Concerning Mans Natural Proneness to Error, Tract 2

Concerning Mans Natural Proneness to Error · Tract 2

p. 89The Covenant of Circumciſion, the Covenant of Grace, &c.

THat there is in Men, as in this fallen and corrupted Eſtate, a marvellous Propencity unto Errour, and that having once taken up and imbraced it, they are too commonly exceeding tenacious of it, hath been, as I conceive, ſufficiently evinced in the foregoing Diſcourſe. Thoſe Inſtances therein produced, do evidently declare it: Neither are there wanting too many Inſtances for the illuſtrating and confirming the Truth of what is there affirmed, among thoſe who ſtile themſelves, and may juſtly bare the Denomination of Proteſtants.

In all Controverſies, that are not meerly verbal, Errour muſt neceſſarily lye on the one ſide, and ſometimes on both. Truth cannot, but Error may be contradictory; and that there are ſuch Controverſies among Proteſtants, and they maintained and kept up with great Obſtinacy by the Letigant Parties, is obvious unto all. To paſs by all others, I ſhall only ſingle out that between Faedo-Baptiſts and Antipaedo-Baptiſts, that no Infants are to be baptized. That ſome Infants are to be baptized, are Propoſitions, tho not abſolutely contrary, yet contradictory the one to the other; hence both cannot be true, Errour muſt lye on the one ſide, or the other ſide. And yet with what obſtinacy this Controverſy hath been, and ſtill is kept up, is ſufficiently known; hence as the Parties Letigant do mutually charge each p. 90other with the Evils afore diſcourſed of; ſo it muſt be granted on all hands, that the Charge is juſtly laid on the one party, at leaſt as to what yet appears, ſeems ſo to be. Where the Charge juſtly lieth, I ſhall for the preſent leave to the Judgment of all that are ſober and judicious, and refer the final Deciſion to Him that is ready to judg the quick and the dead, who as being in the Boſom of the Father, has a perfect Knowledg of Truth; ſo being above all poſſibility of any biaſs, on the one or the other hand, will truly determine without reſpect of Perſons; in the mean time, being paſt all rational doubt, ſatisfied that the Truth in this Controverſy lieth on the Affirmative Part, I have judged it an incumbant Duty to appear, according to Grace received, in defence of the Part. Neither am I as yet convinced, but that the ſame Duty is ſtill incumbant on me, and therefore having now again, as hath been judged by ſome, a Call by a late Tract publiſhed by Mr. Nehemiah Cox (intituled, A Diſcourſe of the Covenants that God made with Man before the Law, where this debate is revived) to appear in defence of the Truth. I have readily complied therewith, not ſo much that the Truth is like to be wreſted out of the Hands of any that are poſſeſſed of it, by what he hath ſaid, as that his Diſcourſe treating of the Covenants, and in ſpecial that entered with Abraham, I might take the advantage given, more fully to ſettle the Foundation laid in that Covenant to Infant-Baptiſm. But to come to the Diſcourſe by which I am called to this Work. In it the Author treats of God's Foederal Tranſaction firſt with Adam, ſecondly p. 91with Noah, thirdly with Abraham; they are the laſt that I judg my ſelf called to the Conſideration of. With reference unto theſe, he makes a threefold Inquiry; ſee Chap. 4. Sect. 3. p. 72. as a Foundation unto all which, he premiſes this remarkable Paragraph, which for the remarkableneſs of it, ſhall be tranſcribed verbatim, and thus he begins.

There is one thing more to be premiſed to the Conſideration of God's Covenant-Tranſactions with Abraham in particular, which we have moſt clearly ſtated in the New Teſtament, viz.

That with reſpect unto them, Abraham is to be conſidered in a double Capacity, both as the Father of all true Believers, and as the Father and Root of the Iſraelitiſh Nation. And for both theſe Seeds, God did enter into Covenant with him; howbeit theſe Seeds being formally diſtinguiſht the one from the other; their Covenant-Intereſt muſt of neceſſity be divers, and fall under a diſtinct Conſideration, and the Bleſſings appropriated unto either, muſt be conveyed in a way agreeable to their peculiar and reſpective Covenant-Intereſt; and theſe things may not be confounded without a manifeſt hazard of the moſt important Articles in the Chriſtian Religion; and yet ſuch is the mutual reſpect of all God's Covenant-Tranſactions with Abraham, and ſuch was to be his Diſpenſation towards the Church for ſome Ages following, as did require a preſent Intermixture of the Promiſes, and an involving of Spiritual Bleſſings in the ſtead of Temporal; and of a Spiritual Seed in a Natural; this I ſuppoſe is more evident than to admit a Denial.

p. 92This one thing that Mr. Cox premits, as a Foundation unto the enſuing Inquiries, is complicated and made up of ſeveral Particulars; As,

1 That Abraham is to be conſidered in a double Capacity, viz.

(1.) As the Father of all true Believers.

(2.) As the Father and Root of the Iſraelitiſh Nation; and he means, he is to be conſidered in this twofold Capacity, with reſpect to God's Covenant-Tranſactions with him, ſo he expreſly declares himſelf.

2. That theſe two Seeds, or kinds of Seed, are formally diſtinguiſhed the one from the other, viz. with reſpect to the Covenants, for ſo he ſuppoſes them to be two diſtinct Covenants, that God made with them as Abraham's Seed; or, as he ſpeaks, entered with Abraham for them.

3. That hereupon their reſpective Covenant-Intereſt muſt of neceſſity be divers, and fall under a diſtinct Conſideration, and the Bleſſings appropriated to either, muſt be conveyed in a way agreeable to their peculiar and reſpective Covenant-Intereſt; and if we compare this with his inſuing Inquiry, it evidently appears, though he expreſſeth himſelf very darkly, that his plain meaning is, that theſe diſtinct Seeds, or kinds of Seed, as a Father unto which Abraham was now conſidered, being, as he had juſt afore ſuppoſed them to be, formally diſtinguiſhed the one from the other; there muſt of neceſſity be two diſtinct Covenants, the one the Covenant of Grace, the other the Covenant of Works; the ſame with that made with the People of Iſrael at Mount Sinai. And theſe two Covenants conveying p. 93quite diſtinct kinds of Bleſſings, were entered with Abraham for them reſpectively.

4. That there was, and it was neceſſary there ſhould be, an intermixture of the Promiſes conveying thoſe diſtinct Bleſſings, Spiritual Bleſſings being involved, as he ſpeaks, in the ſhade of Temporal, and a Spiritual Seed in the ſhade of a Natural: theſe four particulars are included in that one General here premitted by our Author. Now there are four things in this Paragraf, that make it exceeding remarkable to me.

1. That Mr. Cox ſhould affirm, that this thing, including thoſe four Particulars, is moſt clearly ſtated in the New Teſtament, and yet give us no Intimations where.

2. That he ſhould ſay, there is a neceſſity that two diſtinct Covenants ſhould be entered with Abraham for thoſe two kinds of Seed, and yet give us no reaſon why he ſo judges,

3. That he ſhould affirm theſe things cannot be confounded without hazard to the moſt important Articles in the Chriſtian Religion, and yet not inſtance in any one that is hazarded thereby.

4. That which is moſt remarkable unto me is, That he ſhould ſay this is more evident than to admit of a denial. I conceive he muſt needs intend the ſame thing, that before he had ſaid was moſt clearly ſtated in the New Teſtament, and ſo that Particle, this, muſt have reference to all thoſe four Particulars before mentioned. But how Mr. Cox can poſſibly imagine, that all thoſe Particulars, yea, or any one of them in his ſence, ſhould be more evident than to admit of a denial, is to me matter of great Admiration; ſure he p. 94cannot but know that the whole of what he has ſaid, excepting that; firſt Clauſe, viz. that Abraham muſt be conſidered in a double Capacity, and that as abſtracted from that account he gives of it, and that Paſſage concerning the involving of Spiritual Bleſſings in the ſhade of Temporal, is vehemently denied, not only by me, but by many others; yea, that the whole of what he hath ſaid, taken conjunctly, and in the ſence intended by him, is uno ore denied by all that have hitherto pleaded the Cauſe of Infant Baptiſm from Abraham's Covenant. Now that Mr. Cox ſhould ſuppoſe that to be more evident than to admit of a denial, which is denied by Hundreds or Thouſands, yea, almoſt by the whole Univerſal Church, without giving us any reaſon at all of that his ſuppoſal, is certainly matter of great Admiration. — But Sand muſt be laid for a Foundation by the ableſt Builders, where better Materials are not to be had. Mr. Cox having laid this Foundation, ſuch as it is, proceeds to the Inquiries bottomed thereon; But for me to follow him foreign through them all, would be utterly impertinent, ſeeing there is no juſt Foundation at all for the one or the other of his two laſt Inquiries: I ſhall therefore in a direct Oppoſition to the very deſign of his whole Diſcourſe, as it concerns the Federal Tranſactions of God with Abraham, lay down a fourfold Propoſition, and offer ſomewhat for their Confirmation, eſpecially of the two former, and conſider whatever he has ſaid, that carries the leaſt Appearance of Oppoſition to any of them.

p. 95Prop. 1. That God in making, or when he did make thoſe Promiſes unto Abraham, recorded Gen. 12.2, 3. did not enter or eſtabliſh the Covenant of grace with him. This lieth directly oppoſite to what Mr. Cex affirms, p. 74. where ſaith he, in the Tranſaction of God with Abraham, recorded Gen. 12. he did ſolemnly confirm his Covenant with him; he means, he then eſtabliſhed, ſo he expreſſeth himſelf, p. 74. or made ſo; he expreſſeth himſelf p. 77. His Covenant evidently intending the Covenant of Grace. Now this I abſolutely deny, and on the contrary affirm, That in theſe Tranſactions of God with Abraham, he did not make or eſtabliſh the Covenant of Grace with him. The truth is, he did not then make any Covenant at all with him, and conſequently not the Covenant of Grace: And though the Proof lies upon the Opponant, and it might be enough for me to deny, yet I ſhall offer a threefold Argument to prove the Negative.

Arg. 1. Where we have neither the Name of a Covenant, nor the thing it ſelf, there no Covenant, and conſequently not the Covenant of Grace was made: But in thoſe Tranſactions of God with Abraham, we have neither the Name of a Covenant, nor the thing it ſelf. Therefore, &c. That we have not the Name of a Covenant, Mr. Cox acknowledges, and that here was nothing like a Covenant, taking that term (Covenant) in a proper Senſe, as it is alwayes taken when the Covenant of Grace is intended, is alike evident. Here are, it is true, ſome abſolute Promiſes made to Abraham perſonally conſidered, but not any made to his Seed, whether Natural or Spiritual, p. 96conveying unto them any particular Good; neither is here any Reſtipulation required, as there is, as I ſuppoſe Mr. C. will grant in the Covenant of Grace, as in all other Covenants, when that term is uſed in a proper ſenſe, there is. See Mr. Cox his Diſcourſe pag. 5. So that neither having the Name, nor the Thing it ſelf, it is utterly unſcriptural, yea unreaſonable to affirm, that any, in ſpecial that that Covenant of Grace was at this time entred with Abraham, it was only the preaching of the Goſpel to him, ſo the Apoſtle expreſly tells us, Gal. 3.8.

Arg. 2. If the Covenant of Grace were at this time entred with Abraham, and this be a diſtinct Covenant from that mentioned, Gen. 17.7. then there were two diſtinct Covenants of Grace entred with Abraham: but there were not two diſtinct Covenants of Grace entred with Abraham; therefore at this time, the Covenant of Grace was not entred with him. That that Covenant mentioned, Gen. 17. is the Covenant of Grace, ſhall be after proved: Whence in caſe this Covenant were the Covenant of Grace, and that a diſtinct Covenant from that, then there muſt needs be two diſtinct Covenants of Grace: which is falſe.

