The Rector Rectified, Treatise · Chapter 2

The Rector Rectified · Treatise · Chapter 2

p. 38CHAP. II.

Wherein the grand Argument for Infant-Baptiſm taken from the Covenant made with Abraham, is fully confuted. Proving the Covenant of Circumciſion was not a Covenant of Grace, wherein both Mr. Burkit and the Athenian Society are clearly anſwered. The Legal Covenant and Fleſhly Seed being under the Goſpel both caſt out, the Plea for Pedo-baptiſm from the old Covenant-Right is vanquiſhed.

I Come now to examine your ſecond grand Argument for the Baptiſm of Infants, which you in Pag. 8. laid down thus, viz.

Arg. 2.If the Infants of believing Chriſtians under the Goſpel are in Covenant with God, as the Jewiſh Infants under the Law were; then the Seal of the Covenant, which is Baptiſm, may and ought to be adminiſtred to them.

But the Infants of Believers under the Goſpel are in Covenant with God,He ſhould have mentioned Circumciſion in his Propoſitions. as well as the Jewiſh Infants under the Law were.

Therefore Baptiſm, the Seal of the Covenant, ought to be applied to theſe, as Circumciſion was to them.

Anſw. Tho this Syllogiſm is not perfect in Form, yet I will paſs by that Overſight of yours, and conſider it in each part, and finding it ſophiſtical, muſt deny the whole Argument.

p. 391. For firſt, as to your Major, If the Infants of Chriſtians were in Covenant with God, as the Jewiſh Infants were, yet Baptiſm cannot belong to them, unleſs God hath commanded them to be baptized, and made it alſo a Seal of the ſame Covenant: for as much as Baptiſm, (as I have told you before once or twice already) is a meer poſitive Law or Inſtitution, 'tis not Man, but God himſelf muſt make it their Duty to be baptized, and a Seal of the Covenant, if it were ſo indeed: but God hath neither enjoyned them, or made it their Duty to be baptized, nor appointed it to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to them; Ergo. Alſo you miſtake, in calling Circumciſion a Seal of the Covenant made with Abraham; for 'tis only called the Seal of the Righteouſneſs of the Faith he had, (that is Abraham) and which he had, being yet uncircumciſed. 'Tis not called a Seal of the Covenant, but of Faith, and that too of Abraham's Faith only, becauſe none before they were circumciſed had ſuch a Faith but himſelf only. Nor can you prove Chriſt's true Baptiſm is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Goſpel, the holy Spirit is the only Seal of the Covenant of Grace mentioned in the Scripture, Epheſ. 1.13, 14. chap. 4.30.

If therefore I ſhould grant, that the Infants of Believers under the Goſpel, as ſuch, were in Covenant with God, which I muſt deny, yet it would not follow in the leaſt that they ought to be baptized, from that ground: for, were not, think you, all the Children of the Godly before Abraham's time, or before he received that expreſs Command to circumciſe them in your ſenſe, in Covenant with God? If you do not ſay this, why do you affirm, that the Children of Believers were always, or ever in Covenant as well as their Parents? but if it were ſo, Do you p. 40think it was their Duty to circumciſe them? If you ſhould ſay, no, becauſe they did not know to circumciſe them was the Will of God. But you might ſay more, viz. it was not the Will of God they ſhould do it; 'tis God's Command only, and not their being in Covenant, made it their Duty to circumciſe their Children: and had God given us ſuch a Command, or any Authority to baptize our Children, we ought and would baptize them; but muſt not, dare not, without ſuch poſitive Command or Authority.

2. We utterly alſo deny your Minor, and ſay that the Infants of Believers (as ſuch) under the Goſpel, are not in Covenant with God.

We will therefore examine your Grounds to prove that which you affirm upon this account, Pag. 8, 9. and thus you argue, viz.

They who by Circumciſion were once ſolemnly taken into Covenant with God, and never ſince were ſolemnly caſt out, do undoubtedly continue in a Covenant-State.

But Infants under the Law were ſolemnly by God's Appointment taken into Covenant with himſelf, and were never ſince by any Command of God caſt out; therefore they do ſtill continue in Covenant.

Anſw. 1. I anſwer firſt of all, that your Argument is not true in form; Is Circumciſion in your Minor? Sir, if you are a Logician, ſpeak like one;Mr. Burkit's Syllogiſm not true in form. your Minor ſhould run thus, viz. But Infants were once by Circumciſion, ſolemnly by God's Appointment, taken into Covenant, &c. But I'll paſs by that, and muſt tell you your Argument in another reſpect is lame alſo; You do not tell us what Covenant 'tis you here intend; ought you not to have added, They who were once ſolemnly taken into the Covenant of Grace by Circumciſion, &c. but Infants were once ſolemnly taken into the Covenant of Grace by Circumciſion? If you do p. 41not affirm that, you ſay nothing that concerns our Controverſy. If the Covenant of Circumciſion was not the Covenant of Grace, you will and muſt give up your Cauſe: and if you ſay that, you ought to have put it into your Syllogiſm. 3. There is yet another fault in your Argument. If you would include the Controverſy, ought you not to have ſaid, All they who? &c. Can your Concluſion be good, when your Propoſitions are bad and defective?

But to the buſineſs; If you ſay Infants, as ſuch, were ſolemnly taken into the Convenant of Grace by Circumciſion; then I deny your Minor: Infants, as ſuch, were never by Circumciſion, nor any other ways under the Law, taken into the Covenant of Grace. Moreover, I affirm, that tho they were once ſolemnly taken into Covenant with God by Circumciſion, yet that Covenant, and that Covenant Seed, viz. the natural Seed of Abraham, are both ſolemnly caſt out; and this I ſhall, God aſſiſting, prove, and afterwards take off all thoſe pretended Abſurdities you in the 9th and 10th Pages of your Book mention, and give a full Anſwer to your Reaſons and Arguments you bring to prove the Covenant of Circumciſion was a Covenant of Grace.

1. And now to proceed, to raze and quite overthrow this main Foundation and Pillar of Pedo-baptiſm; I ſhall argue as Mr. Tombs hath done, whoſe Arguments could never be yet anſwered.

We are firſt of all to conſider, whether the Goſpel-Covenant, and the Covenant of Circumciſion made with Abraham be the ſame. Secondly, Inquire what Seed of Abraham it is, of which 'tis ſaid, I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed, Gen. 17.7. Thirdly, Whether there be the ſame Reaſon of Circumciſion and of Baptiſm in p. 42ſignifying the Goſpel-Covenant. Fourthly, Whether there is the ſame Parity of Reaſon for the one, as for the other.

Firſt, The Covenant God made with Abraham proved to be a mix'd Covenant, partly Goſpel, and partly Legal.The Covenant made with Abraham we affirm is not a pure Goſpel-Covenant, but a mix'd Covenant, partly made with his Natural or Fleſhly Seed, and partly made with him and his Spiritual Seed; and therefore we thus argue.

Arg. 1. If the Covenant takes its Denomination from the Promiſes, and the Promiſes are mix'd, ſome Evangelical, belonging to thoſe to whom the Goſpel belongeth; ſome Domeſtick, or Civil Promiſes, ſpecially and abſolutely reſpectin… the Houſe and Natural Seed of Abraham, and Policy of Iſrael; then 'tis a mix'd Covenant.

But the Covenant takes its Denomination from the Promiſes, and the Promiſes are mix'd, ſome Evangelical, belonging to thoſe to whom the Goſpel belongeth; ſome Domeſtick, or Civil Promiſes, ſpecially and abſolutely reſpecting the Houſe and Natural Seed of Abraham, and Policy of Iſrael. Ergo, 'Tis a mix'd Covenant.

