VINDICIAE FOEDERIS; OR, A TREATISE OF THE Covenant of God ENTERED WITH MANKIND, In the several Kinds and Degrees of it, IN WHICH The agreement and respective differences of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, of the Old and New Covenant are discussed.  
The Conditions of the Covenant of Grace on man's part, are assigned and asserted.  
The just latitude and extent clearly held forth, and fully vindicated.  
Several Corollaries containing many heads of Divinity, now controverted, and practical points singularly useful, inferred.  
In particular the necessity of a constant settled Ministry (to bring men into Covenant, and to bring them up to the terms of it,) and of Schools, and Nurseries of Learning, and an orderly call in tendency to it.  
Infant Baptism in that latitude, as now in use in reformed Churches maintained.  
Newly corrected and much enlarged, & in many places cleared by its Author.  
Thomas Blake, late Minister of the Gospel, at Tamworth in the Counties of Stafford and Warwick.  
Whereunto is annexed, a Sermon preached at his Funeral by Mr. Anthony Burgess, and a Funeral Oration made at his death by Mr. Samuel Shaw.  
The second Edition.  All this is come upon us, yet have we not forgotten thee, neither have we dealt falsely in the Covenant, Psal. 44. 17. 
London, Printed for Abel Roper, at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet. 1658.   

To his Reverend, and much Honoured Friend, Mr. SAMVEL HILDERSHAM, Bachelar in Divinity, and Pastor of West-Felton in the County of Salop; Together with Mrs. MARY HILDERSHAM, his pious Consort.  
NO time can wear out the memory of those favours which I have received from your hands; You were of the first that gave me a visit, when few durst adventure themselves under the same roof, being by the good providence of God, necessitated to leave a place sorely afflicted with the Pestilence; and labouring under a Fever, wherewith presently on my departure God pleased to afflict me: and were eye-witnesses of the mean accommodations, which in those straits could be provided for me and my reverend brother, with both our wives and families, all cast upon the same condition at that time; & you made it appear that your eyes affected your hearts, in giving a free invitation to me, and those that had dependence upon me, to your house, assoon as with security we durst adventure over any man's threshold, where for many months we had free and liberal entertainment. If Paul in an Epistle did remember the like from Onesiphorus (with special observation, that he was not ashamed of his chain) my heart must needs have checked me, if having opportunity of Epistling according to received custom, you should have been forgotten. I shall not be ashamed of the language of beggars, if they have learned it from such a hand; The Lord grant unto you, that ye may find mercy from the Lord in that day. In your house I had not only leisure to make a good progress in this Work, but singular accommodation from your accomplished Library. So that you have not only a deserved interest in the Author, but in the Work itself; upon sight of one part, you have often called upon me for publication of the whole. So that if the Reader reap any benefit, he may see how large a share in the thanks is yours. I know you affect not Panegyrics, neither am I fitted for them, nor was ever accustomed to them. There is much published to the world of one of you in the life of your reverend Father, to whom I have often in my thoughts applied that of Doctor Hall concerning learned Whittaker; Who ever saw him without reverence, or heard him without wonder? Having led the Reader through his glory, they add: And yet his name with the lively picture of his person lives, in his worthy son, Master Samuel Hildersham; whose learning Cambridge West-Felton in Shropshire, do perpetuate the honour of his Reverend Father; whose memory he doth much reverence; and whose rich virtues both personal and ministerial he doth happily imitate. And it is not little that is said of the other, where it is remembered, that you were propounded by him, for a meet wife for his dearest son; and recorded that he was heard with affection to ingeminate these words; Never man had a kinder daughter in Law. To be a follower of such a precedent, and to be found worthy of such a Testimony, is a greater glory, than all the noble blood that ran through the veins of the greatest of either of your Ancestors. Let this small piece find a room in your Study and Closet, and testify to the world that gratitude lives in the breast of  
From my study in Tamworth, Novemb. 4. 1652. Your most affectionate friend and servant, THO. BLAKE.   

