospel, which is, not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would Pervert the Gospel of Christ. They would Pervert it, that is, they would change it, Overthrow it, and turn it upside down; by mingling Law and Gospel together; pre­tend unto the Gospel, and yet seek for Righteousness, as it were by the Works of the Law. But certainly, as we are not to Seperate or put asunder what God hath Conjoyned; so neither are we to mingle what God hath Separated, and doth plainly Distinguish. The Law is not the Gospel; nor is the Gospel the Law. These two are distinct, and must be kept so; as having their Distinct Services, and in their proper Places. To call therefore the Covenant of Works a Covenant of Faith; or the Legal Covenant deliver'd on Mount Sinai, a Cove­nant of Grace; is no other than to Blend or Confound Law and Gos­pel together, as if they were the same thing, and no distinstion at all to be made betwixt them, only in respect of the different Degrees, or clearness of the Revelation of Gospel Grace.

§. 6. But whatever we may Imagine, the Apostle doth most plain­ly [Page 144] distinguish betwixt Law and Gospel, and that in Respect of the whole Entire Nature, Essence, or Subsistance of either. Tell me (saith he, Gal. 4. 21. &c.) You that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law? Know you not that Abraham had two Sons, the one by a Bondwoman, the other by Free; the one Born after the Flesh, the other by Promise? And know you not that this was plainly Typical of the two Covenants, the Legal and the Gospel? And that these two must needs be therefore Essentially Different, as much as Bondage is from Liberty: Or a Birth after the Flesh, from that by promise? Tell me (saith he) You that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law? Doth not the Old Testament it self speak this Language to you? But whom doth the Apostle mean when he speaks of them that desire to be under the Law? 'Tis strange that after, the Gospel took place, any should desire to be under the Law; or that any should be desirous of returning to that old and former Yoke of Bondage, they had so long been Labouring under, and were now de­livered from: To be under the Law is not to be under Grace: For these two are directly opposite. Rom. 6. 14. Sin shall not have Do­minion over you for ye are not under the Law, but under Grace. But yet nevertheless, it seems such there were, even in the Apostle's time, who were desirous to be under the Law: And 'tis as plain that such there are now. But who are they? Why they are plainly those that Affirm that the Law is a Covenant of Faith, or a Covenant of Grace. Those must needs be of the Number of them that desire to be under the Law. And how can it be otherwise? For ought we not to submit our selves to a Covenant of Faith, and Subject our selves under the Power and Dominion of Gospel Grace? If therefore we affirm that the Law is a Covenant of Faith, or a Covenant of Grace, we cannot be true to our own Principles, if we do not desire to be under it, and under the Power and Dominion of it; and that not bare­ly as a Rule of Life (which we all grant) but as a Covenant of Life, or as a Covenant of Faith and Grace, as it is affirmed to be. But if we are desirous to be under the Law, (let our Notion thereof be what it will; that it is a Covenant of Works, or a Covenant of Grace) This is the direct and ready way for Christ to become of no Effect unto us. For (saith the Apostle, Gal. 5, 4.) Whosoever of you are Justified by the Law, ye are fallen from Grace. And Consequently, instead of being not under the Law, but under Grace, (as the same Apostle speaks of the believing Romans.) We are rather under the Law, and not under Grace. For these two are there (as well as in many other places besides) plainly distinguished as quite Opposite the one unto the other: So that if we are under the one, we are not un­der the other. If we are under Grace, we are not under the Law; And if we are under the Law, we are not under Grace.

§. 7. But, tell me (saith Paul in the forementioned, Gal. 4 21: &c.) You that desire to be under the Law; Do you not hear the Law? For it is Written, that Abraham had two Sons, the one by a Bond-Maid, the other by a Free-Woman. But he who was of the Bond-Woman, was born after the Flesh: But he of the Free-Woman, by Promise. Which things are an Allegory: For these are the two Covenants; the one from Mount Sinai, which gen­dereth to Bondage, which is Agar: For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and i [...] in Bondage with her Children. But Jerusalem which is above, is free, which is the Mother of us all. For it is Written, Rejoyce thou barren that bearest not, &c. Now we Brethren (saith he) as Isaac was, are the Children of the Promise. Wherein the Apostle doth make a plain Difference between the two Covenants, the Legal and the Gospel, in the very Radical Nature, or Essence of either; Not in point of the Degrees of the Manifestation of Gospel Grace (as is by many Divines suggested) For the Law Written in Stones discovers none at all. The Covenant from Mount Sinai (saith our Apostle.) gendereth to Bondage: For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and is in Bondage with her Children. So that Mount Sinai Covenant is no other than a Bondage Covenant; it gendereth to Bondage; this is the natural scope, and tendency of it; and accordingly all her Children are in Bondage. And therefore, unless we shall say that the Covenant of Faith gendereth to Bondage; Or that the Covenant of Grace is a Bondage Covenant; And that all those that are under it, or are the Children of it, are in Bondage; we can by no means allow that Mount Sinai Covenant was ever designed by God as a Co­venant of Faith, or as a Covenant of Grace, as by many Divines it is Confidently Affirmed to be. And therefore also, All those that desire to be under it (which cannot be avoided by those that affirm it to be a Covenant of Faith) must of necessity (according to the Apostles Reckoning) be desirous of Returning to that old Bondage which Christ hath deliver'd us from; and which the Apostle doth so earnestly Exhort us to avoid, Gal. 5. 1. Stand fast there­fore in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not Intangled again with the Yoke of Bondage.

§. 8. But though Mount Sinai Covenant (which answered to Jerusalem that then was) is a Bondage Covenant; The Gospel Covenant (saith the Apostle, which answereth to Jerusalem that is above) is free, which is the Mother of us all. The Gospel [Page 146] Covenant therefore being a free. Covenant▪ It must not, it ought not to be Blended, or Mixt with that from Mount Sinai, as if the one were the other, and no difference at all to be made be­twixt them; onely in Respect of the different Degrees of the Discovery of Gospel Grace. No (saith the Apostle) What saith the Scripture? Cast out the Bond-Woman and her Son! For the Son of the Bond-Woman shall not be Heir with the Son of the Free-Woman. So then Brethren, we are not Children of the Bond-Wo­man, but of the Free. In the 30. and 31. Verses of the fore­mentioned 4th to the Galatians. And this we must be; And thus we must do (as the Apostle here adviseth us) unless we shall mingle Law and Gospel together; Bondage and Liberty; Works and Grace; Death and Life; And a ministration of Condemna­tion with that of Righteousness and Peace: Which would be no other, than (as much as in us lies) to overthrow the whole Gospel, and to obscure, darken and confound those truths that are of highest Importance; And which ought therefore to be carefully and distinctly handled by us, according to the different Services they are designed and appointed for.

SECT. VIII.

BUT then, we are yet further told by Mr. Sedgwick in his forementioned Discourse, pag. 174. ‘That that Covenant which was Confirmed by Bloud and Sprinkling (which Typified the Bloud of Christ, Gonfirming and Ratifying the Covenant) was no Covenant of Works. But the Covenant which God made then with the Israelites was Confirmed by Blood, Exod. 24. 7. Moses took the Book of the Covenant, and read it in the Audience of the People. And they said; All that the Lord hath said we will do and be Obedient, Vers. 8. And Moses took the Blood and Sprink­led it on the People; And said; Behold the Bloud of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words. Now this very place is quoted by the Apostle, Heb. 9. 19. He Sprinkled both the Book and the People, Vers. 20. Saying, This is the Bloud of the Testament, which God hath Enjoyned you. And expresly Interprets it, and applies it to the Blood of Christ, Vers. 14. and Vers. 23. And therefore that Covenant with that People was not a Covenant of Works; which never was, nor shall be Confirmed by the Bloud of Christ.’

§. 2. To which we Reply, First, That it is Evident, that the Covenant, the Bloud whereof Moses Sprinkled on the People, in the forementioned, Exod. 24. 7, 8. Could not possibly be the Law Written in Stones; which will appear in a diligent Examina­tion of the words before and after Vers. 3, 4. Moses came and told the People all the words of the Lord, and all the Judgments. And all the People Answerd with one Voice, and said; All the words which the Lord, hath spoken we will do. And Moses Wrote all the words of the Lord and rose up early in the Morning and builded an Altar, &c. Vers. 5. And be sent Young Men of the Children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and Sacrificed Peace offerings of Oxen unto the Lord, Vers. 6. And Moses took half of the Bloud, and put it in Basons; And half of the Bloud be Sprinkled on the Altar, Vers. 7. And he took the Book of the Cove­nant, and read in the Audience of the People. And they said; All that the Lord hath said we will do, and be Obedient, Vers. 8. And Moses took the Bloud, and Sprinkled it on the People, and said, behold the Bloud of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words. Now that the Book of the Cove­nant here spoken of, the Bloud whereof was thus Sprinkled on the People; could not be the Law Written in Stones; appears most evidently from the following words, Vers. 9. Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and Seventy of the Elders of Israel; And they saw the God of Israel, &c. Vers. 12. And the Lord said unto Moses; Come up to me into the Mount, and be there; And I will give thee Tables of Stone, and a Law and Com­mandments; which I have Written, that thou mayst teach them. Wherein first we cannot but observe; That whereas the words of the Covenant, the Bloud whereof was Sprinkled on the People, Vers. 8. are expresly said, Vers. 4. to be Written by Moses; So on the other hand, the Law Written in Stones is here expresly said to be Written by God himself. And Secondly, It is also as evident that Moses had not as yet so much as received the Law Written in Stones from God, till after he had Sprinkled the Bloud of the forementioned Covenant (wherein the Statutes and Judgments were contained) upon the People. So that the Law Written in Stones therefore could not possibly be the Covenant the Bloud whereof was so sprinkled; but was indeed another Covenant, and delivered at a distinct Season, and in a distinct Method; the one uttered and declared by [...]he Mouth of God himself, in the Audi­ence of all the People; the other delivered unto them by the Mouth and Ministration of Moses onely. The one Written with [Page 148] Gods own Finger in the two Tables of Stone; the other Written in a Book by the Hand of Moses▪ which is accordingly here cal­led the Book of the Covenant, by way of distinction from the Tables of Stone. From whence by the way it clearly appears; That that Covenant, which as Moses elsewhere assures us, God him­self with his own Immediate Mouth and Voice declared unto Israel; and that in the Audience of all the People, Deut. 4. 10, 11, 12, 13. was in this as well as in other respects, as much a Cove­nant of Works as that made with our first Parent: For if the Covenant made with Adam had no Mediator; so neither had this. 'Tis plain indeed that God made use of the Ministration of Moses in the delivery of the Ceremonial Covenant; but not so in the Pro­mulgation of this: For this was both Written and declared Im­mediately by the Hand and Mouth of God himself.

§. 3. But to return; Whereas Mr. Sedgwick tells us; ‘That that Covenant with that People, which was Confirmed by Bloud and Sprinkling (which Typified the Blood of Christ Confirming and Ratifying the Covenant) was not a Covenant of Works, which never was nor shall be Confirmed by the Blood of Christ;’ and makes no distinction thereon, between the Ceremonial Covenant, that was Dedicated with Bloud, and the Law Written in Stones, that was not so Dedicated; How strangely doth he Confound and Obscure the word and truth of God, which ought to have been cleared, and distinctly to have been declared to those he had Preached or Written unto? For first he seems to take it for grant­ed that there was no other Covenant made with Israel at Sinai, but what was Confirmed, by Bloud. And Secondly, That that Covenant which wa [...] so Confirmed must of necessity have been Confirmed also by the Blood of Christ Typified thereby, and therefore not a Covenant of Works. But both these are no other than ungrounded suppositions that want a Foundation.

§. 4. For first, It hath been already proved, That the Law Written in Stones had not been so much as received from God, when the Ceremonial Covenant was so Confirmed. And accor­dingly it was so far from being Confirmed by the Bloud of Christ, that we do not read that it was ever Dedicated with any other sort of Bloud whatsoever. It is indeed suggested that the Law Written in Stones by Gods own Finger, had been also Written by Moses in the Book of the Covenant wherein the Statutes and Judgments were contained, when the Bloud thereof was sprinkled on the People; Since we are told, Exod. 24. 3, 4. That Moses [Page 149] came and told the People all the Words of the Lord, and all the Judgments. And Moses Wrote all the Words of the Lord, and took the Book of the Covenant, and Read in the Audience of the People, and took the Blood and Sprinkled it on the People; saying, Behold the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you, concerning all these Words. But if we duly attend unto the Scope of the Spirit of God, in these passages, we shall find it utterly Improbable, that the Ten Commandments that had been Written in Stones with Gods own Finger, were at all contained in the Book of the Covenant, when the Blood thereof was Sprinkled on the People: Forasmuch as God afterwards calls up Moses into the Mount, saying, I will give thee Tables of Stone, and a Law and Commandments which I have Written, that thou mayest teach them, Ver. 12. Which clearly Implies that the Ten Command­ments, which was the only matter contained in the two Tables of Stone, had not been Written by Moses in the Book of the Cove­nant, wherein the Statutes and Judgments were contained, and which he had accordingly Read in the Audience of the People: For then it had been altogether Improper to say, I will give thee Tables of Stone, and a Law and Commandments, that thou mayest teach them. Since, according to this Reckoning, Moses had already done it. When we are told therefore that Moses came and told the People all the Words of the Lord, and all the Judgments, &c. We are plainly to understand it according to Deut. 4. 13. 14. where having Informed us that the Lord himself declared unto them his Covenant which he commanded them to perform, even Ten Com­mandments, and he Wrote them upon two Tables of Stone: He Ex­presly adds. The Lord Commanded me (saith he) at that time, to teach you Statutes and Judgments. And accordingly, Exod. 24. 3. Moses came and told the People all the Words of th [...] Lord, and all the Judgments; That is, all the Statutes, and all [...]he Judgments, not the Ten Commandments: For that God himself had already de­clared unto them, with his own Mouth. So that it is evident that it was the Statutes and Judgments only that Moses had then in Com­mission, to declare unto the People. And accordingly it is as evi­dent, that it was the Statutes and Judgments only, that were con­tained in the Book of the Covenant, when the Blood thereof was sprinkled on the People; Though afterwards it is plain, that upon the Receiving of the two Tables of Stone, wherein [...]he Ten Com­mandments were Inserted, he had a fresh Commission to teach them the Ten Commandments also, as appears by Verse 12. And which we find was accordingly performed by him, Deut. 5. in the Seve­ral Ten Branches, or Particulars thereof.

§. 5. It is therefore a great mistake for any to affirm, that the Law written in Stones, was not a Covenant of Works, because confirmed by Blood and Sprinkling; whereas, when it comes to be duly examined, there appears no such matter: but instead of being proved thereby to be a Covenant of Grace, it is the more convincingly proved to be as it is indeed, no other than a Cove­nant of Works. In which respect Mr. Sedgwick's forementioned Argument may more justly and truly be thus formed.

That Covenant that was not confirmed by the Blood of Christ (which alone can cleanse us from all unrighteousness) no, nor so much as by the Blood of Bulls, or Goats, or Calves, which was plainly typical thereof; could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace, but of Works: But the Law written in Stones, was so far from being confirmed by the Blood of Christ; that it was never (that we read of) confirmed by any other sort of Blood whatsoever. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Worlds.

§. 6. Secondly, Whereas the Apostle, Heb. 9. speaking of the Ceremonial Covenant, which was dedicated by Blood and Sprink­ling; doth plainly represent it unto us under the denomination of the first Covenant that had a Worldly Sanctuary, vers. 1. Op­posing it to Christ, as the Figure to the Substance, vers. 9. Calling the Statutes and Judgments therein contained by the name of Car­nal Ordinances; and such as could not make him that did the Ser­vice Perfect, as pertaining to the Conscience, vers. 10. Another Building, vers. 11. And the First Testament, as it's Contradistin­guish'd from the New-Testament, and Christ the true and only Sa­crifice thereof, vers. 18, 19. Besides what he had told us in the 8th Chap. concerning this same First, or Old-Testament; that it was of a faulty, decaying, vanishing nature, vers. 7, 13. From all this it plainly appears, that even the Ceremonial Covenant it self, could be no other than a Covenant of Works, as well as that writ­ten in Stones. And accordingly the Apostle informs us, Gal. 3. 10. That as many as are of the Works of the Law, are under the Curse: For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law, to do them. Which Book of the Law, here spoken of, must of neces­sity be the Book of the Covenant, written by Moses himself, where­in the Statutes and Judgments, or the Ceremonial Precepts, were contained. In respect whereof it is evident, that though the Sa­crifices, and other things thereunto belonging, pointed at Christ, [Page 151] and the way of Salvation by him; yet such was the severity of the Divine Sanction thereunto annexed; that if those under that Ad­ministration had wrought never so hard, and kept themselves in a Path of perfect and Universal Obedience to the multitude of those Ceremonial Precepts all their days, (which was impossible;) yet if at last cast there happened to be never so small a transgression, though in the least Circumstance, the Curse of the Law present­ly took hold upon them, and that without mercy. For (as James saith) Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one Point, he is guilty of all: And accordingly the Curse of the Law was pronounced upon every one that continued not in all things therein contained, to do them. This is the true Scope and Tenor even of the Ceremonial Covenant it self, to all under it, that were not relieved by the Grace of the Gospel.