To make this clear, 'tis evident that that Promiſe was Evangelical, belonging to thoſe the Goſpel belongeth to, Gen. 17.5. I have made thee a Father of many Nations: And ſo is that Gen. 15.5. So ſhall thy Seed be. In which it is promiſed, that there ſhall be of the Nations many, or a great Number, that ſhall be Abraham's Spiritual Children by believing, Rom. 4.17, 18. Alſo it was Evangelical, which we find in Gen. 12.3. And in thy Seed ſhall all the Kindreds of the Earth be bleſſed. Theſe, 'tis evident, reſpect all Goſpel-Believers, who are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham; ſee Gal. 3.8. And the Scripture foreſeeing that God would juſtify the Heathen through Faith, preached the Goſpel unto Abraham, ſaying, In thee ſhall all the Nations of the Earth be bleſſed. And more directly to Chriſt, who is the Seed of Abraham, as Gal. 3.16. Now p. 43to Abraham and his Seed were the Promiſes made. He ſaith not, And to Seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy Seed, which is Chriſt; that is, to Chriſt as the Head and Surety of the Covenant of Grace, and ſo primarily and directly to him, and then in him to all who are his; according to that in Gal. 3.29. And if ye be Chriſt's, then are you Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to the Promiſe. See also Acts 3.25.

2. Moreover, that the Domeſtick and Civil Promiſes were many, is plain: As,See Mr. Tombs Exercit. p. 2. 1. Of multiplying the Seed of Abraham. 2. The Birth of Iſaac. 3. Of the continuation of the Covenant with Iſaac. 4. Of the coming of Chriſt out of Iſaac. 5. The Bondage of the Iſraelites in Egypt, and their deliverance out from thence, and of their poſſeſſing the Land of Canaan; Gen. 15.18. Gen. 17.8. And 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. So Gen. 15.18. In that ſame day God made a Covenant with Abram, ſaying, Ʋnto thy Seed have I given this Land, from the River of Egypt, unto the great River Euphrates. Can you be ſo ignorant as to affirm this Covenant and Contract made with Abraham, was made with the Natural Seed of believing Gentiles? Nay, or that it was made to Abraham's Spiritual Seed? Compare theſe Scriptures with Acts 7.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. And thus it appears, the Covenant made with Abraham, is a mixt Covenant, or a two-fold Covenant, one made with …s Natural Seed, the other with his Spiritual Seed: And this is fully ſignified by Sarah and Hagar, the Free-Woman and the Bond-Woman; and their Sons, Isaac and Iſhmael, Gal. 4.22.

Secondly, The Seed of Abraham i… many ways ſo called.

p. 441. Chriſt is called the Seed of Abraham, as I ſaid before, Gal. 3.16. by way of Eminency, as he is the Head and Surety of the Goſpel-Covenant.

2. All the Elect, Rom. 9.7. all Believers, Rom. 4.11, 12, 16, 17, 18. Gal. 3.29. If ye be in Chriſt, then are ye Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to the Promiſe.

3. There was a Natural Seed of Abraham, to whom the Inheritance did accrue, this was Iſaac, Gen. 21.22.

4. We read of another Natural Seed of Abraham, to whom the Inheritance, it is poſitively ſaid, did not belong, as Iſhmael and the Sons of Keturah, Gen. 15.5.

But now can the Infant-Seed of Believers, as ſuch, be ſaid to be the Seed of Abraham in any of theſe four reſpects? add, if you can, a fifth.

1. As the Promiſe refers to Chriſt, (ſo they cannot be included) who is Abraham's Seed in a ſpecial manner, to whom God promiſed he would be a God to, and impart all Bleſſings of the Covenant unto, according to that glorious Compact or Covenant of Redemption made between him and the Father before the World began, upon the account of his bleſſed Undertakings, as our Mediator and Surety, that ſo he might impart all thoſe purchaſed Bleſſings and Priviledges to all who believe in him, or where given to him by the Father.

2. As …e Promiſe refers to the Elect Seed, or ſuch who have the Faith of Abraham, and walk in his ſteps, it cannot include the Infant-Seed of Believing Gentiles as ſuch.

3. As the Promiſe refers to Iſaac, who was Abraham's own natural Son according to the Fleſh, as well as according to the Promiſe, they are not the Seed of Abraham.

p. 454. As Iſhmael and the Sons of Keturah were the Seed of Abraham, ſo the Infant-Seed of believing Gentiles, are not the Seed of Abraham. If you can add a fifth ſort of Abraham's Seed (I mean, ſuch who are ſo called) from the Scripture, pray do when you write again.

And from hence I thus argue;

If the Children of believing Gentiles, as ſuch,Arg. 1. are not the Natural Seed, nor the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, then they can have no right to Baptiſm or Church-Memberſhip, by virtue of any Covenant-Tranſaction God made with Abraham.

But the Children of believing Gentiles, as ſuch, are not the Natural nor Spiritual Seed of Abraham: Ergo, they can have no right to Baptiſm, nor Church-Memberſhip, by virtue of any Covenant-Transaction God made with Abraham.

Your Brethren, called the Athenian Society, in p. 2. of their Athenian Gazette, affirm, The Children of Believers are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, till they by Actual Sin, unrepented of, are otherwiſe.

1. To which I anſwer,The Athenian Society confuted. Then ſome of the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham may periſh eternally, and the Promiſe is not ſure to all his Spiritual Seed; which is directly contrary to what St. Paul affirms in Rom. 4.16. 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, but to that alſo which is of the Faith of Abraham, who is the Father of us all.

From whence I argue:

All they that are in that Goſpel-Covenant which God made with Abraham, Arg. 2.or who are his true Spiritual Seed, have the Promiſe of everlaſting Life made ſure to them.

But all the Infant-Seed of Believers, as such, p. 46have not the Promiſe of everlaſting Life made ſure to them: Ergo, The Infant-Seed of Believers, as ſuch, are not in that Goſpel-Covenant God made with Abraham, nor his true Spiritual Seed. Take another;

Arg. 3.If all the true Spiritual-Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham, and walk in the Steps of Abraham, even that Faith Abraham had before he was Circumciſed; then the Infant-Seed of Believers, as ſuch, are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham.

But the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham, and walk in the Steps of Abraham, even that Faith Abraham had before he was Circumciſed: Ergo, The Infant-Seed of Believers, as ſuch, are not the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham.

As to the Major, ſee Rom. 4.11, 12.

The Minor cannot be denied; no Man in his right Wits will affirm, the Infants of Believers, as ſuch, have the Faith Abraham had before he was yet Circumciſed, nor do many of them; nor can they walk in the Steps of Abraham, having not his Faith.

If any object and ſay, If Infants of Believers are not included in that Covenant made with Abraham, How can any of them, who died in Infancy, be ſaved?

I anſwer; 1. Cannot God ſave dying Infants, unleſs they were included in that Covenant made with Abraham? How then could the dying Infants of the Godly, who lived before that Covenant was made with Abraham, be ſaved?

God has a thouſand Ways, through Chriſt's Undertakings, to ſave dying Infants, as Dr. Taylor notes, which we know not of: Secret things belong to God, and revealed things to us.

2. Were they in any ſenſe included in that Covenant made with Abraham, though not accounted p. 47counted for his Natural or Spiritual Seed, yet it would not follow from thence that they ought to be Baptized, becauſe the Females, who were truly Abraham's Natural Seed, and ſome of them might be his Spiritual Seed too, yet were not Circumciſed, no more than the Male Children of the Godly were before Abraham's Time. And,

3. Were they in Covenant, as they are the Natural-Seed of Believers? then Baptiſm however does not bring them into the Covenant: and if ſo, their State is good, whether Baptized or no. And if Baptiſm brings them into the Covenant of Grace, then they have not right thereto, becauſe they are in the Covenant: And if Baptiſm brings them into the Covenant of Grace, and makes the Covenant ſure to them, then it would follow, that 'tis in the Power of Men, either to bring their Children into the Covenant of Grace, or keep them out; and that it is in effect to ſay, Parents have Power to ſave or deſtroy their Children: and how abſurd that is, I will leave to all impartial Men to judg.