Arg. 3. The Covenant of Grace was made with Abraham, as actually conſtituted the Father of the Faithful; but at the time of this Tranſaction of God with him, he was not actually conſtituted in that Relation; therefore at that time the Covenant of Grace was not entred with him; it may ſeem that Abraham was not conſtituted in that Relation till the Change of his Name, Gen. 17.5. p. 97However this is certain, he was not to be looked upon in that Relation, till after thoſe noble Acts of his Faith, of which we have an account, Gen. 15.6. ſeeing the Apoſtle expreſly tells us, he put forth thoſe Acts of Faith, That he might become the Father of many Nations, Rom. 4.18. plainly implying he was not ſo before. Indeed in that Gen. 12. God intimated to him that he ſhould be for the future conſtituted in that Relation, but doth not then actually conſtitute him in it: but now, I ſay, the Covenant of Grace was made with him as the Father of the Faithful; ſo that at this Tranſaction God neither did nor could enter the Covenant of Grace with him. But let us ſee what Mr. Cox hath ſaid in Confirmation of his Affirmation, viz. That God in this Tranſaction with Abraham, Gen. 12. did enter or make the Covenant of Grace with him, and all that I can find is only this, viz. That the Covenant of Grace was, as the Apoſtle tells us, Gal. 3.17. Confirmed of God in Chriſt 430 Years before the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai. Now, ſaith he, from the giving of that firſt Promiſe to Abraham, recorded Gen. 12.2, 3. unto that very Night in which the Children of Iſrael were delivered out of their Egyptian Bondage, is the Computation of thoſe Years to be made, which he thinks will be evident to any that ſhall diligently compare the Chronology of thoſe times, with the expreſs Teſtimony of Moſes, Exod. 12.41. Now to this I ſhall ſay in the general, that had Mr. C. given us an exact Computation of the Chronologies of thoſe times, it might have given ſome more light into this matter, but that I ſuppoſe he knew would p. 98be a matter of no ſmall difficulty to do: I remember what Illyricus ſaith, Ab hoc tempore, meaning the time of Jacob's Death,**Illyricus de Ratione Lib 4. p. 52. Seriem annorum non poſſumus pari facilitate deducere. And he gives this reaſon for it, Nam Geneologiae haud quaquam eadem ratione pertaxuntur, in Aegypto qua hactenus factum eſt; ſo that how evident ſoever Mr. Cox ſuppoſes it will be, yet this learned Man was of another mind: but more particularly, I ſhall offer theſe few things to conſideration.

1. That it is very uncertain where to fix the Epocha of theſe four hundred and thirty Years mentioned by Moſes, and after him by the Apoſtle. There needs no other Proof of this, then the Diſagreement and ſharp Conteſts found amongſt Interpreters and Chronologers about it; vix duo hactenus inter ſe conveniunt, ſaith Pareus. I ſuppoſe Mr. C. is not ignorant of what he hath ſaid to prove that theſe Years muſt neceſſarily be reckoned from the Eſtabliſhment of that Covenant, Gen. 15.18. which he takes to be the ſame with that, Gen. 17. I ſhall not determine; only this I ſhall ſay, the uncertainty is ſo great, as that no Argument can be taken therefrom to prove that the Promiſe or Covenant the Apoſtle hath reference unto, is that mentioned Gen. 12.

2. That it is utterly improbable that theſe (430) Years do, if not abſolutely certain that they do not bear Date from the giving of thoſe Promiſes Gen. 12. unto Abraham: for let but theſe three things be conſidered.

p. 991. That there is a probability at leaſt, that thoſe (400) Years mentioned Gen. 15.13. and thoſe (430) Years mentioned by Moſes, and by the Apoſtle, intend one and the ſame number of Years, both Pareus and many other Interpreters conclude, and anſwerably muſt begin & end at the ſame times, the thirty odd Years not being at firſt mentioned; tho after, when there is a more exact account of the time of the Iſraelites abode in Egypt, including their Peregrination in Canaan, is given, they are expreſt. Now it is agreed on by many, if not by moſt, that thoſe 400 Years bean either at the Birth of Iſaac, or at Iſhmael's mocking of him; and that they muſt begin at the one or the other of thoſe times, ſeems evident, becauſe the Predictions expreſly concern Abraham's Seed, and not Abraham himſelf; the Words are, Know of a Surety, that thy Seed ſhall be a ſtranger in the Land that is not theirs: So that ſuppoſing theſe diſtinct Numbers, viz. 400, and 430. intend, as to their beginning and ending, one and the ſame Period of time, they muſt at leaſt publickly be dated, either at Iſaac's Birth, or Iſhmael's Perſecuting, as the Apoſtle interprets his mocking of him.

2. Suppoſe the 430 Years muſt begin 30 Years before the 400, yet this 430 Years muſt be dated at, if not after Abraham's coming into the Land of Canaan; this is not only expreſly affired by the 70 Tranſlaters, in their Verſion of that Exod. 12.40. but is neceſſarily implied in the Text, for ſo the Words run, And the ſojourning of the Children of Iſrael, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 Years. It is not ſaid indeed they did ſojourn ſo long in p. 100Egypt, but their ſojourning was ſo long. Now they cannot poſſibly be ſaid to ſojourn in Canaan before Abraham come into it, and that of their ſojourning in that Land, and in Egypt, the Text there ſpeaks I conceive is agreed on by all; whence it appears, that thoſe 430 Years, muſt neceſſarily begin after Abraham's coming into Canaan. Hence,

3. That thoſe Promiſes, Gen. 12.2, 3. were gien to Abraham ſometime, how long, is hard to determine, before he came into Canaan; they were given him while in Ʋr of the Caldeans, after which he dwelt ſometime in Charran, yea, and a conſiderable time, as appears Gen. 12.5. Now ſhould we date theſe Years intervening, between the giving of thoſe Promiſes, and the coming of the Children of Iſrael out of Egypt, they would amount to many more than 430, ſeeing, as all agree, yea, Mr. Cox himſelf affirms, there paſt exactly ſo many Years from Abraham's coming into Canaan, unto the Children of Iſrael's going out of Egypt: From the whole it is, if not abſolutely certain, yet exceeding probable, That that cannot be the Promiſe, or Covenant, from the giving of which, to the giving of the Law, there are ſaid to be 430 Years; it may rather ſeem it was that Promiſe mentioned Gen 12. v. 6. But,

4. Suppoſe, which yet I grant not, that the 430 Years are to be reckoned from God's giving thoſe Promiſes, 12. Gen. 2, 3. Yet it cannot be from thence concluded, that the Covenant of Grace was then, or in them eſtabliſhed with Abraham. Mr. Cox himſelf grants, that the Covenant p. 101of Circumciſion, as he call… …t, viz. that Covenant mentioned Gen. 17.7. which they take to be the old Covenant, but we affirm to be the Covenant of Grace, was not perfected at one Tranſaction, nor all the Promiſes of it made to Ahraham at one time; and this I ſhall readily grant, that God in making thoſe Promiſes, Gen. 12. did begin to deal with Abraham, with reference to the Eſtabliſhment of the Covenant of Grace with him; and anſwerably, that thoſe Promiſes did prepare the way thereunto, and do contain the Bleſſings of it, as more generally revealed. And which was afterwards more particularly expreſt, and the Apoſtle might compute the Years intervening the making that Covenant, after confirmed in Chriſt, and the giving the Law, from the firſt Tranſaction of God with Abraham with reference thereunto, which is no Proof, that the Covenant was then eſtabliſhed between God and Abraham. But Laſtly,

Suppoſe we ſhould grant that the Covenant of Grace was entered with, or, as Mr. Cox expreſſeth it, revealed to Abraham in thoſe Promiſes, Gen. 12. Yet that is no Argument at all, that that Covenant Gen. 17. is not the Covenant of Grace. The firſt Lines of the Covenant of Grace might be then drawn, as Mr. Cox ſaith, the firſt Lines of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, were firſt drawn in the eſtabliſhment of that Covenant, Gen. 17. and yet the ſame Covenant might be more fully and explicitly entered in that Tranſaction recorded Gen. 17. and that is enough as to my preſent purpoſe. This I ſuppoſe I may ſafely ſay, is more evident than to admit of a denial, p. 102at leaſt by Mr. Cox; and from the whole of what hath been ſaid, we may evidently ſee of how little uſe this Obſervation about the Years, intervening between the Covenant confirmed in Chriſt, and the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai, is as to Mr. Cox's purpoſe.

But to proceed to the ſecond Propoſition, the more full Eſtabliſhment of which is, that I peculiarly deſigned theſe Sheets for, and that is this:

2. Prop. That that Covenant eſtabliſhed with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations, Gen. 17.7. is the Govenant of Grace, or that gracious Covenant confirmed in Chriſt, according unto which, all the Elect always have been, ſtill are, and yet ſhall be ſaved. And for a more full Eſtabliſhment of this Propoſition, wherein the Covenant-Intereſt, and by Conſequence the Baptiſm of the Infant-Seed of Believers, is peculiarly concerned, I ſhall ſpeak to it both negatively, and poſitively.

Firſt, Negatively. And here I ſhall firſt offer ſomewhat to prove, that this Covenant was not the old Covenant, or the ſame with that entered with the People of Iſrael at Mount Sinai: And then conſider what Mr. Cox hath ſaid in confirmation of his Suppoſition, viz. That it was the old Covenant; and that this is his Opinion, (though he expreſſeth not himſelf in totidem verbis, that I have yet obſerved) is ſufficiently evident from the whole deſign of his Diſcourſe, at leaſt ſo far as it concerns the Covenant-Tranſactions of God with Abraham; and more eſpecially pag. 104. and 113. and frequently elſwhere; as alſo by his conſtant diſtinguiſhing of it from the Covenant p. 103of Grace. Now in a direct oppoſition unto this Suppoſition of his, I ſhall indeavour to prove that it was not the old Covenant. Indeed I ſhould ſufficiently diſcharge the part of a Reſpondent, to anſwer what he hath ſaid to prove that it is; and beſides, to prove that it is the Covenant of Grace, will ſufficiently overthrow this Suppoſal of his; but yet ex abundanti, I ſhall offer ſomewhat to prove that it was not the old Covenant. And,

1. If the Scripture continually declares, that the Covenant made at Mount Sanai was the old Covenant; and no where declares that this Covenant made with Abraham was ſo: Then that Covenant made at Mount Sinai, and not this made with Abraham, was the old Covenant. But the Antecedent is true, therefore the Conſequent. As God is the Author and Eſtabliſher of all Covenants, that have paſt between Himſelf and Man; ſo we are to be regulated in our Notions and Conceptions of them, by the Revelation he hath made of them in his Word. Hence, for any to affirm, that this Covenant eſtabliſhed with Abraham was the old Covenant, when God hath no where declared that it was ſo, is openly to declare themſelves to be guided by their own Fancies and Imaginations, and not by the unerring Light of the Scriptures. But eſpecially, when God himſelf hath declared expreſsy in his Word, yea once and again, that there is another Covenant, viz. that made at Mount Sinai, that he gives the denomination of the old Covenant unto. And this may be further obſerved, That the ſameneſs of ſome particular Good promiſed, and Duties commanded, in this Covenant eſtabliſhed p. 104with Abraham, and that made at Mount Sinai, cannot juſtly be interpreted a Revelationg from God, that the Covenants are one and the ſame; there may be obſerved an Identity, or Sameneſs, both of Good promiſed, and Duties commanded, in the Covenant of Nature, and the Covenant of Grace, in ſundry Particulars; and yet the Covenants are not only diſtinct, but of quite different natures and tenors. Now that the Scriptures declare, that the Covenant made at Mount Sinai, is the old Covenant, is plain; ſee Jerem. 31.32. with Heb. 8.10. and let our Opponants ſhew wherever the Covenant made with Abraham is declared in Scripture to be the old Covenant.

Arg. 2. The Law or the old Covenant was ordain'd by Angels in the hand of a human Mediator, a Mediator that was a mere Man: but this Covenant eſtabliſhed with Abraham, was not ordained by Angels in the hand of a humane Mediator: therefore this Covenant was not the Law, or the old Covenant. The Major is expreſly affirmed by the Apoſtle, Gal. 3.19. If any ſhall affirm that the Covenant made with Abraham was ſo ordained, it concerns them to prove it,

Arg. 3. The Law or old Covenant was given 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace was eſtabliſhed with Abraham: but this Covenant entered with Abraham was not entered 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace was entered with him; therefore this Covenant cannot be the Law or old Covenant. The Major is evident from the expreſs Words of the Apoſtle, Gal. 3.17. The p. 105Minor is evident from the Hiſtory of God's Covenant-Tranſaction with Abraham.