READER,  
THe Reverend Author of this Treatise is already known to the Press by his former Labours, which do give so fair a character of his worth, and bespeak of thee so ready an entertainment of this excellent piece, that were it not, that in this glut of books wherewith the world is cloyed, it might be unhappily buried out of thy sight; We neither need, nor should prefix these few lines, tanquam digitum indicem, to point thee to it. The subject about which it is conversant, is of noblest rank; viz. The Covenant of Almighty God with Mankind, which is distinguished into its kinds; of Works, of Grace. And this again, according to the several forms or modes thereof, Old and New, which how they respectively take hands and agree, wherein they shake hands, and part. What the terms of the Covenant of Grace are, as propounded by God, and what the conditions on man's part, whereupon he (being thereunto responsal) becomes truly a confederate, what is the amplitude and comprehensiveness thereof in respect of the persons that have right to claim to the privileges or interests of it, are all set forth in their various colours, and so drawn to the life, that thy spirit is not like to be tired with reading; but led on with an appetite so sharp and quick, that when thou arrivest at the end, thou wilt complain of the shortness of the way. For in the doctrine of the Covenant truly stated, an Orthodox Faith hath sure foundation; thence practic godliness receives powerful influence and obligation. Thereby very many errors of several sorts of Erronists, as by a teste or standard are rectified, or discovered; from thence our Sacraments do as it were receive a soul, and those pertinent and seasonable digressions following in this book, concerning the necessity of a settled Ministry, etc. do by consequence receive both strength and usefulness. As concerning the remains of a former controversy about Paedobaptism, which are presented to thee in this Book, they are not out of their own place in a Treatise of the Covenant. We shall not adventure to say any more thereabouts, but in imitation of that of Mr. Hooker in the Preface to his Ecclesiastical Polity, shall crave leave to remind all agitatours of that or any other controversy. That the time will come, when a few words delivered with meekness of wisdom, shall afford them more comfort, than great volumes written with scornfulness, and in the ferment of a sour and angry spirit; for 'tis an honour to any man to be a Slave to another man's reason, and Master of his own passions, vale.  
Thine in the Lord Jesus, 

Richard Vines.  
Sam▪ Fisher.     