I ſhall, in the next place, prove,Covenant of Circumciſion no Covenant of Grace. that the Covenant of Circumciſion was not a Covenant of Grace, or Faith, and therefore doth not concern the Infant-Seed of believing Gentiles.

1. I argue thus:Arg. 1. That Covenant that was made to ſeparate the Natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World, and made ſure unto them the Earthly Promiſe of the Poſſeſſion of the Land of Canaan, could not be a Covenant of Grace, which concerns the Infant-Seed of Believers under the Goſpel.

But the Covenant of Circumciſion was made to ſeparate the Natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World, and made ſure p. 48unto them the Earthly Promiſe of the Poſſeſſion of the Land of Canaan. Ergo, The Covenant of Circumciſion could not be a Covenant of Grace, which concerns the Infants of Believers under the Goſpel.

The Major cannot be denied, becauſe the Goſpel, or ſecond Covenant, is eſtabliſhed upon no ſuch earthly Promiſes as the Covenant of Circumciſion was, not that we ſhould have an Earthly Kingdom, or poſſeſs the Land of Canaan, but it is eſtabliſhed on better Promiſes than theſe, as Heb. 8.6.

Also if that Covenant concerned us, or our Children, who are Gentiles, then the Gentiles had equal Right to that Earthly Inheritance; and then were not the Natural Seed of Abraham ſeparated from all other People upon the account of that Earthly Bleſſing as their Poſſeſſion only.

As to the Minor, ſee Gen. 17. I will eſtabliſh my Covenant between me and thee, v.7. And 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, v. 8.

This is my Covenant which ye ſhall keep between me and you, and thy Seed after thee; Every Man-Child among you ſhall be cirumciſed, v. 10.

1. There were ſome who were circumciſed, to whom the Promiſe of the Goſpel-Covenant God made with Abraham did not belong, as Iſhmael, Eſau, &c. God expreſly ſaid that his Covenant, (i. e. the Covenant of Grace) was not eſtabliſhed with Iſhmael, but with Iſaac, and yet the Covenant of Circumciſion belonged to Iſhmael as well as to Iſaac.

See Gen. 17.20, 21. As for Iſhmael, I have heard thee, behold, I have bleſſed him, &c. But my Covenant will I eſtabliſh with Iſaac, whom Sarah ſhall bear unto thee. Compare this with p. 49Rom. 9.7, 8, 9. Not becauſe they are the Seed of Abraham, are they all Children; that is, Children of the Covenant of Grace, or the Children of God; but the Children of the Promiſe are counted for thy Seed; see Gal. 4.29, 30. Nay, all that were in Abraham's Houſe, whether born there or Strangers, or ſuch who were bought with his Money, were circumciſed; but will you ſay, all theſe were in that Goſpel-Covenant God made with him?

Moreover, there were other Perſons in Abraham's Houſe, who, no doubt, might ſome of them be in the Covenant of Grace, and had the Promiſes belonging to them, who were nevertheleſs not circumciſed, namely, the Females; alſo Male Infants dying before the eighth day coming from Abraham. Moreover, other godly Men who were not of Abraham's Family, yet lived in his time, as Melchiſedec, Lot, Job, &c. none of theſe had right to be circumciſed. But if any object and ſay, the Females were circumciſed in the Males; I anſwer with Mr. Tombs, it is without Proof; and by like perhaps greater Reaſon it may be ſaid, that the Children of Believers are baptized in the Perſons of their Parents, and therefore are not to be baptized in their own Perſons.

Also 'tis apparent that the Jews comprehended in that Covenant made with Abraham, Being the Children of Abraham, as ſuch, gave them no right to Circumciſionand circumciſed accordingly, were nevertheleſs not admitted to Baptiſm upon that foot of account; which had the Covenant of Circumciſion been a Goſpel-Covenant, i. e. of the ſame nature, I ſee no reaſon why John Baptiſt ſhould deny their Argument, i. e. We are Abraham's Seed, &c. Hence it plainly appears, that the right Evangelical Promiſes were not the adequate Reaſon of Circumciſion: But as I have before ſaid, the Precept, or expreſs Command of God to Abraham. p. 50And from hence I ſhall infer this third Argument.

Arg. 3. Covenant of Circumciſion made with Abraham, belonged to the ungodly as well as the godly.That Covenant that was made with, or did belong unto the fleſhly Seed of Abraham, and ungodly ones as well as the godly, was not a Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant. But the Covenant of Circumciſion was made with, or did belong to the fleſhly Seed of Abraham, as Iſhmael, Eſau, and all the lineal Seed of Abraham, who were ungodly, as well as to the godly.

Ergo, The Covenant of Circumciſion was not a Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant.

Arg. 4.If all who are in the Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant, do know the Lord from the greateſt to the leaſt of them;All in the new Covenant need not be taught to know the Lord. then the Covenant of Circumciſion could not be the Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant. But all who are in the Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant, do know the Lord from the greateſt to the leaſt of them.

Ergo, The Covenant of Circumciſion was not the Covenant of Grace.

This Argument is fully proved by that in Jer. 31.32, 33, 34. Speaking of the new Covenant which God would make with the Houſe of Iſrael, which ſhould not be according to the old, he goes on and tells us what God would do in that Covenant-day; that he would put his Law into their inward parts, and write it in their Hearts. 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 unto the greateſt of them, ſaith the Lord, &c.

And indeed in this very reſpect the Goſpel-Covenant is not according to the old, as the Lord ſaid it ſhould not be, as well as in divers other caſes; for many of thoſe who were in the old Covenant (to which Circumciſion did appertain) were Infants, tho all of them were p. 51not taken in by Circumciſion: for Female Infants were received into that old Covenant without it. Now theſe Children who were taken into that Covenant, did not know the Lord. Infants having no Underſtanding, know not their right Hand from their left, it is therefore impoſſible they ſhould know the Lord;A neceſſity that Infants be taught to know the Lord. and therefore alſo there was a neceſſity after they were in that Covenant, that they ſhould be taught to know the Lord: Firſt, that God is, and what a God he is, and ſo to know him, as to fear him and ſerve him in Sincerity.

But in the Goſpel-Covenant God promiſed it ſhould be otherwiſe; all who were received into that Covenant, ſhould be Adult Perſons, or ſuch who did know the Lord, which plainly implies no ignorant Infant ſhould be taken into that Covenant, and be a Member of that Church-State; for if ſo, then it would follow, ſuch would have the like need to be taught to know the Lord, as they had in the old Covenant Church-State. And remakable it is, that this Text doth clearly intimate, that all who ſhould be taken into the Goſpel-Covenant, or Goſpel-Church, ſhould be diſcipled or taught, firſt to know God: for to be taught or diſcipled, is all one and the ſame thing, which agrees with Chriſt's great Commiſſion, Matth. 28.19, 20. where he gave Directions who, or what kind of Perſons they were to be, that he would have his Apoſtles receive into his Goſpel-Church: and that they ſhould be all of them firſt taught or made Diſciples, and as ſuch be baptized, is clearly declared. Now that this Text in Jer. 31. refers to the Goſpel-Covenant, is evident; ſee Heb. 8.7, 8, 9, 10.

That Covenant that was a part or branch of the old Covenant, or Covenant of Works,Arg. 5. was not a Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant.

p. 52The Covenant of Circumciſion a Covenant of Works.But the Covenant of Circumciſion was a part or branch of the old Covenant, or Covenant of Works. Ergo, The Covenant of Circumciſion was not a Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant.

The Major cannot be denied.

The Minor is eaſily proved. That which bound or obliged all thoſe who were under it, or did it, to keep the whole Law, and was alſo abrogated▪ or taken away by Chriſt, with all the other Rites and Shadows of the old Covenant, was a part or branch of the ſaid old Covenant. But Circumciſion bound or obliged all who were circumciſed to keep the whole Law,Circumciſion obliged Perſons to keep the whole Law. and alſo the ſame Rite of Circumciſion was abrogated, with all other Rites and Shadows of the old Covenant by Chriſt, Ergo, Circumciſion was a part or branch of the old Covenant. See Gal. 5▪ … teſtify to every Man that is circumciſed, that he is a Debtor to keep the whole Law.

