Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 63
SECT. LXIII. That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Works, and not of Evangelical grace, and that the Iewish Church and State were but one body.
A Third objection against Mr C. his sixth Conclusion is, they were under the old and first covenant which was formerly, &c. and not under the new, or in the covenant of grace.
To this he answers, That even Sinai covenant could not disanull that covenant formerly made with them in Abraham, and being much later than it, Gal: 3.16, 17. And after, when the covenant is said to be new and old, it is not divisio generis in species, but subjecti in adjuncta. So the phrases [first and second] Heb. 9, note not two Testaments specifically different, but numerically. Besides, it's called a first and second Testament, scil▪ in order of succession: so the former is said to be faulty comparatively, not absolutely. In a word, in way and manner of dispensation, that was different from the covenant now dispensed in respect of ceremony of administration, not in the essentials.
Reply, The answer of Mr C. I conceive is reduced to these two points, 1. That the Jewes were under both covenants, that of Sinai, and that of Abraham: 2. That these two covenants the first and the second, the New and Old, mentioned Heb: 8, & 9. differ in the way and manner of dispensation, in respect of ceremony of administration, not in the essentials.
To which I reply, That this is contrary to the Apostles supposition, that the same men which were under the covenant of mount Sinai, should be under the promise: For he supposeth them to be cast out, Gal: 4.21, 30, and saith, v. 31, we are not children of the bondwoman, that is, under the Law, v: 23, but of the free, that is, the promise. Yea, cha: 5.18, If yee be led by the Spirit ye are not under the Law. The like whereto is said, Rom: 6:14, Gal: 3, 10, 11, 12, I deny not but that the Iews who were under the covenant of grace, that is, believers in Christ were both under the obedience of the Law, and the hope of the Gospel, and under the covenant of the Law so far as concerned their prosperity in Canaan, but not in respect of righteousness and life, or any other Ecclesiasticall privilege.
As for the other part of the answer, I find Mr Perkins on Gal: 5, 24, 25, saying it is a main pillar in Popish Religion, that the Law of Moses and the Gospel are all one in substance, &c. Which I know not well how to distinguish from Mr C. his position, that the new and old covenant differ not in essentials. But let's examine it, The essentials of a thing are the genus and difference: It is granted that the new and old, first and second covenant differ not in the genus, no more doth the covenant with Adam in innocency with Noah after the Flood, they are all covenants of God: But that there is no essentiall difference distinguishing between the covenant at mount Sinai, and the new covenan…; and that they differ in way and manner of dispensation, in respect of ceremony of administration, not in the essentials, …s I am assured, a manifest error both against Scripture, and I think the Authors themselves, though not only Mr C. here, but also the Assembly Confession of Faith, c. 7. Art. 5. saith, The covenant of grace was administred, &c. and is called the old Testament, which to be meant of the covenant of mount Sinai, I conceive from these words of Mr M: D…f…nce page 188. Alas Sir, why do you run into this needless and erroneous digression? I said in my Sermon that the Morall Law was added 430 years after the covenant with Abraham, not as a part of that covenant, but as a School-master to whip them to Christ, that they finding the impossibility of keeping the Law, might more earnestly long after Christ, exhibited in those shadowes of rites and sacrifices, &c. But to say that this covenant mentioned in the eighth of the Hebrews, was the covenant of works, is a most erroneous doctrine: Look into the text and you shall find that the covenant which is there mentioned (which God finds fault with, and calls the first covenant, in opposition to this better covenant) had ordinances of divine worship, had a Sanctuary, a Tabernacle,, Priests and High-priests, Sacrifices and other rites belonging to the administration of it. Sir, was this the covenant of works? I hope you will not own it in your next.
Mr Anthony Burgess, another Assembly man, Vindic. Legis, Lect. 24, maintains with a distinction, the Law at mount Sinai to be a covenant of grace, Like whereto are the opinions of Mr John Ball of the covenant of grace. ch. 7, page 102, Dr. Samuel Boulton, True bounds of Christian freedom, page 130▪ &c. Mr Thomas Blake, Vindic. Foeder. c. 24, &c. But as in other things there is much dictating besides the Scriptures, in the received writings of men, so in this. Mr C. saith, The difference between the old and new Covenant, is in the way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration, not in the essentials.