A Preface to the READER.  
BEing by the good providence of God heretofore engaged, in the vindication of several truths, which were of concernment to his Church, especially, the Birth-priviledge and covenant-holiness of the issue of believers, I was unwilling to be silent, when a spirit of opposition prevailed, lest the truth (for which I had stood, and make it may glory ever to own) should suffer. In a design of this nature, the greatest question with me was how to proceed to the best advantage of truth▪ personal conflicts are highly wearisome, and ungrateful, there is much time spent with very little satisfaction to the Reader, even where most satisfaction is given to an adversary He must be followed in such paths that he goes, which often are not very acceptable to the Reader to accompany. And for the business in hand, viz. the vindication of a believers faederal holiness till the ground work be right laid, and well understood, the superstructure in any such dispute (managed in the most dextrous way that is conceivable) will scarce settle those that are weak, and not yet well informed or established. I judged it therefore a way most satisfactory, and of greatest and most probable hopes, for the clearing, not only of this Controversy, but many more now in agitation, to adventure upon a full Treatise of the Covenant, which God hath entered with man, and the various dispensations, and diversifications of it; whether such as were occasioned by man's fall, or that God according to his Sovereignty, by his just Prerogative hath been pleased to order; where this is not in some measure clear, many truths of great weight must needs lie obscure. Master baxter's words in his Preface to the Reader before his Aphorisms of Justification are very remarkable: It is not in studies (saith he) as it is in manufactures, that one man may begin where another left; but every man must fetch it from the very principles himself, neither can we take the words of those that have studied it before us for that is neither a sound nor satisfactory knowledge (quoting Mr. Pemble,) thence it comes to pass that while we are busy in examining our fore father's inventions, and posterity employed in trying our Examinations, neither we nor they have much time to add any thing for the increase of learned knowledge. Now the Covenant must needs be the principle where we must begin to get knowledge of the seals of the Covenant; This way therefore (resting on divine assistance) I have chosen, quickened to it as by the excellency and great concernment of the subject, so also by the desires of many that this thing in a just Treatise might be handled; And when my thoughts were most full of it, and busiest about it, and some preparations made for the work; the Stationer by letter solicited, that I would enlarge my Birth-priviledge, and sit it to these present times, and he would see it published; Hereupon I went on in the work (a Scheme of which follows here in an Analytical Table) in which I have received help from many (as my slender furniture, and strength with leisure to attend the perusal of them would give leave) yet I have tied myself to follow none; I think there is scarce any thing in which I am singular, I have so much childish fear as scarce to dare to wall in public where I am alone, yet in several things I shall be found to descent from others, and those of eminent name with whom I should blush to have any thoughts of comparison: There are dissentings among those that are of highest repute. In such case no inferior can agree with both parties, and therefore it must not be deemed any piece of arrogance or singularity, to leave the one: where I am put to it to differ, the Reader shall find my reason, together with my opinoin. If better light lead him another way, I shall never desire that he shall go with me blindfold, or leave the truth to have me his companion, yet lest in leaving me, he should let go the truth itself, I shall only request an unprejudiced and unbyass'd judgement; If he bring a bloodshot eye, all will appear of a wrong colour. It cannot be hoped but that wading through so many particulars, I shall meet with opposition from some hands; I would only let such know first, that I have made no man my adversary out of will, 
The Authors descent from some. ●  as desirous to be a man of contentions. I sometimes close with my greatest adversaries, and sometimes descent from my most honoured, and admired friends: I think I have as strong an antipathy against quarrels, as Luther's against covetousness: I only leave where that light that for present I enjoy, leads me another way. 2. That I have wrote nothing but that which as I believe, so I resolve (God assisting) to hold, till a more clear light detect my error. There are few things that have vented, but many years have held my thoughts, words or shows, will not work me out of them. 3. That I am not yet so wedded to an opinion, but am ready to yield up myself to be overruled by reason; He is the happiest man that lies under the conquest of truth. 4. That no man shall displease me that will deal argumentatively with me either by the clear immediate testimony of Scripture, or arguments by just consequence derived from them; but in case I shall meet with such dealing as I have found, to have my words by interchange made not mine, but the adversaries own, my Arguments misrepresented, and held out to the halves; I shall give those leave to hold up and pursue quarrels with their own fancies. My years and employments, together with my weaknesses, will be a sufficient Apology to hold me back from intermeddling in such trifles. And for the Reader that would read for satisfaction, I would acquaint him,  