Arg. 6.That Covenant which was in its nature and quality as much a Covenant of Works as the Covenant made with Adam, or the Sinai-Covenant,Covenant of Circumciſion of the ſame nature with the Sinai-Covenant. was not a Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant, whereof Chriſt is the Mediator. But the Covenant of Circumciſion was in its nature and quality as much a Covenant of Works as that Covenant made with Adam, or the Sinai-Covenant, Ergo, The Covenant of Circumciſion wa… not a Covenant of Grace, or Goſpel-Covenant, Read Reverend Mr. Philip Cary's Deſence and Proof of the ſubſtance of this Argument, in his juſt Reply to Mr. John Flavel, p. 59, 60.

Thus he ſays (and doubeleſs ſpeaks the truth) viz. That Adam's Covenant was a Covenant of Works, cannot rationally be denied; for as much as Life was implicitly promiſed unto him upon his Obedience, and Death was explicitly p. 53threatn'd in caſe of his Diſobedience; upon theſe terms he was to ſtand or fall. And that the Sinai-Covenant was of the ſame nature, he hath in the ſaid Treatiſe clearly proved, both of them requiring perfect Obedience, and neither of them admitting of Faith in a Redeemer; the Sinai-Covenant commanded perfect Obedience, under the pain of a Curſe; Curſed is every one that continueth not in all things that is written in the Book of the Law to do them, Gal. 3. 10.

It accepted (as he ſhews) of no ſhort Endeavours, nor gave any Strength, and is called a Miniſtration of Death and of Condemnation, 2 Cor. 3. And moreover, 'tis called in expreſs terms, the old Covenant which God made with the Children of Iſrael when he brought them up out of the Land of Egypt, Heb. 8.9. Alſo the new Covenant is ſaid to be directly contrary unto it, or not according to it, but oppoſed thereto, and that there was no Righteouſneſs by it, nor Life: for, as the Apoſtle ſhews, if there had, Chriſt is dead in vain; and beſides, the Apoſtle ſays 'tis done away. Now all theſe things being conſidered, Mr. Flavel, 'tis evident, doth but beat the Air, and darken Counſel; and all that he hath ſaid in his laſt Book in anſwer to that worthy Gentleman Mr. Cary, deſerves no further Anſwer.

Now, ſaith he, that the Covenant of Circumciſion is of the ſame ſtamp, is evident; for tho God promiſed to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed, Gen. 17. 7, 8. as he did alſo in the Sinai-Covenant to the ſame People in the Wilderneſs; yet ſtill it was upon condition of Obedience, with an anſwerable threatning in caſe of Diſobedince, ver. 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 between me and you, and thy p. 54Seed after thee; Every Man-Child ſhall be circumciſed. And, ver. 14. The uncircumciſed Male-Child, whoſe Fleſh of his ſore-Skin is not circumciſed, that Soul ſhall be cut off from his People; he hath broken my Covenant. The ſame terms, ſaith he, with the former. Beſides, 'tis evident that Circumciſion indi…penſibly obliged all that were under it, to a perfect univerſal Obedience to the whole revealed Will of God, as I hinted before, Gal. 5.3.

And as the Terms were the ſame, ſo were the Promiſes; that which was the great Promiſe of the Covenant of Circumciſion, was the Land of Canaan, and God to be their God, in fulfilling that earthly Promiſe to Abraham's Natural Seed, upon the Condition of the keeping that Covenant on their parts.

That which Mr. Flavel hath ſaid in his laſt Reply,Mr. Flavel anſwered, in what he ſays in his Book, p. 217. (in his Book called, A ſuccinct and ſeaſonable Diſcourſe) to Mr. Cary, is mainly to prove that there is but one Covenant of Works, pag. 217, 218, &c.

To which I anſwer, by way of Conceſſion, yet muſt ſay, that Covenant had ſeveral Miniſtrations and Additions, as had alſo the Covenant of Grace; becauſe the Covenant of Works was made with Adam, by which he ſtood in the time of his Innocency, juſtified and accepted by virtue thereof.

Could not God give forth a ſecond Miniſtration or Tranſcript of his Righteous and Holy Law; though not to Juſtification, yet to aggravate his Sin, and ſo to his juſt Condemnation▪ And doth not St. Paul aſſert the ſame thing, Rom. 3.19, 20. compared with Rom. 7.13. That Sin by the Commandment (or Law) might become exceeding ſinful? So Gal. 3.19.

Nay, I will affirm always generally, when the Scriptures of the New-Teſtament ſpeak of the p. 55Old Covenant, or firſt Covenant,The Sinai Covenant, called the Old or firſt Covenant in the Scripture. or Covenant of Works, it paſſes by in ſilence the Covenant made with Adam; and more immediately and directly applies it to the Sinai-Covenant, and to the Covenant of Cirrumciſion, as all careful Readers, who read the Epiſtles to the Romans, Galathians, and to the Hebrews, may clearly find. But to proceed, Though we ſay there is but one Covenant of Grace, yet it is evident there were ſeveral diſtinct Miniſtrations or Additions of it; yet we ſay, the Promiſe of the Goſpel, or Goſpel-Covenant, was the ſame in all Ages, in reſpect of things promiſed, with the Nature and Quality thereof, which is a free and abſolute Covenant, without Works, or any Conditions or foreſeen Acts of Righteouſneſs, or any thing to be done by the Creature, Rom. 4. 5.

The Subſtance and eſſential Part of this Covenant, is Chriſt, Faith, a new Heart,See Mr. Tombs. The New Covenant had divers Additions or Tranſcripts, or divers Miniſtrations. Regeneration, Remiſſion of Sins, Sanctification, Perſeverance, and everlaſting Life. Yet this Evangelical Covenant had divers Forms or Tranſcripts of it, which ſignified thoſe things, and various Sanctions by which it was given forth and confirmed. To Adam the Promiſe was made, under the name of the Seed of the Woman bruiſing the Head of the Serpent; to Enoch, Noah, &c. In other Forms to Abraham, under the name of his Seed, in whom all the Nations of the Earth ſhould be bleſſed. To Moſes, by the name of a great Prophet of his Brethren like unto him; and it was alſo ſignified to him under dark Shadows and Sacrifices. Unto David, under the name of a Succeſſor in his Kingdom. In the New-Teſtament, in plain words, We all with open Face, beholding as in a Glaſs the Glory of the Lord, &c. 2 Cor. 3.18.

But now, becauſe there were ſo many Additions of the Goſpel Promiſe and New-Covenant; are there ſo many New Covenants? this being ſo, p. 56Mr. Flavel hath done nothing to remove Mr. Cary's Arguments, but they ſtand as a Rock. Take another of them.

Arg. 7. Faith not reckoned to Abraham … Circumciſion.That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteouſneſs, could not be a Goſpel-Cov…n…, or a Covenant of Grace. But the Scripture is expreſs, that Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteouſneſs when he was Circumciſed, but in Uncircumciſion, Rom. 4▪ 9, 10. Ergo, The Covenant of Circumciſion was not a Goſpel-Covenant, or a Covenant of Grace.

Arg. 8.That Law or Covenant which is contradiſtinguiſhed, or oppoſed unto the Righteouſneſs of Faith, could not be a Covenant of Faith, or a Goſpel-Covenant.Covenant of Faith, and that of Circumciſion, contradiſtinguiſhed. But the Law or Covenant of Circumciſion is, by the Apoſtle plainly oppoſed to, or contradiſtinguiſhed unto the Righteouſneſs of Faith, Rom. …. 1…. Ergo, The Law, or Covenant of Circu…iſion was not a Goſpel-Covenant. And from hence, Mr. Cary argues thus, By the way (ſaith he) let it be obſerved, in reference to the two foregoing Arguments, which I have already proved that that Covenant that is not of Faith, muſt needs be a Covenant of Works, there b…ing no Medium betwixt them, and conſequently muſt be the ſame for ſubſtance with that made with Adam, and that on Mount Sinai with the Children of Iſrael.