Concerning which it is to be observed, that to dispense is to lay out as a Steward doth lay out money. To dispense a Covenant may be understood either by making it known, or performing the things promised on either side; the same may be conceived to be meant by administration. The ceremony of administration I understand not what it is, unless by it be meant the rites of the Old and New Testament. This then seems to be either all or the main difference Mr C. makes between the covenant made with Israel at mount Sinai, and the new covenant confirmed in the blood of Christ with Jewes and Gentiles; that the former had Circumcision, the Passover, Sacrifices, &c. by which the covenant of grace was made, or the things promised conferred, the new covenent had Baptism and the Lords Supper. A Covenant is a promise, and so an action; and when mutuall there's a reciprocall action. I know not what other predicament to place it in. The essentials of a thing are in corporeall substances, matter and forme, in other beings those things which in proportion to them shew what it is, and wherein it is differenced from others under the same genus, which essentials the Logicians call the genus and difference. The essentiall difference of one action from another, is the terminus or effect, as heating from cooling, in the object, subject, end. A Covenant being essentially a promise, differs essetntially from another promise, when the things promised are different, as the promise of land differs essentially from the promise of life; and when the conditions are different, though the things promised be the same, as the promise of land to one for so much money is essentially different from the promise of land upon the condition of thanks. The covenant of works and of grace, are terms not used in Scripture. But Rom. 11.5, 6, Election by grace and of works, Rom 4, 4, it is said, to him that worketh the reward is reckoned not according to grace, but according to debt, Ephes. 2.8, 9, Yee are saved by grace, not of works, 2 Tim: 1.9, who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, Titus 3.5. He saved us not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his own mercy. Yet I think the distinction right and good of the covenant of grace and the covenant of works. And the difference between them is, 1. in the thing promised, the one promiseth life upon obedience to the Law given, but not strength to do it; the other promiseth the Spirit to inable for doing. 2. in the condition the one promiseth life upon perfect obedience, the other upon faith in Christ. These differences are confirmed from sundry Texts, Rom: 10.5. 2 Cor. 3.6, 10, Gal. 3.10, 12, 22, &c. I think in a promise the different end of the promiser makes not an essential difference. I think it is the same promise essentially when one promiseth land upon condition of giving thanks, to shew his bounty; and another to engage him to his party, though the ends be different. My determination in this Writing is as it was in the former Exam. page 102. That the new Covenant is not the old renewed, but that they differ specifically in the essentials, and not onelyonly in Rites, and that the Covenant at mount Sinai was a covenant of works: And this I prove,
1. From that Text which here Mr. C. Mr M. the Assembly and others stand so much upon, to wit, Heb 8, 8, 9. & 10. The old covenant there meant, is the covenant made with Israel at mount Sinai, which appears in that it was the covenant which God made with the Fathers of the Iewes in the day that he took them by their hand to bring them out of the land of Aegypt. Now that covenant differs essentially more than in Rites from the new covenant; yea, as a covenant of works is diffrent from the covenant of Evangelical grace, …. Because the new covenant is said to be established or setled as a Law …n better promises, Heb: 8.6. Now if the promises be better promises, it is because they be of better things▪ and if of better things then of different things, and so the difference is more than in Rites, yea it is in essentials: for promises of different things essentially, make different covenants essentially. And that the difference is in the meliority of promises: and that these promises be of better things, is apparent from the recitall of the promises, Heb: ….10, 11, 12. & 10. ….…7, where also by the offering of Christ, that Testament is said to be of force. By this also the covenant at mount Sinai is proved not to be the covenant of Gospel-grace: For then it had had as good promises, yea the same promises. 2. If it had been the covenant of grace, they had abode in it. For that is a covenant, which they that are in continue in. But in the old covenant, or that at mount Sinai they abode not, v. 9. Ergo, &c. 3. That is not the covenant of grace which is faulty, or (which is the meaning of …t) occasioning God to complain, for foreign, which we translate Faultless, is that which is without complaint, and the meaning is, the first covenant occasioned complaint of the Israelites, as it is v. 8. foreign, complaining of them (he doth not say it, as Mr. M. seems to have understood it, as if God had found fault with the covenant; that's a mistake, he should then have found fault with his own act) he saith, therefore for remedy of such complaint and jarring, a second covenant was established, which should be foreign, plaintless, and therefore the covenant of grace takes away occasion of complaint, or finding fault, because it provides for them to whom it was made, that they should not occasion God to complain by their breaking of it, as the first covenant had done, which was faulty, occasioning God to complain in that it was broken. Mr. C. saith, it was faulty comparatively, not absolutely, and his meaning seems to be that the first covenant was faulty because of its imperfect manner of teaching the Gospel. But he is therein mistaken: For, as I shewed from the words, the first covenant is said to be faulty, because of the complaint of God against the Israelites, as not keeping …t, as the holy Ghost expounds the word foreign, v. 7. by the expression v. 8. proving it not to have been faultless, that is, without complaint, because he complained of them, v. 8, to wit, that they abode not in it. v. 9. which if it had been the covenant of Evangelical grace, they should certainly have done, because that provides for the keeping and perseverance in it, by writing the lawes in their hearts, and forgiving their sins.