§. 7. Wherefore, though it is plain, that the Law written in Stones, and the Book wherein the Statutes and Judgments were contained; were two distinct Covenants, and delivered at distinct Seasons, and in a distinct Method; the one with, the other with­out a Mediator; the one dedicated with Blood and Sprinkling, the other (that we read of) not so dedicated; yet it is as clear from the Premises, that they were both of the same Nature; that is, no other than a Covenant of Works, and accordingly both now Repealed, and that under the Denomination of the First, or Old Covenant, which was of a decaying, vanishing nature, Heb. 8. ult. And accordingly, though the Blood of the Legal Sacrifices, where­with the Ceremonial Covenant was dedicated, was plainly Typical of the Blood of Christ; yet forasmuch as the Apostle informs us, it could not take away sins, nor make the Comers thereunto per­fect, as pertaining to the Conscience; Heb. 9. 9. Chap. 10. 1, 4. That Covenant therefore which was dedicated only by the Blood of such Sacrifices, could never be a Covenant of Grace, proper­ly so called (which hath Christ alone for the Mediator thereof, and was confirmed only by his Blood and Sufferings for us) but of Works.

§. 8. Besides, If the Ceremonial Covenant, which was thus de­dicated by Blood and Sprinkling, had been indeed a Covenant of Grace, and confirmed also by the Blood of Christ; why should it be Repealed, as we know it was (as well as the Law written in Stones, which is said to be now done away?) Is it possible that a Covenant of Grace, confirmed by the Blood of Christ, should ever be Repealed? Or why did God appoint the New Covenant [Page 152] to succeed it, which was Really so Confirmed, and which is also opposed thereunto as another Covenant, and of a quite different Na­ture? Unless we shall say, that there were two Covenants of Grace Confirmed by the Blood of Christ; the one whereof was of a faulty, accaying, vanishing Nature, as the First Covenant is by the Spirit of God himself described; which to affirm, would be per­fectly to Contradict the whole Scope of the Scriptures.

§. 9. The Blood of those Sacrifices therefore, wherewith the Ceremonial Covenant was dedicated, together with the rest of the Types that were then afforded, served only as an Example, Fi­gure, and Shadow of Heavenly things. They were not (as the Apostle speaks) The Heavenly things themselves, Heb. 9. 23. For the Law (saith he, Heb. 10. 1, &c.) having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very Image of the things, can never with those Sacrifices which they offered year by year; continually, make the Commers thereunto perfect: For then they should not have ceased to be Offered, because that the Worshippers once purged, should have had no more Conscience of Sins. But in these Sacri­fices, there is a remembrance again made of Sins every year: For it is not possible that the Blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away Sins. All those Sacrifices therefore; could never amount to the value of the Blood of Christ. And accordingly, that Co­venant, though dedicated by Blood and Sprinkling, was no other than a Covenant of Works, for as much as it was not confirmed by the Blood of Christ: For if it had, it would have made the Commers thereunto Perfect, as pertaining to the Conscience; which it did not.

§. 10. Besides, the Apostle expresly tells us, That Christ hath obtained a more Excellent Ministry, than that of Moses; by how much also he is the Mediator of a Better Covenant, which was Established upon better Promises, Heb. 8. 6. Which Better Cove­nant, the Apostle doth plainly oppose unto the First, or Old Co­venant, vers. 7, 8, 9, 13. From whence it plainly follows, that Christ was not the Mediator of the First, or Old Covenant, un­less we shall say, that he was the Mediator of two Covenants, a Better and a Worse: And consequently it doth as plainly follow, that the First Covenant was no other than a Covenant of Works, since neither was Christ the Mediator of it; nor did he ever shed his Blood for the Confirmation thereof.

SECT. IX.

HAving thus far considered Mr. Obadiah Sedgwick's Arguments, wherewith he labours to prove that the Sinai Covenant was not a Covenant of Works, but of Grace: We should next have considered Mr. Francis Roberts his Arguments also to the same purpose, in his large Discourse upon the Covenants; But that the most substantial part of them have been already dispatcht in the Answers we have returned to Mr. Sedgwick's Arguments. Onely we cannot but take notice of two grand Absurdities which Mr. Roberts, and all others who Assert that the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Faith, do, and cannot but unavoidably run into, and fasten upon the Scriptures, on that Hypothesis. The first is this; Whereas Mr. Roberts pretending to Answer several Objections which are urged by way of opposition to his fore­mentioned Doctrine, the Fourth Objection which he mentions, pag. 769. of his forementioned Discourse; runs thus;

§. 2. Object. 4. ‘The Sinai Covenant is opposed by the Pro­phet Jeremy, and by the Apostle Paul, to the New Covenant, and is said to be broken by the People of Israel, Jer. 31. 31, 32, &c. Heb. 8. 8, 9, 10. Therefore it is not a Covenant of Faith, which is everlasting and cannot be broken; But a Covenant of works, which is but Temporary and liable to be broken.’

This is indeed a substantial Argument or Objection against, what he Asserts; But how substantially answered may appear by what follows: For thus he returns thereunto.

‘These Premises (saith he) will not bear this Conclusion, for first, though the Sinai Covenant made with Israel, when God brought them out of the Land of Egypt, is said to be unlike, or not according to the New Covenant; yet it is not said either by the Prophet or Apostle, to be unlike to the Covenant of Faith.’

§. 3. Reply. But what a strange Evasion is this? And whither will not Men run when left to themselves? For is not the New Covenant a Covenant of Faith? And therefore when the Sinai Covenant is opposed to the New Covenant; is it not plainly op­posed to the Covenant of Faith? Or shall we make the New-Covenant, and the Covenant of Faith opposite, and Contradistinct the one from the other, as Mr. Roberts plainly doth; when he [Page 154] saith, that though the Sinai Covenant is opposed to the New Covenant; yet it is not opposed to the Covenant of Faith: As if the New Covenant and the Covenant of Faith, were not one and the same thing? But certainly the New Covenant, to which the Sinai Covenant is opposed, must needs be a Covenant of Faith, or there is no Covenant of Faith mentioned in the Scriptures; And consequently since the Sinai Covenant is both by the Prophet and Apostle, so plainly opposed to the New Covenant, from hence it plainly follows, that it was never designed by God [...]s a Cove­nant of Faith: For else why is it opposed thereunto?

§. 4. ‘But (saith Mr. Roberts) the Dissmilitude or Difference here Intimated betwixt the Sinai Covenant and the New Cove­nant; is not in substance or kind: For in both the Lord saith, I will be their God, and they shall be my People; But onely in the manner of Administration or Degree: God promising in the New Covenant a greater, fuller, and clearer Measure of Grace unto his People, than under the Sinai Covenant.’ Whereof he gives Three Instances, in point of Sanctification, Illumination, and Remission. And then Concludes; ‘Thus (saith he) the Sinai Covenant, gradually, not specifically, differs from the New Covenant. They are both Covenants of Faith: But the New Covenant every way more Excellent, Compleat, and Perfect.’

§. 5. To this we reply, That as the Dissimilitude or Difference here Intimated betwixt the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant, i [...] not in Substance; Since in both the Lord saith, I will be their God, and they shall be my People: So neither in the manner of Administration; that is, If by the manner of Administration, we understand the Measure or Degrees of the Divine Blessedness therein Promised. For what can be a greater, or more Compre­hensive Blessedness, than for God to be their God, and they to be his People? For this Comprehends Justification, Sanctification and Illumination, in the heighth and Perfection of them. And indeed what is not promised where God is promised? And ac­cordingly this is the Blessedness promised in both Covenants. The Difference or Dissimilitude, therefore, betwixt the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant, upon the Account whereof they are here opposed the one unto the other, must of necessity Consist in the terms of either, and in that alone. For Moses (saith the Apostle Rom. 10. 5.) describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the Man which doth these things shall live by them. Where­as Life and happiness is promised in the Gospel Covenant in the [Page 155] way of believing onely, from Vers. 6. to 12. And indeed nothing short of this can be duely supposed as the ground of such an op­position as here Insisted on: For can it be rationally imagined, that a bare difference in the Extent or Degrees of the Divine Bles­sedness promised in either, could be a sufficient ground for the Prophet or Apostle to speak as they do, that the New Covenant was not like, or not according to the Sinai Covenant? For if the Substance be the same, there is still a likeness between them, though in Respect of Degrees Circumstantially different. A Child hath the likeness of a Man, though not grown up to a Perfect Stature. But if the Difference or Dissimilitude lie in the terms of either, and those terms Essentially different; Then, though the Promises are the same for the Substance of them, and the Degrees of the Mercy promised also; yet it may be justly and properly said, that the one is not like, or not according to the other: For as Covenants, they are Essentially different, because the terms are so. And accordingly it is evident, both from the forementioned Rom. 10. 5, 6, &c. as also from Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. Where the Sinai Covenant, is opposed to the New Covenant, that whereas the Promises of the Sinai Covenant run all upon condition of Ʋni­versal and Perfect Obedience to whatsoever the Law requireth; the Promises of the New Covenant are all of them Absolute, and therefore onely to be received by Faith: For as therein God promiseth that he will put his Laws in their Mind, and write them in their Hearts: So he doth also freely Promise, that he will be Merciful to their Ʋnrighteousness, and their Sins and Ini­quities will he remember no more. All which promises of Grace were plainly wanting in the Sinai Covenant: For that required Obedience, as the Condition of Life, but gave no strength to per­form it; And not onely so, but pronounced a dreadful Curse upon every Transgression and Disobedience, leaving no room for Repen­tance. So that it is plain that the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant differ Specifically; the One being a Covenant of Faith, the Other [...] of Works. And on this Account onely are they op­posed the one unto the other both by Paul, and Jeremy. In which Respect, though the Promises in both are the same, for Substance; I will be their God, and they shall be my People: As also in respect of the Degrees of the Divine Blessedness promised in either; yet the terms of Enjoyment being Essentially different, hence it plainly follows, that so are the Covenants themselves, that [...], Essentially, or Specifically different.

§. 6. Secondly, Whereas 'tis justly urged, That since the Sinai Covenant is said to be broken by the people of Israel, Jer. 31. Heb. 8. Therefore it is not a Covenant of Faith, which is Everlasting and cannot be broken; but a Covenant of Works, which is but temporary and liable to be broken. To this Mr. Roberts returns thus;

‘Though (saith he) Israel brake the Sinai Covenant by their Idolatry; yet they brake it not utterly and Irreparably, as Adam brake the Covenant of Works by his first Transgression: For God admitted them to Repentance; upon their Repentance Pardons them; and renews the Sinai Covenant again with them. Therefore this Breach of Covenant doth no way prove the Sinai Covenant to be a Covenant of Works, not of Faith; Temporary, not Everlasting.’

§. 7. Reply. But why should any part of the truth of God be concealed, which was so necessary here to have been discovered? For though the Sinai Covenant was renewed in the Second Tables, after the first were broken, upon the Idolatry of the Israelites about the Golden Calf, Exod. 34. Yet it clearly appears, and we cannot be Ignorant, that afterward it was utterly broken, and they Rejected, as they are to this Day. Else why doth God say, which my Covenant they brake, they continued not in it, and I regarded them not, Jer. 31. 32. Heb. 8. 9. which plainly looks further than the first Breach: For it is clear that after the first Breach they were regarded by God, since upon Moses his Inter­cession they were admitted to Repentance; and it is evident that upon their Repentance the Lord Pardons them, and Renews the Sinai Covenant again with them. But it is as Evident, that at length having broken it again and again, God plainly tells them that he Regarded them not. So that though tis true, the first Breach doth no way prove the Sinai Covenant to be a Cove­nant of Works, not of Faith; Temporary, not Everlasting; yet the after Breaches do. Else why doth the Apostle tell us as he doth, concerning the same Sinai Covenant, that it is dis-annulled, Heb. 7. 18 For there is verily a dis-annulling of the Command­ment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. So likewise, Heb. 8. 7. For if that first Covenant had been faultless, there should no place have been sought for the second. And Vers. 13. In that he saith a New Covenant, he hath made the first Old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away. Though the Sinai Covenant therefore was Re­newed [Page 157] after the first Breach thereof; yet the Scriptures do give us a Positive Assurance, that at length it was utterly and irrepa­rably broken; And so broken, that at last it was dis-annulled, made to Expire, and vanish away, which is utterly Inconsistent with the Nature of the Covenant of Faith, according to the whole Scope and Tenour of the Scriptures. So that we see that without a Manifest and Palpable Absurdity, there is no Resisting the force and Evidence of the forementioned Objection. The Conclusion whence Resulting, is therefore highly Rational, and remains firm and unshaken. That since the Sinai Covenant is both by the Prophet and Apostle plainly opposed to the New Covenant, and is said to be broken, and so broken as to Expire and vanish away; Therefore it is not a Covenant of Faith, which is Ever­lasting and cannot be broken; but a Covenant of Works, that was but Temporary, and liable thereunto.

As for the unchangeable nature of the Covenant of Faith, at least on Gods part, whatever it is on ours; besides a multitude of other Testimonies that might be produced. the 89. Psalm gives us a clear and convincing Evidence thereof, Vers. 30. &c. If his Children forsake my Law, and walk not in my Judgments; if they break my Statutes, and keep not my Commandments; Then will I Visit their Transgression with the Rod, and their Iniquity with Stripes; Nevertheless my Loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail; My Covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my Lips. Once have I Sworn by my Holiness that I will not lie unto David, his Seed shall endure for ever, and his Throne as the Sun before me. It shall be Established for ever as the Moon, and as a faith­ful Witness in Heaven. The like Assurance we have concerning the Promise made to Abraham. Wherein (saith the Apostle, Heb. 6. 17, 18.) God willing more abundantly to shew unto the Heirs of Promise the Immutability of his Counsel, Confirmed it by an Oath, that by two Immutable things in which it was Impossible for God to lie, we might have strong Consolation, &c. So that we see, the Covenant of Faith, or which is all one, the Cove­nant of Grace, is every way perfect, unchangeable, unrepealable, and Everlasting. Whereas the Sinai Covenant, was of a faulty, decaying, vanishing Nature, and accordingly was at last dis­annulled; and therefore could not possibly be any other than a Covenant of Works.

§. 8. The Second Absurdity is this. Whereas Mr. Roberts, pag. 772. of his forementioned Discourse, pretending to Answer [Page 158] the Seventh Objection against his Assertion; the Objection it self as himself states it, runs thus.

Object. 7. ‘The Condition upon which Life and Happiness is held forth in the Law, or Sinai Covenant, is Perfect Doing: For Moses describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law; that the man which doth these things, shall live by them, Rom. 10. 3. with Lev. 18. 5. Gal. 3. 12. And he denounceth a Curse upon the least failing; Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law, to do them, Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. But the Condition upon which Life and Happiness is tendred in the Covenant of Faith, is Be­lieving in Christ, Rom. 10. 6. to 12. Doing, and Believing; Works, and Faith; are two Contrary Conditions of Life: Con­sequently; the Law, or Sinai Covenant, which requires Doing unto Life, cannot be a Covenant of Faith; but must needs be a Covenant of Works.’

The Answer which Mr. Roberts returns unto this Strong and Sub­stantial Objection; first of all in general runs thus;

‘This Objection (saith he) as it is most Obvious to every one, that reads the Epistles of Paul to the Romans, and Galatians; so it is in my judgment, of greatest difficulty to be clearly and satisfactorily Answered. And yet it is of great Consequence and Necessity to be Cleared; because otherwise, the true Nature and Intent of this Sinai Covenant, as a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus, will not be fully and sufficiently evidenced. Several Answers are given. I shall propound them, and pitely upon such as afford best satisfaction.’ And accordingly he proceeds to give an Account of the several Answers given thereunto by Mr. John Ball, and Peter Ma [...]yr, by D. Pareus, and Mr. Anthony Burgess; but neither of these fully pleasing him, p. 775. ‘I add therefore (saith he) for the unfolding of this Mysterie more clearly, and for Answering of this Objection more fully; First, That the Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed, as to tender Life and Happiness upon two Opposite, and Contrary Conditions, viz. Works, and Faith; Per­fect Doing, and Believing. This is clear (saith he) by Paul's Epistles without Dispute.—And to deny this which is so clear, will but tend to weaken Paul's Authority, to darken many Scri­ptures, both of Moses, and Paul, and to strengthen the Objecti­on. And so proceeds to make out this Notion.’