Arg. 9.That Covenant that is plainly repreſented▪ to us in Scripture as a …-Covenant, in and by which there was impoſed ſuch a Yoke upon the Necks of the Jews, Circumciſion a Yoke of Bondage.which neither thoſe in the Apoſtles …me, nor their Fathers were able to bear, could be no other than a Covenant of Works, and not of Grace.

But the Scriptures do plainly repreſent, ſuch was the Nature of the Covenant of Circumciſion, p. 57Acts 15.10. Gal. 5.1, 2, 3. Ergo, The Covenant of Circumciſion was not a Goſpel-Covenant, but a Covenant of Works. Thus Mr. Cary argues alſo. And thus we have proved from God's Word, and ſound Arguments, that the Covenant of Circumciſion was not a Goſpel-Covenant.

Object. But leſt any ſhould think, that we ſhut out all dying Infants from having any Benefit by Chriſt.

I anſwer;Infants ſaved by the Covenant of Redemption, or by Chriſt's Ʋndertakings. I doubt not but God might comprehend them in that glorious Covenant or Compact made between him and our Surety in the Covenant of Redemption; but as I ſaid before, Secret things belong to God.

But let me here add one word or two further, i. e. Circumciſion, you ſay, was a Priviledg; ſo we ſay too; but not ſuch a Priviledg as you do imagine.

1. It doth profit as a Priviledg, becauſe it was given as a Token or Sign to Abraham's natural Seed, that they ſhould have the Land of Canaan for an everlaſting poſſeſſion.

2. As a Token or Sign to them of the giving forth of the Law on Mount Sinai. He dealt his Laws and Statutes to Iſrael, he did not do ſo to any other Nation. This Rite therefore could not be a Goſpel-Rite, nor the Covenant it was a ſign of a Goſpel-Covenant, in which the Gentile Chriſtians are concerned: And thus the Apoſtle argues, Rom. 3. 1. What Advantage then hath th… Jew? or what Profit is there in Circumciſion? ver. 2. Much every way; chiefly, becauſe unto them were committed the Oracles of God. You may ſoon know the Nature of that Covenant made with Abraham's natural Seed; and of Circumciſion, which was a Sign of it: The chiefeſt Priviledg which attended it, was the giving to them, i. e. p. 58the People of Iſrael, the Law of the Ten Commandements.

Circumciſion a Priviledg, on condition of keeping the Law.3. Circumciſion by the Doctrine of St. Paul, was a Priviledg if they kept the Law … for, Circumciſion verily profiteth, if thou keep the Law; but if thou break the Law, thy Circum…iſion is made Ʋncircumciſion, or a Nullity, and profiteth thee nothing, that is, if thou keep not the Law perfectly. And thus ſpeak our late Annotators on the place; If thou [Jew] keep the Law perfectly, to which Circumciſion obligeth, Gal. 5.3. If otherwiſe thou tranſgreſſeſt the Law, thy Circumciſion avails thee nothing, it gives thee no Priviledg above the Uncircumciſed. What is now become (this being ſo) of that mighty Priviledg Abraham's Infant … (as ſuch) had by Circumciſion, if the chief Profit or Priviledg was, becauſe unto them the Law ſhould be given, which could not give Life, but was a Covenant of Works? then the chiefeſt Profit lay not in it, as it was an Ordinance of Initiation into the Church: Sure, had Paul been of your Judgment, he would have rather paſt by that Priviledg, when he ſpoke of Circumciſion, which he calls the chief, and have ſaid, chiefly in that it was a Seal of Infant Church-Memberſhip. But ſince he ſpeaks the quite contrary, who ſhall we believe, you, or the great Apoſtle of the Gentiles? And evident it is, he confirms the ſame Doctrine, Gal. 5.3. For I …ſtify to … Man that is Circumciſed, that he is a D…tor to keep the whole Law. And,

Hence 'tis ſaid to be a Yoke of Bondage, which neither they nor their Fathers could bear, Acts 15. becauſe it obliged them to univer…l Obedience, or to keep the Law perfectly, and brought them under a Curſe if they did not, Gal. 3.10.

p. 59Theſe things conſidered, fully ſhew of what ſtamp and nature Circumciſion was, together with that Covenant to which it did appertain.

I come now to what you further aſſert in the 9th Page of your Book, viz.

That Infants were in Covenant under the Law, and by ſpecial appointment of God, Gen. 17.7. but are not now caſt out by Chriſt under the Goſpel. This differs but little from the old Argument of Mr. Baxter, Sidenham, &c. the latter ſpeaks thus, Infants of Believers were never caſt out of the viſible Church of which they were once.

Anſw. 1. Infants being once Members of the Jewiſh Church,Infants the Members once of the Jewiſh-Church, yet not of the Goſpel-Church. doth not prove they were ever Members of the Goſpel-Church: the Male Infants of God's Prieſts under the old Covenant, when grown up, had other Priviledges: If we muſt call Circumciſion a Priviledg, which the Sons of Chriſt's Miniſters have no right to under the Goſpel, and yet no where in expreſs words in the New-Teſtament excluded from that Priviledg.

2. But I have proved the Covenant for Infants, in Covenanting under the Law, was no Goſpel Covenant, and ſo concerns not our Infants.

3. According to that Maxim, Ownis privatio intimat habitum; you know that every Diſpoſſeſſion implieth a Poſſeſſion. Infants therefore cannot be caſt out of the Goſpel-Church, before it can be proved they were ever admitted. If Mr. Burkitt, or the Athenian Society, or any Men living, can tell us in what viſible Adminiſtration Children were admitted viſible Church-Members before Abraham's days, which was above 2000 Years; and you ſay ſomewhat, you affirm they were always in Covenant.

Mr. Sidenham makes mention of a two-fold being in Covenant; 1. In relation to Election. p. 602. To be in Covenant, In faci… viſibilis Eccleſiae.

To this I anſwer; The Covenant of Circumciſion belonged to the Children of the Fleſh, to Iſhmael and Eſau, as well as Jacob, who were not in the Election of Grace: therefore thoſe who were Circumciſed, were not ſo in Covenant. Children of Unbelievers may be in that ſenſe in Covenant, as well as the Children of Believers; as many of them afterwards prove to be, nay, may be more of them than of the Children of Believers.

2. As touching Infants being in Covenant, In facie viſibilis Eccleſiae, in the face of a viſible Church. I anſwer, Though they were ſo in the Jewiſh Church under the Old Covenant, ſome with Circumciſion were brought in, and ſome without it; yet that Covenant, and Covenant-Seed are (as I have and ſhall yet prove) caſt out, which will be a final Anſwer.

Thus I argue;

Arg. 10. The Old Covenant, and Old Covenant-Seed both caſt out.If the Covenant for incovenanting of Infants was the Old Covenant ſignified by Hagar, and that Covenant-Seed ſignified by Iſhmael, are caſt out, then the natural or fleſhly Seed of Believers are caſt out, or not to be admitted into the Goſpel-Church.

But the Covenant for Incoven…ing of Infants, was the Old Covenant ſignified by Hagar, and that Covenant-Seed ſignified by Iſhmael, are caſt out.

Ergo, The … or fleſhly Seed of Believers are caſt out, or not to be admitted into the Goſpel Church… ſee Gal. 4.22, 23, 24, 25, 26. For it is written, that Abraham had two Sons, the one by a B…nd… woman, the other by a … woman. Ver. 24. Which things are … Alleg…ry; for theſe are the two Covenants, the one from the Mount Sinai, which g…ndereth to Bondage, which is Hagar, &c. Ver. 30. Nevertheleſs, which ſaith the Scripture? Caſt out the p. 61Bond-woman and her Son; for the Son of the Bond-woman ſhall not be Heir with the Son of the Free-woman.