2. The same is further proved from chap. 12.18, &c. where 1. the covenant at mount Sinai is set down as given with horror, to shew that it begat nothing but affrightments even in the best Moses himself, whereas the covenant of grace begets joy and gladness before God. 2. It is said the Hebrew Christians were not come to, therefore it was not the covenant of grace. 3. That they were come to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, v. 24. in opposition to Moses the Mediator of the old.
3. From ch. 10, 29. where the blood of the new covenant is said to sanctifie. And ch. 13.20. Christ brings back the sheep by the blood of he everlasting covenant. This everlasting covenant is that which was confirmed by the blood of Christ oppositly, or in contradistinction to that which was confirmed by the blood of Calves and Goats, Heb. 9.19. Therefore that covenant was not everlasting, nor confirmed by Christs blood, and consequen…y not the Covenant of grace
4. The same is the express doctrine of Paul, Gal. 4.24. where he saith, Agar and Sara are two covenants, and he saith, Agar, or one Covenant, was▪ from mount Sinai, and that this genders to bondage, and is in bondage with her children, v. 25. calls them that are under it such as are begotten according to the flesh, v. 29. to be cast out, v. 30. and opposeth it to Sarah, that is, the promise, the Jerusalem above who is free, mother of all believers, begetting children of the promise, born after the spirit, children of the free woman. Now what is this but the covenant of grace, and the other of works. For the covenant of grace never genders to bondage, nor is in bondage with her children, who are not according to the flesh to be cast out, but free, the mother of believers, bringing forth children of the promise born after the Spirit, children of the free woman. Therefore the covenant at mount Sinai, was not the same with the covenant of Gospel-grace, but a covenant of works.
5. In the same Epistle, chap. 3.12. he saith, the Law is not of Faith, that is the covenant of the Law doth not promise righteousness before God upon faith, but by works▪ v. 13. therefore the covenant of the Law was not the covenant of Gospel-grace.
6. The same is expressed v. 16, 17, 18, 21, where the Law is opposed to the promises, the inheritance is denied to be by it, or that it could give life, or righteousness by it, therefore it is not the covenant of grace, for life, righteousness and inheritance is by it. The like is Gal: 2.21. Rom: 4.13, 14, 15, 16, & 3, 20, 21.
7. From Rom 10.5. where the Apostle expresly saith, that Moses described the righteousness of the law that the man that doth them shall live in them, and this he makes opposite to the word of Faith: whence it follows it was the covenant of works, which was the Law: For what is the covenant of workes but that which promiseth life by doing the Law? Nor doth it make against it to say, the Apostle, v. 4. saith, Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth: for in whatsoever sense that be meant, yet it is certain the denomination of a covenant of grace or of works, is not taken from the end of the Covenanter, or the consequent on the covenant or command, but the promise and condition; therefore what ever end God had in giving the law, or what event soever fell out upon it, yet the covenant of the law promising righteousness upon perfect obedience to the law, and not otherwise, it is to be termed a covenant of works, not of Gospel-grace.
8. From Rom. 6.14. where the Apostle saith, Sin shall not have dominion …ver you, for ye are not under the law, but under grace, which supposeth that they who are under the law, are not under grace; which cannot be understood of the command of the law, for men may be and are under the command of it, and yet under grace: therefore by the law is meant the covenant of the law, and then they which are under the covenant of the law, are not under grace, which they should be, i… the covenant of the law were generally the same with the covenant of grace.
9. From Rom: 7.4. We are dead to the Law by the body of Christ, v. 6, We are delivered, or as I would read it, we are discharged (foreign) from the law, even the Moral law, v. 7. not as a rule of obedience, but as a Husband, or Covenant, on which we depend for maintenance, help, supply, sentence, countenance, reward. But if the law were the covenant of grace, we should not be dead to it, or delivered from it: Ergo.
