Goodwill Towards Men, Part 2 · Section 14

Goodwill Towards Men · Part 2 · Section 14

p. 298Sect. 14.

PROP. XIV. The Coventut of Grace is one and the same for Substance in all Ages. Though it may seem to have Varied, yet the Difference is but in Circumstances, and manner of Administration.

THe Covenant made with the Jews (of which is the greatest Doubt, or Question) was a Covenant of Grace, (the same for substance with that we are under) with a Covenant of Peculiarity, or a Political Covenant added to it.

Quest. When did the Covenant of Grace first take Date?

Answ. Immediately after the Fall. In that threatning to the Serpent, Gen. 3.15. was a Promise of Salvation to man. That as we read, Gal. 3.8. the Gospel was Preached before unto Abraham (which was enough to the Purpose, and Business, the Apostle had there in hand.) So it was Preached before that to Adam. For this cause as the Learned Mede supposeth, it is called The everlasting Gospel, Rev. 14.6. foreign, not so much in respect of the Future Time, as the Time past. That which was promised foreign, a Seculo, or from the Beginning of the World, the Antient Gospel. That promise, [That the Seed of the Woman, should break the Serpents head.] Was the first Draught, or Epitome of the Gospel. Here God promised the p. 299destruction of Satans Kingdom, and Salvation of Fallen man, by Jesus Christ, the Seed of the Woman. That all the true Seed of the Woman, the Faithful, (opposed to the seed of the Serpent,) should overcome through him, who is the Seed of the Woman eminently, and in a more famous sense, and peculiar respect. Thus Cain and Abel were directed to offer Sacrifices, agreeable to that Dispensation of the Covenant before Christs coming. And God speaks to Cain, Gen. 4.7. If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted: Which certainly cannot but refer to the Covenant of Grace, q. d. If thou didst serve me with the like sincerity, as thy Brother doth, shouldst not thou be accepted, as well as he? Now how could sinners look to find acceptance, whose best services are imperfect, and therefore deserve to be rejected, unless God reveal himself in a gracious promise, or Covenant to that purpose. By Faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was Righteous, Heb. 11.4. This is evident, that Remission of sin, Justification, and Salvation (the great benefits promised in the Covenant of Grace) were granted out to some, before the Covenant made with Abraham. So Abel was righteous before God: So Enoch, who walked with God on Earth, and was Translated, and taken up to God, Gen. 5.24. So Noah was Heir of the Righteousness which is by Faith, Heb. 11.7. The Kingdom of Heaven was prepared for the Faithful, from the Foundation of the World, Mat. 25.34. Witness Enochs translation thither. By the way take notice, they that were acquainted with the History of Enoch, could not be ignorant of an happiness p. 300to be enjoyed of the Saints after this life: Yea, Eternal Life was promised from the beginning of the world, foreign.or before Antient times, as that Text, Tit. 1.2. should be read. Thus God had a Seed to serve him, from the beginning of the world, and was a God in Covenant with them, was their God in Christ. So some understand, Rev. 13.8. as referring to the grand Antient promise, Gen. 3.15. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. How slain? Not only Figurative, in Type, and Representation (as Dr. Lightfoot) The first thing that died in the world was a Sacrifice, or Christ in a Figure. Now only Dispositive, in Decree and Intention: Secundum dispositionem totius Trinitatis, as Luther, (see 1 Pet. 1.19, 20.) But also Virtualiter, the Virtue and Efficacy of his Death extending backward, to Times past, as well as forward, (Rom. 3.24, 25. Heb. 9.15. and 10.4. and 13.8.) Or if we should read these words [From the Foundation of the World,] Rev. 13.8. as having Relation to the Writing of the Names in the Book of Life, not to the slaying of the Lamb; as there is a parallel place in the same Book, Rev. 17.8. It makes as well for my present purpose holding forth the writing of the Names of some in the Lambs Book of Life, from the beginning of the world. Or it is a Periphrasis of them that are saved. None are saved, but such as are written in the Lambs Book of Life, such as are given to him. And if none ever were, or shall be saved, but such whose Names are written in the Lambs book of Life, then none ever were, or shall be saved but by Christ, and according to the Covenant of Grace.

p. 301And Mr. Ball would have the Apostle to refer to that antient famous promise of Victory to the seed of the Woman over Satan, and all spiritual Enemies, both in 2 Tim. 1.9. Who hath saved us, and called us, with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus, foreign (not before the world began, as we have it Translated there, and in Tit. 1.2. but) before antient times. And 2 Thes. 2.13. God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the Truth. From the beginning foreign, which phrase, as he saith, never imports from Eternity in Scripture.††Of the Covenant, p. 41. 42.

And certainly, these were ever necessary to salvation from the beginning [Sanctification, and belief of the Truth.] As we read of Abels Faith, and that his works were Righteous, (a proof of his sanctification.) We read of Enochs Faith, and of his constant care, to walk with God, and to please God. We read of Noahs Faith, and that he was a just man, and upright in his Generations, walking with God. Neither were any of the Fathers saved without such a real, practical, living, operative Faith.

Though we have much revealed to us in the Gospel, which was hid from them, (Ephes. 3.9. Col. 1.26.) yet they heartily assento Gods Truth, and complied with his will; as the Lord was pleased then to reveal it. **Though as Camero says Si ante certum tempus praestitutum a Deo, mysterium salu…s uost…ae, seu regnum caelorum suit obscurius revelatum, omnino consequens est ut fides adhibita revel… tioni fuerit confusa. praelect. p. 76. col. 1.That methinks it is plain, they were saved the same way even as we. Though to whom much is given, p. 302of them more is required; yet they had the same spirit of Faith. And had they been under the same Circumstances with us Christians, had they lived in Gospel-times, they would have been Gospelbelievers. As Christ saith, John 7.17. If any man doth his will, he shall know of the Doctrine; whether it be of God, or whether I speak of my self. As such whose hearts were right, and sound, the Gospel being revealed to them with such clear Evidence, and proof, that it was of God, they could not but embrace it. As that Faith by which Abraham obeyed Gods call to leave his Country, and Kindred, and Fathers House, to go he knew not whither; would have enabled him to leave Father and Mother, House and Land, for Christs sake, and the Gospels. That same Faith, which made him so ready to offer up Isaac at Gods command, would have made him as willing to take up the Cross and follow Christ, as the Apostles and Primitive Christians did, had he lived in their dayes. The like may be said of the Fathers before him, who obtained a good report through Faith. Thus it appeareth, that there is no real difference, betwixt the Faith of those VVorthies, who lived in former Ages, to whom God spake foreign at divers times, and in divers manners, and the Faith of Christians, to whom God hath spoken by his Son.

Now though I have jumbled things together something confusedly in this Discourse: Yet ye may observe these two things cleared sufficiently, that the same substantial Benefits, which the Gospel promiseth, were held forth to the Fathers; and the same kind of Faith, Holiness, and Obedience required of them, and therefore they must needs have p. 303been under the same Covenant for substance.

And is not this a Crediting of the Gospel? And should it not confirm our Faith in the Gospel? This is the good old Way indeed, many are greatly addicted to Antiquity. You make great account of your old Deeds and Evidences. Let me tell you, you do not conceive aright of the Gospel, nor of Gods Grace, if you confine it to the Time of the New Testament, as if it was under 1700. years old. Even the Covenant of God made with Abraham was 430. years before the Mosaical Law (as the Apostle urgeth against those, who were ready to adhere to the Law in opposition to the Gospel.) And though that was sufficient for his purpose there, yet the Covenant of Grace was long before Abraham, even from the beginning. This way God had set forth soon after Man was placed upon the Earth, immediately upon his fall. And it is questioned, whether Adam stood one day, whether he lodged one night in that Honour, to which he was Created.

O how should we reverence the Gospel! how should this advance the Grace of God in our thoughts! It is the antient Gospel, the everlasting Gospel, like the everlasting Hills; even from the beginning, God set forth this way of Salvation. The Gospel delivered by Christ, and his Apostles, what is it, but that good old Charter, granted to Man upon the Fall, graciously renewed? VVhen almost the whole Race of Mankind had forfeited, and lost their Charter, Christ comes, and renews, and Confirms it.

But here another Question falleth in.

VVhether the Covenant of Grace was made with all in Adam?

p. 304Answ. I think we must yield to this, Perpetua est foederis Dei ratio, quod filii in parentibus comprehendanter & censeanter: That this is the perpetual way and manner of Gods Covenant, to include and reckon the Children with their parents. Thus the Covenant of Grace was made with Adam, and his Seed, such as were to Descend from him, till such time as any of them Degenerated into the seed of the Serpent, and by their wilful Apostacy from God, and his VVayes, they did cut off themselves, and theirs from the Covenant. As afterwards the Covenant was made with Abraham and his Seed; and as now, under the Gospel the Covenant is made with the Faithful and their Seed: So was it at first with Adam and his Seed. But as now if any that are taken into Covenant upon the account of their Parents, being in Covenant with God, if when they shall grow up, they shall wilfully reject Grace offered, and manifestly renounce their Covenant with God; they should thereby break off themselves from their former Covenant-relation to God: So this hath been the case of the far greater part of Adams Posterity.