First, 
Advertisements to the Reader concerning the present work.  that I have made it my business to cast the whole mould and Series of the work; that he may find method and order in it, & if at any time through inadvertency or otherwise, he be at loss, and especially if he take not the whole work before him (as I should desire) he may soon have recourse to the Analytical Table, and see in what order that which in present his eye is upon, stands in the whole discourse; If he gain no advantage by the method into which it is cast, much pains and industry of mine is lost.  
Scondly, That I have made it my study to leave out no piece or part, which may be fairly looked for within this Verge, but have endeavoured to take the whole into consideration, studying to avoid two extremes, the one much prejudicial to the Reader in Treatises of this nature, to give us a bare skeleton of bones and sinews, leaving their Readers to cloth them with skin and flesh: These serve better to help their memories that are already seen in the subject, then to help those with satisfaction that are not already versed in it, Memoriae mater ingenii noverca. I would learned Amesius in his Medulla Theologiae, Cases of Conscience, and other learned Works, had not, affecting brevity, herein been defective. Sure I am, the Reader might well wish, that learned Camero's work De triplici foedere had by his own hand been more enlarged, & that he had spoken more fully; where his Reader may see cause justly to close with him, and given in his Reasons especially in several differences (which he assigns beteewn the Old (which he calls the subservient Covenant) and the Covenant of Grace, where many suppose they have cause to descent from him. The other extreme might be the Readers benefit, but would have been my burden, and that is an enlarged full discourse on every particular Divinity-head, that may occur in the handling of this Subject, a way which reverend Master Ball intended, I have heard it from those that received it from his own mouth, that his purpose was to speak on this Subject of the Covenant, all that he had to say in all the whole body of Divinity; a work that the whole Church might wish (had not Divine providence determined otherwise) that he had enjoyed life to finish. That which he hath left behind gives us a taste of it, and the advantage the Church might have received by it. I have thought it enough to handle each particular, so as might well answer expectation in reference to the present subject: To speak of Christ as a Mediator of the Covenant, and to set forth the distinct parts of his work in such mediation without handling the whole of the work, and all the Offices incident to his Mediatorship: To speak of his death ratifying the Covenant of grace, waving the controversy of the extent of it, in the intention of God, or purpose of Christ; It is sufficient to me to assert Faith to be a condition of the Covenant necessary to be put in by us to attain the mercies in the Covenant, to speak of it so far as is here concerned without a large Treatise of the nature, requisites, and life of it; so I may say of godly sorrow, cessation from sin, sincerity of obedience, and the like.  
Thirdly, Those particulars relating to this subject, which are most controverted, and in this age disputed, I have spoke to more at large; to instance in some. The conditions of the Covenant of Grace, as well to the an sint? whether there be any such conditions at all? which in our times by several hands out of several Principles is denied; Or the Quae sint? what these conditions be? laying down rules and helps for the better discovery of them. The supposed differences between the old and new, Whether such that offer injury to the Covenant, under which the Fathers lived, under Moses his administration, or before his days, making it a mere carnal Covenant, consisting of temporal promises, as the possession of the Land of Canaan, and protection there, or at the least a mixed Covenant, and no pure Gospel-Covenant, and the seals suitable? Or such that put too great a limit to the Covenant in Gospel-times vesting it only in the elect regenerate, excluding all professed ones not yet regenerate, not only from Covenant-mercies, but all Covenant-terms, not admitting any to stand in any relation to God, but those only whom his Spirit hath changed, making the call of God in the largest sense convertible with Election, and the seal of Baptism to be of no greater latitude (unless by mistake mis-applied) than the seal of the Spirit, and determining it in the persons of the elect (about which the mere congregational men and the Antipoedobaptists agreeing in the former, do differ) that they excluding the seed, and leaving them in the same condition (hope of education excepted) with the Heathens: In these and some others, as the Reader may meet withal, I have been more large, in such things where all agree, or where it much skills not, whether we agree or differ (as in what place, whether on earth, or heaven, man had enjoyed immortality in case he had not sinned) what need we to administer matter of contention, our work is to make up breaches (were it possible, so far as it may stand with truth) and not to widen them.  