§. 9. Reply. But if ever there was an Absurdity, or plain Con­tradiction imposed upon the Scriptures; we think we may justly and truly say, that here it is. For though 'tis true, there are those [Page 159] that labour to fasten an absurdity upon such as affirm that Gods People of old were under two Contrary Covenants, at one and the same time; yet was it ever known, that the same Fountain did at the same time send forth Bitter Waters and Sweet? Or can it ever be rationally imagined, that the same Sinai Cove­nant was purposely so dispensed, as to tence life and happiness up­on two Opposite and Contrary Conditions? For though 'tis true, two Opposite Covenants may be allowed to be purposely so dispen­sed, as to tender Life and Happiness upon two Opposite and Con­trary Conditions, Works and Faith; yet it is utterly impossible that the same Covenant should be so dispensed. For as the Apo­stle reasoneth concerning Election, Rom. 11. 6. So it is here; If by Grace, then it is no more of Works; otherwise Grace is no more Grace. But if it be of Works, then it is no more Grace; other­wise Work is no more Work. So that we see, according to the Apo­stles reckoning, it is utterly impossible that two Opposite and Con­trary Conditions, should be able to consist together in one and the same Covenant. Either the Sinai Covenant therefore is a Cove­nant of Grace, or it is a Covenant of Works. If it is a Covenant of Grace, then according to the scope of the Apostles Reasoning, it is no more of Works. And if so, whence is it that Works are so plainly required, as the Condition of obtaining the mercies there­in promised, and which the forementioned Objection doth give such a full demonstration concerning; that it shines with a clear and convincing Evidence in the faces of those that assert it, to be a Covenant of Grace? If therefore it be, as indeed it is, a Cove­nant of Works, and purposely so dispensed, as to tender Life and Happiness upon Condition of Doing (which Mr. Roberts himself grants) How comes it to be a Covenant of Grace, since the Apostle assures us, that if it be of Works, then it is no more Grace; otherwise Work is no more Work? So that we see the Scripture al­lows of no such Mixture; and shews us, 'tis impossible that the same Covenant should be so dispensed, as to tender Life and Hap­piness upon two such Opposite and Contrary Conditions, as Faith and Works. And yet this Absurdity, all those must of necessity run into, that affirm the Sinai Covenant, to be a Covenant of Faith: Since it is evident and cannot be denied, but that Life and Happiness are therein frequently and plainly tendred upon Condition of Doing.

§. 10. ‘But (saith Mr. Roberts) in this Sinai Covenant those Opposite Conditions of Perfect Doing, under pain of Curse and Death; and of Believing in Christ, are very differently Requi­red [Page 160] and Revealed. Believing in Christ is revealed very Spa­ringly and Obscurely. Perfect Doing, very frequently and plain­ly (that by the way is well granted.) But (saith he) though these two Conditions of Perfect Doing, and Believing, he thus differently Revealed and Required in the Sinai Covenant; yet Believing in Christ unto Life and Reighteousness, was therein chiefly and ultimately intended; and Perfect Doing only urged in subordination and tendency to Believing. And that Believing in Christ unto Righteousness, is chiefly and ultimately intended in the Sinai Covenant, is plain from Moses himself, drawing the Righteousness of Faith from that Covenant, Deut. 30. 11, to 15. Compared with Rom. 10. 6, to 11.’

§. 11. Reply. But if Believing in Christ unto Life and Righ­teousness, was chiefly and ultimately intended in the Sinai Cove­nant; and Perfect Doing, only urged in subordination and ten­dencie to Believing: How comes it to pass that the Apostle doth so directly oppose the Righteousness of that Covenant to the Righ­teousness of Faith, in the forementioned Rom. 10. 5, 6. For Mo­ses (saith he) describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law, that the man which doth these things, shall live by them. But the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise, &c. in a quite different strain and stile. Wherein when he tells us, that the Law saith, Do this and Live: How can it be understood, but that his Meaning is, that this is the Only Righteousness which the Law requireth, in order to Life and Salvation: Or this is that which it ultimately intends, and no other way doth it propound in order thereunto: For otherwise we cannot rationally understand him; especially, since he doth elsewhere assure us, that the Law is not of Faith, Gal. 3. 12. The Objection against which, from Deut. 30. 11, &c. Compared with Rom. 10. 6. &c. (from whence it is inferred, that the Law requireth Faith in Christ, in order to Life and Righteousness, as well as the Gospel) hath been already Answered in the foregoing parts of this Discourse; where it hath been plainly proved, that the 30th of Deuteronomy is taken up with the Description (not of the Covenant at Sinai, but) of that New and Evangelical Covenant, that God intended to Establish with Israel in after-times; and is accordingly repre­sented as a quite different Covenant from that at Sinai, as plainly appears by the manner of Paul's allegation thereof, Rom. 10. 6. And that chiefly, for as much as it required faith in Christ, in order to Life and Righteousness, as the Apostle there interprets it. Whereas the Sinai Covenant (as both Paul and Moses him­self [Page 161] describes it) insists on Works onely; that the Man which doth these things shall live by them, And to say, that these two op­posite Conditions may be Required in one and the same Sinai Covenant; is plainly to Contradict the Apostle, who in his Inter­pretation thereof, sets the Righteousness of the Law, and the Righteousness of Faith in direct Opposition the one unto the o­ther, as Inconsistent in one and the same Covenant. Moses (saith be) describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law, that the Man which doth these things shall live by them: But the Righte­ousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise, &c. If thou shalt believe thou shalt be saved. Whereby he would have us plainly to understand that these are two opposite Covenants; Whereas had it been his meaning, that the Law or Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two such op­posite and contrary Conditions, he would not have said that the Law requireth one thing; and the Righteousness of Faith, another: But that the Law requireth both. And therefore it must of neces­sity follow▪ that the Apostle speaks of two contrary Covenants, requiring two opposite Conditions; It being indeed Impossible; that one and the same Covenant should be so dispensed.

§. 12. And here by the way it may be observed, that though Mr. Baxter: (as hath been already noted in the foregoing part of this Discourse) seems plainly to grant, that the Law or Sinai Co­venant was no other then a Covenant of Works, requiring perfect Obedience as the Condition of Life, unto which the Righteousness of Faith, or the Gospel Covenant is opposed by the Apostle, Rom. 10. 5, 6. Which Gospel Covenant he supposeth to be insisted on, both in the 29th and 30th Chapters of Deuteronomy, and that from both, the Apostle draws that Description of the Righte­ousness of Faith he speaketh of, making no difference between the Covenants or Promises mentioned in those two Chapters. Mr. Roberts on the other hand we see; makes the Sinai Covenant, and the Covenant of Faith to be all one ‘For (saith he) that believing in Christ unto Righteousness is chiefly and ulti­mately intended in the Sinai Covenant, is plain from Moses himself, drawing the Righteousness of Faith from that Cove­nant, Deut. 30. 11, to 15. compared with Rom. 10. 6, to 11.’ So that in th [...]s Respect, Mr. Roberts, or Mr. Baxter, most of necessity be out of the way, either the one or the other, or both of them. For to say as Mr. Baxter doth, that though the Righte­ousness of Faith is by the Apostle opposed unto the Law or Sinai Covenant; yet not unto the Covenant mentioned; Deut. 29. [Page 162] reckoning that in the 30th Chapter to be all one with that in the 29th is widely different from the Truth; Since it hath been al­ready plainly proved, that the Covenant mentioned; Deut. 29. is of the same Stamp and Tenour with the Sinai Covenant, and that both are Essentially different from the Covenant of Faith mentioned, Deut. 30. And again, on the other hand, to say as Mr. Roberts doth, that the Sinai Covenant is a Covenant of Faith, and that Moses draws the Righteousness of Faith from that Co­venant, would be plainly to contradict Mr. Baxter, and not onely so, but would be point blank to contradict the Interpretation given thereof by Paul himself in the forementioned, Rom. 10. 5, 6. where he doth clearly oppose the Righteousness of Faith to the Sinai Covenant.

§. 13. Indeed the Principal ground of Mr. Roberts his mistake, or that which he seems to lay the greatest stress upon, when he affirms the Sinai Covenant to be a Covenant of Faith, is this; because the Description that Paul gives of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 10. 6, &c. is drawn from the Description that Moses gives thereof in the 30th of Deuteronomy, as if because the Law was given by Moses, the Description he there gives of the Righte­ousness of Faith must needs be understood of the Sinai Covenant; whereas it is Evident that Paul was of another Mind: For he makes the Description that Moses gives there of the Righteousness of Faith, to be quite opposite to the Description that Moses else­where gives of the Law or Sinai Covenant. Moses (saith he) describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the Man which doth these things shall live by them; which he cites from Lev. 18. 5. and Deut. 29. 9. Whereas the Righteousness of Faith, or the Gospel Covenant speaketh after quite another sort; That if thou shalt believe, thou shalt be saved; which he quotes from Deut. 30. From whence, what can be more Evident, than that he brings in Moses describing two Opposite and Essentially different Covenants in respect of the terms of Life propounded in either? Besides, though the Law was given by Moses, whereof he was the alone and onely Mediator; yet it is evident, that even Moses himself doth give sufficient notice of another Covenant, that was to take place in after times; and that not onely in the forementioned 30th of Deuteronomy, but in the 18th Chapter, which is also noted by the Apostle Peter, Acts 3. 22. Moses truly said unto the Fathers, a Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your Bre­thren, like unto me; him shall yea hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. Moses therefore gives them sufficient notice [Page 163] of another Covenant, and not onely so, but of another Prophet also that God would raise up unto them to be the Mediator thereof. And that this other Prophet was to be the Mediator of another Covenant, is plain from what the Author to the Hebrews tells us, Chap. 8. 6. But now (saith he) hath he obtained a more Excellent Ministry (to wit, than that of Moses spoken of in the foregoing Verse) by [...]ow much also he is the Mediator of a Better Covenant which was Established upon Better Promises.

§. 14. So that it is Evident, that the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai, Exod. 19. and 20: which was afterward renewed with them in the Land of Moab, Deut. 29. is another Covenant and Essentially different from the Covenant of Faith, or the Gospel Covenant mentioned Deut. 30. Rom. 10. 6, &c. And that not onely since the Terms are Essentially different, but since it hath also another and far different Mediator. Wherefore the forementioned Objection▪ notwithstanding, the Apostles Testimony, remains firm and cannot be Evaded; That the Law is not of Faith. And accordingly whatever Subordination or Tendency the Law hath to drive us to the Covenant of Faith for Relief and Shelter, to be sure the Law it self gives us no Relief: For neither chiefly nor Ultimately doth it propound Faith as the Condition of Life, but Doing onely; and consequently is another Covenant, and Essentially different from the Covenant of Faith to which it drives us. The Law (saith Moses) requireth Doing unto Life. The Gospel (saith Paul) requireth Faith. And these (saith he Gal. 4. 24, 25, 26.) are the two Covenants; the One from Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem that now is; the Other to Jerusalem that is above; the one gen­dering to Bondage; the other to Liberty; the one a Ministration of Death, and Condemnation; the other a Ministration of Life and Righteousness, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 8, 9. Now whom shall we believe? Whether Paul, who affirms that these are two Covenants; and who in effect also affirms that these two Covenants are Essentially and Specifically different, in respect of the terms propounded in either; as well as also in respect of the consequent Issues there­of to such as are under them: Or those that affirm that the Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed, as to tender Life and Happiness upon two opposite and contrary Conditions?

§. 15. But we shall Proceed no further in the Confutation of this Un-scriptural Notion. What hath been already said being (if we mistake not) sufficient to overthrow the whole of what [Page 164] Mr. Roberts delivers in his Voluminous Discourse toward the Proof of his grand Position; That the Law was given to Israel at Mount Sinai, as a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus. Onely it ought to be duely Considered, that it will be of no small Con­sequence to the Church of God, if it shall be at last found that such Doctrines as these have sadly tended to the Obscuring and Confounding many Gospel Truths. But sufficient hint [...] of this Nature having been already given, we shall leave it unto the Godly Wise to determine upon the whole of what hath been said in these Respects. Thus far by way of Answer to Mr. Sedgwicks and Mr. Roberts his Arguments.

SECT. X.

BUT whereas we have Asserted that the Covenant which God made with Israel at Mount Sinai, was as much a Covenant of Works as that made with our first Parent. We are told ‘That the Covenant of Works made with Adam in the state of Inno­cency, when he was able to have kept it, was never Revived or Renewed after the fall to the same Intent and Purpose it wa [...] first made with him, that is, to Obtain Life and Righteousness by Personal Obedience to it: For had God Promulged the first Covenant again at Sinai to the same use and Purpose it was first made with Adam; then in Establishing this he had utterly sub­verted the New Covenant, Gal. 3. 21. Life and Salvation was not then its end; that is, in it self, it neither was, nor could be given after the Fall for such a design and purpose. And there­fore though it is Evident, that the Sinai Covenant, Materially Considered, is the same with Adams Covenant; yet Intention­ally it is vastly different.’

§. 2. To this we Reply, That it is indeed too Evident fairly to be denied, but that the Law given from Mount Sinai, w [...] a Covenant of Works; Since your selves cannot but acknowledge that Materially Considered it is the same with Adams Covenant: But then (say you) Intentionally it is vastly different. But how doth that Appear? For though 'tis true God never designed, o [...] Intended that any should obtain Life and Righteousness by their Personal Obedience to it; yet even in this Respect also it was a [...] much a Covenant of Works, as that made with our first Parent▪ For God never intended that Adam himself should obtain Life [Page 165] and Righteousness by his Obedience to that Covenant: For if he had, the purpose or intention of God in that respect, must of ne­cessity have been accomplished: And accordingly Adam should have stood, and Life and Righteousness should that way have been derived unto him; and not only unto him, but unto all his Off­spring also. But it is evident, that Man that was in Honour, abode not, but fell, and we all in him; and accordingly a New Covenant takes place, whereby Life and Righteousness was to be derived, both unto him, and all his Elect Offspring.

§. 3. So that if that Covenant at Sinai was materially a Cove-of Works, though God intended not, that Life should be that way derived unto us; so it was in respect of Adam's Covenant also. For as in the Legal Covenant, God doth now plainly tell sin­ners, That the Man that doth these things, shall live by them: that is, if you can perform a steady, perfect Obedience, Life and Sal­vation shall be your Reward; thus, and no otherwise was our first Parent himself dealt withal. For this was all the stipulation, or agreement that we find God made with him: Gen. 2. 16. The Lord God commanded the man, saying; of every Tree of the Garden, thou maist freely eat: But of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Carrying with it an im­plicite, conditional Promise; that if he forbore it, both Himself, and Posterity should live. For God, never, that we can find, made any absolute Promise of Life to him; only implicit, and con­ditional. And since it cannot, with any shadow of truth, be af­firmed, that God ever made any absolute Promise of this nature unto him: Neither therefore can it be justly affirmed, that God ever intended, that Life and Righteousness should be conveyed un­to him by his Obedience unto that Covenant. Nay, rather it is clear, that God foresaw he would fall; and consequently designed that Life and Righteousness should not that way be derived unto HIm, or to any of his Offspring. From whence it plainly follows, the Sinai Covenant, was as much a Covenant of Works, as that made with our first Parent; not only since it is materially the saine, but in this respect, intentionally also.

SECT. XI.

BUt whereas it is further objected; ‘That if God never since the Fall published the Covenant of Works with a design to justifie any man by it; and yet in the Sinai Covenant hath given it (materially Considered) a Second Edition, and Pro­mulgation: It must needs follow, that it was done in Subservi­ency to Christ, and the Covenant of Grace; or done in vain, as to the Elect. To set it forth in opposition to the Covenant of Grace, can never be imagined. To make it a Co-ordinate way of Salvation with Christ, is proved impossible. Therefore it must be subordinate, or not at all; there being nothing else left us. And this, (say they) the Scriptures fully assert and confirm; Rom. 10. 4. Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness, to every one that believeth. Are the End and Means contrariant? Or must not the means be always subordinate to the end? This is plain and clear Reasoning, not easily Answered. So Gal. 3. 24. The Law it as our School-master to bring us to Christ; that is, to bring us to a Conviction of his Necessity; as it did Paul, Rom. 7. after Christ was come, and thousands more since Paul. Again, Gal. 3. 23. It shut us up to Christ, or Faith, as our on­ly Remedy. This was, and still is its use and design, and will be so to the end, to all that come to Christ. As to others it hath another end; even to Judge and Condemn them that continue under it, as a Covenant of Works; Rom. 2. 12. But to Belie­vers, it is subservient to Christ; both to bring them to him at first, and regulate their Lives▪ as a Moral Rule ever after. And therefore the two Tables are put into the Ark, Heb. 9. 4. to shew their subserviencie to him, and in this sense, its consistence with him.’

§. 2. For Answer whereunto, We do indeed acknowledge the subserviencie of the Law to Christ, and the Covenant of Grace; in which respect it is also true, That the Means is not Contrari­ant to the End, but is always subordinate thereunto. But it doth not therefore follow, that the Law is a Covenant of Gospel-Grace, (for that is the only Point we are Contending about, or Enquiring after.) It hath indeed a plain subserviencie; or subordination thereunto; as Hagar the type of the Bondage Covenant, had unto Sarah the type of the Gospel Covenant. But yet neither is [Page 167] the Handmaid the Mistress, nor the Mistress the Handmaid. These two are still distinct. The Law is not the Gospel, nor the Gospel the Law. And therefore, though the one of them is plain­ly subservient to the other, yet they ought not to be mixed, [...]end­ed, or confounded the one with the other, as if they were but one and the same Covenant, and no difference to be made between them; only in respect of the Different Degrees of the Discovery of Gospel Grace, as hath been suggested.