Though whether the Law of Grace may not extend further, even to such as are not in Covenant, in the fullest sense, as it implieth a mutual consent; that is another Question.

But so much of the Covenant, or Law of Grace, as it was given to Adam.

That God might reveal more concerning it to the Fathers even before the Flood, I know no ground to deny. VVe read of Enochs Prophecy, Jude 5.14.15. That God was manifesting himself to some of his Servants in those times extraordinarily.

p. 305But the next Edition of the Covenant, that we find extant, was that made to Abraham. And this latter Edition of the Covenant of Grace was larger, and clearer than the former. That Channel of Freegrace, which first brake forth in Paradise immediately upon Mans Fall, ran down to Abraham in a broader stream. Here Christ is spoken of, as the seed of Abraham, who was spoken of more generally before, as the Seed of the Woman. And blessedness is promised in and by him, Gen. 22.18. In thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed. Which blessedness before was more obscurely hinted in that phrase of breaking the Serpents head.

And here is express mention of Gods Covenanting with Abraham, Gen, 17.2, 4, 7, 9, 10. Whereas Gods Covenanting with Adam, and others of the Faithful before, is not plainly laid down, but only to be gathered, and deduced from Scripture by way of Inference. Though methinks, it is plain enough to all, that are not minded to Cavil, that there was a Covenant betwixt God and Adam, &c. they being mutually engaged. God engaged to Adam by promise, and Adam engaged to believe God, and worship God, according as he did reveal himself. But whereas the Covenant was more tacitly and darkly held forth, betwixt God and Adam, it is most expresly delared betwixt God and Abraham, so that there is no room for any Cavil.

Now that the Covenant made with Abraham was the Covenant of Grace, the same for Substance with that we are under, is evident.

1. The Gospel was preached to Abraham in that Covenant, which is proved by the Apostles express Testimony, Gal. 3.8.

p. 3062. The Covenant with Abraham was confirmed in Christ, Gal. 3.17. Therefore a Covenant of Grace.

3. The Covenant with Abraham has not yet been disanulled, as the Apostle there shews; and thence proveth, the blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles according to the tenor of that Covenant.

4. Abraham was justified by Faith in that promise, confirmed or renewed in the Covenant, Gen. 17.4. That he should be a Father of many Nations, see Gen. 15.5, 6. Now hence it will follow, either that the Promise, and Covenant made to Abraham was a Covenant of Grace, or that Abraham was not justified by a Covenant of Grace, but some other way. Either the Promise, and Covenant made to him, was the same for substance with that we are under, or he was justified and saved in a quite different way from us.

5. And then why should he be called the Father of the Faithful, Rom. 14.11, 16, 17. Or why should Gospel Believers be called the Children of Abraham, Gal. 3.7. He is not the Father of such, in respect of Natural Generation, or Spiritual Regeneration, does not beget or produce Faith in them; but only by similitude and proportion, as a famous Pattern and eminent Example; as look what way Abraham found acceptance with God, and was justified before God, and we may expect the Favour of God, and free Justification in the same way. But certainly you take away the Foundation of the agreement, and Relation betwixt Abraham, and the Faithful. Now, if you deny that to be the Covenant of Grace, which was made with Abraham: Can they be of the same Faith, p. 307who are not under the same Covenant?

6. Do we not read, Gal. 3.14. That the blessing, which is come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, was first the blessing of Abraham. It was first the blessing of Abraham, and from him, and through him, (as a prime subject, though not as a cause) it descends upon us. The Gospel, or the glad Tidings of Christ, and blessedness in him was first preached to Abraham, [In thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed.] And thus by Faith in the Promise he saw the day of Christ, the Messias coming, though it was at a great distance; yet he believed it would come, and be a happy day indeed, the fore-thoughts whereof made him glad at heart, John 8.56.

Object. 1. But some tell us the Covenant made with Abraham, was not the Covenant of Grace; for that is one and the same to all the Faithful: But in this Covenant with Abraham are special promises, agreeing only to him and his Family, or Natural Off-spring, as that the Messiah should come of his Seed, Even He, in whom all Nations should be blessed; and that God would give the Land of Canaan to his Seed.

Answ. We must distinguish betwixt the Essentials of the Covenant of Grace, and the accidentals. As the Covenant of Grace holds forth the way of Salvation for Fallen Mankind of Gods Freegrace in Christ; so it is the same Covenant, that Abraham was under, and the Faithful now are under. And as to the now-mentioned Differences, they were but Circumstantial, and accidental. This Distinction must be granted, or else we must hold the Tribe of Judah, and House of David were interested p. 308in one Covenant, and the other Tribes, with all the Jewish Proselytes in another Covenant; whereas the Scripture Involves and Comprehends them in one and the same Covenant.

Object. 2. Others say, God made a two-fold Covenant with Abraham, in Gen. 17. Scil. A Covenant of Grace, in the beginning of the Chapter, and a Covenant of Circumcision, ver. 9, 10. &c. which they make a Covenant of Works.

Answ. But this is a mistake sure, for so it would follow, 1. That whereas Abraham is acknowledged to be taken into a Covenant of Grace before, he had the priviledge after this, to be taken into the Covenant of Works; which is no priviledge. 2. They must say, that Abraham was at the same time both under a Covenant of Grace, and a Covenant of Works. But these same persons at other times deny, that one can be under both Covenants together. 3. The Apostle is express, Rom. 4.11. That Abraham received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the Righteousness of Faith. So that if the Covenant to which Circumcision did belong, was a Covenant of Works (as Mr. P. would have it:) the Righteousness of Faith should belong to the Covenant of Works. 4. Gen. 17. Doth not speakof a twofold Covenant made with Abraham, but sets forth both parts of the Covenant, scil. What the Lord promised to Abraham, and what he required of Abraham. He promised to be a God unto him, and to his Seed after him, ver. 7. And required Abraham to walk before him in Integrity, ver. 1. And to submit to the Ordinance of Circumcision, v. 10. VVhichWhich at that time he appointed to be the sign of the Covenant: He calleth it [My Covenant.] But p. 309methinks it is strange, that any Protestant should stumble at the Expression. It is a Sacramental phrase, like that 1 Cor. 10.4. That Rock was Christ. And 1 Cor. 11.24. This is my Body.

Again, look at the Spiritual meaning of Circumcision, as it was a bloody Sacrament, intimating the purging away of sin by the Blood of the Covenant, and pointing at the inward Circumcision of the heart; what can be more plain, than that it must refer to the Covenant of Grace? But I may have occasion to speak more of this by and by.

Lastly, That there was but one Covenant established with Abraham, this appears (as Mr. Whiston noteth p. 36.) From the constant phrase of Scripture, always (where speaking of the Covenant made with Abraham) speaking in the singular number, the Covenant, and not in the plural, Covenants.

Now I might go on to shew how God repeated his Covenant with Abraham, as it were Commenting upon it, in which respect it may be called the Promises, Gal. 3.16. so Gen. 12.1, 2, 3. and 15.1.5. and 17. and 22.17, 18. And I have heard a Learned man observe from Gods commanding Abraham to offer up his son Isaac, that on Gods part it was a further Exhibition of the Messiah to Abraham. Isaac must be the blessed Seed, or the Progenitor of it, because of that Promise, Gen. 21.12. In Isaac shall thy Seed be called. Now Isaac's usage (being appointed to be offered up a Sacrifice) holds forth to Abraham, that the Messias should be offered up a Sacrifice for sin. Dr. W.(So that here was more of Goodness in God to Abraham, than of Obedience in Abraham to God.) p. 310Again, there was a determinate place where Isaac, should be offered, Mount Moriah, on which place afterwards the Temple, the place of sacrifices, was built. Again, Isaac was laid on the wood, and Abrahams hand stretched out, to slay him: Yet Abrahams hand was stayed, Isaac was not Sacrificed, but God provided a Ram for a Sacrifice; this teacheth Abraham that the time of Messiahs coming was not yet: But in the mean time God would be content with Sacrifices, as Pledges of the Messiah, which should Supponere locum Messiae, should be Typical, Significative, and Representative of him. Here I have given you anothers thoughts of that Mysterious passage, of Gods commanding Abraham to offer his son Isaac. But whether indeed Abraham had a distinct apprehension of these things, as we may have, since they have been cleared, and illustrated in the Antitype, I do not determine; but leave to others Judgments.

I come next to speak of the Covenant made with the Children of Israel. Here some distinguish of the Covenant made with them under Moses, till their return from the Babylonish Captivity, and the Covenant made with them after the Captivity. But that I may not run out too far, I shall only speak of the Mosaick Covenant: as indeed of that Covenant is all the Question, whether it was a Covenant of Grace, the same for substance with that, which Christians are under. Now I shall endeavour to clear this, That the Covenant of God made by Moses with the people of the Jews, was a Covenant of Grace, the same for substance with the Gospel-Covenant: The way of Life and Salvation held forth in it.

p. 311It is granted, or if any should deny or question it, we have seen it proved before, that the Covenant made with Abraham, was a Covenant of grace; But the Covenant made with Abraham, took in the Jews, as his seed, Gen. 17.7. And the Covenant made with the Jews, was a carrying on and establishing of the same Covenant; (though with a new modus, some things peculiar to the Jewish Church and Common-wealth, being added to it,) Deut. 8.18. Thou shalt remember the Lord thy God, that he may establish his Covenant, which he sware unto thy Fathers. And Deut. 7.12. If ye hearken to these Judgments, and keep and do them, the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the Covenant and Mercy, which he sware unto thy Fathers.