Fourthly, I have not so tied up myself to the express immediate doctrine of the covenant, but that I have occasionally drawn Corollaries or Inferences leading to other things of near relation to, and necessary dependence upon this of the Covenant; I shall not need to give instance, the Reader all along will meet with them, such as I thought would be useful, and to the judicious not ungrateful, some of them practical, that the whole of the Book might not be found to be Polemical, aiming at least at that which the Poet so cries up— Omne tulit punctum, qui miscuit utile d●lci.  
Fifthly, For that part in which Infant-Baptisme and its grounds are particularly vindicated from Antipoedobaptists, the Reader may see their arguments and corrupt glosses are examined, only as (according to my method laid down) I have been necessitated, and so, that the Covenant had not been vindicated according to my duty, in case that had been neglected; And here those that please to heed may see; First, the dependence that this Controversy about Infant-Baptisme hath on the doctrine of the Covenant; that a Scripture Covenant cannot be asserted, but Infant-Member-ship, Infant-Baptisme in the latitude, as now generally used by Pastors in their Congregations, must be upheld. Secondly, the order in which this controversy is here carried, may so much the rather invite the Reader to it, seeing what is in opposite Authors laid down scatteringly, without regard to any head of doctrine in the Covenant to which it doth relate, here it is reduced to its proper place, and carried on in that manner as an orderly Treatise, and not a personal conflict; following adversaries no farther than as they stand in the way, to cloud the truth that is there prosecuted▪ and though many advantages are hereby neglected, that might have been taken, which adversaries use to prosecute to the uttermost, and these adversaries would to the height have improved; yet I am very well pleased, making it my business, that my Reader may not be troubled, but edified. Thirdly, the Scriptures that are produced, and ordinarily agitated in this controversy of Infant-Baptism, are not only urged, but a just Analysis of the context opened, the full scope and drift laid down, so that it may appear that the words are not enforced, but of themselves in their native strength commend that doctrine to us; that of Jerome, Apol. adversus Jovinian much takes with me, Commentatoris officium est, non quod ipse velit, sed quid sentiat ille quem interpretatur exponere; Alioqui si contraria dixerit, non tam interpres erit quam adversarius ejus quem nititur explanare; And let the impartial and learned judge whether somewhat more clear light is not here added to their full meaning and the adversaries▪ Sophisms more clearly detected. Fourthly. The least blow which Mr. Tombs received (purposely intended for him) was from Mr. Baxters' hand, which work contains many irrefragable Arguments to assert Infant's Church-Membership, and Baptism from several Scripture-Texts, if not of themselves plain, yet made plain, so that he needs not blush at his Title; but he doth not make it: his business fully to answer Arguments on the contrary, where he is most full, I have been most brief; where he is most brief, I have been more large; he hath satisfied his Reader, I hope the Reader will say that I have in that part done somewhat for satisfaction of my adversary.  
Sixthly, The last part of this Treatise (as the advice on the top of the leaf may signify) is no more than a new Edition of, with an ample addition to my Birth-priviledge, which above my expectation found so good acceptation, only handling it there Sermon-wise, as fixed on a proper Text, and here by way of Treatise, as a branch of this doctrine of the Covenant, I was put to it in a great part to change the methodand texture of it, so that it may rather seem to those that compare them, a new frame, with much borrowed from it, than the same reprinted and enlarged; and there I have endeavoured satisfaction to that which some have said in the way, admitting Infants not according to their Parents-priviledges, but qualification: not as they stand in relation to God, but as they fill up their relation, which new limit I hope I have discovered to be unwarrantably put, casting those out which the Church (according to the mind of God) from Abraham to this time hath received, to the disquiet of our Congregations, and multiplication of our sad, and deplorable differences.  
Seventhly, I have made it my business to avoid all impertinencies and unnecessary dilatations, being ambitious to speak multa in paucis, and not to put the Reader to pains to find out a little which may serve his purpose in much, affecting brevity so far as may be without obscurity: In all which, I shall only request two things of the Reader, and both of them such that God himself commands.  
First, 