Arg. 4. God himſelf expreſly denies that this Covenant eſtabliſhed with Abraham was the old Covenant: Therefore, that God expreſly denies the Covenant eſtabliſhed with Abraham to be the old Covenant, is evident, Deut. 5.2, 3. where ſaith Moſes, ſpeaking by the Spirit of God, The Lord our God made a Covenant with us in Horeb: The Lore made not this Covenant with our Fathers. Now, that under this Term Fathers, we muſt neceſſarily include Abraham, cannot be denied: Whence it is evident, that the Covenant made in Horeb (that is at Mount Sinai) was not made with Abrham. And that which may yet further confirm us, if it needs any further Confirmation, is this, that the Lord himſelf expreſly diſtinguiſheth that Covenant made with Abraham, from that Covenant made at Mount Sinai, Deut. 29.1. Theſe are the Words of the Covenant, viz. which they were not entring with God, as is expreſt ver. 10. and ſo on: And that this was the Covenant made with Abrham, is expreſly declared, ver. 13. Now this Covenant is expreſly ſaid to be another Covenant, beſides that made in Horeb; ſo ver. 1. they could not be one and the ſame Covenant. Now, what can poſſibly be more plain? who can with any pretence to any attendance to divine Revelation, queſtion, whether that Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17.7. be the old Covenant, or the ſame Covenant with that made with the People of Iſrael at Mount Sinai, when the Lord himſelf not only denies that that Covenant made at Mount Sinai, was made with p. 106Abraham, but evidently, and in plain Words, diſtinguiſheth the one from the other? And that which may yet further confirm us, is, that the Scriptures every-where ſpeak of the Covenant made with Abraham in the ſingular Number; and no where give the leaſt intimation, that there were two Covenants, the one of which can poſſibly be ſuppoſed to be the Covenant of Grace, and the other the old Covenant. Theſe Arguments are ſo plain, that nothing can be rationally replied. Not that I ſuppoſe, nothing at all can be by the Wit of Man invented (Alas! … hath found out many Inventions) to deceive …ſelf, and others: But I ſay nothing can be ſaid, that ſhall carry any appearance of a juſt Reply. But let us ſee what Mr. C. hath ſaid in Confirmation of his Suppoſition, whether that may not counter-ballance what hath been now ſaid, to prove, that this Covenant was not the old Covenant, and in paſſage, I ſhall only remark, that in caſe he expected that his Diſcourſe ſhould be of any uſe for the clearing up that great Point, concerning the right Subjects of Baptiſm, as he profeſſedly deſigned it, he ſhould have applyed himſelf with the utmoſt diligence, to have proved this his Suppoſition. Of all that he affirms in his whole Diſcourſe, this required the cleareſt and moſt convincing proof. Certainly he could not but foreſee, that his Reader, ſuppoſe him inquiſitive after Truth, would expect a clear, ſolid, and ſubſtantial Proof of this Suppoſition: But alas! that muſt not be expected, ſeeing he declines the handling of things in a polemical way, but that quite ſpoils his deſign, and renders his whole Diſcourſe utterly p. 107uſeleſs, as to ſuch Readers. And he might eaſily have foreſeen that it would ſo do, two things among others made it indiſpenſably neceſſary to his attaining the end profeſſedly aimed at, that he ſhould either have produced ſome plain and expreſs Scripture one or more: Or elſe, that he ſhould have laid down ſome ſound Arguments, well bottom'd upon the Scripture. The firſt is, the Intereſt that this Covenant under Conſideration, is pleaded to have in the practice of Infant-Baptiſm. Himſelf tells us, he had obſerved that the main hinge of the Controverſy, about the right Subjects of Baptiſm, does turn upon that Covenant, Gen. 17. thus in his Preface, page. 2. Neither do I think he is much miſtaken in that his Obſervation. Now he knows that we that plead for Infant-Baptiſm, do affirm that that is the Covenant of Grace; ſurely then, when he not only denies that, but affirms the quite contrary, (viz.) that it is the old Covenant; in which we readily grant, that Infant-Baptiſm is not concerned, he ſhould have well eſtabliſhed that his Affirmation, otherwiſe he might well ſee, he would leave us where we were. 2. That which made this neceſſary, is the oppoſition that his Suppoſition bears to the judgment of the generality, if not univerſality, of thoſe, who among Proteſtants have had the repute of Orthodox, and its falling in, and exact Compliance with the Notions that both the Papiſts and Socinians have of this Covenant; and what an ill repute both theſe Sects have among Proteſtants, is not unknown. Now tho it is true, it's not ſufficient Proof of any Doctrine or Tenent, that it is held by the generality p. 108of Orthodox Divines, nor a ſufficient Confutation to ſay it is held by Papiſts and Socinians; yet he might well conclude, that thoſe that are Proteſtants, and reſolve ſo to continue, will not, without very good Proof, embrace a Notion ſo directly oppoſite to the judgment of all Orthodox Divines, and ſo exactly complies with the Sentiments of thoſe who are of ſo ill Fame amongſt them; and the conſideration of the time our Lot is caſt in, with the Circumſtances we are under, adds to the neceſſarineſs of a clear Proof of any Doctrine or Tenent of this Nature; ſo that tho in other parts of his Diſcourſe, naked Suggeſtions might be more tolerable, yet here they are intolerable. And if it be ſaid, that tho Mr. C. has declined the handling of this Queſtion, between him and the Paedobaptiſts, relating to this Covenant in a Polemical way, yet he hath given a ſufficient enforcement to this his Suppoſition; whether he hath done ſo or no, ſhall now be conſidered.

And that I might not paſs by any thing that he hath ſaid, in Confirmation of his Suppoſition; I have with what diligence I could, ſearched again and again the whole of his enſuing Diſcourſe, and can find only theſe few Paſſages ſcattered here and there, that can with any ſhew of Reaſon, be ſuppoſed to carry on that Deſign, which I ſhall briefly weigh. The firſt is that pag. 104. line 13. where, ſays he, having reſpect to this Covenant, it is obſervable, that in this tranſaction of God with Abraham, we firſt meet with an expreſs injunction of Obedience to a Command, and that of poſitive Right, and that as the Condition of Covenant-Intereſt; and the whole is uſhered in with this p. 109Prologue, I am the Almighty God, walk thou before me, and be thou perfect. In which Words, a ſtrict and intire Obedience to his, (that is, God's) Precepts is required, in order to the inheriting of the good things that were to be given by this Covenant.

In anſwer unto which I muſt ſay, I ſhould never have imagined that this Paſſage had been deſigned as a Proof, that this Covenant was the old Covenant, had it not been uſhered in with ſuch an obſervable Term: I ſhall only add, that let that miſtake be rectified, viz. that obedience to a Command of poſitive Right (he means the Command concerning Circumciſion) was required as the Condition of Covenant-Intereſt; for Circumciſion was not required unto Covenant-Intereſt, but did ſuppoſe it; compare Gen. 17.7, 8. with 11. I ſay, let this Miſtake be rectified, and I ſhall not be ſo uncharitable, as to think it needs any Anſwer at all; ſure none will deny, but Baptiſm, though a poſitive Duty, with ſtrict and entire Obedience, is required in the Covenant of Grace.

Secondly, The ſecond Paſſage that occurs, wherein the ſame Deſign ſeems to be carried on, is in his 108. pag. Where having ſaid, there is no way of avoiding confuſion and entanglement in our conceptions of theſe things, but by keeping before our Eyes the diſtinction of Abraham's Seed: what things he intends is hard for me to imagine: but be they what they will, ſure they are ſome things, that he had immediately before laid down, which if ſo, I muſt ſay they are only ſuch as have a being in his own Imagination, and none in the Scriptures.

p. 110Hence the avoiding or not avoiding of Confuſion or entanglements in our conceptions of them, is of no concern as to the Controverſy under debate, but having thus expreſt himſelf, he immediately ſubjoins, Neither can I ſee any reaſon for an aſſignment of Covenant-Intereſt in all Spiritual Bleſſings, typified as well as in the Temporal, that were the Types of them to the carnal Seed; and yet not to admit the coveyance of the ſame Covenant to hold good in point of Temporal Bleſſings, to the Spiritual Seed; ſeeing, as ſome conceive, both are directly included in the ſame Covenant, and the Promiſe of both was ſealed with the ſame Seal.

Now tho Mr. C. expreſs himſelf ſomewhat odly, and obſcurely, yet as his Deſign is, or at leaſt ſeems to be, to diſprove our Aſſertion, viz. That this Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, and by Conſequence to eſtabliſh his own Suppoſition, viz. That it was the old Covenant; ſo he ſeems to reaſon thus, Seeing we affirm that this is the Covenant of Grace, and anſwerably that it did convey both the Temporal Bleſſings to Abraham's Natural Seed as Types, and alſo the Spiritual Bleſſings typified by them; ſo now under the New Teſtament, it muſt convey Temporal Bleſſings as the Type, as well as the Spiritual Bleſſings typified by them, to his Spiritual Seed. To which I anſwer, How far the Covenant did extend to Abraham's Natural Seed; and how far, or to whom of them it did convey either Temporal or Spiritual Bleſſings, meerly as ſuch, hath been elſewhere declared, and is unneceſſary here to be repeated, at preſent, as previous to the diſcovery of p. 111the frivolouſneſs of this Reaſoning; I ſhall only ſay, that it might have been of ſome uſe, had our Author ſhewed us what Temporal Bleſſings he means, which, as Types of Spiritual Bleſſings, were conveyed to Abraham's Natural Seed. By this Covenant, he ſeems to diſtinguiſh them from the Land of Canaan: but now certainly he cannot but know, that the only Temporal Bleſſing that we affirm, was conveyed to Abraham's Natural Seed, by this Covenant, as a Type of any Spiritual Bleſſing, was the Land of Canaan it ſelf. Whence the only ſcruple that can ariſe from what we affirm is this, viz.

How the Promiſe of the Land of Canaan could convey both a Temporal Bleſſing, viz. that Land it ſelf, as a …ype of a Spiritual Bleſſing, and the Spiritual Bleſſing typified by it, to Abraham's Natural Seed, and yet only conveyed the Spiritual Bleſſing typified to his Spiritual Seed. And the only Reaſon, that Mr. C. aſſigns why this cannot be, is this, becauſe he cannot ſee any Reaſon, why under the firſt Teſtament, both a Temporal Bleſſing as a Type, and the Spiritual Bleſſing typified, ſhould be conveyed to Abraham's Natural Seed, and yet only the Spiritual Bleſſing typified ſhould be conveyed to his Spiritual Seed, ſeeing both are directly included in the ſame Covenant, and the Promiſe of both ſealed with the ſame Seal. To which I ſhall ſay three things.

Firſt, That it is no Reaſon to prove, that ſuch a thing cannot be, becauſe one Man cannot ſee any Reaſon why it ſhould be.

Secondly, That whether any Reaſoncan be ſeen by him, or any body elſe, or no, yet it is certain it p. 112hath been ſo; and that from the very firſt eſtabliſhment of the Covenant with Abraham to this very day, this Promiſe hath coveyed to very many the Spiritual Bleſſings typified, when yet it hath not conveyed to them any Intereſt in, or Right to the temporal Bleſſing, as the Type. It did ſo to Abraham himſelf, and it did ſo to many of his Children.

That it did convey the ſpiritual Bleſſing typified to Abraham himſelf, is evident from that of the Apoſtle, in Heb. 11.10. By virtue of what Promiſe did Abraham look for that City, if not by virtue of this? And yet it did not convey unto him the Land of Canaan it ſelf; no, not ſo much of it as whereon to ſet his Feet, as Stephen ſpeaks. And that it did alike convey the …piritual Bleſſing to many of his ſpiritual Seed under the Firſt Teſtament, who had no Intereſt in that Land, is alike evident.