§. 3. 'Tis true, the Law is appointed as our School-master to Christ, (for so the words run in the Original Text, as your selves have acknowledged;) that is, to shew us the Nature of Sin; together with the Holiness, and Righteousness of God's Nature and Being; to Convince us of our Sin and Misery without Christ, and our Ne­cessity therefore of a Saviour. And in all these respects, it hath Indeed a plain subserviency to drive us to Christ; and to induce us to fly with the more earnestness to lay hold upon New-Cove­nant-Grace, wherein Christ is plainly exhibited unto us for our Relief. But then it doth not therefore follow, that the Law it self is subserviently a Covenant of Gospel-Grace; or that it is such for the substance of it; as both Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Roberts, and many other worthy Divines, affirm it is. A subserviency in any thing to promote the Ends of something else, doth not make it to be the thing it self; the Ends whereof are promoted thereby. The tem­ptations of Satan, and the persecutions of Wicked Men, have a plain subserviency, (and that by God's own appointment, through his Over-ruling Providence) to promote the Ends of the Cove­nant of Grace; and to make us fly the more earnestly thereunto for Succour; yet it would be too absurd to affirm, that either of these are the Covenant of Grace; or subserviently such. So it is in our present Case: For though the Law is in it self against us, and contrary to us, as being a Ministration of Death and Condem­nation, (as the Apostle witnesses it is) in which respect the Le­gal Covenant is directly opposite to the Gospel-Covenant, (as in our 23^d Argument following, is more plainly and particularly de­monstrated,) yet through the over-ruling Grace and Mercy of God; the Law with all its thundring Curses, and Menacies upon every Transgression and Disobedience; instead of destroying us; it is converted to a notable subserviency toward our Everlasting Com­fort, by forcing us with the more speed to Christ, and the Cove­nant of Grace for Relief and Succour: So as that out of the Eater▪ comes Meat; and out of the strong, Sweetness. But shall we say therefore, that the Law it self is a Covenant of Gospel-Grace, [Page 168] (which is constantly in the Scripture represented unto us as quite another thing) because it hath a subserviency to drive us thither for shelter.

§. 4. So that to allow, that there is indeed a subserviency in the Law to drive us to Jesus Christ, and the Covenant of Grace for Succour; and yet to deny, that the Law it self is therefore a Co­venant of Grace, is Harmonious enough, and implies no Contra­diction at all; (as it hath been suggested it doth) for as much as it is impossible, (and therefore it must rather of necessity be a plain contradiction on the other hand to affirm) that any thing can be subservient to the Ends of another; and at the same time, to be the same thing it self, which it is thus subservient unto: For if it be the same, how is it subservient to something else, as to ano­ther? The Law therefore being a Distinct Covenant from the Gospel; it must of necessity be a Covenant of Works, unless we shall say, there are two Covenants of Gospel-Grace; the one per­fect, the other faulty; the one to endure for ever, the other to be Repealed, and Blotted out, as being against us, and contrary to us; a Ministration of Death and Condemnation, (as the Legal Covenant hath been proved to be) which in any sence, can ne­ver be applied to the Covenant of Grace, according to the Scri­pture Dialect.

§. 5. It is certain therefore (as hath been before hinted) that the Law shuts us up to Christ, or Faith, as our only Remedy; and indeed this was, and still is its use and design; and will be so to the end, to all that come to Christ; that is, it precludes, or shuts us up from all other ways and Expectations of Comfort; by shewing us our utter incapacity, to attain unto Life, by our own Righteousness; and therefore forces us, if ever we will be saved, to have recourse to the only Remedy. Accordingly the two Ta­bles were put into the Ark, Heb. 9. 4. to shew their subserviency to Christ; and in this sense, its consistence with him; typically demonstrating, that though the Covenant of Works could not be kept, or performed by us; yet it should be perfectly fulfilled in Christ for us: In which respect he is said to be the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth. But then it doth not therefore follow, that the Law, that thus shuts us up, is the Remedy it self; or that the School-masters-Rod, that drives us to Christ, is Christ himself, or the Covenant of Grace it self; since the Means cannot be the End; nor the end the Means; though the Means is indeed subservient, or subordinate thereunto.

SECT. XII.

BUT then we are also told, ‘That the Intention and Design of God, in the Promulgation of the Law at Sinai, was fa­tally mistaken by the Jews, and perverted to a quite contrary end; namely, to obtain Righteousness by their own Works of Obe­dience to it; and so to slight and oppose the Righteousness of Christ; not considering, that Christ was the end, or scope of the Law for Righteousness, to every one that believeth: Nor that the Law was their School-master, to convince them of Sin, and Im­potency; and so drive them to Christ their only Remedy. Now this mistake of God's Intention in giving the Law, is the true Reason and Ground of those Seeming Contradictions, which we find in the New-Testament. For when the Apostle speaks of the Law, according to the true end and use of it, which God de­signed it for; then he magnifies the Law, and calls it Holy, Just, and Good; a Spiritual Law, a Good Law: Our School-master to Christ, tells us, that Christ is the end of it for Righteousness, to every one that believeth: With many more high Encomiums of its Excellency and Usefulness. But when he considers it, as perverted by men; and reduced again to its Primitive Intention, to give Life and Righteousness by our Obedience to it; then he as much decries, and thunders against it; calling it a Ministrati­on of Death and Condemnation; a weak and beggarly thing; with many other Notes of Disparagement. Nor can it be enough de­cried, when instead of Subordination, it's put in Competition; yea, in Opposition to Christ. And that this is no Fiction, or Groundless Distinction, which Obscures and Confounds Law and Gospel; appears not only by the Impossibility of Reconciling the Apostle with himself, but by this means: As also, by that plain Text in which it is grounded, Rom. 10. 3, 4. And 1 Tim. 1. 8. The Law is good, if a Man use it lawfully: That is, i'ts good or bad, according to the use men make of i [...]. If they take it ac­cording to those Excellent Ends, for which God Promulged it, viz. to prepare them by Convictions for Christ: And afterward, when in him, as a moral Rule of Duty and Obedience; then it is Good and Excellent: But if it be made the Ground and Mat­ter of our Righteousness, and so set in opposition to Christ; then nothing more fatal and pernitious. So that this Distinction [Page 170] is the Apostles own Distinction, given us as a Key, to open this Controversie by.’

§. 2. Reply. But can weindeed think that when the Apostle thunders, as he doth against the Law; Calling it a Ministration of Diatb and Condemnation; a weak and beggarly thing; that which was against us, contrary to us; and that which is therefore now blotted out, and taken out of the way; being nailed to the Cross of Christ, &c. That he utter [...] and declares all this, only because men had perverted the Law, and reduced it (as they thought) to its Pri­mitive Intention, to give Life and Righteousness by their Obedi­ence to it? 'Tis true, the Jews did plainly pervert, and misunder­stood God's Design and Intention, in giving the Law as a Cove­nant of Works unto them; which was not, that any Person what­soever, should ever attain unto Life and Righteousness thereby; but only to Convince them of their Necessity of a Saviour. But doth it therefore follow, that all those thundring Expressions, be­fore mentioned, concerning the Law, were uttered by the Apo­stle, only because the Jews had perverted it? Doth not Moses himself call it a Fiery Law, that proceeded from God's right Hand, Deut. 33. 2. And doth not God himself pronounce a Curse upon every one that continueth not in all things therein contained, to do them, Deut. 27. 26▪ Gal. 3. 10. And is it not as plain, that from hence, even that from hence it is, that the Apostle calls it as he doth, a Ministration of Death and Condemnation: Against us, and Contrary to us, &c. Besides, it ought to be duly consi­dered, that the Gospel and Covenant of Grace it self, was liable to a [...] great an abuse as the Law, by being turned into Lasciviousness; as the Scriptures tells us it was; and yet the Apostle never thunders against the Gospel, as he doth against the Law, because Men had abused it. 'Tis true, he tells us concerning the Gospel; that to some it is the savour of death, unto death, to others it is the savour of life, unto life; that is, to those that Reject it, it is the savour of death unto death; to those that Receive it, it is the savour of life, unto life. But this is vastly different from the cha­racter he gives of the Law: For (saith he) By the deeds of the Law, there shall no Flesh be justified in his sight, Rom. 3. 20. And therefore, whether it is Received or Rejected, it is, as the Apostle calls it, a Ministration of Death, &c. Whereas the Gospel is such, only to those that Reject it, and do not give a saving entertainment to it. So that the Distinction we now op­pose, is altogether without Scripture Warrant; and is indeed no other, than to impute unfaithfulness to Paul, and Moses also, in [Page 171] declaring the Nature of the Law as they do. And accordingly hence we have just reason to conclude, that the Law was never instituted as a Covenant of Faith,, or as a Covenant of Grace, that hath such Epethites fixed thereon by the Spirit of God himself.

§. 3. 'Tis true, as you say, the Law was our School-master to Christ; to Convince us of our Necessity of him. And Christ is also said to be the end of the Law, for Righteousness, to every one that believeth; that is, he was the accomplishment thereof; he having perfectly fulfilled its Commands, submitted to its Curse, and answered its Penalty on our behalf; whereby it received the Greatest Honour that could be given it; a greater by far, than ever could be given it by us, in our own persons. For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak, through the Flesh; God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful Flesh, and for sin, (or by a Sacrifice for Sin) condemned Sin in the Flesh; that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us; that is, in the Person of our Sure [...]y for us, Rom. 8. 3, 4. But then it is so far from being true, that the Law was therefore a Covenant of Faith; that it is so much the more Convincingly Evident, that it was no other than a Covenant of Works: For as much as it is plain, that, as such, Christ himself submitted thereunto on our account. And it is as plain that, as such, it would else have lighted on us in our own Persons, in the Execution of its most dreadful Curses and Threatnings. But if we will rather have the sense of the words to be, as you suggest it is, that Christ was the End [or Scope] of the Law for Righteousness, to every one that belie­veth; that is, that it was God's design, thereby to drive them to Christ, their only Remedy, by Convincing them of their Necessi­ty of him; It still comes to the same Reckoning: For though 'tis true, there is a plain subserviency in the Law, towards the pro­moting of the Designs of the Covenant of Grace; yet (as we have already seen) it no way follows, that the Law is therefore the Covenant of Grace it self; or the Handmaid the Mistress her self: For (saith the Apostle, Gal. 4. 24. 25, 26.) These are the two Covenants; the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to Bondage, and is in Bondage with her Children: The other An­swereth to Jerusalem that is above; which is free, and is the Mo­ther of us all. And if these were the two Covenants, and those two essentially different the one from the other, in the nature and tendency of either; as it is plain by the Apostles scope they are; so they must be kept. Two they were, and two they still remain to be; so as what the one is, the other is not. Hagar had in­deed [Page 172] a plain subserviency to Sarah: But yet as were the Types, so are the Antitypes themselves; Essentially different; so as that the Bondage Covenant, can with no more Sense, nor Justice be called a Covenant of Faith, because it hath a subserviency there­unto; than the Covenant of Faith can wish any shadow of pretence be called a Covenant of Bondage.

§. 4. Besides, when the Apostle speaks of the two Covenants, these were the two Covenants; the one from Mount Sinai mean­ing the Legal; the other the Gospel Covenant. He doth suf­ficiently Intimate, that there were never but two General Cove­nants; made with Mankind, in all; that is, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. And if so, then if there were any such thing as a Covenant of Works made with our first Parent before the Fall (as we all affirm there was) it must of necessity be Included in the Sinai Covenant; And that both Materially Con­sidered, and Intentionally also: Else there were three Covenants; and those Specifically different each from other; whereas the A­postle tells us but of two. To say it was Included in the Gospel Covenant is wholly Absurd; Therefore it must of necessity be In­cluded in the Sinai Covenant; so as that both together make up that first or old Covenant, which the Scripture speaks of. For when the Apostle, Heb. 8. calls the Sinai Covenant by the Name of the first or Old Covenant (as he there doth several times over) it cannot possibly be understood that it was therefore the first Covenant that God ever made with Men in respect of time; for there had been an Express Covenant made with Abraham, and with Noah also, long before; And we also acknowledge that there was an Implicite Covenant of Works made with our first Parent, upon his first Creation besides the Promise of Grace that followed soon after the Fall. Therefore the Sinai Covenant must of necessity be called the first or old Covenant, because of its Congruity, Harmony, and Identity, with the Covenant of Works made with our first Parent; And that both in respect of the mat­ter, and Intention thereof also; Or else i [...] could never with any Propriety, or fitness of Expression, be called the first or old Co­venant, as by the Apostle divers times over it is, in the fore­mentioned 8th to the Hebrews.

§. 5. The Law therefore could not possibly be a Covenant of Gospel Grace; (as by many the most Learned and Worthy Di­vines, and it may be the far greater part (of Moderns at least) it hath been confidently affirmed to be) For (as we have before [Page 173] acknowledged;) though there was never any Covenant that God ever made with Men; but hath more or less of Grace therein; Since it is an Infinite Condescention in God, that he will have to do with Men at any Rate; yet that the Covenant from Mount Sinai, was in any Sense; or is by vertue of any proper Scripture Distinction, to be understood as a Covenant of Gospel Grace; whereof Christ alone is the Mediator; This is that which for all those forementioned Reasons, we utterly deny. And this is the Point, the onely Point, which in the beginning of this Discourse we undertook to disprove; And that as being of no small Conse­quence to the Church of God. For upon this Hypothesis, or Supposition; That the Covenant at Sinai was indeed a Covenant of Grace, or a Gospel Covenant (for any other Notion of it will not serve the turn) and consequently that the Covenant of Circum­cision made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. is of the same Nature; the greatest part of the most plausible Arguments for the support of Infants Baptism, are founded. But if we have, or c [...] substantially prove, that neither of these foremen­tioned Covenants, were Gospel Covenants; no wonder if we make an Answerable Improvement thereof in its proper place, by way of opposition to the forementioned Practice.

§. 6: As for the Scripture before alledged, 1 Tim. 1. 8. We know that the Law is good if a Man use it Lawfully; It is indeed highly observable: For as much as there is a Lawful as well as an unlawful use that Men may make thereof; that is, if we make use of it as the Rule of our Obedience, then we make that Right, Just, Proper, and Lawful use thereof, which God requires. For we know that in this Respect we are still under the Law to Christ. And in this Respect it is true enough, as the Apostle tells us, that th [...] Law is Holy, Just and Good: For there is therein a Spiritual Discovery of the Holiness and Righteousness of Gods Nature and Being; whose Image must be Ingraven upon us, if ever we arrive unto true Blessedness. But if we Preach it up, or endeavour to Establish it, as a Covenant of Life; or as a Cove­nant of Faith, and Grace (which are Equipollent terms; Let us distinguish as we please, between a Covenant of Grace Abso­lutely, and subserviently such) and consequently are desirous in that Respect to be under it (as the Apostle tells the Gallatians, and which we cannot avoid if we reckon it to be a Covenant of Grace) then, according to the Apostles plain Scope, in the whole Epistles to the Romans and Gallatians; instead of using it lawfully, we make an unlawful use thereof, by perverting it to [Page 174] such a service as God never Intended it for; And are guilty of mingling Law and Gospel together: Life and Death; and as we have said before; a Ministration of Condemnation, with that of Righteousness and Peace, which would be no other than to over­throw both the Law and Gospel. And this is the Apostles own Distinction, given us as a Key to open this Controversie by, Gal. 1. 6, 7.

SECT. XIII.

BUT whereas it is yet further Objected; ‘That after this Rate, both Moses and Abraham, and all the Old Testa­ment Saints, were under two contrary Covenants, at one and the same time, from whence many Absurdites do follow.’ As to this, we dare not Impeach or Controle Infinite Wisdom. We have onely declared plain matter of Fact; so far as the Scriptures themselves do inform us: For therein it is Evident (as hath been already proved) that both Moses and the whole Body of that People of Israel in the Wildernest, were under the forementioned Covenant from Mount Sinai; and that expresly as the Covenant which the Lord Commanded them to perform, Deut. 4. 13. And that under the severest Penalties of a dreadful Curse, upon every one that Confirmed not all the Words of this Law to do them, unto which all the People were to say Amen, Deut. 27. 26. This Covenant therefore they were absolutely under, as being ex­presly made both with Moses, and the whole Body of the Children of Israel, without Exception of any, Exod. 34. 27. which we have already argued at large, could be no other than a Covenant of Works; A Ministration of Death and Condemnation; A hand writing of Ordinances that was against us, contrary to us; And therefore now Blotted out, and taken out of the way, being Nailed to the Cross of Christ. When yet it is also as Evident from the same Holy Scriptures of Truth; That at the same time; both Moses, and all the Elect among that People, were under a pure Covenant of Gospel Grace, as we have already proved; when the Lord told Moses that he had found Grace in his Sight; and that he knew him by Name; and would make all his Goodness to pass before him; and would Proclaim the Name of the Lord before him: Saying, I will be Gracious to whom I will be Gracious; And I will shew Mercy to whom I will shew Mercy: And when accordingly, the Lord descended in the Cloud, and stood with [Page 175] Moses there; And Proclaimed the Name of the Lord: The Lord God Merciful and Gracious, Long-suffering, and Abundant in Goodness and in Truth; keeping Mercy for Thousands; forgiv­ing Iniquity, Transgression and Sin. Now we have already prov­ed that these were two Distinct Covenants; The one made with Moses, and the whole Body of that People; The other with Moses, and those that were Elected among them onely. And if these were two contrary Covenants, and in themselves, just oppo­site, the one unto the other of them ( [...]s indeed they were) we have nothing to say; but to Conclude with the Apostle in another, case concerning the Call of the Gentiles, and Rejection of the Jews, that were once Gods onely Beloved People; to whom per­tained the Adoption, and the Glory, and the Covenants and the giving of the Law, and the Service of God, and the Promises O the depth of the Riches both of the Wisdom and Knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his Judgments, and his Ways p [...]st finding [...]ut! Rom. 11. 33, 34.