10. From 2 Cor. 3, 6, the covenant of the law is called the letter which killeth, opposite to the new covenant in which the Spirit which quickneth is ministred, and v 7. he expresly calls it the ministration of death graven in stones, the ministration of condemnation, v. 9, opposite to the ministration of righteousness, of which Paul denies himself to be a Minister, therefore it was not the covenant … Evangelical grace, but of works.
Yea Mr Cobbet himself, page 65. The covenant in Horeb had the stipulation of. Do so and live, not so in the covenant of grace that was imbondaging, shewed the way of worship, gave not grace to act it, was against us, &c. The Assembly Confess. of Faith, c. 7. Art. 2. ch. 19, Art. …, cite Gal: 3.12, Rom. 10▪ 5, Gal. 3, 10, which speak of the covenant of the law to shew the covenant of workes made with Adam, which shews they take them, to be the same, or heed not what they cite, chap. 19. Art. 6. True believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, not as due to them by the Law as a Covenant of works. Greater Catech: page 25. The regenerate are delivered from the Morall law as a covenant of works. Yea Mr M. his words denying the law to be part of the covenant made to Abraham, but as a Schoolmaster to whip them to Christ, impossible to be kept (which are not to be …rid of the covenant of grace) doth in effect make it the covenant of works. Mr Anthony Burgess when he distinguisheth vindic. legis, lect. 24. pag. 223, saith the law considered more largly, as that whole Doctrine delivered on mount Sinai with the preface and promises adjoyned, and all things that may be reduced to it, was a covenant of grace, but more strictly, as it is an abstracted rule of righteousness holding forth life upon no terms but perfect obedience abstracted from Moses his administration of it; was not of grace but of works.
In which words, he denies not that it held forth life upon no terms but perfect obedience, and so it was a Covenant not of grace but of works. 2 he shews not that it was given as a Covenant upon any other terms, or that it did propound or promise righteousness before God upon condition of faith in Christ: but only tels us, take the Law for the whole doctrine &c. Which is in effect all one as to say, The covenant God made was of works, yet withal he delivered many things, which shewed he would also have them look at Christ, (which we grant true) but no where that he promised righteousness through Christ in that Covenant Mr. Blake Vindic. Faed c 24. pag. 174. the Law is taken sometimes in that strict sense as containing a Covenant of works and holding forth life upon condition of perfect obedience. So Rom. 10.5, 6. and 3.21, 22. Gal 3.18. It were no hard matter to shew many of Protestant Writers who call the Covenant of the Law at mount Sinai the Covenant of works, but these suffice. What is objected to the contrary is not from the tenor of the cov…nant, but from some adjuncts of it. as 1 because there were sacrafices & other rites appointed, it must be a Covenant of grace. Answer▪ the sacrafices as they were commanded, so they did belong to the Covenant of works. But as God used them as shadows and types of Christ to come, so they signifie Gods purpose o… Gospel-grace in Christ, but by another Covenant, not that at mount Sinai. 2 Gods end was not to give life by the Law, but to direct to Christ. Answer 1 I grant the first and thence it appears he intended it not for a covenant of grace. 2. it directed not to Christ as it was propounded Covenant-wise, but by accident in that it made known sin, and so made Christ appear necessary, and this also proves that it was of it self as propounded a Covenant of workes. 3 God could not enter into a Covenant of works with man fallen. Answer: True, so as to justifie him by it, yet for other ends he may, as to discover sin, shew mans impotency. As Christ said to the young man Matth. …9 16. if thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements though he knew he could not have life that way, and v 21. commands him to sel all, though it did but shew his covetousness, not make him perfect. The covenant of grace is to be judged such, from the tenor of the promise and condition, not from Gods ends. For if so, then the Gospel it self, being sent to some to harden them, should be a Covenant of works, because the end was to to condemn them by it, 4 That God begins the Decalogue with I am the Lord thy God &c. Answ, 1 He is said to be the God of the spirits of all flesh: Numb. 16.22. yet thereby is not proved all are in the Covenant of grace. 2 It may be understood, that he was their God de jure, that he had right to command them, because he brough them out of Egypt. 