By Hagar is meant, all agree, the Old Covenant; and by caſting her out, is held forth the aboliſhing or taking away of the Old Covenant; He took away the Firſt, that he might eſtabliſh the Second.Heb. 10.9.Heb 10:9

2. By Iſhmael is meant the natural Seed of Abraham; and ſo the natural Seed of all Godly Men of his Race that ſucceeded him, who were Members of that Church; and as the late Annotators note by this place is ſignified, The total Deſtruction of the Jewiſh Church, which conſiſted of Parents and their Children, or the whole Nation of Iſrael, this Church and Church-Seed, and manner of Church-Memberſhip, is caſt out and gone for ever.

Pray read Mr. Cary's Solemn Call, and what I have formerly ſaid in that Book intituled, Gold Reſtn'd; or, Baptiſm in its Primitive Purity, p. 113.

Mr. Cary and we all ſay, That Children were once admitted Members of the Jewiſh Church:The Old Church-ſtate of the Jews is gone. But evident it is, that God hath now quite pulled down and razed that Houſe to the Foundation thereof, I mean that National Church of the Jews, and broke up Houſe-keeping, and turned the Bond-woman and her Son (i. e. the fleſhly Seed, or natural Off-ſpring of Abraham) out of Doors; the natural Branches are broken off, and God hath now built him a new and more glorious and ſpiritual Houſe under the Goſpel, into which he admitted none as his Houſhold-Servants, to dwell in this his Spiritual Family, or Goſpel-Church, but Believers only, or ſuch as profeſs themſelves ſo to be: Yea, 1 Pet. 2.5.1 Pet 2:5(ſaith St. Peter) as lively Stones are built up a ſpiritual Houſe, &c. And that the Old Houſe, the Jewiſh Church-State, with all the Appurtenances, Rites and Priviledges p. 62of it, are aboliſhed, or pulled down, and a new one built and ſet up, into which Infants are not to be admitted; is very evident; Heb. 7.12. For the Prieſthood being changed, there is made of neceſſity a change alſo of the whole Law; which muſt needs include Circumciſion, with all the Appurtenances and Priviledges belonging to it.Infant Church-Memberſhip came in with the Old Covenant, and is gone with it. And therefore as Infant Church-Memberſhip came in with the Law of Circumciſion, and as a direct Part of the Old Covenant, or Old Law, ſo likewiſe plain it is, that it went out and was diſannulled with it.

Take again my former Simily, viz.

What Priviledges ſoever are given to any Perſon by an Act of Parliament, which ſaid Law was to continue in Force ſo long and no longer; then when that time is expired, and another Parliament makes a new Law, where many things are contained that were in the firſt Law: But thoſe divers Priviledg… given to thoſe Perſons in the former Law, are left out in this latter Act; would it not be a piece of Folly for any of them to plead thoſe Priviledges, by virtue of a Law that is gone, and now not in any force? But to come a little nearer the caſe, in a more apt Simile;I had this Simile once before, but becauſe it is ſo full I repeat it. Suppoſe a Man ſhould have a Legacy bequeathed to him, by the Will and Teſtament of his Friend, and yet afterwards his Friend ſees good to make another Will, which is his laſt Will and Teſtament; and in this laſt Will and Teſtament he leaves him quite out, not mentioning his Name, bequeathing no ſuch Legacy to him; would it not be folly in him to ſue for that Legacy left him in the firſt Will and Teſtament:

Sir, the Caſe is thus in hand, we read of two Covenants or Teſtaments, an Old and a New, a Firſt and a Second: Now in the Old Will, or Old-Teſtament, Infants were admitted to the p. 63Priviledg of Church-Memberſhip, in that Legal or National Church of the Jews; And National Church-Priviledges are now made null and void by the Goſpel-Covenant, which is Chriſt's laſt Will and Teſtament, in which Infant Church-Memberſhip is quite left out, their Names not being mentioned, as having right to any Goſpel-Ordinance, as Baptiſm, the Lord's Supper, &c. If we would know the Mind of God herein, we muſt of neceſſity have re…ourſe to Chriſt's laſt Will and Teſtament, ſince the Goſpel is ſo called, and that the firſt, or old is taken away, and there is no Man can prove any one old Rite that did appertain to the natural Off-ſpring of Abraham, or Believers, remains to them, which is not mentioned in the new or laſt Will and Teſtament of Jeſus Chriſt; 'tis plain they had (or leaſt wiſe) ſome of them other external Priviledges beſides that of Circumciſion; and yet I ſee no Man contend for any one Rite but only this they call the Seal of the Covenant. Why might not Miniſters plead for all their Sons to have right to the Miniſtry,The Athenian Society's firſt Query more fully anſwered. ſince that Priviledg was given them in the Old-Teſtament? And for all Male-Children that open the Womb, to be holy to the Lord? which Bleſſing belonged to them under the Law, and alſo plead for the Tenths and Firſt-fruits? &c.

I deſire you and the Athenian Society carefully to conſider this, and weigh what we have ſaid; we have ſhewed you and them how Infants who were once in Covenant, that is, in the Jewiſh or old Covenant, are caſt out, or left out; for indeed they were never admitted into the New-Teſtament-Church; but ſince they are not put in, and the old Covenant and old Church-Memberſhip being caſt out and gone, in vain is it for any to plead their Right by an abrogated Law.

p. 64Beſides, you ſay Circumciſion was the Seal of that Covenant, by virtue of which Infants had a Right to Church-Memberſhip; if ſo, 'tis evident that Covenant is gone, becauſe 'tis cancelled; for the tearing off; or breaking off the Seal, we all look …pon the cancelling the Covenant: That Circumciſion (the Seal, as you call it) is broken off, I am ſure you cannot deny: Sir, what is then become of your Covenant for incovenanting Children?

Object. But may be you will object, and ſay, that you do not contend for that particular Rite or Inſtitution, but of a viſible Church-Memberſhip of Infants perpetual in all Ages, and an indefinite Seal.

1. Reply; How doth it appear the Infants of the Godly before Abraham's time, had any right to viſible Church-Memberſhip? or what Seal had they?

2. Such a Right is a meer Figment, like Idea … ; all Inſtitutions merely poſitives, are of ſuch a Rite in particular; and an initial Seal is meerly poſitive, as Signs that are not natural, but by the Will of the Appointer; and therefore there is no initial Seal indefinite.

Sir, now you have no way left, but to ſee, ſince the old Covenant is cancelled, whether you can find the Baptiſm of Infants in the New Teſtament, and there taught, laid down and prefix'd to it, as Circumciſion was to the old? Do that, and you do all; do not that, and all you do is juſt nothing.

But you in Pag. 9. raiſe up many Abſurdities that follow this, that Infants are caſt out, or not taken into the Goſpel-Church.

Then Infants, ſay you, are in a worſe condition ſince the coming of Chriſt than they were before, and are Loſers by him inſtead of Gainers, altho the number more, &….

p. 65Anſw. You ſhould, before you brought this pretended Abſurdity upon us, have ſhewed what Advantage did accrue to Infants by Circumciſion, and how that added to the goodneſs of their Condition; it put them, 'tis plain, to a great deal of Pain; and the Apoſtle ſays, it was a Yoke of Bondage, which neither they nor their Fathers could bear.

Being Members of that Church, did not ſave them, nor purge away Original Sin, &c. tho I doubt not it ſerved for the end God appointed it; yet I ſay, how did it add to the goodneſs of Infants Condition?

2. Then, ſay you, the Privileges of the Goſpel are ſtraiter and narrower than thoſe of the Law.

Anſw. If you once imagine, that the outward or external Privileges of the Goſpel are larger,External Privileges under the Law greater than ours under the Goſpel. or ſo large as thoſe were under the Law, you are greatly miſtaken. The Jews and Jewiſh Teachers or Prieſts had many external Privileges which Chriſtians and Miniſters under the Goſpel have not; they had a lovely Country promiſed to them, a Land that flowed with Milk and Hony: outward Peace, Riches, and gathering of Wealth, were Privileges belonging to them; but we under the Goſpel have no ſuch Privileges, but are to expect Perſecution, and what not.