A double request made to the Reader.  Not to have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory with respect of persons, that he do not take an estimate of doctrinal points, or controverted opinions, according to the outward garb in which men appear, by reason of any dignity, relation power, or any such circumstance whatsoever; If this once prevail, opinions will be taken up, not according to the strength of truth, that is seen in them, but according to the quality of him that vents them; they will judge of the faith by the men, not of the men by the faith, and upon this account on all hands truth is in danger: And as men in their reputations' ebb and flow, their judgements of things must hold up or fall. Truth's sometimes will be cast off, barely on the low repute, and mean condition of such that do deliver them: Though Christ spoke as never man spoke, and all treasures of wisdom were hid in him, yet it was enough against him that he was a Carpenter's son, Matth. 13. 55: that none of the Pharisees and Rulers believed in him, or sided with him, John 7. 48. A poor man may save a City, and never the less his wisdom despised, Eccles. 9 16. sometimes because they are not men of our interests that hold it, they make not up a party for us. The more considerable the interest is, the greater the hazard (in these cases) truth runs. Paul being brought before a Council, Acts 23. had not a man of whom we can read for him, but all against him, for this reason, because it did not appear that his opinions served any of their Interests; when he observed this, and saw their Interests divided, and that his adversaries made two parties, he declares himself to be for the Interest of the one against the other, and in point of the Resurrection to be for the Pharisees against the Sadduces, bred up in that way, and so persisted; hereupon having not a friend before, now he hath many: There arose a great cry, and the Scribes that were of the Pharisees part arose, and strove, saying, We find no fault in this man, but if a spirit, or an Angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God, Verse 9 now and not before he must be heard. Upon the same terms that truth is cast off, error is received and taken in, nothing must be gainsaid, that men of name, & men of Interest will appear to own; yea, relations, kindred, and affections this way gained, are mightily prevalent, to work into Faction and take up Tenants. As diseases many times run in a blood; so also opinions where they take in a kindred, often very few escape. Twenty Sermons, were Paul, yea, Jesus Christ in the Pulpit, would not so take to settle men in the truth, as one poor Letter, or simple senseless three-pennie Pamphlet from the hand of a child, a brother, or sister will work to draw into Error. I will not here undertake to determine who are meant by children in that speech of our Saviour Christ, Matthew 12. 27. It appears that it spoke some relation, that drew affections, and therefore whereas Christ is censured to cast out Devils by Beelzebub the chief of Devils, when any of these do such a work, they are cried up in another manner. It was a true Observation of him that said, Omnia diota tan●● astimantur, quantum est ipse qui dixerii, nectam dictionis vim, atque virtutem, quam dictatoris cogitent dignitatem.  
The second request of mine is, that men take heed of having men's persons in admiration, because of advantage; we have seen the mischief that respect of persons works, and advantages will work men in the height of it. That way that men can either save themselves from danger, and hold where they are, or rise up to a greater height, the world is apt to take, and the Religion of that side shall be theirs. Hence it is, that when godliness ought to be the chiefest gain, gain with these is their whole godliness; and state Religion is almost the faith of every man. Those of that party still 〈…〉 for 〈…〉 depart the least from the very height of their own principles for it, but they will have all others upon account of their prevalency come into it: so that self is no other than their unity paraphrased, and so long as providence holds them up, they are not much mistaken: Re●sians will become Jew's, when Mordecai a Jew is the man that rules. Saul saw that that was a mighty motive to draw a party in war, to have the gift of vineyards, and oliveyards, to be the fountain of honour, able to make Captains over thousands, hundreds, fifties. It is no less to draw on a party in Religion, as every turn of State respective to Religion is a clear evidence: If these stumble upon truth, they yet, hold it upon such carnal motives, that they are neither true to it, nor receive the comfort of it: Make truth then the greatest advantage, there is glory enough in it, without any farther garb to have it in admiration: own it though with a scratched face where you find it; though you be otherwise at loss, it will bring an hundred-fold with it. If I can but gain these things at thy hands, I shall not fear that this piece shall run the hazard of thy censure; spare no error in it, so that thou wilt gladly take up, and rest satisfied in all the truths that thou findest. That truth may have the first place in thy soul, is the desire and prayers of him that can do nothing against, but for the truth,  
Thomas Blake November 27. 1652   