Witneſs all thoſe of Abraham's natural Seed, that were alſo his ſpiritual Seed, antecedent to their actual Poſſeſſion of that Land. So witneſs all the ſincere Proſelytes, that joined themſelves to the Lord during the ſtanding of the Jewiſh Church, they had a Right to the ſpiritual Bleſſing typified, and that by virtue of this very Promiſe, and yet no Poſſeſſion, no, not ſo much as whereon to ſet their Feet, as it is ſaid of Abraham, in the Land of Canaan; and why ſhould any queſtion how this can be under the New Teſtament, which was ſo common under the Old, is unaccountable as to me.

p. 113Thirdly, The plain Reaſon of this Aſſignment of Covenant-Intereſt in Spiritual Bleſſings, typified by the Land of Canaan, as well as in that Temporal Bleſſing as a Type, unto Abraham's Natural Seed, and yet of Covenant-Intereſt only in the Spiritual Bleſſing typified to his Spiritual Seed, ſo far as ſuch an Aſſignment was to be made, is, becauſe it was the Will and Pleaſure of God, that the Natural Seed ſhould enjoy both the Temporal and the Spiritual Bleſſings, but that his Spiritual Seed ſhould only enjoy the Spiritual Bleſſings and not the Temporal: God, as I may ſo ſpeak, firſt gave the good of the Covenant in the Shell, but after gives the Kernal without the Shell, and no other Reaſon is to be aſſigned hereof, but his meer Will and Pleaſure. But however, this is enough for us to prove, that in this Promiſe of Canaan there was included a Spiritual Good, viz. Heaven as typified by that Land, and that that Promiſe does ſtill convey an Intereſt in that Spiritual Good, to all Abraham's Spiritual Seed; if any ſhall judg themſelves to have ſufficient ground ſtill, to lay claim to the Temporal Good as the Type, they ſhall not be oppoſed by me.

Now that that Promiſe did imply or include a Spiritual Good, is evident, by Abraham's looking for a City that hath Foundations by virtue of it.

Mr. C. himſelf, I ſuppoſe, will readily grant this, and that this Promiſe doth convey the ſame Spiritual Good to all his Spiritual Seed, is evident from this Covenant, its having received its confirmation in Chriſt, and conſequently its being not diſannuled, and the promiſe thereof unrevoked, and conſequently applicable to all the p. 114Spiritual Seed of Abraham, only let this one thing be added, that it is not unuſual for the Prophets and holy Men of God, to promiſe ſpiritual Things in terms, that according to the letter only, intend a temporal good, when yet thoſe, to whom the Promiſe does appertain, can only lay claim to the ſpiritual good typified, and not to the temporal tipifying: take only that one inſtance, Iſa. 57.13. He that putteth his truſt in me (they are the words of the Lord by the Prophet) ſhall poſſeſs the Land, and ſhall inherit my holy Mountain.

Now I would deſire to know whether this Promiſe be not applicable to Beleivers under the New-Teſtament; and hence whether Believers may not now lay claim to, and appropriate to themſelves the ſpiritual good typified, when yet they can lay no claim to any part of that Land? and why the like Aſſignment may not be made with reſpect to this Promiſe of the Covenant, I cannot conjecture. From the whole we may ſee, how inſignificant this reaſoning of our Authour is, to prove that this Covenant under conſideration was the Old-Covenant.

But to proceed, in his Pages 122 and 123 we have three Scriptures cited, in purſuance of the ſame deſign, namely, to prove that that Covenant, Gen. 17. was the Old-Covenant, and his deſign in the general is this, to prove that Circumciſion did belong to the Moſaical Oeconomy, and conſequently that this Covenant whereunto Circumciſion was anexed, muſt needs be the Law or old Covenant.

In anſwer to this, I ſhall offer theſe two things.

Firſt, That it cannot be certainly proved that p. 115Circumſicion did at all, much leſs that it did equally and alike, belong to the Moſaical Oeconomy as well, or as Mr. Cox expreſſeth it, no leſs then any other part of the Law given by him. As for the paſſages cited by our Author, they are very far from proving any ſuch thing, let us briefly review them. The firſt is Rom. 3.1, 2. where the Apoſtle makes theſe two terms, the Law and Circumciſion; convertible terms, and tells us, that the Jew or the Circumciſion, that is the Circumciſed, had much advantage every way above other Nations, and inſtances in particular in their having the Oracles of God committed unto them. But how this ſhould prove that Circumciſion did no leſs belong to the Moſaical Oeconomy than any other part of the Law, is to me unimaginable, nay I doubt not but to ſhew it proves the direct contrary, of which more anon.

2dly. The next paſſage, is that of the ſame Apoſtle, Gal. 5.3. where, ſays he, I teſtifie again to every man that is Circumciſed, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law: and Mr. C. thinks this was the direct, and proper uſe of Circumciſion, viz. to oblige the Jews to keep the Law, and that according to the firſt inſtitution of it. To which I would ſay three things.

Firſt, That the Apoſtle here, may, as he ſeems evidently to do, ſpeak of Circumciſion, according to the falſe Notions that the falſe Teachers had of it, and anſwerably, tho we read not of its appointment to any new uſe different from what it had at the firſt Inſtitution of it; yet the falſe Teachers might, as it's evident they did, miſtake that uſe of it, and preſſed it upon the Galatians to a p. 116quite different uſe from what God had appointed it unto at the firſt: A Learned Man gloſſes it thus: If any Man be Circumciſed, ſcilicet, eo animo, out of ſuch a conceit as the falſe Teachers had taken up about it, or for ſuch an end, as they preached it up with reference thereunto, he is a Debtor to do the whole Law. Vide Calvin. in loe.

Secondly, Suppoſe it be granted, that Circumciſion was taken in, and inſerted into the Law, as given at Mount Sinai, yet it cannot be proved from thence, that it did oblige to keep the whole Law, ad uch leſs tht it did belong to the Moſaical Oeconomy, no leſs than any other part of the Law did.

Thirdly, That tho Circumciſion was meerly the Token of the Covenant of Grace, and had no place at all in the Moſaical Oeconomy, yet the ſubmitting unto it under the New Teſtament, might bring Perſons under an Obligation to keep the whole Law, and that according to the intendment of God in given of it: The Jews were obliged by the Covenant of Grace, to keep the Law according to the true uſe, and end of it; this is evident, Deut. 29.9. compared with 25.

But then, Thirdly, The laſt Paſſage is that of the Apoſile, in Phil. 3. Where boaſting in Circumciſion, is eſteemed a boaſting in the Fleſh; I ſhall only ſay, he that can prove from hence, that the Covenant of Circumciſion was the old Covenant, may prove quidlibet è quolibet. Certainly to boaſt in any holy Action, ſuppoſing the giving the Body to be burned for the ſake of Chriſt, would be but a boaſting in the Fleſh, and yet that will not prove that that is a legal, and no New Covenant p. 117Duty; ſo that there is no Paſſage, at leaſt that is as yet produced, either out of the Old or New Teſtament, will prove that Circumciſion did at all belong to the Moſaical Oeconomy.

But Secondly, This I would offer, that tho Circumciſion by reaſon of ſomewhat in it that was Ceremonial, or Typical, might be inſerted in the Law; yet it will not follow from thence, that it was not at the firſt Inſtitution of God, and ſo continued under that Adminiſtration: the Token of the Covenant of Grace it might be, and continue to be the Token of the Covenant of Grace, tho after, as having ſomething of a Ceremonial Nature in it, it was inſerted in the old Covenant, and thereupon aboliſhed at the ceaſing of that Adminiſtration.

There is yet one Paſſage more, that I met with in the Diſcourſe, that apparently carries on the ſame Deſign, with all thoſe hitherto taken notice of; and that we have pag. 123. and it is this, That Levi payed Tithes in Abraham. But now, this Mr. C. himſelf ſeems to lay little weight upon, and he had a great deal of reaſon for it, ſeeing that paying of Tithes by Levi in Abraham was before the eſtabliſhment of this Covenant, and therefore could not poſſibly be by virtue of it. But Mr. C. laying himſelf ſo little ſtreſs upon this, I ſhall not inſiſt upon it; and that ſhall ſuffice for the firſt Branch of our ſecond Propoſition.

And I ſhall proceed to the ſecond Branch.

Secondly, That the Covenant mentioned (Gen. 17.7.) is the Covenant of Grace, that very Covenant according unto which all the Elect always have been, ſtill are, and ſhall be ſaved. Now this hath been afore proved. See Infant-Baptiſm p. 118from Heaven, Book 1. pag. 181. to 195. As alſo Infant-Baptiſm plainly proved, pag. 46, 47. where the Reader will find theſe two Poſitions laid down and proved.

Firſt, That this was a Covenant of Grace.

Secondly, That it is the Covenant of Grace under which Believers now are.

That former of theſe Poſitions was proved by four Arguments, the latter by two. The ſecond of the four former, was taken from the ſubject matter of the main Promiſe of the Covenant, and that is, that God would be a God to Abraham, and his Seed in their Generations. Now this Good (the ſubject matter of this Promiſe) being a Spiritual Good, (as was there ſhewed) can only be conveyed by the Covenant of Grace, and conſequently this Covenant muſt needs be the Covenant of Grace.

Now I find Mr. C. is otherwiſe minded. Thus in his 142, 143, 144, & 145. pages, where he enquires what that Good and Bleſſing is, which by this Covenant was enſured to the Seed of Abraham mentioned in this Covenant? tho he denie not that this Good, viz. for a People, or Perſon, to have God engaged by Promiſe to be a God unto them, is a Spiritual Good; yet he conceives there is no particular Good enſured by that Promiſe, only that by it a general aſſurance is given, that the Promiſes of the Covenant, whereunto it is annexed, ſhall not fail on God's part. And for the further ſatisfying his Reader, that this is the true import of, and as he ſuppoſeth the only thing intended in this Promiſe, he quotes a Paſſage out of my Eſſay, of that import; and hence he conceives this p. 119Promiſe may be, and anſwerably is annexed both to the Old and New Covenant: ſo pag. 145. In anſwer wherunto, I ſhall ſay in the general, that I ſhall not contend with any, whether this Promiſe may or may not be annexed to the Old or New Teſtament; and therefore ſhall not examine the Scriptures quoted by him to prove that it may, whether they make to his Purpoſe, or no. The Queſtion is only, Whether when this Promiſe is an eſſential, or conſtitutive part of any Covenant, as it was undoubtedly of this, that Covenant can be any other, than the Covenant of Grace? Now that I deny; and on the contrary affirm, that it muſt neceſſarily be a Covenant of Grace; and that for the reaſon before given; and for further clearing up, and evincing this, I ſhall offer two things.

1ſt, That when it is an eſſential or conſtitutive part of any Covenant, it doth conſtitute a mutual Relation between God and the Parties with whom the Covenant is made. So much I have affirmed in the place cited by him; ſo that he cites only a part of which I there affirmed. Tho its true, ſuppoſing this Promiſe did give only ſuch a general Aſſurance as Mr. C. ſpeaks of, it might have been indifferently annexed to the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace: but ſeeing it not only gives that Aſſurance, but alſo conſtitutes ſuch a mutual Relation betwixt God and Man, it cannot poſſibly be made an eſſential or conſtitutive part of the Covenant of Works. The Covenant of Works neither doth, nor can conſtitute ſuch a mutual Relation between God and Man. To have an Intereſt and p. 120Propriety in God, as their God, is a greater Good than can be conveyed to any of the Sons of Men, as in their faln and corrupted Eſtate, by a Covenant of Works. There is a vaſt difference between Men's having all the Attributes of God ingaged to make good a particular Promiſe by virtue of his Truth and Faithfulneſs in his Promiſes, and a Man's having a perſonal particular Intereſt in God as his God, and conſequently having an Intereſt in all the Perfections of his Nature, as Mr. C. himſelf acknowledgeth is conveyed by this Promiſe. The former an Heathen may have, as in Nebuchadnezzar's caſe, when God had promiſed him, as a Reward for the Service done againſt Tyrus, Ezek. 29.18. The latter is peculiar to thoſe that ſtand in a New-Covenant-Relation unto God. Hence this Promiſe is never made, but it doth conſtitute or ſuppoſe a new Covenant-Relation between God and the Party to whom it is made.