3 the plain answer is that he was their God according to the Covenant of grace made with Abraham antecedently to the giving of the Law, not by the Covenant of the Law. And for that which is often objected that in the second commandement God promised mercy to thousands, but he promiseth no mercy but in a Covenant of grace, I know how that can be proved, I concieve that God did and doth shew temporall mercies out of his long patience, by the Covenant of the Law, though no man be justified by it before God. neither Psal. 105.8. nor any other prove that the Covenant at mount Sinai was the same with that to Abraham, though the promise of Canaan was to a 1000 generations, yet on condition of obedience Dan. 9.4 Ierem. 11.4, 6, 7, 8. when they brake Gods Laws they were expelled, and so when they slew the heir of the Lord of the vic…ard he took his kingdome from them and gave it to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it, Matth. 21.43. I do not say that a naturall covenant ex natura rei, is a covenant of works, but it is undoubted, that the covenant on mount Sinai was a covenant made with the whole nation of the Jewes, and it is proved before to have been a covenant of works. It is untruly said, That the Gospel…covenant, Gal. 3.9. was of a national nature. For that is a national Covenant, which is made with a whole nation, that is all the people descended from such a st…k, whereas v. 9. the Apostle by saying, so then they that are of the faith of Abraham are blessed with faithful Abraham, plainly expounds who he means by all nations v. 8. to wit not whole nations, but believers of all nations. The Covenant of works at mount Sinai though it did not justifie before God; yet it held that nation in Canaan till they set up other Gods and revolted from the true God, and upon their forsaking Idols, they might plead it for the restoring of them to their own land, or continuance in it. Yea God did condescend so far that if there had been in Ierusalem a man that had executed judgment and sought truth he would have pardoned it, and not brought the Chaldeans upon it to burn it Ierem, 5.1. It is true the Gospel threatens and executes corporal punishments, and promiseth rewards to the disobeying or obeying of it, but not an expulsion out of or setling in any one Country of an entire nation, but personal evils or rewards upon personal disobedience or obedience. The Covenant of grace admits of no carnal hypocrites, nor is it so said Gal 4.21, 22, 23. though it's not denied but many who are admitted into the visible Church are such.
To the eight objection, That was in the flesh, this in the heart, Mr. C. speaks thus. Answ. was that only in their flesh? was not the word of Covenant as well in their heart as Moses judging Ecclesiastically avoweth of Israel Deut. 29.10, 11. &c with 30.11, 12, 13, 14. so Isai. 51.7. Gods covenant now is to write his Law in our hearts Heb. 8. but is not all that included in this, I will be your God? whence all is inclosed up in that phrase ibid. or was not the first made to the Iews after their return from Captivity more expresly, Ier. 3… ▪ as before more implicitely Gen. 17.
Reply. The objection I concieve (though I do not well know whose it is) is this, that the covenant at mount Sinai with the Iewish nation, or the covenant with Abraham. Gen. 17. were not the same with the covenant, for that was in the flesh in circumcision, or with the fleshly Iew in that at mount Sinai, this is the heart by writing Gods Law there and comprehends onelyonly them in whose hearts Gods Laws are written. And indeed this difference the Apostle makes between the Covenant of the Law and the Go…pel, the one was of the letter, the other of the spirit 2 Cor. 3.6. the promise of the spirit is said to be by faith Gal. 3.14. and in the new covenant this is made the promise different from what was in the first which was faulty for want of it Heb. 8.10. … that God would write his laws in their hearts. now what Mr. C. speaks seems to me no whit to infring this. For though it is true, the word of Covenant was in their hearts, yet it is true, if meant of sanctifying implantation, only of the elect, not all Abrahams natural seed, or the whole body of Israel. How Moses is said to judg Ecclesiastically I understand not. Deut. 29.10, 11. &c. with 30.11, 12, 13, 14. do not prove that Moses avowed of every Isralite that the word of covenant was in their heart. In some places doubtless the promise [I will be your God] includs also the writing of Gods Laws in our hearts, nor will I deny it included in the promise Gen. 17.7. But I do then not understand it of every Israelite in that sense: for if so then I must make Gods word fal, sith he doth not perform it to al. And for that which Mr. C. seems to hold, that they had the promise dispensed unto them with execution of the covenant, it is in my apprehension to charg God with falshood. if any say I wrong Mr. C. let him construe this passage otherwise if he can [yea but God did not actually write such holy dispositions in them: suppose he did not: that is the execution of the covenant, as for the very …erith or