2. That Covenant which was Sealed with the sign of Circumcision, and had a promise of Heart-Circumcision, was a Covenant of Grace. But the Covenant made with the Jews, was sealed with the sign of Circumcision; and further, had a promise of Heart-circumcision.

What did the outward sign of Circumcision signifie? That we learn, Deut. 10.16. Circumcise therefore the Fore-skin of your heart, which hath its accomplishment in Christ: Veteres Hebraei in eâ fuerunt sententiâ, quod tempore Messiae Circumcisio Spiritualiter, non Carnaliter amplius fieri debeat. Fag. apud M. Pool. in Synops. Col. 2.11, 12. In whom ye are Circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the Circumcision of Christ, buried with him in Baptism. Where methinks the Apostle intimates thus much, that Moses's Circumcision, the outward circumcision made p. 312with hands, did point to Christs Circumcision, the inward Circumcision not made with hands, [The Circumcision of Christ.] i. e. That which he effected by his Spirit. And this further we may take notice of, that he seemeth to compare Circumcision, and Baptism, as signifying the same thing, [Buried with him in Baptism.]

Here let me Recite a Passage out of a Late Writer. Disc. of the two Covenants. p. 37.[It is not unlikely (says he) but that as Heart-circumcision under the Figure of Literal-circumcision, was, together with Faith, made the condition of the Covenant then: (Gen. 17.10. with Deut. 10.16.) So Spiritual Baptism, which is a death unto sin, and a living unto God, is under the Figure of Water-baptism, joyned with believing; as the condition of the promise of Salvation now. Mar. 16.16. He that believeth and is Baptized, shall be saved. According to which, the Apostle Peter having spoken of Noahs Ark, saith, The like Figure whereunto Baptism now saveth us; not the putting away of the filth of the Flesh, but the answer of a good Conscience towards God, 1 Pet, 3.21.] But this is one thing considerable, if Circumcision signified the same thing that Baptism doth, scil. The Mortification of sin, and laid an Engagement on them to put away Filthiness of the Flesh and Spirit both; it must be the same Covenant for substance, to which both those Sacraments referred.

Hereunto add, That the Jews had a promise of Heart-circumcision, Deut. 30.6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God. This is an evident p. 313promise of Grace, where the Lord undertakes to work, what else-where he requires, as Deut. 10.16. Jer. 4.4. Object. But then why is the House of Israel said to have been Ʋncircumcised in heart? Answ. They were so generally, This Promise (like those Jer. 31.33. Ezek. 36.26, 27.) was fulfilled only in some of them, not in all, (its true) and yet laid down in so general Terms as might have encouraged any of them to apply themselves to God, for the bestowing of that Grace upon them.

But there is an Objection against this Argument from Circumcision, from Gal. 5.3. Every man that is circumcised, is a Debtor to do the whole Law. And consequently, circumcision should rather have reference to a Covenant of Works.

Answ. It is a mistake, to confound the Law (of which the Apostle there speaketh) with the Covenant of Works, or covenant made with man in Innocency. The Law to which Circumcision bound men, was the written Law of Moses, which though it is sometimes called the Law of Works, yet is really distinct from the Law of Innocency, or Covenant of works made with man at first. Indeed the Mosaical Jewish Law, taken in the Political sence, as it was the Instrument, or Rule of Government of the Jews Common-wealth (as one notes) promising Temporal benefits to the strict observation thereof, Discourse of the two Covenants. p. 75.and threatning Temporal penalties to the Transgression and Violation of the same; So far it was a Law of Works. A Law of Works foreign. As the Apostle saith, Gal. 3.12. The Law is not of Faith: But the man that Doth them, shall live in them, (as Lev. 18.5.) Which as it had reference p. 314to the Law in the Political sence, is to be understood of a long and prosperous life upon Earth.

Further, as the false Apostles and carnal Jews expected Justification, and Salvation, upon the External Observation of the Law, as if Circumcision, and other works of the Law were highly Meritorious (Rom. 9, 32. and 10.3.) Thus it was to them a supposed Law, or Covenant of Works. Not that God did so intend it, but they did so misapprehend it. Not that Circumcision did indeed bind men to the strict Terms of the proper Covenant of Works.

But the Apostle there speaks of Circumcision, in the sence of the false Apostles, and as they abused it. They urged it as necessary to Justification, as a work of the Law, setting Moses against Christ: And would have it still practised, when by Christ it was abolished. Against these, the Apostle argues, if you will keep up circumcision still, by the same reason, you must keep up all Iewish Ceremonies, and observe the whole Mosaical Law, to which Circumcision did oblige them.

But observe it, the use of Circumcision as instituted by God, was not to bind them to Legally perfect, and sinless Obedience; nor did Abraham, or any faithful Jew so understand it. So indeed it would have been no priviledge at all; Rom. 3.1.Rom 3:1so it would have been no happiness or advantage, but a misery; and terror for them to have been taken into Covenant with God by Circumcision. But though compared with the more easie Institutions of the Gospel, circumcision was a Yoke, binding them to that more burdensome way of Service, which God at that time had appointed; yet comparing their estate then, with that of the p. 315Heathen, circumcision was an Honourable Badge of them, whom God owned as his peculiar people. And though as Circumcision had relation to their political Law, it bound them to the strict Observation of those Statutes, Judgments and Ordinances, which God had given them in special: Yet as it had relation to the covenant made with Abraham, and his Seed, which was still on foot, it only bound them to serve and obey God in sincerity and truth, in what he then revealed to be his Will; and so much is (no doubt) required of every one in the Covenant of Grace. Again,

3. That covenant which holds forth Salvation to Fallen man, cannot be the covenant of works, but the covenant of Grace. But the covenant made with the Jews, held forth Salvation to them, John 4.22. Salvation is of the Jews: So it was while they were in covenant. And upon this account the Land of Judah might be called Emphatically, The Land of the Living. Theirs was the Land of the Living, and the Valley of Vision: Whereas other People sat in Darkness, and in the Region and shadow of Death, Psal. 132.16. I will clothe her Priests with Salvation: Ministerium eorum reddam salutare populo meo: Id quod eis erit honorificum, non secus ac elegans Vestis. Piscat.By their Ministration (standing in his councel) they might both save themselves, and others, Jer. 23.22. And they that were aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenant of Promise, are set forth as having no hope, and without God in the world, Ep. 2.12. Implying, 1. That the Gentiles had no grounded hope of future Happiness. 2. The Jews had or might have had such hope. 3. What grounded p. 316hope they had of future Happiness, it depended, or was built and bottomed on the Covenant, then on foot. Called Covenants, being divers times renewed, though otherwise for substance, it was but one. So again, Rom. 9.4. Ʋna fuit promissio, si remipsam spectes, Beza.sed saepius sancita. It was at several times renewed, and though the Matter and substance of it was the same, yet it was delivered in sundry forms in various Expressions. Or if by [Covenants] we understand, Et foedus gratiae communis, & faedus peculiaritatis: Both the general covenant which God maketh with all his People, chiefly about their Eternal Happiness; and that special covenant made with the People of the Jews, about their prosperity in Canaan, the Land of Promise; the latter was but an Appendix, not a thing opposite to the former.

Now if Salvation was of the Jews (as is already proved) it undeniably follows, that the Covenant of Grace was made with the Jews, as well as with us Christians. Surely, none that consider what they say, will dare to affirm that they might have Salvation, though under a Covenant of Works, and not of Grace. And as the way of Salvation was alwayes one and the same, to wit, through a Mediatour; so the covenant of Grace in all Ages for substance, was one and the same. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and to day, and for ever, Heb. 13.8.

Here (by the way) observe, how grosly they are mistaken, that hold, the Jews had only Temporal promises. A bold-fac'd Assertion, contrary to plain Scripture. If the Jews had no promises, but only of Temporal things, what shall we make of that Text, John 5.39. Search the Scriptures, (where p. 317certainly our Saviour speaketh of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, the Scriptures of the New Testament (not being then Extant) Search the Scriptures (sayes he) for in them ye think ye have Eternal Life; and they are they that testifie of me. And what would they make of that Promise, [I will be their God!] The Psalmist speaketh of it as a far greater Matter to have the Lord for our God, than to have and enjoy the world, Psal. 144.15. And the Apostle seemeth to say, that God would have been ashamed, to be called, Their God in so low a sence; as including meerly some outward Temporal priviledges, and Enjoyments, and no more, Heb. 11.16. This would have been little for his Honour: This would not have been to promise, or give like himself, like a God. Those words spoken to Moses [I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,] prove them not only in being still, but in a state of happiness. And so the Import of the Phrase, Rev. 21.7. He that overcometh shall Inherit all things, and I will be his God. And certainly, the blessings of an earthly Canaan were not all, that God promised under the Old Testament; but Canaan it self was to them a Type of a better Countrey, that is an Heavenly. And if the Doctrine of future Happiness after this Life, was not sufficiently Revealed unto, and commonly apprehended, and known among the Jews, one would wonder how such an one, as that Thief on the Cross, should be acquainted with it, who prayed, Lord, remember me, when thou comest into thy Kingdom.