§. 2. However, though 'tis true; New Testament Saints are absolutely freed from the Law as a Covenant of Works, by the Sacrifice of Christ; yet it is Evident, that during the time there­unto appointed by the Father; those before were under the Power and Tyranny thereof, notwithstanding those Discoveries of Gospel Grace that were otherwise Revealed unto them. To this purpose the Apostle tells us Expresly, Gal. 3. 23. &c. Before Faith came, we (saith he, that is, we Jews, not we Gentiles, for thess passages agree not with the Gentiles at all, but we Jews) were kept under the Law, shut up unto the Faith which should afterward be re­vealed; [...]or as he had said before; The Law was added because of Transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise [...] made. Wherefore the Law was our School-master to Christ, that we might be Justified by Faith: But after that Faith is come, we are no longer under a School-master. So again Chap. 4. 1, 2, 3. &c. Now I say that the Heir, as long as he is a Child, differ­e [...]h nothing from a Servant, though he be Lord of all: But it un­der Tutors, and Governours, until the time appointed of the Father; Even so we, when we were Children were in Bondage, under the Elements of the World: But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a Woman, made under the Law, to Redeem them that were under the Law, that we might Receive the Adoption of Sons. So that upon the whole, it is plain matter of Fact, evident and undeniable (Resolve we the Mystery thereof how we will) That the Jews, even the whole [Page 176] Body of that People, without exception of any, were for the time appointed of the Father; under the Dominion and Tiranny of the Law; and that as a Covenant of Works, or a Bondage Covenant; when yet it is equally as evident, that at the same time, all the Elect among them, were under a Covenant of pure Gospel Grace, whereby they were saved.

§. 3. Wherefore we must grant, that God's People were then under two distinct; or essentially different Covenants: We say, we must do so; provided always, that the way of Reconciliation, and Salvation, was the same under both. But it will be said, and with great pretence of Reason, (for it is that which is the sole Foundation they all build upon, who affirm the Legal and the Gospel-Covenants, to be only a twofold Administration of the same Covenant) That this being the Principal End of a Divine Cove­nant: If the way of Reconciliation and Salvation be the same un­der both, then indeed they are for the Substance of them but one: And we grant, that this would inevitably follow, If it were so equally by vertue of them both. If Reconciliation, and Salvati­on by Christ, were to be obtained, not only under the Old Cove­nant, but by vertue thereof, then it must be the same for sub­stance with the New. But this is not so; For no Reconciliation with God, nor Salvation, could ever be obtained by vertue of the Old Covenant, or the Administration of it: For by the Deeds of the Law, there shall no Flesh be justified in his sight; (as our Apostle disputes at large, Rom. 3. 20, &c.) though all Believers were R [...]onc [...]led, Justified and Saved, by vertue of the Promise, whilst they were under that Covenant.

§. 4. And how absurd soever it may seem to be, to affirm, that God' [...] People were under two Contrary Covenants, at one and the same time; yet, as we see the Scriptures do plainly assure us they were; so it is evident that the absurdity is by far the greater, on the other hand, to affirm that the Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed, as to tender Life and Happiness upon two Opposite, and quite Contrary Conditions, viz. Works, and Faith: Perfect Doing and Believing, as if the same Foundai [...], could at the same time yield forth bitter waters and sweet. Which absurdity, all those must of necessity run into, that affirm the Sinai Cove­nant; to be a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus: As hath been already shewn.

SECT. XIV.

ANd here we should have drawn up the sum of what hath been already offered on the present Subject; but that there are four Arguments yet behind, pretending to prove, that the Sinai Covenant, and that made with Adam in Paradise, were not the same, but widely different Covenants; which remain therefore to be Answered. Only by the way it must be remembred, that two Arguments to the same purpose, have already been dispatcht. The First was, That though the Sinai Covenant, materially Con­sidered, is the same with Adams; yet intentionally, it is vastly dif­ferent. The Second was; That the Sinai Covenant had a Me­diator, which Adams wanted. Both which, we hope, have been Satisfactorily Answered, in the foregoing parts of this Discourse. It remains therefore, that we proceed to the Consideration of those that follow; The first whereof runs thus;

Arg. 1. Those Covenants that differ in the Subjects, or Parties with whom they are made, are not the same, but different Cove­nants: But so doth that at Sinai, and that in Paradice. The Covenant made with Adam, was made with Innocent and Perfect Man, able to keep it; This with Lapsed, Sinful Man, utterly dis­abled to keep any one Precept of it.

Reply. To which we Reply; That the difference betwixt the Subjects, makes no alteration in the Substance, or Essence of the Covenants; Especially since we have already, by several Argu­ments substantially proved; not only that they were Materially the same (which your selves cannot but acknowledge) but in­tentionally also. And forasmuch as 'tis undeniable, That God hath not forfeited or lost his Right of Sovereignty, or Dominion over us, though we have forfeited and lost our strength and capacity of Obedience; the Covenants in question therefore may very well be the same, notwithstanding the difference betwixt their Subjects.

Arg. 2. Those Covenants that vastly differ in their Dedication, are not the same but divers: But so doth the Covenants with Is­rael, and with Adam. The Covenant with Adam taught no way of the Expiation of Sins by the Dedication of it; so did that with Moses, Exod. 24. 8. And Moses took the Blood, and sprinkled it on the People, and said; Behold, this is the Blood of the Cove­nant, which the Lord hath made with you, concerning all these words.

Reply: To this we Reply; That it hath been already proved, That though the Ceremonial Covenant, was indeed dedicated with Blood, and Sprinkling; yet the Law written in Stones was no [...]. So that if Adam's Covenant wanted Confirmation, or Dedication with Blood, shewing the Remission of Sins; so did that written in Stones also: And therefore in this respect there is no difference at all betwixt them. True it is, that the Ceremonial Covenant was [...]o dedicated; in which respect there is a plain difference betwixt that, and the Covenant made with Adam. But this alters not the Case; For it is evident, that the Law written in Stones, was not so dedi­cated; and that is enough to prove what we have all along assert­ed; That the Covenant of Works made with our First Parent, was renewed to that People in the Wilderness. And though 'tis true, the Ceremonial Covenant being dedicated as it was, did point unto Christ, and the way of Salvation by him; yet never­theless, it hath been already proved, that it was a Covenant of Works, as well as that written in Stones; and therefore both of them now Repealed, to make way for the New Covenant, which was established upon better Promises. And it having been pro­ved, that they were both, no other than two several Editions of the same Covenant of Works; and that neither of them can, with any shadow of Truth or Justice, be stiled a Covenant of Grace, or a Gospel Covenant (which cannot be affirmed without contradict­ing the whole Scope of the Scriptures) it sufficiently serves the design we level at; whether there be a Perfect Identity in every Circumstance between either of these, and Adam's Covenant or no. For as Dr. Owen well observes; ‘Whatever variations may be made in, or Additions unto the Dispensation of the First Covenant, so long as this Rule is retained, Do this and Live; it is still the same Covenant for the Substance, and Essence of it.’

Arg. 3. Those Covenants which vastly differ in the Priviledges contained in them, are not just the same, but far different Cove­nants: But so doth the Covenant with Adam, and that with Is­rael differ. In Adam's Covenant no Pardon was admitted or ac­cepted upon Repentance: But so it is in Moses Covenant; God pro­claimed himself at the Promulgation of it, a Sin Pardoning God, Exod. 34. And promiseth Pardon on Repentance for the Breach of it, Lev. 26. from vers. 40. to vers. 46. If you say this was the Co­venant with Abraham, not with Moses; then Abraham's Cove­nant, was the Covenant of Grace: But see, vers. 46. and all is ended.

Reply. The Answer we have returned to the foregoing Argu­ment, may very well serve for this also. For if the Sinai Cove­nant, [Page 179] which was delivered by Gods own immediate Mouth and Voice; and which was also written with God's own Finger, upon the two Tables of Stone; was not dedicated with Blood and Sprinkling (which shewed Remission of Sins) as the Ceremonial Covenant was; then it plainly follows, that in this respect also, there is no difference between this and the Covenant made with Adam: For if in Adams Covenant, no Pardon of Sin was admit­ted or accepted upon Repentance, as wanting that which shewed the Expiation thereof; so it was in this. But whereas you say, that at the Promulgation of Moses Covenant, God proclaimed himself a Sin Pardoning God, Exod. 34. We freely acknowledge he did so; for else none had been saved. But then we have also proved, that the Covenant of Grace, there mentioned, was vastly distinct, and essencially different from that mentioned, Exod. 20. The one being made with Moses, and the Elect only; the other with the whole Body of the Congregation of Israel. And not on­ly were they two distinct Covenants, in respect of their different Subjects; but in respect of their vastly different nature also: For though the Covenant or Promises mentioned in the 33d and 34th Chapters of Exodus, expresly declared God to be a Sin Pardoning God; A God Merciful and Gratious, forgiving Iniquity, Trans­gression and Sin; yet there is nothing that can be more evident than this, that the other discovered no such thing, but rather the contrary. ‘The Jewish Legal Covenant (saith Dr. Annesley) nei­ther admitted of Faith in the Redeemer, nor Repentance of Sin. For Pardon of Sin, and Curse for Sin, are inconsistent, Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the Works of the Law, are under the Curse: For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law, to do them. As many as depend upon the Works of the Law for Justification, are under the Curse, And the Law discovered no other way of Justification but by Works, Morn. Exercise, p. 122.’

§. 2. But (say you) God promiseth Pardon, on Repentance, for the Breach of Moses Covenant, Lev. 26. 40, &c. And (say we) so he did in respect of Adam's Covenant; for otherwise we had all been undone for ever. But as Adam's Covenant promised no Pardon on Repentance, so neither did the Jewish Legal Co­venant: For indeed it rather threatens, and inflicts the contrary, viz. a dreadful Curse upon every Transgression and Disobedience; and as the Doct. well observes, admits of no Repentance. For as it is evident, that the Law written in Stones, neither discover­ed, nor admits of any such thing: So as for the Ceremonial Co­venant [Page 180] it self; the Apostle expresly tells us, Heb. 9. 9. that the Sacrifices thereof could not make him, that did the Service per­fect, as pertaining to the Conscience: For (saith he, Chap. 10. 1, 4.) the the Law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very Image of the things, can never with those Sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the Comers thereunto perfect.—For it is not possible, that the Blood of Bulls and of Goats, should take away Sins. Other Covenants ('tis true) there were, wherein God plainly discovered the mercifulness of his nature in that respect: And among the rest, the Covenant made with Abraham; which in the forementioned Lev. 26. God doth plainly direct them to for their Relief. But (say you) if you say, This was the Covenant with Abraham, not with Moses; then Abraham's Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. But yet (say we) neither will this do the business you alledge it for: For ha­ving diligently examined, Lev. 26. 40, &c. We find recorded to this purpose; that in the latter days, after that the People of Israel should have been scattered into all Nations, and had all sorts of Plagues inflicted on them for their sins: If (saith God) they shall confess their sins, and the iniquities of their Fathers, &c. Then will I remember my Covenant with Jacob, and also my Covenant with Isaac, and also my Covenant with Abraham will I Remember. From whence, First, It may be plainly collected, that there was no Pardon to be expected by them, from the Sinai Covenant: For God doth not direct them to apply themselves thither for Re­lief; nor doth he in the least suggest, that that way any thing of Pardon could be justly expected by them: But he directs them rather to have recourse unto the Covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for that is the Covenant (saith God) that I will Remember. And Secondly, It ought also to be duly observed, that though the Covenant of Circumcision, which God made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10. was indeed of the same nature with the Sinai Covenant (as we have already proved;) yet it is evident, that God had long before the Covenant of Circumcision was in being, entred into a Covenant of Grace, or a Covenant that was truly Evangelical, with Believing Abraham, wherein God freely promised, That in him, that is, in his Seed, all the Nations of the earth should be blessed, Gen. 12. 2, 3. And accordingly, this is the Covenant that Peter directs the Bleeding Jews unto in his time, Act. 3. 25. Ye are the Children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers; saying unto Abra­ham, and in thy Seed shall all the Kindreds of the Earth be bles­sed. Which free Gospel Promise doth plainly comprehend both [Page 181] Jews and Gentiles. And this therefore undoubtedly, is the Cove­nant that God tells them in Leviticus, he will Remember for the future Comfort of Distressed and dispersed Israel: For as Peter refers the Jews thereunto and unto that alone, so this very Covenant, and that in these very terms, had not onely been made with Abraham, but as God here speaks with Isaac, Gen. 24. 4. and with Jacob also: Gen. 28. 14. Whereas the Covenant of Cir­cumcision had not been so Renewed or Repeated: And there­fore this must be the onely Covenant that God here speaks of. And whereas God tells them Vers. 45. That he would for their sakes remember the Covenant of their Ancestors, whom he brought forth out of the Land of Egypt. This must of necessity have Reference either to the forementioned Covenant with Abra­ham, Isaac, and Jacob: Or the Promises mentioned Exod. 33. 34. And cannot possibly have any Reference to the Sinai Cove­nant: For that was a Bondage Covenant, Gal. 4. 21, 22, &c. A Ministration of Death and Condemnation, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 8, 9. Against us and contrary to us; And therefore now Blotted out, Col. 2. 14. And is accordingly by Moses himself represented as a fiery Law that Proceeded from Gods Right Hand, Deut. 33. [...]. So that that could not possibly yield any comfort unto them: Whereas the forementioned Covenants did plainly give them hopes of Relief and Pardon. But (say you) see Vers. 46. and all is ended. We have therefore accordingly Examined that Text; But cannot discern that it speaks any thing by way of opposition to what we have Asserted: For thus run the words. These are the Statutes and Judgments, and Laws which the Lord made between him, and the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai, by the Hand of Moses, which can have no other Sense than this, That this being the last Verse of the last Chapte (save one) of Leviticus, wherein the Statutes and Judg­ments, or the several branches of the Ceremonial Law had been particularly Rehearsed unto them: These words in this 46th Verse contains therefore onely the general Sum thereof; So that we cannot discern that it makes off or on as to the present Argument.

Arg. 4. The Fourth and last Argument runs thus; Those Covenants which have Seals annexed of vastly different Nature, are not Absolutely or just the same, but widely different Cove­nants: But so have these two Covenants; Ergo, not the same. The Tree of Life was the onely Sacrament Annext to the first; but the Passover and Circumcision to the last: Both holding forth Christ and Salvation by him. The first a plain Type [Page 182] of Christ in the Paschal Lamb. The other a Seal of the Righte­ousness of Faith.

Reply. First, as to what concerns the Tree of Life, which you say was the onely Sacrament annext to Adams Covenant; That it was either a Sacrament or a Seal annext to that Covenant, the Scripture gives us no Account thereof that we can find. And as the Passover and Circumcision, which you make to be the Seals of the Sinai Covenant, the Scripture is as silent even in that Re­spect also. As for the Passover, it was indeed as you say, a plain Type of Christ, as many other things then were: But we do not find that it is ever called, a Seal of the Sinai Covenant; Nor do we find that Circumcision is ever called the Seal thereof. It is indeed called a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith that Abraham had yet being uncircumcized, Rom. 4. 11. But the same Apostle expresly tells us, Gal. 3. 12. That the Law is not of Faith. And if the Law is not of Faith, then neither can it be a Covenant of Faith; And then it doth also as plainly follow, that Circumcision, which is by the Apostle termed a Seal of the Righteousness of Abrahams Faith, could not be the Seal thereof. And in this Respect therefore it is highly observable; That though Circumcision is frequently called a Token of the Covenant mentioned. Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. to the generality that were under it; yet the Scripture no where tells us, That it was a Seal of the Righte­ousness of Faith, but unto Abraham onely: For indeed none else had ever before or after their Circumcision, such a Faith that Entituled them to such Singular Promises, and Prerogatives as Abraham had. But of this we have already said so much, toward the Resolution of the present Point, in the Seventh Branch of our Answer to the Eleventh Objection, in the Second Part of this Discourse foregoing; and have yet so much to say in what follows, where we shall have a further occasion purposely to handle this Argument, that we shall need to say the less of it here.