Covenant itself, it is the promise whereof dispensed to them, and this they had both Gen. 17. and Deut. 30.6. To circumcise the heart to love God is▪ to imprint gracious dispositions; to promise the same to them is a Covenant to imprint it and so he did covenant with them and theirs ibid] In which words he seems plainly to make God promise to imprint in some the gratious disposions he doth not actually imprint, which is to make God not keepe his word; nor is the matter mended by asking, is not Gods Covenant now also sacramentally on our bodies too, and in many no further? For I grant many are baptized, who are not regenerate, yet I do not believe Gods Covenant of grace is to any such, or as Mr. C. speaks Gods Covenant to write his Laws in their hearts is to any such. Nor do I think that either Ierem. 31·33. or Deut. 30.6. God promiseth to all Israelits to write holy dispositions in their hearts, but only to the elect; nor to these in his covenant at mount Sinai, though he made these promises to some of the natural seed of Israel. neither Rom. 11. from 16. to 24. nor Gen. 4.15, 16. Compared with Gen. 6.1, 2. nor Gen. 17.18.19, 20, 21. compared with Gen. 21.9, 10, 11, 12. and Gal. 4. nor Heb. 12▪15, 16.17. prove that either Cain or Ishmael or Esau were ever in the Covenant of Evangelical grace, nor is there any text that proves that he new covenant is intailed to natural generations of the most Godly men. Mr. C. in answer to the tenth objection saith thus. But it's false to say the Commandement gave right to Covenant Interest▪ since Covenant right was first promised and declared to be the ground of that commanded service of the init…atory seal Gen. 17 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. &c. Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant. He doth not say you must be or are circumcised, and therefare I will be your God: But I will be a God to thee and thy seed, therefore thou and they shall be circumcised; the nature of a seal supposeth a Covenant to be sealed.
To which I reply, I confess it were ridiculous for any to say the commandement gave right to covenant-interest, or covenant-right. For what is covenant-interest, but interest in the covenant, and covenant-right, but right from the covenant? But setting aside Mr C. his inept phrasifyings, (which I count to be Paedobaptists-gibberish) it is not false, but manifest truth, that it is the command of God onelyonly that gave title to persons to be circumcised, and is the Rule to know who are to be circumcised and who not, as I have often proved and shewed to be in effect confessed by Mr M. As for Mr. C. his inference from [thou therefore, Gen, 17.9.] it is answered often before in the first part of this Review, Sect. 5. and elswhere, that neither is the reading certain [thou therefore] nor doth the inference arise meerly from the promise, v. 7. nor is the inference at all of a right to circumcision, but of a duty, nor is this duty urged from each circumcised persons interest in the covenant but Gods making it with Abraham. Nor is it true, That the nature of a Seal supposeth a covenant to be sealed, sith other things are to be sealed, as Letters, Books, Stones, Men, Fountains, &c. besides covenants, Abrahams circumcision, Rom. 4.11. was a seal not of a covenant of some things to be done, but of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised, & if it were true, yet is it as little to the purpose, sith there may be a covenant sealed to a person that hath no interest in the promise, as when ones name is used onelyonly as a Trustee for others. And for what is said, That the commandment required only a male of eight dayes old to be circumcised, (which Mr. C. seems to conceive false) meaning not before the eighth day, is so plain by reading the chapter, that I should make question of his wit or his forehead that should deny it. And the reason thus exprest is as frivolous, The promise heing made indefinitely to the seed whether male or female, and not to the eighth day old seed, but to the seed albeit but a day old. For though the promise be to the child of one day old, yet the command is not to him, nor is he to be circumcised, and therefore the seal follows not the covenant, but the command even where the promise goes before. What he adds, Else what had become of them if they had died then, in respect of the ordinary covenant means of their good, Rom. 9.6: Methinks Mr. C. might have as easily answered himself as he would do a Papist pleading this very plea for the necessity of infants baptism to salvation, or about the case of famales, or still-born infants. Surely he would say, God supplies that without means, which he bestowes on others by ordinary means, and so infants of a day old may speed well without circumcision. To what purpose Rom. 9.6. comes in here I know not: This and some other passages seem to be the inconsiderate speeches of a man dreaming.