4. That Covenant, which had the Spirit and Grace of God attending the Administration of it, p. 318was undoubtedly a Covenant of Grace. But the covenant made with the Jews, had the Spirit and Grace of God so attending it. The Spirit was promised, and Exhibited then, though not in so large a measure, as under the Gospel, Hag. 2.5. According to the word that I covenanted with you, when ye came out of Egypt, so my Spirit remaineth among you, Mich. 2.7. Is the Spirit of the Lord streightned? Are these his doings? Do not my words do good to him that walketh uprightly? Those high Encomia given to the Law, Psal. 19.7, 8, 9. The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: The Statutes of the Lord are right, rejoycing the heart: The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightning the eyes, agree to it only, as the Spirit doth accompany it.

There was the same Spirit of Faith given out under the Old Testament, though not the same measure of Faith. And it was a Prayer, which a Saint under the Old Testament put up, Psal. 143.10. Teach me to do thy will, for thou art my God, thy Spirit is good: Lead me (i. e. by thy Spirit) into the Land of Ʋprightness. And there was the same Love to God, to his Word and Worship, to his Saints and Servants in the faithful of Old, as is in Believers, under the Gospel. And they obeyed from the same gracious Principle, as is evident from Heb. 11.

5. The Jewish Sacraments did represent and signifie the same thing, as Gospel-Sacraments do; from whence it would seem to follow, that the Covenant made with them is for substance, the same with that which Christians are under. Methinks it is plain, that the Apostle makes Circumcision and Baptism, the same in signification, Col. 2.11, 12. and 1 Cor. 10.3, 4. They did all eat the same spiritual p. 319Meat, and they did all drink the same spiritual Drink: For they drank of that spiritual Rock, that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. Would any one imagine, that Christ should be held forth Represented, or Typified, in Sacraments relating to the Covenant of Works? That their Sacraments did Typifie Christ to come, and ours do set him forth as already come; will not prove two Covenants Essentially different, but only two different Administrations of the Covenant. As it will not prove two Christs, one that was then to come, and another that is since come. Surely, there is but one Christ, though thus variously set forth and discovered.

6. That Covenant which was capable of being renewed, after it was broken, must needs be a Covenant of Grace, and not of Works. But the covenant made with the Israelites, was capable of renewing. The covenant of Works being once broken, is irreparably broken, because it requireth absolute, perfect Obedience. But the People of Israel were oft called to renew their covenant with God, which sheweth it was a Covenant of Grace. Moses, Nehemiah, &c. who truly feared God, and full well knew their own and others weakness, and utter inability to perform sinless Obedience, would never have been so forward to engage themselves, and others in a covenant of Works; which was impossible for them to keep, whereby they could expect nothing but a curse.

The covenant of Works admitteth not of Repentance, promiseth not Remission thereupon: But there was place for Repentance, and a promise of Pardon and Forgiveness in that covenant made with p. 320the Israelites, Lev. 26.40, 42. Deut. 4.30, 31.

There was a way appointed under the Old Testament for the Expiation of sin. The Sacrifices under the Law were Types of Christ, and to signifie our obtaining Remission by his Blood. Doth the covenant of works admit of Sacrifices for sin? What a veil is over their eyes, in reading the Old Testament, that make it a covenant of works, when the great thing pointed at by its Types and Ceremonies, is Christ, and Redemption by him! VVill any say, the covenant of works, was Typical of the covenant of Grace?

7. That Covenant which had the same condition with the Gospel-covenant, viz. Sincere Obedience to Gods Commands; is for substance the same covenant, that is, a Covenant of Grace. But the covenant made with the Jews. had this same condition. The covenant of works would not take up with Sincere Obedience, but strictly requireth, and exacteth Perfect Obedience.

But as God in his Covenant with Abraham, required his walking uprightly. So this was the thing required of Israel, Deut. 10.12. And now Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul? VVhere the phrase [To serve him with all the heart, and with all the soul] is to be understood, by comparing it with other Texts, where the like phrase is used. As Deut. 30, 6. VVhere God promiseth to circumcise their heart, to love him with all their heart, and with all their soul And 1 Kings 14.8. VVhere it is said of David, that he followed the Lord with all his heart. And the like of Josiah, 2 Kings 23.25. Not that p. 321they did all that God in his Law required of them: But God in the Covenant made with them, did accept of their sincere and hearty Service, and Obedience, though it was Imperfect; which the Covenant of Works would not admit of.

Phrasis illa [ex toto Corde] in multis locis Scripturae apponitur hypocrisi, Chemnit. Loc. Com. de Lege Dei. p. 9. Col. 2.Col 2& externi simulationi, manifestum est [toto corde] seu perfecto corde, opponi duplici cordi. This of loving God with all the heart, and soul, and strength, Truman against same prevailing Opinions. p. 92.93, 94.must be considered either strictly, — and so it requires the utmost of a mans Natural ability; so that if he fails in the least degree of this, he fails so much of love due to God by the Law, and is under its Curse. In this strict sence, no meer man in this Life; not Josiah himself, ever loved God with his whole heart, so highly as he ought. 2. These words may be considered as the condition of the Remedying-Law, as taken with Gospel-lenity, as if they love God with the prevailing bent of their souls, or above all things, &c.

So that when you read, Lev. 18.5. Ye shall keep my Statutes, and my Judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them. (As in Neh. 9.29. and Ezek, 20.11.) You are not therefore to conclude, that this was a covenant of Works. Though it run in such a form, and though it is true; the carnal Jews with their Pharisaical Teachers, turned it into a covenant of Works. [Do this and live,] if you understand it, speaking of a Legal exactness, a perfect fulfilling of the Law; if you take it as a promise of Life, only upon condition of perfect p. 322unsinning Obedience. So (its true) it is the plain Voice of the Covenant of Works. But as the Lord spake thus to the People of Israel, whom of his meer Grace, and Favour he had taken into Covenant with him; the words are rather to be taken in a Gospel-sence, as requiring sincere Obedience, and promising Life thereupon. And so the Faithful understood them, Psal. 51.6. Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts, ver. 16, 17. Thou desirest not Sacrifice, the Sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. Psal. 40.8. I delight to do thy will, O my God: Yea, thy Law is within my heart. Psal. 44.17, 18. We have not dealt falsely in thy Covenant, our heart is not turned back, &c. Yea, it is most plain, that such a keeping of Gods Commands was meant, as had a promise of Gods Keeping-mercy unto them, Deut. 7.12. and of his Shewing-mercy, Exod. 20.6. Where there is need of Shewing-mercy, that plainly shews, the Obedience performed not to be exactly Legal, every way perfect. Shewing-mercy here, seemeth to intend, at least it concludeth, Pardoning-mercy. As it standeth in opposition to Gods visiting Iniquity, ver. 5. But supposing Obedience every way perfect, there is no room for, no need of such Mercy. Sincere Obedience was no less accepted under the Old Testament, than under the New, (Mal. 3.17.) As it is no less required under the New Testament, than under the Old, Mat. 7.21. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doth the will of my Father which is in Heaven. Rom. 2.7. To them who by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for Glory, Honour, and Immortality, Eternal life, ver. 13. For not p. 323the Hearers of the Law are just before God, but the Doers of the Law shall be justified, and James, 1.25.

And so the Harmony betwixt the Old Testament, and the New; betwixt Moses, the Prophet, and the Apostle Paul, Deut. 30.11, 12, 13, 14. with Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. The Obedience of Faith required by both, (vid. Truman against some prevailing Opinions, pag. 35, 36.) As Mr. Ball, Of the Covenant. p. 114.What word was that which Moses saith was near, even in their hearts, But the Law which the Lord gave upon Mount Sanai, and promised to write in the hearts of his People under the Covenant of Grace. It should be under the New Covenant of Grace.

And though some may be ready to Object that of the Apostles, Rom. 10.5. For Moses describes the Righteousness which is of the Law, that the man which doth those things, shall live by them; which would seem to make Lev. 18.5. and other the like Texts, a Covenant of works, of a contrary Tenour to the Gospel-covenant. Yet the difficulty is solved, if we attend to what another hath observed. Truman against some prevailing Opinion. p. 36.It is apparent (says he) that the Law of Moses, though it was given designedly (as to the end of the Revelation of it) as a Covenant of Grace, and Pardon, even for the Salvation of sinners; yet it was given (subserviently still to the same end of Salvation) also to Reveal the Law, in its utmost exacting Rigour.

And else-where Paraphrasing upon the place, [for Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law.] That is, Append. to great Propitiation. p. 59.these p. 324words of Moses taken in the strict Law-sence, as a Law, and in the sence you understand them, set forth the way you stick too for Justification. For it is apparent, that those very words (Lev. 18.5.) and the whole body of the Mosaical Law, were a Covenant of Grace, as they were given from God by Moses, and understood (or intended by God) and ought to have been understood by the People: The meaning was, if you indeavour to do all these sincerely, and lament your falling short, you shall live and be blessed. Though he would not deny, but freely grant, that the same Mosaical Law, that is, Materially the same, was also given to Rule them, as a Common-wealth; according to the Observance, or Transgression whereof, they might look to prosper, or to be punished in this World.