Imprimatur,  
EDM. CALAMY.   

An Advertisement to the Reader touching this second Edition.  
READER,  
IT was once the sad complaint of Reverend Davenant, 
Dissertatio. de morti Christi. Cap. 1. pag. 1.  that, Religionis nostrae mysteria, quae sunt ad parem & solatium animarum promulgata, in solam penè litigandi & pugnandi materiam vertantur. The great mysteries of Religion, those precious Beaming of the Sun of righteousness which were shed abroad, for the begetting of spiritual heat and life in the believing heart, were often eclipsed, and their influence much debilitated, through the intervening body of cloudy Controversies. This way Satan gained upon the Church in its Infancy, which gave occasion to that good admonition, we have upon record from the blessed Apostle, Heb. 13. 9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines, for it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; What these divers and strange doctrines were, Interpreters have their different thoughts, which I shall wholly wave; the Reader may yet observe the Apostle hinting at, and tacitly reproving, the proneness that was in men eagerly to pursue, studiously to sweat, and tug about empty notions, whilst the spiritual sense, and feeling of truth in the heart, was little heeded. The same Apostle traces Satan in the same design among the Colossians, Cap. 2. Which puts him upon that pathetical exhortation, Cap. 3. To seek the things that are above, to lay out their zeal, and centre their affections upon things of a more solid, sublime, and spiritual nature, viz. the application of Christ in the power of his death, and precious incomes of his Spirit for the mortification of lust. What unspeakable advantage this continued enemy of a believers life and comfort hath gained in our age (not to mention the spoils made in the intervening) our present breaches, sad decays, two fully evidence; yea, so fully, that did not a graciory word uphold, and everlasting arms fix themselves underneath, our ruins had been uncapable, of any further breach. In the midst of these astonishing providences, and terrible dispensations, the Lord (such is his infinite wisdom, and goodness) hath brought forth meat out of the strong, and honey, out of the destroyer. These windy storms have through rich grace more deeply rooted some, whilst others have been tossed to, and fro; these Controversal collissions have brought forth much light; thus Satan lies bleeding under his own weapons. Among other precious treasures which the Church through mercy doth enjoy, here thou mayest see truths of the greatest concernment to believers polemically vindicated, practically improved, that men's judgements might be balanced, and their hearts feel the weight of truth, both which necessarily make up a believers acquaintance with the truths of Christ as they are in him. The Covenant of grace both in its sure mercies, and distinguishing privileges, is a truth of the greatest magnitude, appearing rather as a glorious constellation, than shining with the light of a single star; It is a rich Cabinet of Diamonds, rather than any single jewel. How far the Reverend Author (my ever Honoured and endeared Father) hath been serviceable in the hands of Christ for the unsealing of this rich Cabinet, the abundant acceptance which this Treatise found from men eminently judicious, when it was wrapped up in the swaddling bands of blurred papers, before it went abroad, doth fully speak. I need not add those many special acknowledgements from some of the ablest pens in the Nation, which after the Author's death were found upon the file in his study; much might be spoken by me, did not my relation to him command a silence; the Lydian Princes tongue would break no bonds; when violence was offered to his father; give me leave to apply that to the Reverend Author, which sometimes was observed of the Athenian Orator, that in his public discourses, he did not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but aculeos in animis auditorum relinquere; And if I may without envy add holy Melancthons' pithy verse upon Luther's picture, Fulmina erant linguae singula verba tuae. But I shall forbear, craving only thy patience, in receiving an account, how far thy gain will be doubled, in this second Edition: In the first, the Learned Author was necessitated to take notice of several controversies, which were then started, these afterwards growing more personal (& therefore only beautiful in their season) are in this wholly waved, and truths asserted in Thesi. In the first, several expressions (through the natural brevity of the Authors stile) were obscure, and occasioned the readers stumbling, In this they receive an additional light, what passages might seem abstruse, now are enlarged. In the first the method was unavoidably clouded in several places through digressions, and appendices, In this each head is digested in its proper place. In the first, several things were omitted which now upon second thoughts, and deeper wading into the controversies herein handled, are by the learned Author in this inserted; And the whole of this don by the Authors own hand, which he had no sooner taken off, and sent it to the Press, but the Lord dispatched a fiery chariot for him, which took him away to the enjoyment of Truth itself; what thou readest of him now, was sealed with his death. They that were acquainted with his state, and frame of spirit in that juncture of time when it was finished, must needs testify, there was no room for any carnal end to bias, or self-interest to steer his notions. Respective to the doctrine here asserted, I shall assure thee from the mouth of this blessed Author, that as he sweetly laid down his life, in clear, and unspeakable assurance of glory, so he died without the least Scruple in any of the truths here vindicated. I shall no longer entertain thee in the porch, but give thee possession of the house, craving only thy Candour in the perusal of it; orphan children though under the eye and care of endearing friends, yet sometimes may feel the want of a parental wing, I am not without fears that this Orphan Treatise, may complain of some Erratas, through the Author's unexpected death, the slow progress of the Press, and my great distance from it. The God of truth teach thee how to profit, break every shell, that thou mayest taste of the kernel, clear up truths to thy apprehension, and imprint them upon thy heart, so prays he, who begs thy prayers for him, because he is  
Thine in our Lord Jesus Samuel Beresford.   