2dly, That tho that God might lay in (to uſe our Authors words) all his Divine Perfections as Pledges, that the Promiſe of any Covenant (as it may poſſibly be entred) ſhall not fail on his part, yet it is impoſſible that he ſhould ſo lay in his Attributes, or Divine Perfections, as Pledges that the Promiſes of this Covenant (were it a Covenant of Works) ſhould not fail on his part; the Tenour of this Covenant renders that impoſſible. Seeing then he ſhould have laid in his Attributes as Pledges that th…ſe Promiſes ſhould not fail on his part; which in reſpect of many thouſands of thoſe to whom they were made, he never intended to, p. 121nor did make them good: See my firſt Book pag. 181. So that we may ſee how little our Opponent's Cauſe is advantaged by what I have ſaid, and anſwerably that as that, ſo all the other three Arguments urged for the proving this Covenant to be a Covenant of Grace, yet abide in their full force; and upon Suppoſition of te Truth of this former Poſition, the ſecond will be more eaſily granted. Hence I uſed only two Arguments to prove it, both which were drawn from the Diſcourſe of the Apoſtle (Gal. 3. 16, 17, 29.) and they are both grounded upon this Suppoſition, that the Covenant the Apoſtle there ſpeaks of, and hath reference unto, is this Covenant recorded (Gen. 17.7.) which I proved by the Tenour of the Promiſe conſtituting the Covenant, ſaid by the Apoſtle to be confirmed in Chriſt. The Promiſe was to Abraham and his Seed; ſo that the Covenant made with Abraham, the Promiſes of which are to his Seed, or run in his Tenour, To thee, and to thy Seed, that muſt needs be the Covenant the Apoſtle hath reference unto, and conſequently, muſt neceſſarily be the Covenant of Grace, under which Believers now are. And that this Covenant (recorded Gen. 17.7.) muſt neceſſarily be this Covenant, I prove, becauſe there is no other Covenant made with Abraham, that the Apoſtle can poſſibly intend; the Promiſes of which are expreſt in thoſe Terms, or run in that Tenour. Now theſe things being ſo plain, and carrying ſuch convincing Evidence along with them, it may ſeem exceeding ſtrange how they can be gainſaid by any. Yet Mr. Cox denies that that is the Covenant the Apoſtle hath p. 122reference to, and to evade this ſo plain and demonſtrative Evidence that it is, he doth two things:

Firſt, He inſinuates that ſome of thoſe Promiſes that ultimately reſpect Abraham's Spiritual Seed, and Spiritual Bleſſings, were ſometimes given to Abraham under the covert of thoſe Terms that have an immediate reſpect unto his Natural Seed and Temporal Bleſſings, as made Types of the other, and when they are ſo, the Promiſe ſtill runs to his Seed in the ſingular Number. Now to this in general, I muſt ſay, (neither am I careful what Cenſures I may fall under thereby) a ſtranger Evaſion of any Scripture-Argument, rarely if ever occurs in any of thoſe Polemical Treatiſes that are extant in the Would. And I cannot but wonder, that Mr. C. would commit ſuch an Evaſion to writing, ſeeing litera ſcripta manet. I ſhall not anatomize it (as I might do) without a further Call, but more particularly, I ſhall ſay only two things at preſent.

1. That the thing inſinuated, is utterly falſe; there are no ſuch Promiſes (as thoſe Mr. C. ſpeaks of) given to Abraham, that did not appertain to the Covenant of Grace: Let any one Inſtance be produced.

2. I ſay, where this true, yet the Inference drawn therefrom, is nothing to the purpoſe, ſeeing the Queſtion is not, whether the Promiſe is made to Abraham's Seed, both Natural and Spiritual, or Myſtical, in one and the ſame Tenour; That's nothing to the preſent purpoſe, whether it be or not; the only Queſtion is, Whether the Promiſe p. 123(Gen. 17.7.) be the Promiſe the Apoſtle here refers unto; which that it is, in this his Evaſion Mr. C. denies not, but rather grants that it is, and that is all that at preſent is contended for. Let that be granted, it will undoubtedly follow, that that Covenant (one conſtitutive part of which that Promiſe is) is the Covenant of Grace, ſeeing the Apoſtle in the very next Verſe aſſures us it was the Covenant confirmed in Chriſt 430 Years before the Law was given; for having ſaid, Verſe 1, That tho it be but a Man's Covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no Man diſanulleth, or addeth thereto; he ſubjoins (ver. 16.) Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promiſes made; it is all one, as if he ſhould ſay, now with Abraham and his Seed was the Covenant made. For the Promiſes in this 16th Verſe, and Covenant both in the foregoing and following Verſes, are convertible or ſynonimous Terms, intending one and the ſame thing. And then for the Proof of what he deſigned to prove he expreſſeth the Tenour of the Covenant made with, or Promiſes made to Abraham and his Seed, it was made with, or they were made to him and his Seed; not with or to Abraham and his Seeds, but with or to him and his Seed; whence the Covenant or Promiſes expreſt or running in that Tenour, muſt neceſſarily by the Covenant or Promiſes here intended; but that was the Covenant, or thoſe were the Promiſes recorded Gen. 17.7. And then the Apoſtle immediately adds in Verſe 17. The Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Chriſt, the Law which was 430 Years after cannot diſanul. Now can it poſſibly be imagined that the Apoſtle ſould intend p. 124any other Promiſe or Covenant than thoſe, or that juſt before recited? How abſurd, and utterly unreaſonable would it be ſo to do? So that that is the Covenant, that Apoſtle muſt neceſſarily, paſt all rational Suppoſition, have reference unto. Indeed that which Mr. C. would ſeem to inſinuate is this, That who the Apoſtle may have reference to that Promiſe, Gen. 17.7. yet it is ſo as only to recite the bare Words of it, but indeed intending another Covenant, and that of a quite different Nature from, and made long before this, the Words of which he recites. But then I would know, how we ſhall be ſure that either the Apoſtle, or other Pen-Men of the Holy Scriptures intend, according to the Letter of their Words in any other place of the Scriptures? But Mr. C. himſelf ſeems to be ſenſible of the inſufficency of this Evaſion, and poſſibly, was not altogether inapprehnſive of the ill conſequence of avoiding ſuch plain Scripture as this would be, ſuppoſing it granted that the Apoſtle did recite the Words of that Promiſe.

Hence he attempts the Evaſion of this Evidence given, to what we affirm concerning the Covenant, by this Diſcourſe of the Apoſtle, another way. And ſo,

Secondly, He endeavours to perſwade his Reader, that the Promiſe given Gen. 17. was not the Promiſe, and conſequently the Covenant there eſtabliſhed with Abraham, was not the Covenant that the Apoſtle refers unto, but that it was the Promiſe made with Abraham Gen. 22.18. Thus pag. 78. which the Apoſtle calls the Covenant, ſo he expreſſeth himſelf. Howbeit, I conceive the p. 125Apoſtle hath here a direct and ſpecial Eye to that Promiſe Gen. 22.18. In thy Seed ſhall all the Families of the Earth be bleſſed. But then he foreſees (as well he might) that this Objection would ariſe in the Minds of Men, That whereas the Promiſe that the Aoſtle had reference unto, and intends, is expreſt in theſe Terms, and runs in this Tenour, To thy Seed, that Promiſe of Gen. 22. is only made concerning Abraham's Seed, that Promiſe there is not, To thee and to thy Seed, but, in thy Seed; and conſequently, cannot be the Promiſe the Apoſtle here refers unto. Now let us ſee what anſwer can be given to this Objection. Why ſaith, Mr. C. Let it be minded, that all the Promiſes made of this Seed, viz. Chriſt, in one reſpect, may be ſaid to be made to this Seed, in another, becauſe they are originally eſtabliſhed in the everlaſting Covenant of Redemption that was between the Father and the Son. In anſwer whereunto it muſt be ſaid, that this is an Evaſion of a like import with the former, ſeeing it ſignifies nothing at all as to the preſent Purpoſe; for the Queſtion ſtill concerns not the ſence or meaning of the Promiſe, but is only what Promiſe the Apoſtle hath reference unto, and doth intend. And beſides, it doth imply that the Apoſtle may cite one Promiſe, and yet intend another. Hence, unleſs any Promiſe made to Abraham with reference to his Seed, expreſt in theſe Terms, To thy Seed, can be produced, we may, and neceſſarily muſt conclude, that it is the Promiſe of this Covenant that the Apoſtle hath a reference unto, and intends. By ſuch an anſwer as this, the plaineſt Scripture may eaſily be evaded. But ſurely when the Apoſtle expreſſeth p. 126the Promiſe he hath reference unto, and directly intends in the very Words and Tenour of the Promiſe, Gen. 17.7. and there being no other Promiſe recorded in Scripture, expreſt in the ſame Words, or running in the ſame Tenour, that he can poſſibly have reference unto, but only this; it will hardly be queſtioned, by any Man that is not reſolved to turn away his Ears from him that ſpeaketh from Heaven, whether that he the Promiſe referred unto, and intended by the Apoſtle, or no? This I ſhall be bold to ſay, that this one Teſtimony of the Apoſtle concerning this Covenant, will bear the weight laid upon it, will evince to the Judgment of all Men (whoſe Minds are not blinded with exceſs of Prejudice) the infallible certainty of the Covenant, (Gen. 17.7.) its being the Covenant of Grace, let Men or Devils do their utmoſt to weaken it. From the whole, we ſee the ground of thoſe two Arguments lying firm, the Arguments bottomed thereupon are valid; and conſequently, thoſe ſix Arguments to prove this Covenant to be the Covenant of Grace, remain in their full force. Now then, before I proceed any further, I ſhall briefly recapitulate what Evidence we have from plain and expreſs Scripture, that this Covenant under conſideration is not the old Covenant, or Covenant of Works, but is indeed the Covenant of Grace. And

1. The Scripture poſitively thus affirms this to be a Covenant, I will eſtabliſh my Covenant, and this is the Covenant Mr. C. himſelf acknowledgeth to be a ſolemn Covenant.

p. 1272. The Scripture expreſly declares, that there was but one Covenant made with Abraham, wherein his Seed were taken in as joint Parties with himſelf.

3. The Scripture expreſly declares, that the old Covenant was ordained by Angels in the Hand of a Mediator, which this Covenant with Abraham was not.

4. The Scripture expreſly declares, that the old Covenant was made 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace eſtabliſhed with Abraham, but this Covenant was made with Abraham himſelf, and that within 40 Years after the very firſt Tranſactions of God with him in a Covenant-way.

5. The Scripture in expreſs Terms affirms, that the old Covenant was not made with either Abraham, Iſaac or Jacob. And,

Laſtly, The Apoſtle expreſly declares, that it was this Covenant (mentioned Gen. 17.7.) that was confirmed of God in Chriſt, which all muſt, and will confeſs was the Covenant of Grace.

Now then, having thus demonſtrated the Truth of this ſecond Propoſition, both negatively and poſitively, by ſo many expreſs Scriptures, it ſeems utterly unneceſſary, that I ſhould add any thing more in the confirmation of it. And the Truth is, thoſe that after ſo much plain Scripture, will deny this to be the Covenant of Grace, and affirm it to be the old Covenant, ſeem to be Perſons rather to be pitied and prayed for, as under the higheſt efficacy of Errro, than to be diſputed with: They will remain Inſtances to ſucceeding Generations, of Mens tenaciouſneſs of Error, when once taken upon and entertained by them. p. 128Neither can it be judged unreaſonable tho I ſhould diſmiſs them with a like anſwer, with that of Abraham's to Dives, They have Moſes and Paul, they have the Old and New Teſtament, let them hear them.

But yet that I may give our Opponents full Meaſure, heaped up and running over, I ſhall add one Argument more, to prove that that Covenant is the Covenant of Grace; and it is this:

Arg. That Covenant, the being under, or taking hold of which, gave Perſons a Memberſhip, or a right to Memberſhip in the Jewiſh Church, or the Church of Iſrael after the Fleſh, was the Covenant of Grace; but it was the Covenant of Circumciſion, or that Covenant eſtabliſhed with Abraham, that the being under, or taking hold of which, gave Perſons a Memberſhip, or a Right to Memberſhip in that Church; therefore that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. The Minor Propoſition I judg will meet with no Oppoſition. Mr. C. expreſly affirms, \That Circumciſion was the entrance into, and boundary of Communion in the Jewiſh Church, ſo pag. 12. Hence it will, and muſt neceſſarily be granted, that all that had a Right to Circumciſion (which all that were under, or did take hold of that Covenant had) had a Memberſhip, or a Right to Memberſhip in that Church: and therefore not to ſpend time in the Proof of that, which neither can, nor will be denied, 'tis the Major Propoſition that only needs Proof. 'That then which I am to prove is this, viz. That that Covenant, the being under, or taking hold of which, did give Memberſhip, or a Right to Memberſhip, in the Jewiſh Church, was the Covenant p. 129of Grace. And for the Proof of this, take theſe Arguments.