SECT. XV.

FOR a Conclusion of the present Point, we shall onely Col­lect the sum of the foregoing Arguments already Insisted on; proving that the Legal Covenant was not a Covenant of Faith: But was indeed and in truth, no other than a Covenant of Works. For;

First, That Covenant that is not of Faith, cannot possibly be a Covenant of Faith. But the Apostle doth expresly affirm, that, the Law is not of Faith, Gal. 3. 11, 12. Therefore neither can it be a Covenant of Faith.

Secondly, That Covenant which is now Repealed could not be a Covenant of Faith. But the Apostle doth plainly affirm, that the first Covenant for the faultiness thereof, is now Repealed, Heb. 8. 7, 13. 2 Cor. 3. 7, 11. Col. 2. 14. Heb. 7. 18. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Faith.

Thirdly, That Covenant that could not give Life, could not be a Covenant of Faith: But the Law could not give Life, Gal. 3. 21. 22. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Faith.

Fourthly, That Covenant that is opposed to the Covenant of Faith, as quite another thing, could not be a Covenant of Faith. But the School-mastership of the Law, is by the Apostle plainly opposed, and contradistinguished unto the Covenant of Faith, as quite another thing, Gal. 3. 23, 24, 25. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Faith.

Fifthly, That Covenant, the Righteousness whereof is opposed to the Righteousness of Faith; cannot be a Covenant of Faith. But the Righteousness of the Law is plainly by the Apostle oppo­sed to the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 10. 5, 6, &c. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Faith.

Sixthly, That Covenant that could never Justifie any that were under it, could never be a Covenant of Faith. For being Justified by Faith, we have Peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 5. 1. But the Scripture doth expresly Testi­fie; That by the Deeds of the Law, there shall no Flesh be Justi­fied in his Sight, Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith.

Seventhly, That Covenant under which, though many were Justified; yet none were ever Justified by it, or by vertue of it; could never be a Covenant of Faith. But such is the Nature of the Law, that though many were Justified under it; yet none were ever Justified by it, or by Vertue of it, Rom. 3. 20. There­fore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith.

Eighthly, That Covenant that saith, Do this and Live; Or that the Man that doth these things shall Live by them; cannot possibly be a Covenant of Gospel-Grace, but of Works: Since the Apostle Informs us, That to him that worketh is the Reward reckoned, not of Grace but of Debt, Rom. 4. 4. But the same Apostle doth expresly tell us; That Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the Man which doth these things [Page 184] shall live by them, Rom. 10. 5., Therefore that Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works.

Ninthly, That Covenant that is plainly and in direct terms op­posed unto Grace, cannot be a Covenant of Grace. But the Law is by the Apostle directly opposed unto Grace. Rom. 6. 14. Sin shall not have Dominion over you: For ye are not under the Law, but under Grace. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Grace.

Tenthly, That Covenant that was not onely by the Jews Esti­mated as a Covenant of Works, but was so by Gods own Appoint­ment, must needs be a Covenant of Works. But the Law was not onely by the Jews so Reckoned, but by Gods own Appoint­ment it was expresly so designed, Lev. 18. 4, 5. Deut. 27. 26. Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 10, 12. Therefore that Covenant must needs be a Covenant of Works.

Eleventhly, That Covenant through which Abrahams Inheri­tance was not derived, could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works. But the Apostle doth expresly tell us, That if the In­heritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise: But God gave it to Abraham by Promise, Gal. 3. 18. Therefore the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works.

Twelfthly, That Covenant through which had the Inheritance been conveyed, would have made void Faith, and made the Pro­mise of none effect, could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith. But the Apostle doth expresly tell us; That if they which are of the Law be Heirs, Faith is made void, and the Promise made of none effect, Rom. 4. 14. Therefore the Law could not pos­sibly be a Covenant of Faith,

Thirteenthly, That Covenant from the Curse whereof, we were Redeemed by Christ, could not be a Covenant of Grace, but of Works. But the Apostle Informs us; That Christ hath Re­deemed us from the Curse of the Law; himself being made a Curse for us, Gal. 3. 13. chap. 4. 4, 5. Therefore the Law could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works.

Fourteenthly, That Covenant that is set forth by the Apostle as a Ministration of Death, and Condemnation, could be no other than a Covenant of Works. But the Apostle doth assure us, that the Law Written in Stones was a Ministration of Death and Condemnation, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 9. Therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works,

Fifteenthly, That Covenant in which [...] the Hand writing of Ordinances contained, was against us, and contrary to us, which is therefore now Blotted out, and taken out of the way, being Nailed [Page 185] to the Cross of Christ; could be no other than a Covenant of Works. But such is the Nature of the Law, Col. 2. 14. 2 Cor. 3. 6, 7, 8, 9. Therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works.

Sixteenthly, That Covenant which when it comes, Revives Sin, and kills the Sinner; And which though it was Ordained to Life, is by Experience found to be unto Death, could not be a Cove­nant of Grace: But Paul doth expresly tell us; That when the Commandment came, Sin Revived and he died. And the Commandment which was Ordained to Life, he found to be unto Death, Rom. 7. 9, 10. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works.

Seventeenthly, That Covenant that is a Bondage Cove­nant, which gendereth to Bondage; all whose Children also are in Bondage, cannot possibly be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works. But the Apostle doth Expresly In­form us, that Mount Sinai Covenant is a Bondage Cove­nant, that is gendereth to Bondage, and that her Chil­dren also are in Bondage, Gal. 4. 21, 22, 23, 24, 26. There­fore Mount Sinai Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works.

Eighteenthly, That Covenant that admitted not of Faith in the Redeemer, nor Repentance of Sin: Since Pardon of Sin and Curse for Sin are Inconsistent; could not be a Covenant of Grace. But the Scripture doth expresly assure us; That as many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse: For it is Written, Cursed is every one that con­tinueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them, Gal. 3. 10. Therefore that Cove­nant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Works.

Nineteenthly, That Covenant that had not Christ for the Mediator of it, could never be a Covenant of Faith but of Works. But the Apostle speaking of the Legal Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai, tells us; That Christ hath obtained a more Excellent Ministry, by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant, which was Establish­ed upon better Promises, Heb. 8. 6, 7, 8. 9. From whence it plainly follows, that Christ was not the Mediator of the Legal Covenant. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works.

Twentiethly, That Covenant that was not Confirmed by the Blood of Christ (which alone can cleanse us from all un­righteousness) [Page 186] but onely by the Bloud of Bulls, and Goats, and Calves, and the Ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean, which onely Sanctified to the Purifying of the Flesh, and could never take away Sins, nor make him that did the Service perfect as pertaining to the Conscience; could not be a Covenant of Faith. But the Ceremonial Law was of this Nature, and the Sacrifices thereof, wherewith alone it was Dedicated, Heb. 9. 9, 10. 11, 12, 13, 14. Chap. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works.

Twenty first, That Covenant that was not confirmed by the Bloud of Christ; No, nor so much as by the Bloud of Bulls, or Goats, or Calves, which was plainly Typical thereof; could never be a Covenant of Grace but of Works. But the Law Written in Stones was so far from being confirmed by the Bloud of Christ, that it was never (that we read of) Dedicat­ed with any other sort of Bloud whatsoever. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace, but of Works.

Twenty second, That Covenant that is Represented to us in the Scripture as a Fiery, Burning Law; the Proclamation also where­of was attended with dreadful Thunderings and Lightenings; with Blackness and Darkness, and Tempest; And such a Voice of Words as could not be endured, which made Moses himself ex­ceedingly to quake and tremble, could not be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works. But such was the Nature and Quality of the Legal Covenant at Mount Sinai, Exod. 20. 18. 19. Deut. 33. 2. Heb. 12. 18, 19, 20, 21. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works.

Twenty third, That Covenant that is just opposite to the Gospel Covenant; which the Scripture represents unto us as a Covenant of Peace and Liberty, making a Joyful found, and speaking with a small, still, comfortable, and alluring Voice, in the Ears, and to the Hearts of Sinners; that hath also Jesus for the Mediator thereof, and speaketh better things than the Bloud of Abel; Proclaiming the Lord, the Lord God, Gracious, and Merciful, Abundant in Goodness, and in Truth, forgiving Ini­quity, Transgression and Sin. That Covenant can never be a Covenant of Grace, but of Works. But the Legal Covenant is plainly in Scripture opposed unto the Gospel Covenant in all these Respects, Heb. 12. from the 18th to the 24th Gal. 3. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Gal. 4. 21, &c. Therefore the Legal Co­venant [Page 187] could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace, but of Works.

§. So that notwithstanding all the most plausible Argu­ments, which are usually urged by way of opposition to what we have now Asserted (unless we must shut our Eyes) there can be nothing more plain than this; That the Law given by Moses to the Seed of Abraham at Mount Sinai, instead of be­ing a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus, or a Covenant of Gos­pel Grace (as many Divines famous for Learning and Piety do confidently affirm it is) was no other than a Covenant of Works, and that which is therefore now done away, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 8, 9, 11. Col. 2. 14. Heb. 8. 7, 13. From whence it plainly and undeni­ably follows, that the Covenant of Circumcision, mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10. (which God there promised to Establish betwixt Himself, Abraham and his Seed after him in their Generations) being the same thing and of the same nature (as hath been already proved) is therefore now also Repealed and done away therewith, Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 3, 4, 5. Col. 2. 14. And consequently all the Arguments thence deduced, how­soever, or by whomsoever formed, for the support of Infants Baptism, do of themselves vanish.

SECT. I.

§. 1. BUT though the Covenant of Circumcision, which God was pleased to make with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10. was no other than a Covenant of Works, as the Covenant at Sinai was, and are both there­fore now done away; yet (as we have already declared) it is evident and undeniable, that God was also pleased to enter into a [Page 189] Covenant of Grace with Believing Abraham, even such a Covenant as was purely Evengelical, and that which never shall be abolish­ed. And it is also as evident, that this Gospel Covenant had been Established and Preached unto Abraham, long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him: (For both Abraham and all true Believers, in that Age, were in the Covenant of Grace long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made, and would have been so, if that had never been) which Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant, which God was thus pleased to make with Be­lieving Abraham, is indeed the great Charter, by which the Be­lieving Gentiles always did, and do claim Heaven and Earth, and all the Promises they have title to. For in this respect it is, that the Apostle tells us as he doth, Gal. 3. 8. That the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through Faith; preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying; in thee shall all Nations be Blessed; Which he quoteth not from Gen. 17. 7, 8. but from Gen. 12. 2, 3. Where before Abraham's removal out of his own Country (and therefore long before the Covenant of Cir­cumcision was in being) God enters into a solemn Covenant with Abraham, saying; I will make of thee a great Nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy Name great; and thou shalt be a Bles­sing. And I will Bless them that Bless thee, and Curse him that Curseth thee; and in thee shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed.

§. 2. If we are to seek therefore of the Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham, which is the Great Charter of the Gen­tiles hope; behold and see, lo here it is; a Covenant of Grace indeed. A Covenant truly Evangelical, as being every way Ex­tensive, Full, Free, Absolute, and without those Conditions that the Covenant of Circumcision was manifestly clogged withal. And therefore called the Covenant of Promise, in the forementioned 3d of the Galatians; for having told us, vers. 8. of the Promise that God had made unto Abraham, that in Him should all Nations be Blessed. And having also told us, vers. 14. 16. that the blessing of Abraham was to come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the Promise of the Spirit through Faith. He adds, vers. 17, 18. And this I say, that the Covenant that was con­firmed before of God in Christ; the Law which was 430 years af­ter, cannot disanul that it should make the Promise of none Ef­fect. For if the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise; but God gave it to Abraham by Promise. Which clear­ly argues the Absoluteness of this Gospel Covenant: For if it had [Page 190] not been Free and Absolute, but Conditional, as the Covenant of Circumcision was, and as the Legal Covenant at Mount Sinai was; then according to the Scope of the Apostles Reasoning, it had not properly been a Covenant of Promise, but a Legal Co­venant; and so the Inheritance had been of the Law: For where­in differs the Law from a free Promise, but that the one is Condi­tional, the other Absolute? The one promiseth Life upon condi­tion of Obedience; the other without Mony, and without Price, Isa. 55. 1. And therefore the Covenant which God made with the Israelites at Mount Sinai, though it had many Glorious Promises in it; that God would be their God, and they should be his pecu­liar People, and Treasure, &c. Yet these Promises being clogged with Conditions of Obedience, impossible to be performed: That Covenant therefore is never presented to us in the Scripture, under the Notion, or Denomination of a Covenant of Promise; but under the Denomination of the Law, or as a Covenant of Works only. For Moses (saith the Apostle) describeth the Righ­teousness of the Law, that the man that doth these things shall live by them, Rom. 10. 5, And so likewise, Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the Works of the Law, are under the Curse: For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law, to do them. And vers. 12. The Law is not of Faith, but the man that doth them, shall live in them. And for the same Reason therefore is the Covenant of Circumcision, represented to us also, under the same Denomina­tion of the Law: Rom. 4. 13. (as shall be afterward shewn) because though it is true, it had Promises in it that were full and glori­ous enough; yet those Promises being not absolute, but conditio­nal, as the Covenant at Mount Sinai was, it is therefore represent­ed to us under the same Character; and not as a Covenant of Pro­mise, or an Evangelical Covenant: For that is the Peculiar Character or Denomination which is given by the Holy Spirit himself, to the forementioned Covenant, Gen. 12. 2, 3. which God had made with Abraham long before.

§. 3. ‘Wherefore (saith Dr. Owen) the Covenant of Grace; supposing it a New, Real Absolute Covenant, and not a Re­formation of the Old, or a Reduction of it unto the use of our present Condition (as some, saith he, imagine it to be) must dif­fer in the Essence, Substance, and Nature of it from that First Covenant of Works, Ibid. ut supra, p. 389.’

§. 4. ‘The Covenant of Grace (saith Mr. Troughton, in a late Discourse of his, Entituled, Lutherus Redivivus, Part. 1. p. 111.) is expressed in the Nature and Form of a Promise, throughout the Scripture. Thus it was to our First Parents, soon after the fall, a Promise that the Seed of the Woman should overcome the Devil and his Seed: No Terms, no Conditions added, but a bare Declaration of Mercy to their Dejected, Self-condemned Con­sciences. Next when the Covenant was Revealed to Abraham, Gen. 12 1, 2, 3. It is a Formal Promise, that God would bless him, and all Nations in his Seed; and accordingly ever after it is called the Promise made to Abraham, which Israel waited to see performed. And the Apostle, Gal. 3. 18. affirms, that the Inheri­tance was given to Abraham by Promise and not by Law; and in vers. 15, 16, 17. he maketh the Covenant and Promise equipollent terms. The Law, (saith he) which was 420 years after, cannot disan­nul the Covenant with Abraham, that the Promise should be of none Effect. Neither was this Promise only of Christ's coming in the Flesh, but of a Blessing through Christ, vers. 14. Yea, the giving of the Holy Spirit is a part of the Blessing Promised to Abraham; That the Blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus; that we might receive the Promise of the Spirit through Faith.’

§. 5. And indeed this is that therefore that renders it sure, and certain to all the Seed therein concerned: For as it is evident, that this Gospel Covenant, mentioned Gen. 12. 2, 3. was Preached unto Abraham, long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him: So the Addition of the Covenant of Circumcision af­terwards (as the Apostle speaks of the Law given by Moses; be­cause of transgressions, till the Seed should come, to whom the Pro­mise was made) could not disannul, that it should make this fore­mentioned, and fore-established Promise to be of none Effect. For it being most plainly a Gospel Covenant, wholly free and ab­solute, and only to be received by Faith: Hence it follows, that it is of an Everlasting, Unchangeable Nature; and consequently sure, without any possibility of Miscarriage, unto all the Seed thereunto belonging (which the Covenant of Circumcision, being Conditi­onal, was not) as is most excellently reasoned and argued by the Apostle to this purpose, Rom. 4. 13. where he tells us, that the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World (which is the same in effect with his being the Father of all them that be­lieve, just before spoken of) was not to him, or to his seed, [Page 192] through the Law; but through the Righteousness of Faith. Not through the Law; that is, not through the Covenant of Circum­cision, (as shall be afterward demonstrated: For that was as much a Covenant of Works, as the Covenant at Mount Sinai was, and therefore a Legal Covenant) But through that mentioned, Gen. 12. 2, 3. which was purely Evangelical; and therefore through the Righteousness of Faith alone: Which gives the only Security to the Seed therein concerned, as is afterwards asserted, vers. 14, 15, 16. of the forementioned 4th to the Romans; For (saith he) if they, which are of the Law be Heirs, Faith is made void, and the Promise made of none Effect; because the Law worketh wrath: for where no Law is, there is no Transgression. Therefore it is of Faith, that it might be by Grace, to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed, not to that only which is of the Law (that is the Jews) but to that also that is of the Faith of Abra­ham (that is, the Gentiles) who is the Father of us all; as it is written, I have made thee Father of many Nations; according to that which was spoken; so shall thy Seed be.