To the objection, with the Jews, the Church and State were the same, but not so now. Mr. C. thus writes. Answ. God never confounded Church and Civill State either then or now. Who dare make God the author of confusion which is the God of order? He then kept them severall, paling in the Civill State with the Judicials, with which the Church as such dealt not, but as Civil cases came under a Church consideration. She had her Ceremonials and Morals to regulate her Kings and Princes, Priests Levits, and Elders had their proper work, and word, onelyonly in their own Sphears. The Elders of the Assemblies knew and acted in their places Ecclesiastically without interruption from Civill officers, or intruding upon Civil Officers as such, as Josh. 9. & 16.1, 2, Acts 14. Luke 4. The matters of the King and of the Lord were carefully bounded and sundred, 2 Chron. 17.11.
Answ. According to the constitution of the Jewish people by God, the Church was not one body and the State another, but all the same persons were of the Church, who were members of the Common-wealth, he that had the right of a Iew, had the right of a Church-member, nor were any taken in or cast out of the one, but withall he was taken in or cast out of the other. Nor hereby is God made the Author of confusion, but good order was setled & kept in this way of coincidency of State Civil and Ecclesiastical. Nor is it true that God kept the Church and Civill State severall, or paled in the Civill State with Judicials, by which it was divided from the Church. In the Church the Priest dealt as well in judicials as in ceremonials, the Priest and the Levite as well as the Iudge gave sentence in matters of blood and plea, as well as between stroak and stroak, Deut. 17.8, 9. Eli, Samuel, Iehoiadah judged Israel, managed State-affairs as wel as Temple service. Nor do I know any such Iudicials, but that they did belong to the Church or Priests (who were Iudges) as well as to the Civill State, that is, the Princes. As there were ceremonials and morals to regulate Kings and Princes, so there were also lawes to regulate the Priests. But no where do we read of any Court kept by the Church, or Officers of the Church, that is, Priests and Levits, wherein to censure Kings and Princes for meer morall sins called now (somewhat besides the Scripture use of the word) Scandals) though we find Princes deposing Priests. It is true, Priests, Levits and Elders had their proper work and moved onelyonly in their own Sphears. And so had Princes and Souldiers, but not so as to make two distinct Corporations in Israel. If by Elders of the Assemblies which knew & acted Ecclesiastically in their places, he mean any other than the Priests, and by their Ecelesiasticall knowing and acting, the taking cognizance of moral evils, and proceeding against them by Ecclesiasticall censure in a Court distinct from the Civill, I must confess I find not either such Assembly, or such proceedings in the texts brought by Mr C. or any other. I grant there was a dististinction between the matters of the King and of the Lord, 2 Chro. 19.11. & that Amaziah the chief Priest was over the Iudges whom Iohoshaphat sent forth in all matters of the Lord, and Zebadiah the Ruler of the house of Iudah, for all the Kings matters. But this doth not prove that these men did keep severall Courts, but that in the same Synedrium these persons were best fitted to direct, the one in one sort of matters, the other in the other; As in a Parliament, Senate, or Council of Lords, Bishops, Lawyers, Souldiers, though they sit and act together, yet one may be more specially for one business and another for the other. Nor doth it appear that Iehoshaphat assigned in the Cities some Iudges for one kind of causes, and others for others But because there was occasion to have recourse in many difficult cases to the Synedrum at Ierusalem, he instructs them whom they should have there for their help, according to the law, Deut. 17, 8, 9, &c. But I leave the Reader to Mr Seldens books de Synedrijs Etraeorum, to resolve him in this point.
What Mr C. gathereth out of the words of I. S. that he saith, That God made a covenant of grace in generall and so with the body of the Jewes infants and all, serves not Mr C, his turn, unless he meant his naturall seed in-generall, which that he did grant in respect of Evangelicall grace, I do not believe▪ What he saith touching Baptism, that it sealeth the Covenant indefinitely to all sorts, and that it sealeth an infants present, federall grace, and unto future grace: likewise unto grown ones it sealeth personall grace less principally, covenant-grace principally, is meer fancy without any Scripture, which makes no such distinctions of federall grace and personall, of the sealing one grace principally, another less principally, of sealing an infants present federall grace, and unto future grace, of baptism, sealing the covenant indefinitly to all sorts, which the Scripture makes the act of the person baptized only to testifie his own repentance and faith.
I proceed to examine the ninth Section of that Chapter. Sect. 9 Mr C. sets down this Conclusion, That the covenant-interest, at least externall and Ecclesiasticall of Infants of inchurched believers is Gospel as well as such Covenant-interest of grown persons.