1. By the Covenant, as under, or taking hold of which, Perſons had a Memberſhip, or Right of Memberſhip in the Jewiſh Church, Jeſus Chriſt and they came to have, and had a mutual Intereſt and Propriety in each other; but it was by the Covenant of Grace, that Jeſus Chriſt, and any of the Children of Men, came to have, or have had a mutual Intereſt or Propriety in each other: therefore that Covenant muſt needs be the Covenant of Grace. For the Major Propoſition that is evident, paſt all rational Contradiction, by a twofold Conſideration:

1. That Jeſus Chriſt, and all thoſe that had a Memberſhip or Right of Memberſhip in the Jewiſh Church, had a mutual Intereſt and Propriety in each other. This is expreſly declared Cant. 2.16. My Beloved is mine, and I am his. They are the Words of the Church, ſpeaking of her ſelf, in a collective Notion, as the Spouſe of Chriſt. Now whether we take this Song of Solomon's as a Prophetical Hiſtory, or an Hiſtorical Propheſy, and ſo apply the ſeveral Paſſages, paſſing between Chriſt and his Church, to different periods of Time, or take it as applicable in the whole of it, to the Church indefinitely in all periods of Time; we muſt neceſſarily underſtand the Jewiſh Church, or Church under the firſt Teſtament, conſiſting of the natural Poſterity of Abraham, ſpeaking here unto Chriſt under the notion of a ſingle Perſon, as his Spouſe. Some that take this Song as a Prophetical Hiſtory, underſtand this as ſpoken by the Spouſe in Nehemiah's time; p. 130however the Church under the Firſt-Teſtament-Adminiſtration cannot be excluded. Now ſaith ſhe, My Beloved is mine, and I am his. Here was a mutual Intereſt and Propriety that Chriſt and that Church had one in the other; and what the Church here ſpeaks of this mutual Intereſt and Propriety that Jeſus Chriſt and ſhe had in each other, may be ſpoken of, or by every particular Member. So that whoſoever, by being under, or taking hold of the Covenant, were Members of the Jewiſh Church, Chriſt and they had a mutual Intereſt and Propriety in each other: Chriſt was theirs, and they were his. Whoſoever were indeed and in truth under, or had indeed and in truth taken hold of the Covenant, Chriſt and they had a mutual Intereſt and Propriety in each other, in Foro Dei; ſo whoſoever were viſibly under, or did viſibly take hold of the Covenant, Chriſt and they had a mutual Intereſt and Propriety in each other, in Foro Eccleſiae.

2. That it was by that Covenant, as under, or as taking hold of which, Perſons had a Memberſhip, or a Right of Memberſhip in the Jewiſh Church, that Chriſt and they came to have a mutual Intereſt and Propriety in each other. This is evident, ſeeing it muſt be by ſome Covenant that Jeſus Chriſt and the Jewiſh Church collectively taken, and conſequently the particular Members of it came to have that mutual Intereſt and Propriety in each other: and what Covenant can it poſſibly be imagined to be, but that as under, or taking hold of which they came to be a Church, or to have a Memberſhip therein: So that the Major Propoſition ſtands firm.

p. 1312. For the Minor, viz. That it was by the Covenant of Grace, that Jeſus Chriſt and they came to have a mutual Intereſt and Propriety in each other. This is ſo plain throughout the Scriptures, that it's hardly to be ſuppoſed it ſhould be gainſaid by any that own the Scriptures to be of Divine Original. It muſt either be by the old Covenant, or the Covenant of Grace; but it could not be by the old Covenant, and that for a double Reaſon:

1. Becauſe the very Deſign of the old Covenant was only to lead Men unto Chriſt. It was (as the Apoſtle expreſly declares, Gal. 3.24.) A Schoolmaſter to bring Men unto Chriſt. By it none ever had, nor could have an Intereſt and Propriety in him.

2. Becauſe could Chriſt and Men come to have had a mutual Intereſt and Propriety in each other, by the Law, or by the old Covenant, the Covenant of Grace had been unneceſſary. So much the Apoſtle plainly implies, Heb. 8. v. 7. compared with 10. Hence it muſt neceſſarily be by the Covenant of Grace. Now both the Propoſitions being true, the Conſequent is undeniable.

Arg. 2. If it were the failing in, or non-performance of the Covenant of Grace, that did forfeit or diſanul their Memberſhip in the Jewiſh Church, who were actual Members of it; then it was the Covenant of Grace, that their being under, or taking hold of which, did give them Memberſhip, or Right or Memberſhip, in that Church: But the former is true, therefore the latter.

p. 132For the Conſequent in the Major Propoſition, that carries its own Evidence along with it. It muſt neceſſarily be the ſame Covenant, that the failing in, or the non-performance of the Conditions of which, they did forfeit or diſanul their Memberſhip, that their being under, or taking hold of which that did give them a Memberſhip, or a Right of Memberſhip in that Church: their continuance to have performed the Conditions of that Covenant, through their being under, or taking hold of which, they came to have a Memberſhip in that Church, would have continued their Memberſhip therein; and the failing or non-performance of the Conditions of any other Covenant, could not have forfeited or diſanulled that their Memberſhip. So that look what Covenant it was, that the failing in, or the non-performance of the Conditions of which, did forfeit or diſanul their Memberſhip in that Church, muſt undoubtedly be the Covenant, that through their being under, or taking hold of which, they firſt came to have a Memberſhip therein.

This istoo plain then to admit of a Denial: Therefore.

2. For the Minor Propoſition, viz. That it was their failing in, or non-performance of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace, that did forfeit or diſanul their Memberſhip in that Church, who before were Members of it. This is expreſly affirmed by the Apoſtle, Rom. 11.25. It was their Unbelief, that did forfeit and diſanul their Memberſhip in that Church: They were broken off, becauſe of their Ʋnbelief. And that Unbelief is Man's failure in, or non-performance p. 133of the great Condition of the Covenant of Grace, in unqueſtionable.

Now I would willingly know, what Mr. C. or any others, who are like-minded with him as to the nature of the Covenant, do judg the Jews through their Unbelief where broken off from. I conceive, they muſt either ſay, it was Abraham, or the viſible Church; ſeeing there is no breaking off from the inviſible Church. If they ſay it was Abraham, as the Root of that Nation they were broken off from, then the meaning muſt be that through their Unbelief, their Relation unto Abraham as his Children was diſſolved; their natural Relation it could not be: hence it will neceſſarily follow, that hitherto reſpective to the Covenant, they had only ſtood in that Relation of Children unto Abraham through Faith, viz. that Faith required under that firſt Adminiſtration. But that will utterly overthrow their own Suppoſition, viz. That the Jews ſtood in their Relation to Abraham as his Children, meerly by virtue of their Natural Deſcent from him, and will fully prove what I have elſewhere affirmed, of which more by and by.

If they ſay it was the viſible Church which they were broken off from, (which is the thing that we affirm) then they muſt either ſay, that their Church was the only viſible Church, or it was part of the viſible Church. Let them ſay which they pleaſe, it comes all to one, ſeeing it was the ſame Covenant as under, or by taking hold of which, they were, or came to be Members of that particular Church, and Members of the Univerſal Viſible Church. Now, it was the Covenant p. 134of Grace, that by their being undere, or taking hold of which, they were of the Viſible Church, ſeeing it was by the failing in, and non-performance of the Conditions of that Covenant that they were broken off: and that was (as before is proved) the Covenant of Circumciſion; therefore that muſt needs be the Covenant of Grace.

Arg. 3. That Covenant as under, or by virtue of which, the Jews had the Oracles of God committed to them, was the Covenant of Grace: but it was the Covenant of Circumciſion, or that Covenant eſtabliſhed, Gen. 17.7. that, as under, or by virtue of which, the Jews had the Oracles of God committed to them; therefore that Covenant is the Covenant of Grace.

The Minor Propoſition is expreſly affirmed by Mr. C. himſelf, and therefore is ſecure from any Oppoſition from him: See Pag. 122. Sect. 7. As for the Majro Propoſition, as previous to the Proof of that, let it be obſerved, That by the Oracles of God, we are to underſtand chiefly and primarily, the Word of God, whether only as written or preached: 1 Pet. 4.10. Tho we exclude not any other Means whereby God communicates his Will unto Men: Yet, I ſay, the Word of God is chiefly and primarily intended. Now that the Jews had the Word of God committed unto, and entruſted with them, as under, or by virtue of the Covenant of Grace, is evident; becauſe the Vouchſafement of this Priviledg, as neceſſarily implied and included in thoſe Promiſes, that do undeniably appertain, and muſt be referred to the Covenant of Grace. As for Inſtance, p. 135that Promiſe in Deut. 30.6. where the Lord promiſeth to circumciſe their Hearts. That that Promiſe is to be referred to the Covenant of Grace, will not, I ſuppoſe, be denied. Now in the Promiſe the outward Means, which are eminently the Word of God, whereby God doth in an ordinary Way, effect the Good promiſed, is included and implied. See my Eſſay, p. 85.

Arg. 4. If the Jewiſh Church were a Spiritual, and not a Carnal, or a mere Typical Church, then the Covenant it was built upon, or the being under, or taking hold of which, gave a Memberſhip, or a Right of Memberſhip in it, was the Covenant opf Grace: but the former is true, therefore the latter. The Conſequent in the Major Propoſition needs no Proof: and for the Minor, that the Jewiſh Church was a Spiritual, and not a mere Carnal or Typical Church, is evident theſe three ways: Only I ſhall premiſe this, that it is readily granted, that that Church, at leaſt in moſt Ages, was too carnal; many of them were wholly Strangers to Regeneration and true Piety; and the major part, even of thoſe that were truly Godly, yet had but a lower meaſure of Grace: they had Spiritual Life, but it was in a lower degree, and ſo in a ſenſe, may be ſaid to have been a Carnal Church, that is, comparatively they were ſo.

Thus the Church at Corinth is ſaid to be carnal, 1 Cor. 3.3, 4. So much ſhall be readily granted; but that that Church by Divine Conſtitution, was to be, and anſwerably at the firſt Plantation of it was, a truly Spiritual Church; that is, a Church conſiſting of ſuch as were truly Godly, according p. 136to the Meaſure of Grace then given. See for this my Anſwer to Mr. Danver's p. 102, 103. And after, throughout all Ages, there were ſo many among them true Saints, as that that Church in general, might be denominated a Spiritual Church, in the ſame ſenſe in which the Church at Corinth, or any other New-Teſtament-Church may be ſo called; and this, I ſay, is evident theſe three ways.

Firſt, 'Tis evident from the Relation conſtituted between God and it, as a collective Body: as for Inſtance;

1. He was a Father to it, and it his Child. Sometimes it is called his Son: ſo Jer. 31.9. Hoſ. 11.1. Sometimes his Daughter, ſo in Pſal. 45.10.

2. God was a Husband to that Church, and it (as collectively conſidered) his Spouſe. Jer. 31.32. Hence the Entrance or Renovation of the Covenant between God and that Church, is called her Eſpouſals. Now, can it be ſuppoſed, that God would take a mere Carnal Church, that is, a Company of ungodly and unholy Perſons, into ſuch nigh Relation to himſelf?