8. That Covenant whereby the People of Israel came to have a special Interest in God, and special Priviledges above other People, could not be a Covenant of works, but of Grace. They could have had no Special priviledge by a Covenant of works, wherein naturally all are equally concern'd, and which lays sinners under the Curse, under an Intollerable burden. It's impossible that sinners should come to have an Interest in God by the Covenant of works. Yet this was the Jews priviledge: The Lord was their God, Gen. 17.8. and Psal. 144.15. and 33.12. To them pertain the Adoption, Rom. 9.4. And they have God nigh to them, Deut. 4.7, 8. And had the advantage clear of all others, that were strangers to the Covenant, Rom. 3.1, 2. Had it been a Covenant of works, they should only have had God against them, not with them, or for them, p. 325what is spoken to them, Exod. 19.5, 6. is applied to Believers under the New Testament, 1 Pet. 2.9.

What I have added here, foreign to shew, that the Covenant made with the Jews, was not a Covenant of works, is to shew some, how grossely Mr. Patient is mistaken; whose loose Discourse deserves not a large Refutation. Yet as weak as it is, it hath taken with some Friends of mine, whom I cannot but pity. But, Lay all these things together, and I wonder if you can have any doubt, whether the Covenant made with them, was a Covenant of Grace, the same for substance with the Gospel-covenant.

Yet because this is the foreign of the Anabaptists, the grand Mistake, which they lie under, and which leadeth them further out of the way; for the further clearing of the Truth, I shall answer all that I can think of, which may be Objected.

Object. 1. That the Covenant made with the Jews, was but a Subservient-Covenant. Not the Covenant of Grace, but subservient to it.

Answ. 1. It could not be Subservient to the first bringing in of the Covenant of Grace, which was in the world before this. The Covenant of Grace was made with Adam, immediately upon the Fall, and renewed with Abraham. And how could the Covenant made with the Jews, be subservient to the being of that, which was long before it? 2. Granting it was subservient to the Gospel-dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, and preparatory to it, (as it is Gods usual Method in the works both of Nature, and Grace, to proceed from that which is less perfect, to that which is more perfect) yet p. 326this will not prove it no Covenant of Grace, but only that it was not so clear a Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, as the Gospel-covenant. 3. It certainly tended to the same end, which the Gospel aimeth at; to wit, the Salvation of souls, and had the same effect, attained this end in the Faithful among the Jews, and therefore certainly was a Covenant of Grace, the same for substance with the Gospel covenant, and not meerly subservient to it.

Object. 2. It was a mixt Covenant.

Answ. Though one hath raised a great dust, about the Covenant made with Abraham, and his Seed, calling it a Mixt-covenant: Of what Principles was it mixt? Was it a Mixture of the Covenant of works, and the Covenant of Grace? A compound of both these? But at other times, they will say these two are Incompassibilia, things that will not mix, and consist together; you may as soon mingle Heaven and Earth together. If Justification and Salvation be of works, then of Debt, and consequently not of Grace: So one of these plainly excludes, and overthrows the other. That either they must bring it to a Covenant of works, and not of Grace, or vice versâ, to a Covenant of Grace and not of VVorks. Or was it a mixt Covenant because it contained Temporal promises, as well as Spiritual; yet observe, this could not hinder its being a Covenant of Grace. For, 1. Those Temporal good things promised were Typical of higher, and better, even of Spiritual things. An earthly Canaan was a Type of Heaven. And long Life promised to the Obedient, was promised as an earnest to Eternal Life, And whatever some say and think, p. 327this consideration would commend, and set off those outward Temporal blessings promised to the Faithful; that they were Types and Pledges of Spiritual and Heavenly things. That they might say, as David, 2 Sam. 7.19. And this was yet a small thing in thy sight, O Lord God, but thou hast also spoken of thy servants for a great while to come; hast spoken what thou wilt do for us hereafter, in another world. How great is thy Goodness which thou hast laid up for them, that fear thee, besides all that Goodness of thine laid out upon them here.

2. The Gospel it self contains promises of Outward, Temporal-blessings, as well as Spiritual. Christ hath promised, Mat. 6, 33. All these things shall be added, to them that seek the Kingdom of Heaven first. And still that holds good to the Faithful, [I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee, Heb, 13.5, 6. Godliness not only heretofore had, but still hath the promise of the Life that now is, as well as of that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4.8. Now shall we therefore say, The Gospel is a mixt Covenant, and not a Covenant of Grace.

If it be replied, that in the Covenant made with Abraham, and his Seed, the Land of Canaan was promised, which is no where promised to Believers in the Gospel.

Answ. If upon this account it must be held, a mixt Covenant, in Opposition to its being a Covenant of Grace; then that which made it a mixt Covenant, must be either that this was a Temporal promise, or that it was a promise peculiarly belonging to Abraham and his seed; but neither of these could make it such a mixt Covenant. Not the former. p. 328For by this Reason, the Gospel, which promiseth, that the meek shall Inherit the Earth, Mat. 5. should be a mixt Covenant. That the promise of an Earthly Canaan should make such a mixt Covenant, and no other promise of the Earth, or Earthly blessings do it; is such a groundless Fancy, as will never be proved while the Earth stands.

Nor the latter. For so the Gospel should be a mixt Covenant too. As the Land of Canaan was promised in special to Abraham, and his seed; and as it was promised, that the Messiah should come of his seed: So in the beginning of the Gospel, there was a special promise of Miracles, to credit, and encourage the Faith of those, who first believed in Christ, Mark 16.17, 18. These signs shall follow them that believe. In my Name they shall cast out Devils, they shall speak with new Tongues, they shall take up Serpents, &c. Which promise belongeth not to us, as those signs are not to be expected now: Must we therefore say, that was a mixt Covenant made with those Primitive believers, different from the Covenant of Grace we are under? Surely it is called the Covenant of Grace, from the main essential promises of Grace, and Salvation: I say, it hath its Denomination from those Grand promises, which God made to his Church and People in all Ages; and which make it the same Covenant for substance, notwithstanding a difference, and change in certain accessions and circumstantials.

So if it alledged, that the Old Testament doth more abound with Temporal promises.

The Answer is ready, Magis & Minus non variant Speciem. More and Less shew different Degrees, p. 329not different Kinds. Though the Jews had more of the Earth promised, and Christians more of the Spirit, this will only prove Christians under a better dispensation of the Covenant; it will not disprove the Jews being under a Covenant of Grace, since besides their temporal, they had also spiritual Promises.

Obj. 3. Had the Covenant made with the Jews been a covenant of Grace, the same for substance with the Gospel covenant, then Christ should have been the Mediator of it; but Moses was the Mediator of that Covenant.

Ans. 1. Inasmuch as that Covenant made with the Jews, did admit of a Mediator, this sheweth it was not a covenant of works. The covenant of works hath no Mediator.

2. Moses as he was Mediator was a type of Christ, therefore Christ was the true Mediator, even then as well as now, Heb. 13.8. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Indeed Christ is called the Mediator of a better Covenant, Heb. 8.6. Not wholly to exclude him from having to do in the former covenant, but because as the Law came by Moses, and he was made use of to report it from God to the Israelites, Acts 7.38. (in which respect he is called a Mediator, Gal. 3.19.) So the better covenant was delivered, the better dispensation of the covenant was set forth by Christ himself, (as Heb. 1.2.) as it was fit he should have the Honour of it. But as Remission of sin, and Reconciliation unto God was attainable under the first covenant, so Christ was the Mediator then, and not Moses. Indeed, in all Ages Christ was both Prophet, Priest, and King to his Church; though he p. 330was not so clearly revealed in these his Offices before, as he is to his People under the Gospel.

Obj. 4. The Old Testament was dedicated with the blood of Beasts, not of Christ, Heb. 9.18, 19.

Answ. The virtue of Christs blood did certainly extend to the times of the Old Testament. And was not that Blood, wherewith the first Testament was Dedicated, Typical of the blood of Christ? Now how absurd is it to talk of a Covenant of works typical of a Covenant of Grace, (as Mr. Patient, holds it is, who makes this Objection.) How strange were it, if a Covenant of works should be so Dedicated, as to represent Christ and his Benefits; which is the soul and substance of the Covenant of Grace. Indeed, as a Modern writer notes: Mr. Truman indeavours to Rectifie some prevailing Opinions. p. 151.In the sence wherein it did Typifie things to come, it was neither the strict Law of work, nor the Law of Grace, or Gospel promising pardon as to Conscience and future Happiness upon Repentance, and sincere Obedience, but the Jewish Political Law.

But the Book of the Law in the Temporal sence, Ib. p. 27. Margin. And the like again, in the Margin, p. 83.(as it was the Instrument of the Jewish policy,) being sprinkled with blood, was a pattern of the Law in the Eternal sence, sprinkled with a better Sacrifice.

Object. But the Covenant which God made with the Jews, and the Covenant made with Believers under the Gospel, are spoken of as two Covenants; one called the First, and the old Covenant; the other p. 331the New; and the second Covenant one said to have been faulty, the other called a better Covenant, Heb. 8.6, 7.