SECT. II.

§. 1. IT is indeed suggested by Dr. Burthogg; That the fore­mentioned Promise, That Abraham should be the Heir of the World, (which as the Apostle tells, was not to him, or to his Seed through the Law; but through the Righteousness of Faith) is to be understood in reference to Gen. 17. 8. Where God pro­miseth to give unto Abraham. and to his Seed after him, the Land of Canaan for an Everlasting Possession. From whence he infers, that the Covenant there mentioned, is a Covenant of Faith, and therefore a Covenant of Grace. But it doth not follow, because Canaan was promised in the Covenant of Circumcision, that there­fore, according to the Apostles reckoning, that Covenant should be a Covenant of Faith: For as much as the Promise concerning Abraham's Heirship of the World, which the Apostle here speaks of, is of a vastly different Nature from the Promise of Canaan; or indeed any Terrestrial Inheritance whatsoever.

§. 2. It is true, as the Apostle tells us, That Godliness is profi­table unto all things; that is, in all respects; in respect of this World, as well as in respect of the other. And why so? Be­cause it hath the Promise: Having the Promise of the Life that [Page 193] now is, as well as of that to come. In which respect it ought to be duly observed, that Abraham was promised Canaan long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him: For so we are told, Gen. 12. 7. The Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said, unto thy Seed will I give this Land. So Gen. 13. 15. All the Land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy Seed for ever. So likewise Gen. 15. 18. In that same day the Lord made a Cove­nant with Abraham; saying, unto thy Seed have I given this Land, from the River of Egypt, unto the Great River, the River Euphrates. From all which it plainly appears, that Abraham was promised Canaan long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him: And it was indeed therefore a free Promise, or a part of that Covenant of Promise, which the Apostle speaks of, Gal. 3. 17, 18. which was afterward ratified and confirmed by Oath, so as that it shall never be disannulled: For so we are expresly as­sured, Psal. 105. 8, 9, 10, 11. He hath remembred his Covenant for ever, the Word which he commanded to a thousand Generations; which Covenant he made with Abraham, and his Oath unto Isaac, and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a Law, and to Israel for an Everlasting Covenant; saying, unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan, the lot of your Inheritance. And though 'tis true, Canaan was only promised in the Letter, and was inherited only by the Carnal Seed and Descendants of Abraham; yet in the my­sterie, it means the whole World, of which Canaan was a part, in which he took Possession; or as it were, had Livery and Seisin gi­ven him in the name of the whole.

§. 3. The like is to be said concerning the Spiritual Seed of Abraham; even the Gentiles also, on whom that self-same Bles­sing of Abraham (as being the fruit of the Free Promise) doth also descend. For in this respect it is that the Apostle tells us, that all is ours: But how? For we are Christ's; and Christ is God's. And therefore as God hath promised, that the Meek shall inherit the Earth, Psal. 37. 11. Mat. 5. 5. So he hath also pro­mised, that the Kingdom and Dominion, and the greatness of the Kingdom and Dominion, under the whole Heaven shall be given to the People of the Saints of the Most High, whose Kingdom is an Everlasting Kingdom, So likewise, Rev. 5. 10. Thou hast made us unto our God, Kings and Priests, and we shall Reign upon the Earth. All which are glorious Promises, and shall certainly receive their full accomplishment in the appointed Season; as being indeed no other than Gospel Promises; and of the same Nature with the free Promise of that kind, even the Promise of Canaan, made un­to [Page 194] Abraham, long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him. So that it is no wonder that the Apostle tells as he doth, that Godliness hath the Promise of the Life that now is, as well as of that that is to come.

§. 4. 'Tis true, Canaan was promised in the Covenant of Cir­cumcision also as was also the Promise of a Coelestial Inheritance too: When God told Abraham, I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed after thee; I will give unto thee, and to thy Seed after thee, the Land wherein thou art a stranger; All the Land of Ca­naan, for an Everlasting Possession; and I will be their God, Gen. 17. 7, 8. But all these Promises, though good enough in them­selves; yet being Conditional, they were therefore failable, and still liable to forfeiture, as they were contained in that Covenant. And therefore the Apostle would have us strictly to observe, that the forementioned Promise, concerning Abraham's Heirship (what­ever it signifies) was not to him, or to his Seed through the Law, but through the Righteousness of Faith. For though it should be granted that it hath reference to a Terrestrial Inheritance in Ca­naan, and consequently to his Interest in the whole World, in the sense but now mentioned: Yet forasmuch as this Promise wa [...] made unto him, long before his Circumcision; and was therefore a part of the free Promise: The Apostle doth sufficiently suggest, that that was th [...] Promise he had most reason to trust unto, or to relie upon, as being a far surer Promise of the two (and that both to himself and his Seed also) than was the Promise of the same kind, as it was contained in the Covenant of Circumcision; which the Scripture doth so plainly represent unto us as a Conditional Covenant. The Promise (saith he) was not to him nor to his Seed, through the Law. And why not through the Law? Because (as he also tells us in the very next following words) If they which are of the Law be Heirs, Faith is made void, and the Promise made of none; effect: Because the Law worketh wrath; for where no Law is, there is no Transgression. Therefore, it is of Faith, that it might be by Grace; to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed. The like he tells the Galatians also, chap. 3. 18. If the Inheri­tance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise; But God gave it to Abraham by Promise. Which clearly argues the Freeness, or Absoluteness thereof; which the Covenant of Circumcision was not: It being evident, that it obliged all that were under it to Perfect and Universal Obedience, as the Condition of Obtaining thc Mercies therein contained, Gal. 5. 3. For I testifie to every man that is Circumcised, that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law. [Page 195] And therefore though 'tis true, Canaan was promised in that Covenant as well as in the other; as was also the Promise of the Coelestial Inheritance too; when God promised to be a God to Abraham, and to his Seed; yet those Promises there mentioned, being bounded as they were with Conditions impossible to be perform­ed, and therefore of a Legal Stamp, and liable to forfeiture: That is not the Way, that is not the Channel, through which the Bles­sings in Promise must be derived unto the Heirs of Promise: For if ever they be derived, it must be through the Free Promise, and through that alone. Yea, if ever they be derived, it must be through the Free Promise. or not at all. For (saith he) vers. 21. If there had been a Law given, that could have given Life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law: But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

§. 5. But as we have already said, the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World, is of a vastly different nature from the Promise of Canaan; neither indeed is it at all contain­ed in the Covenant of Circumcision, where the Promise of Canaan is inserted: For it is evident, that the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World, hath a single reference to his Fatherhood unto all them that believe; that is, both Jews and Gentiles; or the whole World of Believers. Thus Pareus in his Comment upon the Place, carries the sense of the Words; and so the Apostle himself interprets it, vers. 11, 12. And it is as evi­dent, that there is no Promise at all of that kind in the Cove­nant of Circumcision, that Abraham should be the Common Fa­ther of all them that Believe; That Covenant having a plain re­ference to Abraham's Natural Posterity only; for as much as all those to whom the Promises of that Covenant were made, were bound to be Circumcised, as the Sign or Token of it; which doth not concern the Gentiles at all. So that it is the Gospel Covenant therefore which we have before spoken of, which we find mentio­ned. Gen. 12. 2, 3. and not the Covenant of Circumcision, men­tioned Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. that is the Great Charter, by which the Believing Gentiles always did, and do rightly claim both Heaven and Earth, and all the Promises they have Title to.

SECT. III.

§. 1. BUT whereas the Doctor lays a mighty stress upon those words of the Apostle before mentioned Rom. 4. 13. For the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law; but through the Righteousness of Faith. Whereby he endeavours to prove that the Covenant of Circumcision, mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. is that very Covenant of Grace that the Believing Gentiles are now under, and from whence all their hopes and Comforts are derived: We must of necessity therefore endeavour to overrhrow and re­move the seeming strength of what he offers by way of opposition to what we have asserted, before any thorow Conclusion can be drawn.

§. 2. The Sum then of his Argument is this; ‘It is Evi­dent (saith he) that the Covenant of Promise made to Abraham, which is called the Blessing of Abraham, is still in being; and is the Covenant of Grace, into a Participation of which the true Believing Gentiles are taken; which is the true ground and Foundation of all their hopes and Comforts: For thus the Apostle carries it when he affirms that God gave the Inheritance to Abraham by Promise. And by what Promise, but that ratified Covenant of Promise. I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed.—In short (saith he) this is the Climax. If Believers then Christs; If Christs then Abrahams Seed; If Abrahams Seed then Heirs according to the Promise: For the Promise is; I will be a God to thee and thy Seed; And I will give to thee and thy Seed. Nor doth it make any alteration in the case, that Faith is now the requisite condition of Salvation; or that we must believe to be saved. This but Evidences the more clearly that the Gospel is but a Renovation of the Covenant of Abraham: For as it is through Faith that we Gentiles do become Christs, and by being Christs that we become the Seed of Abraham, and consequently Heirs of Salvation according to the Promise; so it was through Faith, the Righteousness of Faith that Abraham the Father of the Faithful had the Promise himself. For so the Apostle, Rom. 4. 13. For the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World, was not to Abraham, or to his Seed through the Law; but through the Righteousness of Faith. And if the [Page 197] Promise made to Abraham be the ground and Foundation of all our hopes and expectations as we are Christians, and it be the true Covenant of Grace, to be sure it is still in being, or we do but beat the Air, and are at a loss; our hope is in vain, and our rejoycing vain, which God forbid.’

‘I know you take it for a very strong Argument, that the Co­venant of Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8. cannot be the Evangelical or Gospel Covenant, because it is a Mixt one, and Composed of a Temporal (as well as an Eternal) bequest: But for that Reason, I the rather take it to be Evangelical: For this is Gospel, that Godliness is profitable unto all things, that is in all Respects; In respect of this World, and in respect of the other; And why so? Why it hath the Promise. Having the Promise of the Life that now is, as well as of that to come. And what is this but a finger to point you to the Covenant of Promise, as the Evange­lical Covenant, the Promise, the Blessing that did descend on the Gentiles. And indeed the Inheritance promised to Abra­ham, and which in, by, and under him is descended on the Gentiles, is not onely a Coelestial, but a Terrestrial one also: For by that Promise Abraham was not onely the Heir of Hea­ven; but also Heir of the World. And so the Apostle styles him. And the same Apostle tells all is ours; And Abraham being Constituted by the Promise, Heir of the World; he and his descendants according to the Flesh were to take Possession of it, and to have Livery of Seisin given in Canaan; a Livery of Seisin, which was given indeed, and taken but in part of the World, (as Livery of Seisin usually is) but in the Name of the whole.’ From the whole of which the Doctor Infers; That that Covenant mentioned, Gen. 17. 7, 8. where this Promise of a Terrestrial Inheritance bequeathed to Abraham and his Seed, is inserted (which he takes to be the same with his being the Heir of the World) must be a Covenant of Grace, or an Evangelical Covenant: For since the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World, was not to him, or to his Seed through the Law; but through the Righteousness of Faith; Therefore the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8. where this Promise is Insert­ed, must of necessity be a Covenant of Grace, and such a Cove­nant as on which all the Hopes and Comforts of Believing Gentiles are Built.

§. 3. This is the substance of what the Doctor offers; by which it may be easily perceived that there is a necessity that this now mentioned Argument of his, be substantially resolved, and [Page 198] removed out of the way, before we can draw any thorow Conclu­sion from the Premises; It being true enough; That if Abra­hams Heirship of the World, spoken of Rom. 4. 13. And the Promise of a Terrestrial Inheritance in Canaan, mentioned Gen. 17. 8. be one and the same thing, and not of a quite different nature; then indeed, there will be some kind of appearance, or some shadow at least of Argument in what the Doctor offers, toward the proof of what he asserteth; That the Covenant mention­ed Gen. 17. 7, 8. is the Covenant of Grace. Though should it be granted that the Doctors Notion is right; That Abrahams Heirship of the World, is to be understood of the Promise of a Terrestrial Inheritance in Canaan; Yet it will not therefore fol­low, that the Inheritance the Apostle speaks of, is derived unto Abraham or to his Seed, through the Righteousness of that Cove­nant, and consequently that it is a Gospel Covenant: Because (as hath been already observed) though that be one of the Pro­mises contained in that Covenant; yet since the same thing had been before assured unto Abraham, and his Seed also, by vertue of the free Promise, mentioned Gen. 12. 7. &c. which the Apostle takes such special notice of Gal. 3. 17. 18. And foras­much as the Conditional Covenant of Circumcision, might be broken as it was; and the Mercies therein contained, forfeited, as they were; which the other could not: From hence it plainly fol­lows, that the free Promise, and that alone, is that Covenant of Grace, or Anchor of Hope, that both Abraham and his Seed were onely to trust unto, and through which the Inheritance was to be derived.

SECT. IV.

HOwever, since the Doctor lays the stress he doth upon the Argument before us; It is necessary that it be Examined, and brought to the Test, whether right or no? In order where­unto our main business will be to prove that Abrahams Heirship of the World, spoken of Rom. 4. 13. And the Promise that was made unto him of a Terrestrial Inheritance in Canaan, mentioned Gen. 17. 8. is not one and the same Promise; but of a vastly dif­ferent Nature and Tendency. The one being the Great Charter of all the Gentiles hope and blessedness, in reference both to this World, and that that is to come; The other being the Promise of a Terrestrial Inheritance onely, and that which concerned Abra­ham [Page 199] alone, and his Natural Off-spring. And if this can be sub­stantially proved, it will easily be acknowledged that the Doctors forementioned Argument falls to the ground. In order therefore hereunto two things must be done, and that is; First diligently to Examin the Scope of Rom. 4. 13. where the words themselves do lie that are the bottom of his Argument. And Secondly to compare that with other Scriptures that give light there­unto.

§. 2. As to the Scope of the place mentioned; It ought to be duely observed, that in the 11th and 12th Verses, it is told us of Abraham, That he received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith, which he had yet being Ʋncircum­cized, that he might be the Father of all them that Believe, though they be not Circumcised, that Righteousness might be Im­puted to them also. And the Father of Circumcision, to them who are not of the Circumcision onely, but also walk in the steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham, which he had yet being Ʋn­circumcised. The plain Scope of which is to shew that Abraham was appointed by God as the Common Father of all sorts of true Believers whatsoever, whether Jews or Gentiles; And that this Divine Priviledge was not conferred on him upon the Account of the Works he had before spoken of Verse 2. 3. or because of his Circumcision which was a main part thereof, and which he had been just now insisting on; but through Faith; Even, that Faith which he had yet being Ʋncircumcised. Which self same Argu­ment he further prosecutes in the next following words. For (saith he immediately Vers. 13.) the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World, was not to Abraham or to his Seed, through the Law, but through the Righteousness of Faith. Now let it be Judged what was the Apostles meaning, as to Abrahams Heirship of the World; whether it were concerning the Promise made unto him of a Terrestrial Inheritance in Canaan, mentioned Gen. 17. 8. that in that respect he should be the Heir of the World? Or rather whether it is not to be understood concerning his Com­mon Fatherhood to all them that Believe; which he had just before been speaking of? For there he had been plainly treating, not concerning any Terrestrial Inheritance whatsoever; but concern­ing Abrahams Spiritual Relation as a Father to all sorts of true Believers. And in that sense the words in the 13th Verse come in most aptly and Conerently with what he had before told u [...]; which was that Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness, not in Circumcision, but in Ʋncircumcision, even long before he [Page 200] was Circumcised. That he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Ʋncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that Be­lieve, as well Jews as Gentiles, and Gentiles as Jews, Vers. 10. 11, 12. In which respect well might the Apostle tell us as he doth, Vers. 13. that Abraham was promised that he should be the Heir of the World; Since the whole World both▪ of Jews and Gentiles, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, were now to become his Spiritual Seed by Believing.