2dly. What we affirm, is evident from the ſpecial Love that God bare unto that Church. She is called his Beloved, Iſa. 5.1. Jer. 11.15. The dearly Beloved of his Soul, Jer. 12.7. So how many Titles doth our Lord Chriſt give his Church, in the Book of Canticles, from which that Church cannot be excluded? importing the ſpecialty, yea the ſtrength of his Love to it; 'tis needleſs to mention them. Now, would an infinitely holy God bear ſuch a Love to an unholy and ungodly Aſſociation of Men?

p. 1373dly. (To add no more.) It is evident from the conſtant Deſign of all the Prophets, to bring up that Church to the Power of Godlineſs in caſe of their Degeneracy therefrom. But not to enlarge, at preſent, I ſhall only add, that it ſeems to me to argue very low and carnal Conceptions of God and Jeſus Chriſt, to talk of his Church as being for many Generations a meer carnal Church.

As a Cloſe of this, we may remark how greatly Mr. C. is miſtaken in his Hiſtorical Account of God's federal Tranſactions with Abraham. In brief, the Hiſtory lies plainly thus. When Abraham was in Ʋr of the Chaldees, ſerving other Gods, (as Joſhua ſpeaks) God of his own free Grace, in a purſuance of his eternal Purpoſes concerning him, appears to him, and calls him out of his own Country, to go into a Land that he would ſhew him; and for his Encouragement ſo to do, makes thoſe Promiſes, Gen. 12.2, 3. whereby he prepares the Way to, but doth not then enter his Covenant with him: Hereupon Terah, Abraham's Father, takes Abraham, and Lot his Grandchild by Haran, and they with Abraham's Wife go into Canaan, in order to their paſſing on unto that Land God had called Abraham unto: Here they ſtay for ſome conſiderable Time, how long we cannot determine: But there Terah, Abraham's Father, dies: after which Abraham and Lot (whether upon a new Call or no, is not certain) come into Canaan, and immediately upon their coming into that Land, the Lord appears to Abraham, and tells him expreſly, that was the Land he had promiſed to ſhew him: Thus in Gen. 12.6. About p. 138nine or ten Years after this, the Lord appears to him again, and ſettles this Land upon his Poſterity by Covenant, yet not to be poſſeſſed by them till the fourth Generation: ſo in Gen. 15. latter end. Whether this Covenant was the ſame with that after eſtabliſhed (as ſome think) I ſhall not determine: But about fifteen Years after this, when Abraham was ninety and nine Years old, the Lord appears to him again, and both conſtitutes him the Father of the Faithful, and thereupon changes his Name from Abram to Abraham, and now as the Father of the Faithful, as well as of a natural Seed, eſtabliſheth the Covenant of Grace with him and his Seed in their Generations, and ordains an outward Token, which he and his Seed were to keep in their Generations. And then laſtly, about ſix and twenty Years after this, the Lord appears to Abraham again, and as before he had confirmed this Covenant in Chriſt more implicitely, ſo now more expreſly, In thy Seed (meaning principally Jeſus Chriſt) ſhall all the Families of the Earth be bleſſed, Gen. 22.18. And this was the laſt time that we read of, that God dealt with Abraham in a way of federal Tranſactions. This being noted, I return and come to the third Propſition.

Prop. 3. That under that Term [Seed] in the Promiſe, Abraham's natural Seed, (namely thoſe proceeding immediately from his own Loins) were included and primarily intended. This I need not inſiſt upon, having ſufficiently proved it formerly. See Infant Baptiſm from Heaven, Book 1. pag. 19. to 32. Neither doth Mr. C. abſolutely deny it; in his 120 pag. ſaith he, We exclude p. 139not the immediate Seed, meaning of Abraham: only he diſſents from me in this (which alſo ſome Paedo-Baptiſts do;) he thinks only Iſaac was intended, but that Iſhmael and Abraham's other Children by Keturah were excluded.

Anſw. But be it ſo, I ſee not how either the Cauſe of Anti paedo Baptiſm is much advantaged, nor the Cauſe of Paedo-Baptiſm prejudiced, thereby; unleſs it could be proved therefrom that this Covenant was the old Covenant, and not the Covenant of Grace; which I ſhall not ſo much as ſuppoſe that Mr. C. deſigns: Certainly to any conſidering Man it rather proves the quite contrary. But (ſaith Mr. C.) We make a Believer's Intereſt in this Covenant, of larger Extent than ever Abraham's was, ſeeing (as he ſuppoſes) only Iſaac was a joint Confederate with Abraham; but we make all the Seed of Believers Confederate with their Parents. Thus p. 131.

To which I anſwer: Suppoſing it ſhould be granted, (which yet I am far from doing;) that only Iſaac was included with Abraham in this Covenant, that would not at all weaken the claim we ground upon the Extent of this Covenant, to the Covenant-Intereſt of all the Seed of Believers: and the Reaſon is obvious, viz. Becauſe the Promiſe runs in indefinite Terms, which are equivolent to univerſal; I will be a God to thee and thy Seed in their Generations. Now ſuppoſing we are to underſtand that Phraſe, in their Generations, as extending the Covenant to, and taking in the natural Seed of Abraham's Seed, viz. Believers; (as I have elſewhere proved that we are to do, and of which more immediately.) Hence tho God, who knew his own Eternal Decrees, ſhould have p. 140for ſome ſpecial Reaſons, by expreſs Revelation excluded all Abraham's immediate Children, excepting Iſaac, from an Intereſt in the Promiſes, and done the like alſo in reſpect of Iſaac's Children; yet after when no ſuch excluſion was made by any immediate Revelation from God, the Promiſe was and is to be underſtood in the full Latitude in which it is expreſt, and anſwerably it ſo was underſtood in all ſucceeding Generations. God may exclude whom he will from his Promiſes by immediate Revelation, but when no ſuch Revelation is made, we are to interpret the Promiſe and Practice thereupon, according to the true and proper Sence of the Terms it is expreſſed in. But.

2. I abſolutely deny that God did then exclude either Iſhmael, or any other of Abraham's immediate Children; and affirm on the other hand that they were all (one as well as another) included and intended in that Term Seed. And this I have (as I conceive) undeniably proved in the place before referred unto. It is true, Mr. C. hath ſeen meet to call thoſe Arguments Conjectures. To which I ſhall only ſay, if he ſees meet to engage any further in this Controverſy, will he but ſhew their invalidity, let them then bear that Denomination; till then I ſhall preſume to call them irrfragable Arguments.

But let us ſee, what ground Mr. C. has to ſuppoſe the Promiſes were limited to Iſaac; and it is this: Their Extent (ſaith he) was reſtrained by the expreſs Caution of God himſelf; referring us to Gen. 17.19, 20, 21. with Gen. 21.12.

p. 141To this I anſwer, That the one or the other of theſe Scriptures, are far from reſtraining the Promiſes at the firſt making of them to Iſaac alone: See Infant Baptiſm from Heaven, Book 1. p. 37. The Lord doth not ſay that he had eſtabliſhed his Covenant only with Iſaac, indeed Iſaac was not then born: nor doth he ſay, that when he promiſed to be a God to Abraham and his Seed, he only intended Iſaac; but he ſpeaks with reference to the Time future: I will eſtabliſh my Covenant with him (ſpeaking of Iſaac) for an everlaſting Covenant: So, In Iſaac thy Seed ſhall be called. The plain meaning is, that this Covenant ſhould be, and we may add, ſhould only be, continued in Iſaac's Line, who was made ſubordinately a Father of the Faithful with Abraham: And as theſe Texts will bear this Sence,Vid. Rivet. Vitab. Calv. in loc. ſo the Arguments referred unto, do evidently prove they muſt be ſo underſtood. And therefore till thoſe Arguments are better anſwered, than by an inſipid Inſinuation, that they are but Conjectures; I ſhall ſurceaſe any further reply, and conclude, that altho the Covenant was continued only in iſaac's Line, yet at the firſt Eſtabliſhment of it, it did include all Abraham's natural Seed, immediately proceeding from him: And proceed to the laſt Propoſition, which is this:

Prop. 4. That this Covenant, with the Promiſes of it, conſidered definitely, did extend to, and include only Abraham's immediate Seed. The meaning of this Propoſition is this, that as this Covenant did only conſtitute an actual Covenant-Relation between God and Abraham, and his p. 142Children immediately deſcending from him, with ſuch others as were ſo incorporated into his Family, as that they were properly his own, and he had a full Right and Power to diſpoſe of them as his own: So the Promiſes of it did only appertain to them ſo, as that they ſeverally and particularly conſidered, had a preſent actual Right to, and could make for themſelves a particular Claim to the Good promiſed.

I eaſily grant, that the Promiſes of this Covenant had a more general reſpect to Abraham's natural Seed in after-Generations; but I ſay, it did not conſtitute an actual Covenant-Relation between God and any of them in particular, beyond thoſe immediately deſcended from him, ſo as they, merely as his Seed, had a preſent actual Right to the Good contained in the Promiſes of it. This I have proved by ſix Arguments: See Infant Baptiſm plainly proved, pag. 19. to the 26. But Mr. Cox over-looking all thoſe Arguments, and thereby leaving his Reader at an uncertainty, whether they are demonſtrative or no, hath aſſerted the quite contrary; ſo pag. 117. His Words are: The immediate and remote Seed of that Line, to which the Promiſes of the Covenant of Circumciſion did belong, were as fully included, and intereſted in them as the immediate Seed. Yet whether he do differ from me ſo much as his Words ſeem to import, to me is utterly uncertain. His Words ſeem plainly to aſſert, That the Promiſes of the Covenant did equally and alike appertain to all Abraham's natural Poſterity, deſcended in the Line of Iſaac and Jacob, and that when adult, as well as while in their Infancy, as they did to p. 143his Seed immediately deſcended from his own Loins: And yeet elſewhere he ſeemeth to hold, that this Covenant was a conditional Covenant; which if ſo, it is impoſſible the Promiſes of it ſhould appertain to any of Abraham's natural Poſterity, beyond their pure Infant-State, merely as his Seed. So that how far Mr. C. agrees, and how far he differs from me, I cannot poſitively determine; and therefore ſhall only ſay in the general, in caſe he thinks all the mediate and remote Seed of Abraham, and that when grown up, as well as during their Infant-State, where as fully included and intereſted in the Promiſes of this Covenant, as his immediate Seed were, I ſhall refer him to the Arguments already offered to prove the contrary; judging it utterly unneceſſary to add any more, till thoſe are ſatisfactorily anſwered. But if he thinks it was only during their Infant-ſtate, that they were as fully included and intereſted in the Promiſes as Iſacc was, I would over and above thoſe Arguments, deſire him ſeriouſly to conſider, to what end or purpoſe that Covenant, ſuppoſe it were (as he fancies it was) the Old Covenant, ſhould be extended, ſo as to include all, yea, or any of Abraham's remote Poſterity. Alas! What was the Good or Benefit they enjoyed thereby? eſpecially ſuch as died in their Infancy, or were born in any Forreign Land. I judg he will not be able to aſſign any ſuch Good or Benefit, as that himſelf will think God would lay in all his Divine Perfections as Pledges, that the Promiſes of it ſhould not fail on his part. But however, let us ſee what he hath faid in Confirmation of this his Aſſertion: And thus,

p. 1441. He thinks the Truth of it ſufficiently appears in the expreſs Terms of the Promiſes; ſo in the Page laſt cited. Yea, he thinks, and is bold to ſay, that in ſpecial this Phraſe, Thy Seed in their Generations, will admit no other Senſe. To which I ſhall ſay, He knows there is another Senſe given of that Phraſe, which he hath not made any Attempt to diſprove, nor ſhew why it may not be admitted, as well as this himſelf gives; yea, he knows that it is by ſeveral Arguments proved, that it cannot poſſibly admit of the Senſe now given of it by him. And therefore, inſtead of any other Anſwer to this, I ſhall only ſay, That ſuch Confidence without any Ground (as far as yet appears) to me is unaccountable. But,

2. He attempts to prove his Aſſertion by this Reaſon, viz. Becauſe the immediate Seed of thoſe Iſraelites that fell in the Wilderneſs, under the Diſpleaſure of God, were made to inherit the Land of Canaan, by virtue of this Covenant with Abraham, who otherwiſe could never have enjoyed it by virtue of the Stedfaſtneſs of their immediate Parents in the Covenant. To which I ſay three things:

1. Should I deny that there were any ſuch Infants, whoſe Parents, at leaſt both of them, fell in the Wilderneſs, who were made to inherit the Land of Canaan: He would, I judg, find it a hard Task, to prove that there were any ſuch, and then this Reaſon immediately falls to the Ground.