Answ. 1. The terms Old, and New, First, and Second, will not prove them essentially Different, or different Kinds of Covenants; (nor were they, unless we restrain the Covenant made with the Jews, to that part of it, which was meerly political) but only various Dispensations of one and the same Covenant. In Deut. 29.1. We read of a Covenant made with the Israelites, besides the Covenant made with them in Horeb; not that these were two Covenants specifically different (as some have very groundlesly supposed) but the same Covenant renewed.

The Gospel-covenant is called a new Covenant; not but that the Covenant made with the Jews of old, was the same for substance, as otherwise Salvation had not been of the Jews: But because though these were the same for substance, yet they were diverse in respect of Administration. **Foedus novum non substantiâ, sed formâ.So a man is said to take a new Lease, or to enter into a new Bond, when the Former and the Latter are the same for substance. The same Law of Love is called both an Old and a New Commandment. That which is called the new Covenant, Spark. Myst. of Godliness. p. 64.is not (as one says) a Covenant upon new conditions, but a New condition of the old Covenant. Or as another, that which the Scripture expresly calls the Old Testament, Statham Reviler rebuked. p. 91.or Covenant, Heb. 8.20. was but the old Administration of the Covenant of Grace, p. 332the old Copy of Christs will: That which it calls the new Covenant, is the old for substance, though new for the Administration, the new Copy of Christs will.

2. When the first Covenant is supposed by the ensuing Alteration, not to have been faultless; the plain meaning seems to be, that it was a less perfect Dispensation, than that in Gospel-times, not so clear, not so powerful, &c. The Old Testament-dispensation was but as a first draught. We have the lively Representation of those things in the Gospel, which were more darkly shadowed out before, Heb. 10.1. The Old Testament was as a preface, or Introduction to the New.

Or else the Apostle calleth that the first Covenant, which the Jews then took to be the Covenant; to wit, the meer External part of it under the former Dispensation, which was but as the Shell or Husk; which yet the carnal Jews were most taken with, rejecting the Kernel.

3. The Gospel-covenant is called a better Covenant, established upon better promises; because a better Dispensation of the Covenant, where there are clearer promises of Spiritual blessings, and which is fuller of such promises. Spiritual promises were more sparingly set down in the old Covenant. As was hinted before, it was most congruous, that Christ the Mediator of the Covenant, should have the honour of bringing in the best dispensation of it. That the best Dispensation of the Covenant was deferred, till the Mediators coming in Person.

Or else the Gospel-covenant is called a better Covenant, comparing it with the covenant made with the Jews, onelyonly so far as it was political, and a peculiar p. 333dispensation given to them, which the far greater part of them sinfully fevered and divided from the Covenant of Grace, and stuck to, in opposition to the Gospel; which was an higher, and a better Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace.

Object. 6. One whom I mentioned a little before, Objecteth, Ezek. 16.59, 60, 61, 62. where God opposeth, Their Covenant to His Covenant. Thy Covenant, ver. 61. and My Covenant, ver. 62. Who would hence draw this wide and wild conclusion, that the Covenant made with the Jews, which God there calleth thy Covenant, was a Covenant of Works, quite opposite to that which He calleth [My Covenant] that is, the Covenant of Grace.

Answ. But may we not think, that they are put to their shifts, that are forced to such Allegations, as have nothing like a Proof, or Argument. And take Notice of ver. 60. there you may see, how well this place agrees to their purpose, Nevertheless, I will remember my Covenant (made) with thee in the days of thy youth, &c.] The Covenant made with the Jews, God calleth, My Covenant, (as Jer. 31.32.) And promiseth to remember it. ††Dixerat Paulò antè, [memor ero foederis mei,] jam dicit, [Non ex foedere tuo.] Conciliat igitur quae contraria videbantur, ostendit foedus illud irritum & abolitum esse ex parte populi, firmum autem ex parte Dei, qui eorum superavit malitiam, & foedus suum erga ipsos iterum erexit. Calo. in pol. Synops.And was it a Covenant of works, that he would remember? Surely, such a Covenant would have made nothing for them, but against them.

Rather as Oecolompadius notes, Habes hic locum memorabilem de duplici foedere, p. 334&c. Here you have a memorable place concerning a two-fold Covenant; one with Israel alone, the other with all Nations. And there is this difference betwixt the New and Old Testament; that one was more obscure, and communicated but to a few, the other is more clear, and spread abroad, Propagated in the whole world. So he, or else, as Dr. Lightfoot somewhere, Fall of Jerusalem (in Har. on the New Test.) p. 154. the 12.God made a two-fold Covenant with their Fathers, viz. The Covenant of Grace, and the Covenant of Peculiarity. And the latter (N. B.) was but a manner of the Administration of the former. The covenant of Grace was made with Adam, and belongs to all the Seed of Christ, before the Law, under it, and after it, Jews and Gentiles. Now the Oeconomy of Moses was such an Administration of this covenant of Grace. as made Israel a peculiar People.

And may not this teach us how to understand ver. 61. [I will give them unto thee for Daughters, but not by thy Covenant.] That [thy Covenant] here, should rather be explained by this covenant of Peculiarity, a certain Mode of the covenant of Grace, as at that time dispensed; than by the covenant of VVorks.

Object. 7. It is further Objected from Jer. 31.31, 32, 33, 34. If that new Covenant which God there promiseth to make with them, be a covenant of Grace, then the former Covenant was not. And so they must needs differ in Kind and Substance.

Answ. Blake vind. Foed. p. 216.As a Learned man observes, that Text hath been very much vexed, and wrested, several Parties would writh p. 375it to their several Opinions, and press it to serve several purposes. As the Antinomian would hence prove the covenant of Grace, to be absolute without condition, God promising to put his Law in their hearts. The Familists hence cry down the Ministry, and Gospel-Ordinances; because it is said, they shall Teach no more, every man his Neighbour, and every man his Brother. (But these plainly contradict themselves; and while they insist on the bare Letter of the Text, which if it be against Teaching by Man, it is more against Brother teaching Brother, and Neighbour teaching Neighbour; (which is a thing they allow & practise) than against the Teaching of men in Office; of which the Text saith nothing.) Others again urge this Text to prove, that only the regenerate are in covenant, and have a right to Church-priviledges, and Ordinances. To all which I may add one sort more: The Anabaptists, that hence conclude, the Covenant made with the Jews, was not a covenant of Grace, and of Salvation; but a Covenant of Outward and Temporal Priviledges, or as the more Ignorant sort of them, a covenant of Works. And so Mr. Patient will have it. But, 1. If that Covenant made formerly with the Jews was a covenant of VVorks, not of Grace, then God was Married unto them by a covenant of Works: As ver. 32. he saith, He was an Husband unto them. But it is not to be imagined, that God should be Married unto sinners, by a covenant of VVorks. 2. That which is here called a New covenant, meaneth only a New dispensation of the Covenant, which should be at the Messiahs coming in Gospel-times. Called New, for the great change there should be p. 336for the better in manner of Administration, in which respect it might seem to be a New covenant indeed. 3. The truth of this second particular will appear, if we consider what this New covenant is: [I will put my Law in their inward parts: &c.] which is spoken comparate, non absolute. Not as if God had not done this for them before in some measure; but that he would do it in a further measure: [I will put my Law in their inwards parts.] This God had done for some of them before, as he had promised this before, Deut. 30.6. There was some among them that could say as the Psalmist, Psal. 40.8. I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy Law is within my heart. But that Grace which was more rare under the Old Testament, is promised to be extended to more, more plentifully, diffused under the New. And this is the meaning of [I will make a New covenant— not according to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers.]

Object. 8. That Covenant made with the Israelites, they are said to have broken, Jer. 31.32. Ezek. 16.59. But it is impossible, that the New covenant lying wholly on Gods part, should be broken.

Answ. This supposeth what is not to be supposed, that the Covenant of Grace lieth wholly on Gods part, and nothing is required of man therein. But I have undeniably proved before, that the Covenant of Grace hath Conditions, conditions not required of God, but of men: As 'tis not required of God, but of man to Believe, Repent, Obey, sincerely. And if any of us do not come up to these Terms, and Duties, whereunto we stand p. 337bound, we are guilty of breach of covenant. If God and Man be not mutually engaged; if all lieth wholly on Gods part, and Man is to do nothing, then it is an absolute Promise, not a Covenant.

Dr. Preston indeed speaks of a double Covenant, which cannot be broken, Of Attrib. 2… part. p. 87.where God engageth to work the condition in some, but that is restrained to the Elect. Others reduce it to that which is called the Covenant of Redemption, betwixt God and Christ. But the Covenant properly with Man, that covenant, according to the terms and tenor whereof, we are to look for Remission and Salvation, is conditional; and in the tenders of it, common both to Elect and Reprobate. And as for all those that profess to own, and embrace the covenant, and yet come not up to the terms of it, they are guilty of breach of Covenant with God; and continuing such, shall be judged and condemned as covenant-breakers. VVhere the condition of the covenant ought to be performed, and is not, there (it is manifest) the covenant is broken.

Yea, I do not question but Believers themselves are generally to be humbled for this sin, that they have broken covenant with God. They may have been guilty of breaking covenant with him for a time, who yet do not finally break covenant with him.