Yet our Privileges are better and greater, tho more ſpiritual, 'tis a Covenant eſtabliſhed upon better Promiſes: our Children, when grown up, ſit under the clear and glorious Light of the Goſpel which they and theirs then had held forth but in dark Shadows.

Moreover, Then the Church-State was confin'd to the natural Seed of Abraham, &c. But now all in all Nations who repent and believe the Goſpel, the poor Gentiles are now become Fellow-Heirs indeed: our ſpiritual Priviledges do infinitely excel theirs, but not in Externals, p. 66now greater Infuſions of the holy Spirit.

O Sir, what Priviledges had the Gentiles or their Children then? is not the caſe mended with us?

3. You ſay, If it were the Will of God Infants under the Goſpel ſhould be reckoned as out of his Covenant, who were in Covenant, then it follows, ſay you, that our Saviour was unfaithful, or forgetful to his Church, in that he never acquainted her with this Alteration; but not one word by way of Prohibition do we find in all the New Teſtament, from whence we may conclude, that Chriſt's not repealing the Practice of initiating Infants, nor forbidding their Admiſſion into the Church by Baptiſm, &c.

Anſw. 1. I anſwer, had it been the Will of God, that Infants ſhould under the Goſpel be admitted into the Church by Baptiſm, Chriſt you might rather ſay, had been forgetful or unfaithful in not giving the leaſt intimation of his Mind and Pleaſure therein, who declared all things plainly from the Father, and was faithful as a Son over his own Houſe.

2. That which is not contained in his laſt Will and Teſtament in this and other matters, is ſufficient to declare his Mind and Will in the Negative. And ſo you know 'tis in all laſt Wills and Teſtaments among Men, if it be not expreſſed in the Affirmative, it needs not be expreſſed in the Negative; and if not becauſe 'tis not forbidden it may be done, ſo may a hundred things more; nay, many Jewiſh Rites and Popiſh Innovations too, for where are they forbid? The ſum therefore of our Anſwer to all you ſay upon this account, is this; The Privileges which are Rites, Ordinances or Sacraments, are not ſo many as you would have, or ſo many as the Jews of old had, nor are they to be p. 67adminiſtred according as you fancy or approve of, or according to your Reaſonings, but according to God's expreſs Appointment. Rightly doth Mr. Ball in his forementioned Book ſpeak, Poſit. 3, 4. p. 38. But in whatſoever Circumciſion and Baptiſm do agree or differ,Mr. Ball's Poſit. 3, 4▪ p. 38. we muſt look to the Inſtitution, and neither ſtretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord had made it; for he is the Inſtituter of the Sacraments according to his good Pleaſure; and it is our part to learn of him, both to whom, how, and to what end the Sacraments are to be adminiſtered, how they agree, and wherein they differ: in all which we muſt affirm nothing, but what God hath taught us, and as he hath taught us.

Were it not thus, how could we deny or oppoſe the Papiſts ſeven Sacraments? or condemn Salt, Oil Spittle to be uſed in Baptiſm, which they uſe in it, ſeeing theſe are not forbid? But well ſaith Tertullian, Is it lawful, becauſe it is not forbidden? 'tis therefore not lawful, becauſe 'tis not commanded.

You ſay, Pag. 10. before you end this Argument, Let me ſuggeſt one thing more to your Conſiderations, namely, What a mighty Stumbling-Block this Doctrine of the Anabaptiſts lays in the way of the Jews Converſion to Chriſtianity? Will this, ſay you, encourage a Jew's Converſion to embrace the Religion of Jeſus, to tell him of the high and glorious Privileges that he ſhall be intereſted in himſelf upon his believing on him, but for his Children they are caſt out?

Anſw. Did this ſtumble them in the Apoſtolical Days, who were told, that Circumciſion availed nothing, nor Ʋncircumciſion? the truth is, if Circumciſion availed nothing, but was a Yoke of Bondage, then why ſhould that ſtumble them? p. 68It might be a greater Stumbling-block in their way, to tell them their Church-State, and all their Privileges are now gone, and now they muſt not look upon themſelves better than the Gentiles; no more Scepter in Judah, no Land of Canaan, no Temple, no High-Prieſt, the Levites Sons, as ſuch, now no more Miniſters, no Succeſſion of Prieſt-hood: What of all this, when they hear of better Privileges for them? And that their Infants who die, may go to Heaven, tho not circumciſed nor baptized? and if they live to be Men and Women, and do believe, (or God doth pleaſe to call them) the Promiſe of Pardon of Sin, and of the holy Spirit is to them, and that they ſhall be ſaved, Acts 2. 39. Are not they and all others told, that old things are paſſed away, and all things are become new? The old Covenant and Church of the Jews diſſolved.&c. 2 Cor. 5.16. Wherefore henceforth we know no Man after the Fleſh: it ſeems then that heretofore there had been a knowledg of Perſons after the Fleſh; and 'tis plain there was, that becauſe the Jews were of the natural or fleſhly Seed of Abraham, and were therefore all of them admitted to the Privilege of external Church-Memberſhip, while others were exempted: But we ſee the Apoſtle reſolves henceforth to diſclaim any ſuch Value, Eſteem, Preference or Knowledg of them, or any others, upon the account of meer fleſhly Deſcent. And to this very purpoſe immediately ſubjoins in the following Verſe, Therefore if any Man be in Chriſt, See Mr. Cary's Solemn Call.he is a new Creature; old things now are paſt away, and all things are become new: the old Church and old Church-memberſhip, Privileges, Rites and Ordinances, and a new Church-State, new Ordinances, new Rites, a new Seed, and a new way of Introduction unto the participation of Goſpel-Priviledges and Church-memberſhip; and if this ſhould ſtumble them, who can help it? We know p. 69they have ſtumbled upon as bad Rocks as this. Moreover, denying Infants any right to Goſpel-Ordinances, cannot fill the Mouths of Jewiſh Children with clamorours and paſſionate Complaints againſt Chriſtianity, becauſe they could not ſee Jewiſh Children had ſuch benefit by Circumciſion as you intimate: no, no, they muſt yield to the Soveraign Will of the great Lord, and plead for no more Privileges, nor any otherwiſe than he ſees good to ordain and appoint.

I am ſure, if what you ſay was true,Pedo-baptiſts Argument for Believers Seed, &c. of ill conſequence. it is enough to fill the Mouths of poor Unbelievers Children among us who are Gentiles, with clamorous Complaints againſt their Parents, if they did regard what you ſay: and doubtleſs there are more of them, I mean more Children born of Ungodly Parents, than ſuch born of Godly Parents: And what may they ſay, and how may they expoſtulate their own Condition? Alas! alas! ſad is our State, our Parents were wicked and ungodly People, and we are by that means left of God; to us belongs no Covenant, no Sacraments, nor hopes of Mercy; God hath taken none but the Children of Godly Perſons into Covenant! We were baptized, alas, but had no right to it; our Condition is as bad as the State of the Children of Pagans and Turks! Sir, if People did conſider well the Purport of your Doctrine, they muſt needs have their Hearts riſe againſt you: Nay all or moſt Children may be in a doubt, whether their Parents were truly godly, and ſo in Covenant or not; for if not, you muſt fly to ſome other Argument to prove their Baptiſm and Church-Privileges, than that of their Parents being in Covenant. True, the caſe under the Law was another thing; for if their Parents were Jews, or the natural Seed of Abraham, whether godly or not, yet they knew they had right to thoſe p. 70external Privileges. And ſo much to your Abſurdities, and they are returned on your own Head.

In pag. 11. you lay down your Arguments to prove the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of Grace. 1. From the Language and Expreſſion of it. 2. From the Duration of it. 3. From the Bleſſings by it.