2. Suppoſe there were any ſuch Infants as he ſpeaks of; yet it's unimaginable that they ſhould be left to the wide World, and ſhould not be taken p. 145up, and incorporated into ſome other Family. But,

3. Suppoſe we ſhould grant they were not incorporared into any other Family, but were carried into Canaan by ſome body, whoſe Children either as deſcended from, or adopted by them, they could not be accounted to be, yet they might have a Right to the Land of Canaan by virtue of their own immediate Parents Intereſts, though not Stedfaſtneſs in the Covenant.

I ſuppoſe Mr. Cox will not imagin that all that fell in the Wilderneſs under the Diſpleaſure of God, did forfeit their Covenant-ſtate. So that it muſt be ſaid, that this is a very feeble, yea, reaſonleſs Reaſon, to prove, that Abraham's Covenant did extend to, and include his remote as well as his immediate Seed.

3. Mr. Cox, hath one Reaſon more, viz. Becauſe when the Iſraelites fell into groſs Idolatry, yet God claims an Intereſt in their Children; which he ſuppoſes muſt needs be by virtue of this Covenant made with Abraham; becauſe he thinks it will not be denied, but groſs Idolatry was a manifeſt Breach of the Covenant; ſo pag. 118, To which I anſwer, That tho it be not denied that groſs Idolatry is a manifeſt Breach of the Covenant, yet all groſs Idolatry doth not immediately diſſolve the Covenant-Relation between God and his People. Adultery and Murder are as manifeſt Breaches of the Covenant as Idolatry, and yet David's Sins of that nature, did not diſſolve the Covenant-Relation between God and him. God always doth, p. 146but in thoſe times more eſpecially, did bear with his People for a while in their Sins, tho very groſs, uſing the means to bring them to Repentance; and that was the Caſe of the People of Iſrael at the time referred unto by Mr. Cox. God was then dealing with them by his Prophets to bring them to Repentance, and deſigned to try another Means, viz. by delivering them into the hands of the Babylonians; which did effectually reduce them from that Sin; ſo that notwithſtanding their Idolatry, God did yet own them for his Covenant-People; and anſwerably might and did claim an Intereſt in their Children, not by virtue of their Relation to Abraham, but as the Children of the Covenant, tho greatly degenerate Parents. But now after, when through Unbelief, their Covenant-Relation was diſſolved, God caſt off both Parents and Children.

As for what is added out of the Apochrypha in Confirmation of this Reaſon, its Inſignificancy excuſes from any Conſideration of it.

He needed not to have ſhewn us the Senſe of the Jews, concerning the Covenant-Intereſt of Parents or Children, out of the Apochrypha, the Holy Scriptures fully declare and confute their groſs Miſtakes about it. But the Frivolouſneſs of our Author's Reaſons being detected, I ſhall at leaſt (till the Invalidity of the Arguments I have urged be ſhown, which I expect ad Graecas Calendas) conclude, that whatever the Senſe of the Jews, or any others that eſpouſe their Defence, was or is; yet indeed that Covenant eſtabliſhed with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations, did (as the Pomiſes of it p. 147are to be underſtood definitely) only reach to, and include Abraham's immediate Seed; and ſhall add, that in the ſame Latitude, and with the ſome Limitations, it hath always been, and ſtill is, continued to his Spiritual Seed; 'tis entered with them, and their Natural Seed immediately proceeding from their own Loins; yet not as tho they were coordinate Parents of the Faithful with Abraham, but as Abraham's Seed have Abraham's Bleſſing come upon them through Jeſus Chriſt.

I have only one more Paragraph in Mr. Cox's Diſcourſe to reflect upon, and that is in his pag. 85. Where he deduces this Corollary from what he ſaid concerning that Tranſaction of God with Abraham, recorded, Gen. 12.2, 3. wherein he fancies the Covenant of Grace was entered with him.

Now tho having before proved, that no Covenant, and conſequently not the Covenant of Grace, was then entred with him, his Corollaries can be look'd upon but as meer Impertinencies; yet becauſe what I have elſewhere affirmed is concerned in what he there ſaith, I ſhall briefly reflect upon that Paragraph; And he thus expreſſes himſelf, That the proper Heirs of this Bleſſing of Abraham, have a Right not only in ſome, but in all the Promiſes of the New-Covenant; and that not in a limited Senſe, and as ſuſpended on uncertain Conditions, but in a full Senſe, &c. Now to this I ſhall only ſay, that as the Inference is impertinent, ſo the things inferred ſeem to be very unſound, and of a dangerous Conſequence to the Souls of Men. I ſay they ſeem to be ſo, becauſe I know not how he will interpret thoſe two Expreſſions; A Right in all the Promiſes p. 148of the New Covenant, and ſuſpended on uncertain Conditions. And therefore ſhall only deſire Mr. Cox to review, and ſeriouſly conſider, whether what he here ſays be conſiſtent with Truth, or with what himſelf hath elſewhere affirmed, in particular, in his 5th; ſo 142, 143, 144 Pages; and ſhall go on. And Mr. C. having added ſomewhat in Confirmation of this Inference, he adds the Limitation therefore of a New Covenant-Intereſt, to the Grant of an external and temporary Priviledg, only I conceive it to be utterly inconſiſtent with the Promiſes of the Covenant it ſelf; citing, Iſa. 54.13. and 29.21. Jer. 31.33, 34. Ezek. 36.26, 27. with Heb. 8. In this Mr. Cox and I differ, not as to the thing it ſelf; tho I conceive ſuch a Limitation of a New-Covenant-Intereſt, as he ſpeaks of, is no way inconſiſtent with thoſe Promiſes.

But to come to that wherein I am peculiarly concerned; and thus he adds, Neither will theſe Texts admit of another Notion of late inſiſted on, for the Commendation of Paedo-Baptiſm. Here I ſuppoſe Mr. Cox hath a direct reſpect unto me; and therefore it's neceſſary that I ſhould briefly take notice of what he hath ſaid. And this I would in paſſage remark how far Mr. C. will extend that Expreſſion [of late] I know not; but if he thinks this is a new Notion ſtarted by me, it argues him to be but little acquainted with this …ontroverſy. But for the Notion it ſelf, and that is, That the Infant-ſeed of Believers have all of them a certain and definite Intereſt in the Covenant of Grace, by virtue of which, they are compleatly juſtified before God from the Guilt p. 149of Original Sin, both Origans & Originatum; and yet not having their Natures renewed, they may after fall away. This Mr. Cox thinks inconſiſtent with thoſe Texts before mentioned; but whether it be ſo or no, I ſhall refer him, with all others, to what I have written once and again, to ſhew its conſiſtency with them. Only let it be obſerved, that I ſay not they are compleatly juſtified before God, only I ſay they are diſcharged or freed from the Guilt of Original Sin, and that as the neceſſary reſult of the change of their States. See Infant-Baptiſm from Heaven, p. 46. to 63. So again, p. 208. to 213. See alſo my Eſſay, p. 89, and ſo on. And having ſpoken ſo much to this already, I ſhall add no more at preſent.

2. Mr. C. thinks this Notion is inconſiſtent with the Analogy of Faith. So pag. 86. To which I would ſay, That Men wedded to an Opinion, are apt to conceit that inconſiſtent with the Analogy of Faith, which only oppoſes their own private Opinion, poſſibly by them ſtiled Faith, and ſo is only inconſiſtent with the Analogy of their Faith. Sure Mr. C. cannot but know that many great Divines, who ſufficiently underſtood the Faith of the Goſpel, judg this Notion is no way inconſiſtent with that Faith. But,

2. I would rather ſay, The great Queſtion is, Whether the Covenant of Grace do indeed extend to, and include the Infants of believing Parents: And that it doth, as I conceive, I may ſay is fully and (as to all unbyaſſed and unprejudiced Perſons) ſatisfactorily proved: That that Covenant, Gen. 17. is the Covenant of Grace, I judg, is, if not before, yet now convincingly demonſtrated. Now p. 150Mr. C. grants that Iſaac was included in this Covenant; and I ſuppoſe he will grant he was ſo, meerly of Abraham's natural Seed.

Hence it will undeniably follow, that the natural Seed of Believers, and that as ſuch, may have, and have had an Intereſt in the Covenant of Grace; and then ſome Good muſt be aſſigned them, by virtue of that their Intereſt therien.

Hence I would deſire one of theſe two Things of Mr. C.

1. That in caſe he perſiſt in his Opinion, and denies this to be the Covenant of Grace, and thereupon denies Infants to have any Intereſt in that Covenant, that then in caſe he ſend forth another Impreſſion of his Book, or think meet to engage any further in this Controverſy, he will not fail to give us a clear and ingenuous account of his Judgment, relating to the future State of Infants dying in their Infancy, eſpecially the Infants of Believers; and in caſe he judg any of them to find Mercy at the Hands of God, how they come ſo to do.

2. That in caſe he acknowledgeth this Covenant to be the Covenant of Grace, that then he will give us his Thoughts about the Good and Benefit that the Infant Seed of Believers have by their Covenant-Intereſt; as in caſe this be the Covenant of Grace, a Covenant-Intereſt ſome ſuch muſt neceſſarily have.

And this I ſhall ſay, if he can aſſign them any conſiderable Benefit in a way more conſiſtent with the Analogy of Faith than I have done; I am not ſo fond of this Notion, but I can relinquiſh it: if p. 151he cannot, then his utere mecum. But let us briefly ſee, what he hath ſaid to prove the inconſiſtency of this Notion with the Analogy of Faith. And thus he proceeds: having ſuppoſed that it muſt be granted, as it readily ſhall, That either the ſtain of Original Sin in theſe Infants is purged when their Guilt is pardoned, or it is not. The former he knows I affirm not, and therefore he proceeds to the latter, and ſaith, If he ſaith their Guilt is pardoned, but their Natures not renewed, nor the power of Original Concupiſcence deſtroyed, ſo as Sin ſhall not have Dominion over them? To which I anſwer, Mr. C. knows well enough what I have ſaid. I ſay, they are diſcharged from the Guilt and condemning Power of Original Sin, but have not their Natures at preſent renewed. But then, ſaith he, it will be replyed, That then notwithſtanding their ſuppoſed Pardon, they remain an unclean Thing, and ſo uncapable of Admiſſion into the Kingdom of Glory: Which is readily granted. And I ſuppoſe, Mr. C. will not deny, but that Believers have ſo much of Original Corruption inherent in them, as to render them, as ſo depraved and corrupted, uncapable of Admiſſion into the Kingdom of Glory. And why may not God purge Infants from the whole Maſs of Original Pollution at their very reception into Glory, as well as purge Believers of the remainders of that Pollution in them at theirs? But he proceeds: But the Truth is, none are at any time juſtified before God, but ſuch as Chriſt hath loved and waſh'd from their Sins in his own Blood, and none are waſhed by him, but thoſe that are in him as the ſecond Adam: Which is again granted. But then, ſaith he, None can have Ʋnion with him but by the p. 152indwelling of his Spirit. This I deny, and deſire to ſee it proved. There is a Political, as well as a Phyſical Union with Chriſt. The former is made by the Covenant: The latter by the indwelling of the Spirit. See my Eſſay, pag. 65, 66. Till what is there ſaid be ſubſtantially confuted, and the contrary proved, viz. That none have any Ʋnion with Chriſt, but thoſe who have the Spirit dwelling in them: I ſhall conclude, that the Benefits afore mentioned are aſſignable to the Infant-Seed of Believers, in a full conſiſtency with the Analogy of the Faith of the Goſpel. As to what Mr. Cox adds, I ſhall deſire that he will explain, what he meaneth by the Spirit of God's applying the Blood of Chriſt for the remiſſion of Sin, and prove what he there affirms, and I hope he will find me no way tenacious of Deceit. But having diſpatched what I mainly intended, and Mr. C. proceeding in his two laſt Chapters upon a Suppoſition, that the Covenant under debate is the old Covenant, and that it did run in the extent pleaded for by him, the groundleſneſs of both which Suppoſitions being very apparent, they need no further Conſideration.

FINIS.

End of the text · Joseph Whiston, Concerning Mans Natural Proneness to Error (1682)