§. 3. And that this is the true Scope and Genuine Sence of the place, is plain also from the following words; when he comes to the proof of what he had Asserted, Vers. 13. For (saith he Vers. 14) If they which are of the Law be Heirs; Faith is made void, and the Promise made of none effect, because the Law worketh Wrath: For where no Law is▪ there is no Transgression. There­fore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace, that the Promise might be sure to all the Seed; not to that onely which is of the Law (that is the Jews) but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham (that is the Gentiles) who is the Father of us all. What Promise is it the Apostle here speaketh of? No doubt the same Promise he had spoken of just before, even the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World; or as he here ex­presseth it; The Father of us all. But how doth that appear? Or where is that Promise? As it is Written (saith he Vers. 17.) I have made thee a Father of many Nations, before him whom he Believed; even God who quickeneth the dead; who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the Father of many Nations, according to that which was spoken; so shall thy Seed be. Wherein it is evident what was the Apostles meaning when he tells us of the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World; that is, not that he should be the Heir of Canaan, or of any Terrestrial Inheritance whatsoever (though that be true too, and is a part of the same Gospel Covenant, as hath been before proved; and shall therefore be gloriously fulfiled in the appointed Season; when not Canaan onely shall be the Possession and In­heritance of Gods People; but the greatness of the Kingdom and Dominion under the whole Heaven shall be given unto them) But that which the Apostle intends in these words, is, that Spiri­tual Relation whereunto Abraham was designed and appointed by God, as the Father of many Nations; Or the Father of all them that Believe; according to that which was spoken so shall thy Seed be. Wherein he plainly refers to the Gospel Covenant [Page 201] which was first Recorded, Gen. 12. 2, 3. that God had made with Abraham before his removal out of his own Country; and there­fore long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him: For then God first promised that he would make of him a Great Nation; make his Name Great; and that in him should all the Families of the Earth be blessed; which free Gospel Co­venant was again repeated; Gen. 15. 5. and Gen. 17. 4, 5. where it is promised, that there should be of the Nations innumerable, that should be Abraham's Seed by Believing. To which the Apostle plainly refers in the forementioned Rom. 4. 17. As it is written (saith he) I have made thee a Father of many Nations, before him whom he believed; according to that which was spoken, so shall thy Seed be. For in this respect we are told, Gen. 15. 6. That Abra­ham believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for Righte­ousness.

§. 4. And in respect of this Covenant it is, that the Apostle af­firms, as before, that the Promise is sure to all the Seed. For as herein was promised a Blessing unto all the Spiritual Seed of Abra­ham; even the whole Family of the Faithful throughout the World, whether Jews or Gentiles; of whom, through Christ, he was to be Father (whereas there is no such Promise contained in the Covenant of Circumcision:) So the tenor of it being purely Evangelical (which the Covenant of Circumcision was not:) This therefore, and not the other, is the Great Charter, and only Firm Deed of Gift, by which the Believing Gentiles always did, and do claim Heaven and Earth, and all the Promises they have Title to.

§. 5. Besides, that the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World, cannot be understood of an Earthly Inheri­tance, but the call of the Gentiles; and consequently hath refe­rence to his Universal Fatherhood to all sorts of true Believers what­soever, whether Jews or Gentiles; is yet further evident from what the same Apostle tells us, Rom. 1 [...]. 11, 12, 13. Have they stum­bled (saith he, speaking of the Jews) that they should fall? God forbid: But rather through their fall Salvation is come unto the Gentiles. Now if the Fall of them be the Riches of the World, and the Diminishing of them the Riches of the Gentiles; How much more their Fulness? And so likewise vers. 15. If the Cast­ing away of them, be the Reconciling of the World, what shall the Receiving of them be, but Life from the Dead? Where the same expression is made use of in reference to the Call of the [Page 202] Gentiles, as had been before made use of Chap. 4. 13. concern­ing Abraham's Heirship: For as Abraham by Promise was to be the Heir of the World; so the Call of the Gentiles is here said to be the Riches of the World. The same expression we have like­wise in reference to Christ, 1 John 2. 2. And he is the Propitiati­on for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole World. Not for ours only; that is, not only for us Jews, but for the sins of the whole World; that is, both Jews and Gen­tiles; because the Partition Wall between Jew and Gentile was now broken down. In the same sense therefore, that Christ is here said to be the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World. In the same sense is Abraham said to be the Heir of the whole World; that is, he was constituted or appointed to be an Universal Fa­ther unto all them that Believe, not only Jews but Gentiles also. And indeed, as the Blessing of Abraham is hereby said to come upon the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ, Gal. 3. 14. So had it not been for this Gospel Promise, the poor Gentiles had still remain­ed without hope of Relief, or ground of Comfort; strangers to the Covenants of Promise, and without God in the World; there being no ground of Relief, or hope of Comfort at all afforded unto them, from the Covenant of Circumcision.

§. 6. And in this respect therefore, whereas the Apostle tells us in the forementioned Rom. 4. 13. That the Promise that Abra­ham should be the Heir of the World, was not to him, or to his Seed [through the Law] but through the Righteousness of Faith. It is yet further observeble, that the Law he here speaks of, and which he doth so manifestly contradistinguish or oppose unto the Righteousness of Faith; cannot be understood concerning the Law given by Moses to that People in the Wilderness 400 years after Abraham's time (though it was of the same nature:) But it must of necessity be understood concerning the Law, or Covenant of Circumcision, which God made with Abraham himself, and his Na­tural Posterity; which was extant in his own time. And that this is the Law which the Apostle here intends, will evidently appear, if we duly attend unto the scope of the Apostie in the forego­ing part of this fourth to the Romans: which was to shew, that Abraham himself was not justified by Works; no not by his Cir­cumcision, but by Faith, which he had long before he was Cir­cumcised. For thus he begins, vers. 1. 2. What shall we say then, that Abraham our Father, as pertaining to the Flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by Works, he hath whereof to glo­ry, but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham [Page 203] believed God, and it was counted to him for Righteousness. So then Abraham was not justified by Works before God, but by Faith alone. But how doth that appear? Why, thus it, appears, vers. 9. 10. Because Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness, when he was in Circumcision, but in Ʋncircumcision. And so vers. 11, 12. He received (saith he) the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had, yet being Ʋncir­cumcised, that he might be the Father of all them that believe, &c. For (saith he) vers. 13. the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World (or as he had said just before, that he should be the Father of all them that believe) was not to Abraham, or to his Seed through the Law; (which must needs therefore be understood of the Law of Circumcision) but through the Righteousness of Faith. From whence, as it hath been already made evident, the Promise he here speaks of, was not derived unto Abraham, or to his Seed, through the Covenant of Circumcision; there being no such Promise at all to be found in that Covenant: So it is as manifest that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Faith; since it is here so plainly contradistinguished, or opposed thereunto.

SECT. V.

ANd therefore, whereas the Apostle tells us of Abraham in the formentioned, Rom. 4. 11. That he received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had, yet being Ʋncircumcised. From thence to infer, that the Covenant of Circumcision was a Covenant of Faith; would be point blank to contradict the whole scope and design of the Apo­stle in the foregoing passages of that Chapter; which (as hath been alredy shewn) as it was in general to prove, that Abraham was not justified by Works, but by Faith only, vers. 2. 3, 4, 5. So in particular to assure us; that Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness, when he was in Circumcision, but in Ʋncircumcisi­on, vers. 9, 10. And what more convincing Testimony or Evi­dence can we desire, that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Faith? The Sign of Circumcision was indeed a Seal unto Abraham of the Faith which he had, in respect of the Pro­mises made him, yet being Ʋncircumcised: But it doth not there­fore follow, that the Promises, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. that God would be a God unto him, and his Seed after him in their Genera­tions, [Page 204] &c. upon Condition, that he and his were Circumcised; were any part of the Covenant of Faith: For otherwise the Apo­stle would never have told us as he doth; that Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness, when he was in Circumcision, but in Ʋncircumcision. The Argument hence resulting there­fore is Irresistable: That Covenant in which Faith was not recko­ned to Abraham for Righteousness, could never be a Covenant of Faith: But the Scripture is express, that Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness, when he was in Circumcision, but in Ʋncircumcision; therefore the Covenant of Circumcision could never be a Covenant of Faith. Besides it is evident, that long be­fore his Circumcision, God had promised Abraham to bless him; to make his Name Great; that he should be a Blessing; that in him should all the Families of the Earth be Blessed; that he should be the Father of many Nations, according to that which was spoken, so shall thy Seed be. Gen. 12. 2, 3. Gen. 15. 5. And it is evident that these were the Promises; upon the account where­of we are told, that he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for Righteousness, Gen. 15. 6. Circumcision therefore was a Seal only unto Abraham; and that of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had in respect of the Promises made him, long be­fore his Circumcision; and that for this very purpose, that he might be the Father of all them that believe; which was his Pre­rogative alone: For none besides him had ever before their Cir­cumcision, such a Faith which entituled them to such singular Promises.

§. 2. Upon the whole; though it must be acknowledged that the Objection seems at first very Plausible; How can it be but that the Covenant of Circumcision must needs be a Covenant of Faith, since Abraham is said to have received the Sign of Cir­cumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith? Yet we see when it comes to be duly examined, there appears no such matter: For the only Argument fairly resulting from Rom. 4. 11. can be no other than this. That Covenant, or those Promises, in respect of which Abraham is said to have received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, must needs be a Covenant of Faith: But the Scripture is express, that Abraham received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had, yet being Ʋncircumcised: (which must of necessi­ty be understood in respect of the forementioned Promises, that had been made him long before his Circumcision, and upon the account of which we are expresly told, that he believed in the [Page 205] Lord, and he counted it to him for Righteousness, Gen. 15. 6.) Therefore that Covenant, or those Promises, must needs be a Co­venant of Faith. But then, as hath been already observed, it fol­lows not, that the Promises made unto him, and his Seed after him, in their Generations; upon Condition of his, and their Cir­cumcision, mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10. were any part of the Covenant of Faith; since the Apostle is express, that Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness, when he was in Circumci­sion, but in Ʋncircumcision.

§. 3. Circumcision therefore (as we have said) was a Seal on­ly to Abraham; and that in respect of the Promises, made him, yet being Ʋncircumcised; whereby he was Confirmed in the As­surance of that Peculiar Prerogative that had been before conferred on him; and which the Apostle here expresly mentioneth. He received (saith he) the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righte­ousness of the Faith which he had, yet being Ʋncircumcised, that he might be the Father of all them that believe. In respect where­of it is evident, that Circumcision was that to the Father of the Faithful, in its Extraordinary Institution, and in his Extraordina­ry Circumstances, that it could not be to any of his Natural Pro­geny in its Ordinary Ʋse. It was indeed appointed as a Sign or Token of the Covenant, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. and that both unto Abra­ham himself, and the rest that were under it; and so the Spirit of God himself expresly stiles it, vers. 11. Whereby they were obli­ged unto a Perfect and Universal Obedience to the whole revealed Will and Law of God, Gal. 5. 3. For I testifie to every man that is Circumcised, that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law; and hereof 'tis true, it was a Sign or Token: It being no other than the Restipulation of the Covenant on their part, Gen. 17. 9. 10. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations; this is my Covenant which ye shall keep.—Every man-child among you shall be Circumcised. But it doth not therefore follow, that because it was a Token of that Covenant on their part, in respect of their Duty; that it was al­so intended as a Seal unto them of the same Covenant on God's part, in respect of God's Promise: It being a Seal only unto Abraham; and that in respect of those Peculiar Promises made him in Uncircumcision. Nor was every ones Circumcision, so much as a Token to him of his Right to any of the Promises there­in contained; as is evident in Ishmael and others, the Servants born and bred in Abraham's Family, and Strangers bought with Mony, who were all to be Circumcised; to whom yet neverthe­less, [Page 206] none of the Promises in that Covenant were made; as is plain from Gen. 17. 7, 8, 20, 21, 23, 27. whereby it is clear, that the true Reason why any were Circumcised, was the Command, not Interest in the Covenant. Much less was Circumcision a Seal to all that received it of their interest in the Righteousness of that Faith that Abraham had. And it is equally absurd to say, that Circumcision was a Seal unto all its Subjects of the Righteousness of Faith, which they had while Uncircumcised; (since many of them were never Possessors of that saying Grace, neither before or after) as to affirm that it was the Seal of a Paternal Relation to all Believers, unto every one that received it; this being Abra­ham's Peculiar Prerogative, and Incommunicable to any else. And indeed Circumcision was so far from being a Seal of the Gospel Co­venant, or of their Interest in the Righteousness of Faith, to the rest that were under it, that it was rather▪ Token unto them of Ser­vitude and Bondage; and such a Yoke, that as the Apostles tell them, neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear it, Acts 15. 10, 24. Gal. 5. 2. 3. Which yet it had not been, had it been to them a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, or of the Gospel Co­venant: For that brings with it true Christian Liberty and Freedom, Gal. 5. 1.

SECT. VI.

AND therefore when the Apostle tells us, Gal. 3. 16. that to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made; He saith not unto Seeds as of many, but as of one; and to thy Seed, which is Christ. He could not have the Covenant of Circumcision in his Eye (as 'tis generally concluded he had:) For as hath been plain­ly proved, that was no other than a Covenant of Works, or a Le­gal Covenant, obliging all that were under it to a perfect Obe­dience to the whole Law, Gal. 5. 3. And therefore as the Pro­mise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World, was not de­rived unto him or to his Seed through the Righteousness of that Covenant: So neither was Christ the Mediator of it: He having obtained a more Excellent Ministry; by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant, which is established upon better Promises, Heb. 8. 6. Better Promises, not for the Substance of them, in themselves considered. For as God promised to be a God unto that People in the Covenant of Works, made at Mount Sinai; and to take them for his Peculiar People, upon Condition [Page 207] of their Obedience to the Law: So in the Covenant of Circum­cision; I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed; And I will give to thee and to thy Seed the Land of Canaan, &c. upon the same condition of Obedience. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations. In both which the Promises themselves, are as large and as full as can be desired; And that with Respect to the Blessings of this Life, as also of that which is to come: So that the Promises of the Gospel Covenant it self cannot be better than were those under the Law, for the sub­stance of them, or in themselves considered: For what doth the Gospel promise more? The betterness therefore of this Evangelical Covenant (whereof Christ is the onely Mediator and Surety) must of necessity consist in the terms of it; the Promises thereof being free and Absolute; and onely to be Received by Faith; (which the forementioned Covenants were not) And therefore called the Word of Faith which we Preach, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. That if thou shalt Confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt be­lieve in thine Heart that God raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved. He had told us before that Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the Man which doth these things shall live by them: But (saith he) the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise, &c. So likewise Gal. 3. 21, 22. If there had been a Law which could have given Life, verily Righte­ousness should have been by the Law: But the Scripture hath Con­cluded all under Sin, that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe. So also Rom. 4. 14. If they which are of the Law be Heirs, Faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Therefore it is of Faith, that it might be by Grace, that the Promise might be sure to all the Seed. The Gospel Covenant therefore we see is free and Absolute; Proclaim­ing Liberty to the Captives, &c. Isa, 61. 1, 2. And declareth that to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that Justi­fieth the ungodly, his Faith shall be counted to him for Righte­ousness, Rom. 4. 4, 5. Whereas the Covenant at Sinai, and that of Circumcision, was clog'd with conditions of perfect Obedi­ence unto the whole Law of God; and therefore Impossible to be performed. For the faultiness of both which in that respect, they are therefore now Abollished. So that Christ was not the Mediator of either of these; but of this bet­ter Covenant which is Established upon these better Pro­mises.

§. 2. Besides, when the Apostle tells us; That to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made; he saith not unto Seeds as of many; but as of one; and to thy Seed which is Christ. He could not have the Covenant of Circumcision in his Eye: Because the Promises of that Covenant were expresly made unto Seeds as of many Gen. 17. 7, 8. 9. I will Establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy Seed after thee in their Generations, plain­ly and expresly Plural. And I will give to thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a stranger, and I will be their God, still expresly in the Plural, and not in the Singular Number. And so runs the Obligation also. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generati­ons. Those words of the Apostle therefore Gal. 3. 16. cannot possibly refer to the Promises contained in the Covenant of Cir­cumcision; (as it hath been generally though mistakingly imagi­ned they do) But must of necessity refer to that Evangelical Co­venant, first Recorded Gen. 12. 2, 3. I will make of thee (saith God to Abraham there) a Great Nation, and I will Bless thee, and make thy Name Great, and thou shalt be a Blessing. And I will bless them that Bless thee, and Curse him that Curseth thee; And in thee shall all Families of the Earth be Blessed. Which latter Promise is afterwards more fully Explained Gen. 22. 18. And in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed. In which respect well might the Apostle say that to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made; he saith not unto Seeds as of many; but as of one; and to thy Seed which is Christ: For those Gospel Promises can be understood in no other Sence; but as of one: For it is plain that it is Christ alone that is the Promised Seed there spoken of; In whom God there promiseth that all the Nations of the Earth should be Blessed. To him therefore all the Promises of the Gospel were first made, Psal. 89. 27, 28, 29. In him they are all, yea and Amen, 2 Cor. 1. 20. And from him alone are they to be Communicated to all his Members, Isa. 49. 6, 8, 9. Jo. 1. 16. Jo. 6. 27. Gal. 3. 29. ‘Some refer Gal. 3. 16. to Gen. 17. 7. But I conceive the A­postle hath here a direct and special Eye to that Promise, Gen. 22. 18. In thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed, which runs directly parallel both in Terms and Sence with the Promise given to Abraham, Gen. 12. 3. which was be­fore pleaded by him, Gal. 3. 8.—And if it be Objected, that the Promise there is made of or concerning Abrahams Seed, and not to his Seed; Let it be minded that all the Promises made of [Page 209] this Seed (viz. Christ) in one respect, may be said to be made to this Seed in another, because they are Originally Established in the Everlasting Covenant of Redemption, that was between the Father and him. Mr. Cox in his Discourse of the Cove­nants, page 77. 78, 79.’