Mr. Burkits firſt Argument to prove the Covenant of Circumciſion a Goſpel-Covenant.1. Your firſt Note is this; The Language and Expreſſion of it, Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God unto thee, and to thy Seed after thee. Now (ſay you) is not this a pure Goſpel-Phraſe, and ſhews it to be a Covenant with Abraham in Chriſt? I pray, how comes the Almighty God (who upon the Breach of the Covenant of Works made with us in Adam, became our enraged Enemy) to be a God unto fallen Man, any other ways than by a Mediator? &c.

Anſw. 1. I have proved that Covenant made with Abraham, was a mixt Covenant; and I deny not but the Covenant of Grace made in Chriſt was promiſed to Abraham, which takes in only the true Spiritual Seed, and to all thoſe God is in a ſpecial manner become a God unto.

All God's Covenanting Tranſactions ſince the Fall, are by means of the Mediator.2. Evident it is, all manner of God's Covenanting Tranſactions ſince the Fall, of what nature ſoever, have been no other ways, than through the interpoſition of a Mediator; as that with Noah about the Flood, &c. Gen. 9.8, 9. in that God ſhewed himſelf to be the God of the Old World; and ſo he is by Creation and Providence, &c. Yet it doth not follow, that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace, or that God hath received them into ſpecial favour with himſelf. So when God gave out that fiery Law on Mount Sinai, he told them, Exod. 20.2. I am the Lord your God, &c. This was the very Introduction to that part of the Law which was p. 71written in Stone; which nevertheleſs the Apoſtle expreſsly calls it, A Miniſtration of Death and Condemnation, 2 Cor. 3.7, 8. and that it killed,The Sinai Covenant a Covenant of Works. and could not give Life. Now muſt this be a Covenant of Faith or Grace? How is it then that the Apoſtle Paul ſays, The Law is not of Faith; also the Covenant of Grace giveth Life?

But I argue thus, The Law could not give Life; Ergo, The Law was not a Covenant of Grace.

And ſo much to your firſt Note, or Obſervation.

2. Your ſecond Obſervation is,Mr. Burkits 2d Arg. The Duration and Continuance of this Covenant made with Abraham, the Lord calls it an Everlaſting Covenant, &c.

Anſw. You might have left out this, only it helps to add to the number; you have anſwered this your ſelf, in ſaying, The Hebrew word for Everlaſting, ſometimes ſignifies no more than a long continuance of Time. Sir, We know it very well; and thoſe Moſaical Rites that ended in Chriſt, are ſaid to be for Everlaſting. But when the Lord ſaith, he will be a Perſon's God, for ever and ever, or everlaſtingly, it denotes his being ſo to all Eternity: But God never ſaid he would be the God everlaſtingly, or to all Eternity, to all who were concern'd in the Covenant of Circumciſion: Nor was he Iſhmael's God ſo, though Circumciſed; and has he not caſt off that whole Nation of the Jews, with whom he made that Covenant? and is not ſo their God now, though he is, I confeſs, to all Eternity, or everlaſtingly, the God of all Abraham's Spiritual Seed, viz. all true Believers in Chriſt.

3. Your third and laſt Argument or Note,Mr. Burkits 3d Arg. to prove the Covenant of Circumciſion a Covenant of Grace, is taken from the Benefits and Bleſſings conveyed by it; To be a God unto him, and to his Seed, and that everlaſtingly, is a moſt comprehenſive p. 72Goſpel-Bleſſing; for hereby God gives a Perſon an Intereſt in all that he is, and in all that he has, ſo far as can be communicated to a Creature. This Bleſſing promiſed to Abraham, comprehends Chriſt, Grace, Holineſs here, and Glory and Happineſs hereafter. And accordingly we find the Apoſtle, Heb. 8. uſes the ſame Expreſſion with this of God's to Abraham; I will be to them a God, and they ſhall be to me a People.

Anſw. This is idem, & bis idem, culpandum eſt, the ſame again which is already anſwered. Sir, Is God everlaſtingly a God to Abraham, and to all his fleſhly Seed; and to Believers, who are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, and to all their fleſhly Seed; I ſay, is this ſo? Does God give himſelf, all he is, and all he has, to every Believer, and to all his fleſhly Seed? Have all their Children, or every one of them, Chriſt, Grace, Holineſs here, and Glory and eternal Happineſs hereafter? Or are you not to be juſtly blamed thus to jumble things confuſedly together? 'Tis true,The happy State of all in the Covenant of Grace. the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, and all his true Spiritual Seed, (who are the Elect) have Intereſt in all God is; and has ſo far as it can be communicated to Creatures; and we know they have Chriſt, (as well as are Chriſt's, as Paul notes, Gal. 4.) and Grace here, and ſhall have Glory hereafter: But a multitude of Abraham's natural Off-ſpring, and the natural Off-ſpring of Believers, have neither Chriſt, nor Grace, nor ſhall be ſaved, but periſh eternally. Therefore this may ſerve for an Anſwer, with what I have proved before, touching the Nature of that two-fold Covenant made with Abraham.

To what you ſpeak in the ſecond place, pag. 12, 13. as alſo in your third Reply, viz. If the Covenant which God made with Abraham, be p. 73one and the ſame with the Covenant of Grace; then our Infant-Seed have right to Baptiſm.

Anſw. You had this before, and I have already anſwered it, only I ſhall add a Paſſage or two of Martin Luther.

Paul therefore concludeth with this Sentence, (ſaith he) They which are of Faith,Mart. Luther on Gal. 3. p. 115.Gal 3 are the Children of Abraham: That corporal Birth, or carnal Seed, make not the Children of Abraham before God: As if he would ſay, There is none before God accounted as the Child of this Abraham (who is the Servant of God, whom God hath choſen and made Righteous by Faith) thrô carnal Generation, but ſuch Children muſt be given before God, as he was a Father, but he was a Father of Faith, was juſtified, and pleaſed God; not becauſe he could beget Children after the Fleſh, not becauſe he had Circumciſion under the Law, but becauſe he believed in God, He therefore that will be a Child of the believing Abraham, muſt alſo himſelf believe, or elſe he is not a Child of the Elect, the believing and the juſtified Abraham; but only the begetting Abraham, which is nothing elſe but a Man conceived, born and wrap'd in Sin, without the forgiveneſs of Sins, without Faith, without the Holy Ghoſt, as another Man is, and therefore condemned: Such alſo are the Children carnally begotten of him, having nothing in them like unto their Father, but Fleſh and Blood, Sin and Death, therefore theſe are alſo damned. This glorious boaſting then, we are the Seed of Abraham, is to no purpoſe. Thus far, and much more to the ſame purpoſe he excellently dilates upon.

Mr.Perkins on the Galatians, Perkins, Vol. 2. cap. 3 on Galat. p. 242.concerning the Covenant made with Abraham; The Seed of Abraham (ſaith he) is the Seed, not of the Fleſh, but of the Promiſe: And this Seed is, p. 74firſt, Chriſt, and then all that believe in Chriſt; for all theſe are given to Abraham by Promiſe and Election of God. Moreover, this Seed is not many, (as Paul obſerveth) but one. It is objected, That the word Seed is a Name collective, and ſignifies the whole Poſterity of Abraham Anſw. It doth ſometimes, (ſaith he) but not always: for Eve ſaith of S…th, God hath given me another Seed. Again, (he ſaith) this one particular Seed of Abraham, is Chriſt Jeſus; here by the name Chriſt, firſt and principally the Mediator; and then, ſecondly, all Jews and Gentiles believing, that are fit and grafted into Chriſt by Faith. St. Paul ſaith, The Children of the Fleſh, theſe are not the Children of God; but the Children of the Promiſe are the Seed of Abraham, Rom. 9.8.

Now this Covenant we grant thus made with Abraham, is one and the ſame with the Covenant of Grace; but what does this ſignify to the Infants, or fleſhly Seed of Believers, as ſuch? And thus I ſhall paſs to your next Argument, pag. 14.