Further, I would ask one that is of Mr. P's perswasion here (whether Anabaptist, or other) whether all in their societies be not persons entred into Covenant? And next, whether there be no Hypocrites in their societies? And then, whether any Hypocrite, while an hypocrite, keepeth Covenant.

p. 338Certainly the Covenant that Christian Churches are taken into, which is sealed in Baptism, may be broken, and is broken by some, if there are any Hypocrites within the visible Church, that is, if the visible and invisible Church be not all one. It is as little to be doubted, that there are persons in covenant, who yet break it, and shall be judged as Violators of it; as that there are branches in Christ that bear not Fruit, and therefore shall be cut off, and taken away, Joh. 15.2.

Therefore they must search out some other meaning of these words, Jer. 31.32. VVhichWhich my Covenant they brake. And not make this a Note of Difference betwixt the Covenant made with the Jews, and the Gospel-Covenant, that the former might be broken, not the latter. As to the Elect it is true, they do not totally and finally break Covenant; and that Grace enabling to keep the Covenant, is given out to a far greater Number than before; but we cannot say simply and absolutely, that the Gospel-covenant is never broken.

Obj. 9. The Covenant of Grace never ceaseth, it is the everlasting Covenant, but the Covenant made with the Jews is vanished, Heb. 8.13. Now what is vanished away, cannot be the same with that which is to remain.

Ans. 1. As Tena, Novum Testamentum non tam abolitio, quàm impletio prioris. The New Testament is not so much an abolishing, as a fulfilling of the Old. 2. Where the Apostle speaks of the Old Covenant, as that which was to vanish away, we are to understand it of that part of the covenant which was peculiar and proper to that Dispensation. The Ceremonial-Law given to the Jews, is vanished. p. 339Circumcision is vanished, yet the Covenant of Grace, made with Abraham, (to which Circumcision then did appertain,) remaineth still the same for substance, which Believers are taken into. The Judicial Law which was given to the Jews, is vanished, so far as it did peculiarly respect their Common-wealth: but not the Moral Law, I hope, which the Lord hath promised to write in the hearts of his People. Do we make voyd the Law through Faith? God forbid (sayes the Apostle) yea, we establish the Law, Rom. 6.31. Neither are all Old Testament Promises vanished, 2 Cor. 7.1. Having therefore these Promises, (dearly beloved) let's cleanse our selves— These Promises: what Promises? why, those before mentioned, chap. 6.16. which you will find, Lev. 26.12. I will walk among you, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people.

Obj. 10. If the covenant made with the Israelites, and the Gospel covenant, be one and the same for substance, how comes it to pass, that the Apostle so oft opposeth these two Covenants, as Gal. 4.24. &c. why does he make the Law and Gospel, and works of the Law and Faith Opposites?

Ans. That late writer, whom I had occasion to make use of before, (in the Answer to the Fourth Objection) distinguisheth of the Law given by Moses, thus (though not in these very words, yet to this sence) to wit, Mr. T. Endeavour to rectifie, &c. p. 23. to 37.That it is to be considered, either as respecting the Jewish Common-wealth, or as respecting Conscience; either in a Political or in a Spiritual sence. 1. As respecting the Jews common-wealth, so this was the Law of the Land, by which they were all to be p. 340governed, as a Common-wealth. And this Law was two-fold, to wit, 1. The strict Original Law, exacting Obedience to all Gods commands, whether Moral, Judicial, or Ceremonial, upon pain of death; so a violent temporal Death was due to every one that failed in observing any external Precept of the Law. 2. The Remedying Law answering to it, which appointed a Sacrifice to be offered in most cases, upon which the Offendor and Transgressor was discharged from the aforesaid temporal Death threatned.

2. The same Law (that is, materially the same) is also to be considered, as respecting conscience. And here we are to take notice likewise, 1. The Original Law here was so wonderfully strict, and dreadfully severe, that it threatned an eternal curse, everlasting death, to any the least transgression whatsoever. As it had to do with Conscience, it threatned Death Eternal to every Sin, even to inward secret sins, in heart or thought; such things as it did not take notice of, or threaten with a violent temporal Death, as it was their Common-wealth Law. 2. The Remedying Law answering to it, and given with it, which was to this purpose, that notwithstanding they were, all of them, many wayes guilty of the breach of Gods most holy Law, and so obnoxious to the curse; yet such was his Grace, that upon their sincere Repentance, and real and hearty Endeavours to obey God in all things, their sins should be pardoned, and their Souls saved.

Now taking the Law in this last sence, as it held forth pardon and salvation to sinners upon their hearty return to God, and sincere Obedience, so there is no Opposition betwixt this Remedying Law, and the Gospel. The Apostle speaking of it, calleth it the p. 341word of Faith, the same which we preach, Rom. 10.8. So it was the Salvation of the Jews, Joh. 4.22. the means of salvation to those that were saved.

As it was their common-wealth Law, it typified higher things. First, in that it threatned every transgression with Death, it shewed the wonderfull strictness of Gods Law, as in an higher sence, threatning eternal Death to every sin. Again, as there was a Remedying Law, given with it, appointing in most cases, a Beast to be slain, to prevent the Death of the Offender, it was a typical Gospel, shadowing out the Reconciliation of sinners by a more excellent Sacrifice.

Again, there is another distinction I would have you take notice of, to wit, that we must distinguish betwixt the Law, as it was given by God, and as it was mistaken and perverted by many of the Jews.

Now as the Law was given by God, we may be sure, as Mr. Allen hath well noted, It was not to cross, or confront the Promise, or Gods design in it, Discourse of the two Covenants, p. 55.but to be subservient to it. Gal. 3.21. Is the Law then against the Promises? God forbid. For it is not to be thought that God would prevaricate in his Design. So that when he had once made a new Law of Grace, for the saving of Fallen man, he would yet afterwards give any Law, but what should one way or other subserve to the same end, if men do not deprive themselves of the intended Benefit, by perverting it. And therefore to be sure, God did not intend to revive the Old covenant of works made with Adam in Paradise.

p. 342Now to apply these things to our present purpose, when the Apostle makes an opposition betwixt the Old Testament and the New; the Law and the Gospel; the works of the Law, and Faith; we are either to understand him, as speaking of the Law, so far as it was political, concerning the Jews Common-wealth: Thus indeed it made nothing perfect, it was but a shadow, and was to give place and vanish, the Substance being come: Or else he speaks of the Law in a strict sence, abstracted from those gracious Promises that were given with it to the Jews. And thus it was a copy of the Law of works, requiring absolute perfect Obedience.

Thus it was opposite to the Gospel, as the Jews severed it from, and set it up against the Doctrine of Gods Grace; and so it gendred to bondage, Gal. 4.24. and was the Ministration of Death and condemnation, 2 Cor. 3.6, 7, 9. So there was no being justified by the Law; or if men could have been justified by it, they had not been justified by Grace, there had been nothing of Pardon in it.

But otherwise the Apostle makes the Doctrine of the Old Testament all one with the Doctrine he preached, as we heard before.

And if at any other time he useth any derogating expressions, when he is speaking of it, we must understand them as spoken comparatively, that is, comparing that darker and more burdensome administration, with this clearer and more comfortable dispensation of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel.

Quest. If you ask, how could the Law given to the Jews be considered both as a Law of works, requiring perfect Obedience, and also as a Remedying p. 343Law, taking up with sincere Obedience?

Ans. Had the strict Original Law been given to them intentionally to bind them up to it, to expect Life and Happiness, onelyonly upon those high terms of doing all things therein contained, and obeying perfectly; then had it been plainly exclusive of a remedying Law: But it was not given thus, but the very intention of publishing the strictness and severity of the Law of works (which all men naturally are under) was to commend and set forth the Graciousness of the Remedying Law, to make it more welcome and acceptable. How gladly and thankfully ought they to have submitted to that Law of Grace, which held forth pardon and acceptation with God, upon their believing in him, and obeying sincerely, of whom God might (in Justice) have required nothing less than perfect, sinless Obedience.

And therefore it was a most horrible perverting of the Law, when the Pharisees, and other self-justiciaries, expected Righteousness, and Life from the Law, in their sence, and in opposition to the Gospel, For, 1. As it was the Law of the Land, as it respected their Common-wealth, so (it is true) it was possible for them to keep the Law, Phil. 3.6. They might not be guilty of any such external breach of the Law, as legally deserved a violent temporal death, and such as could not be expiated by Sacrifice, but all this could not justifie them before God. As it was their Common-wealth Law, it was never given for that end; but to keep them in order, and to shadow out greater and higher things.

2. As it held forth the strict Law of works, requiring p. 344perfect sinless Obedience, so they could not possibly keep it, to be justified by it; but were all transgressors of the Law, and so condemned by it; which should have moved them to embrace, and submit to it in a Gospel-sence. And in keeping the Law sincerely, heartily bewailing the sinfull defects in their Obedience, and having recourse to the free grace and mercy of God for pardon, they might have found acceptance, and an exceeding great reward.

Obj. 11. If the old Covenant was a Covenant of Grace, then why are the Jews said to have been in bondage under it? why is the Spirit of Adoption restrained to the time of the New Testament, if the former was the same Covenant of Grace, (for substance) with the latter.

Ans. 1. One way how the former Covenant gendred unto bondage, was hinted before; to wit, carnal Jews, (men of base, servile Spirits) did misinterpret, and misapply it. 2. The faithfull under that dispensation might in another respect be said to be in bondage, Gal. 4.1, 2, 3. As they were under a more burdensome way of Worship, than Believers under the Gospel. As they had not so much liberty, nor so much of a Spirit of Adoption, as the faithfull have under the Gospel. As some, The Church at that time was as an Heir in its minority. Ball of the Covenant, p. 27.As an heir it was free, Statham, Reviler rebuked. p. 93.but as an Infant, or in its minority, it was but as a Servant, under Tutors, and Governours. Ball, p. 35.As Heirs, the faithfull then had the Spirit of Adoption and Liberty, but mixed and tempered with this Spirit p. 345of Servitude, as they were Infants, or children under the yoke.

Obj. 12. You will not deny but the Covenant made with the Israelites, may be considered as Political, and why might it not be only or meerly political?

Ans. The highest, most noble, and primary end of the Law given to Israel, and the Covenant made with them, seems to be to direct, and engage them in the way to Life and Happiness. That it was but a secondary, and less principal use, or end of it, to govern them, as a Theocracy, or holy Commonwealth.

1. As the Covenants, and giving of the Law are set down among the Jews Priviledges, Rom. 9.4. Psal. 147.19, 20. yet the giving of the Law was nothing near so great a Priviledge, taken in the temporal sence, (respecting their Common-wealth; as it was in that higher Notion, and consideration,) as it was to convert the Soul, and to direct in the way to true and eternal Happiness.

2. I should think, that the Israelites covenanting with God, did oblige them to keep his Law, not only as it was the Common-wealth Law, and for fear of temporal punishment, and in hope of a present temporal Reward, but from a filial fear, and love of God, in sincerity and truth, the thing required in the Covenant of Grace, sc. Deut. 5.29. and 10, 12, 13. Heart-obedience was required in that Covenant made with the Jews.

3. That Covenant made with the Israelites contained Spiritual, as well as Temporal Promises. Compare Exod. 19, 5, 6. with 1 Pet. 2.9. and Lev. 26.3, 11, 12. with 2 Cor. 6.16. So also Deut. 29.12, p. 34613. Jer. 11.4. But this was proved before, that the Covenant made with the Israelites was a Covenant of Grace, the same for substance with the Gospel-covenant; therefore not meerly political.

Now this point having been sufficiently cleared, That the Covenant of Grace is one and the same for substance, under the Old and New Testament; it may be of good use.

Ʋse 1. This shews us how the Church is One. There is one catholick Church, consisting of divers parts, Cant. 6.9. My Dove, my Ʋndefiled is but one. There is one Body, as one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptisme, Eph. 4.4, 5. One Church-catholick, constituted by one Grand Charter, or Covenant of Grace, (though it's true, the Church of the Jews had a special clause in their Grant and Charter concerning them as a Common-wealth, which is not in the Christians charter.) So the Ordinances and Priviledges of the Church are given and granted by this Charter, to the whole Church primarily, and to particular Churches consequently and secondarily, as parts of it.

And methinks it is very rational, what some have offered, that it is occasional, and accidental to the Universal Church, Dr. Stillingfleet. Mr. Hudson.that there are particular distinct Congregations, in regard of the multitude and distance of Church-members; for could we conceive, that all the Members of the whole Church could meet together, to partake of the same Numerical Ordinances orderly and to Edification, then the reason for their meeting in several places should p. 347cease. David would praise God in the great Congregation, among much People. And the more publick the Assembly is (Caeteris paribus) other things being alike, the more solemn the Worship is, the more for Gods Glory, and his Peoples benefits, quickning, and comfort. (Though it is true, sometimes Gods People have not had the Liberty to meet openly, when the Church was to be sought: Hillary.Non in tectis, & exteriori pompâ, sed potius in carceribus, & speluncis.

Some good men I know will not admit there is such a thing, as an Ʋniversal visible Church, for fear of bringing in the Pope, or an Ʋniversal visible Head of the Church, though this no way follows upon the other. But however Good men may dissent in such Points here; yet when they meet at last in that General Assembly, spoken of, Heb. 12.23. There shall be no Dissenters then among them. In the mean time I would ask, What Church that was to which so many Souls were added, even Three Thousand in one day? Acts 2.41, 47. See also Chap. 4.4. and 5. and 14. Could it be a particular Congregation?

And what Church that was, wherein God set Apostles, Prophets, &c. 1 Cor. 12.28. Were the Apostles set in particular Churches? Or were they not general Officers unto, and over the whole Church?

And what Church does Baptism declare, and signifie ones admission into? Is it only a sign of Admission into a particular Church? Suppose a Minister cast among a company of Heathen, and one, or more converted by him, should not such be Baptized p. 348upon the Profession of the Faith of Christ, though there was no particular Church constituted there, into whose Fellowship they might be taken?

2. This may serve as an Antidote, against the Error of the Anabaptists, who to out the children of professing Parents of their Interest in the Covenant, would fain perswade men, that the Covenant made with the Jews (wherein children were comprehended with their Parents) was not the same for substance; but quite of another kind. Now since we have proved the Old and New Covenant, the same Covenant of Grace for substance; their Foundation is shaken, and so what they would build upon it, not like to stand. If children were capable of being in covenant with God, with their Parents heretofore, why not now? Either they must say, our children are more incapable of a covenant Interest in God, than the children of the Jews; or that God is less Merciful, bears less respect to the children of his People now, than he did to the children of the Jews: Both which are loaded with absurdity. But more of this afterwards.

3. This may help to keep up in us a reverent, and high esteem of the Scriptures of the Old Testament; Wise men would not throw away their old Evidences. What you have heard, may let you see an Harmony betwixt the Old and New Testament: Yea, Christians though they are not to keep up Jewish ceremonies; yet they may make better use of the Ceremonial Law, than the Jews ordinarily did, who rested in the Letter of the Law, and were taken up with the outward shadows, not looking to the end of that which is Abolished. We may see the End, and Scope of the Ceremonial Law p. 349more clearly, than the Jews themselves did, having so fair and plain a Comment upon it in the Gospel: As Prophecies are best Interpreted by their accomplishment; so Types by the coming of the Antitype, and comparing them together.

There are some that slight, and reject the Scriptures of the Old Testament. This they never learnt of Christ, or his Apostles. We find Christ Expounding Moses and the Prophets to his Disciples even after his Resurrection, Luke 24.27. And are those Scriptures unworthy of a Christians perusal, which Christ thought not unworthy of his Expositions? The Apostle Paul tells us, Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our Learning, Rom. 15.4. And all Scripture given by Inspiration of God, is profitable, 2 Tim. 3.16. He Vindicates his Doctrine, and confirms it from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, Acts 26.22, 23. And we find the Bereans commended for their searching those Scriptures, and trying Doctrines by them, Acts 17.11. The Doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, (as we learn, Ephes. 2.20.) are one Foundation of Faith. Christians are there said to be built upon the Foundation (not Foundations) of the Apostles and Prophets. That to take away the Scriptures of the Old Testament, is to take away part of the Foundation. We have a more sure word of Prophecy, (says the Apostle Peter) whereunto ye do well, that ye take heed, 2 Pet. 1.19.

4. This may further confirm us in the belief of the Gospel. That it is no new Doctrine, but the Substance of it was held forth of old by Moses, and the Prophets; upon which account there is less Occasion to suspect the truth of it. The main Doctrine p. 350of the Gospel is non other, than what God hath Owned, and Delivered to his Church of old, Acts 26.22. Antiquity is a thing which many would pretend to follow. Well, this is the antient Gosspel: And it is proved to be of God; as by the Miracles wrought to confirm it, with other Arguments; so by the writings of Moses and the Prophets, John 5.46. Acts 3.24. It hath double confirmation. We have old Evidences to shew for it, to make it good. As God spake by the Mouth of his holy Prophets, which have been since the world began, Luke 1.70.

5. Hence we may see cause to admire Gods gracious dealing with us, under the Gospel-Dispensation of the Covenant. The Jews were highly Favoured, in being taken into that Covenant God made with them; though it was a darker Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. Now God hath done more for us, than he did for that his antiently-beloved People, taking us into the same Covenant for substance, (it is true, but) in a clearer, a better Dispensation of it. Many Kings and Prophets, and Righteous men among them, desired to see the things which we see, yet did not see them. The Jews heretofore were priviledged above any Nation in the world; yet we are priviledged above them: we that live in Gospel-times, we have the Covenant of Grace, in the last and best Edition of it.

6. This shews what ground Christians have to apply Old Testament Promises, such as are of a common concern: as the Apostle Peter tells them, they should be no loosers by submitting to the Gospel, Acts 2.38, 39. Repent and be Baptized.— For the Promise is to you, and to your children; and p. 351(not only to you Jews, by Birth or Profession, but) to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. VVhat ever promises are included in that [I will be their God;] and belong unto it, to make it good, the Covenant being the same for substance in both Testaments; such promises, though found in the Old Testament do also belong to the Faithful under the New. See an Instance, Heb. 13.5. Be content with such as you have: For he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. VVhere hath he said this? See Josh. 1.5. or Deut. 31.8. So the like Instance you have, Heb. 13.6. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my Helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me. Ʋpon what ground may we say thus? VVhy in as much as the Psalmist could say thus, Psal. 118.6. VVe who have an Interest in God, as well as he, may say the like.