A Scheme of the whole.  

This Treatise contains 

1. An Introduction.  
2. The body of the Treatise.     

The Introduction doth contain 

1. The figurative acceptions of the word, Covenant.  
2. Requisites in a Covenant; properly so called. Chap. 1.  
3. A distribution of Covenants into the in several kinds.  
4. Seven Reasons of Gods dealing with men in a Covenant way.  
5. The Covenant between God, and man defined.     

The body of the Treatise contains a distribution of the Covenant into the 

Covenant of Works. Chap. 2.  
Covenant of Grace.     

The Covenant of Grace is considered, 

1. In the general nature of a Covenant.  
2. Jointly with the Covenant of Works.     

1. As considered in the general nature of a Covenant, we may observe 

1. A Covenant in the proper nature of it between God and fallen man asserted. Chap. 3.  
2. This explained in several propositions.     

1. The Covenant of Grace is between God and man, and not between God and Christ. Chap. 4.  
2. The outward, and not the inward Covenant is a Covenant properly so called, 

1. Asserted and argued. Ch. 5.  
2. Cleared in 6 positions. Ch. 6    
3. The conditionality of the Covenant of Grace 

1. In five arguments proved. Ch. 7.  
2. Objections answered. 

Ch. 8.  
Ch. 9      
4. God keeps up his sovereign y, 

1. In the power and authority of his Law. Ch. 10, 11, 12.  
2. In exercise of Discipline and correction for sin. Ch. 13.     

2. Consider jointly with the Covenant of Works, we see 

1. Their agreement in eight particulars. Chap. 14.  
2. Their differences 

1. In the Covenants themselves.  
2. In the Conditions annexed.       

Differences in the Covenants are 

1. Primae. 

The Covenant of Works was entered in man's integrity. Chap. 15.  
The Covenant of Grace was entered in man's fallen condition.    
2. A prima ortae.     

Differences, à prima ortae 

The Covenant 

of Works was for man's preservation.  
of Grace for man's restitution. Ibid.    
The Covenant 

of Works had its precedency in time.  
of Grace followed after. 

Asserted.  
Objections answered.      
The Covenant 

of Works was of small time in use.  
of Grace is of everlasting continuance. chap. 16.    
The Covenant 

of Works had no Mediator. 

Asserted.  
Objections answered.    
of Grace was in and by a Mediator 

Asserted.  
Works incumbent on the Mediator held forth.         

1. To bring men into a capacity of Covenanting.  
2. To bring men within the verge of the Covenant. 

1. By his tender of it.  
2. Shaping the heart for it.    
3. To bring the soul up to the terms of the Covenant.  
4. To crown those that come up to the terms of it. chap. 17.   

Differences in the conditions. 

1. Supposed on God's part. 

Death threatened.  
Life promised. 

The same in both 

Asserted.  
Objections answered chap. 18.        
2. Real on man's part.     

2 Differences asserted. 

1. In the Covenant 

of Works, the conditions were in man's power.  
of Grace, they are not performed without special grace. 

Asserted in 6. Reasons. chap. 18  
Objections answered. chap. 19      
2. In the Covenant 

of Works, the conditions kept man within himself of righteousness. chap. 20  
of Grace, the conditions carry man out of himself to be righteous by another's righteousness.    
3. In the Covenant 

of Works, conditions were for man's preservation. Ibid.  
of Grace, conditions were for man's reparation.     

3. Conditions discovered. 

1. Serviceable for man's return to God which is Faith. 

1. Explained, the sense of it given, and reasons evincing it. Chap. 21  
2. In 4. Propositions cleared. 

1. God will not justify a wicked person.  
2. Man hath no righteousness of his own for justification.  
3. Man hath a righteousness of grace tendered. Ibid.  
4. This righteousness is made ours by Faith. 

Asserted.  
Explained. 

1. Faith in the Sovereignty of God doth not justify.  
2. Faith justifies as an instrument.        
3. Objections answered. chap 22. 

1. Asserted. Ib.  
2. Object. answ.    
4. Corollary drawn, A justified man is fitted for every duty. Ibid.    
2. Serviceable for man's reparation in his qualifications to hold up communion with God, which is repentance 

1. Objection a prevented. It is not the same with faith. Chap. 23.  
2. Duty explained. 

In the pre-requisite godly sorrow 

Asserted in six particulars limited. Ibid.    
In the essentials. 

Privative, Cessation from sin. Ibid.  
Positive. Return to God.      
3. Objections answered. 

1. Jointly against Faith and Repentance. They are man's conditions, not Gods. chap. 24.  
2. Particularly against repentance itself. 

1. It is not hereby made a Covenant of Works.  
2. Repentance necessarily flowing from Faith, is not thereby diserabled Ibid. from being a condition in the Covenant of Grace.      
4. Degree of obedience required in our return.     

1. Perfection of degrees not called for of God in Covenant,  
2. Covenant of Grace doth not call for perfection, and accept sincerity. 

Asserted.  
Objections answered.    
3. Our Evangelical righteousness is imperfect. Chap. 25.  
4. Covenant of Grace requires and accepts sincerity.   

4. Corollaries drawn. 

1. Necess●●y of a constant standing Ministry to bring men into Covevenant with God, and to bring them up to the terms of it. 

1. Explained.  
2. Asserted. 

1. In seven reasons evincing that such a Ministry is established.  
2. In reasons evincing such a Ministry to be thus established.    
3. Objections answered. 

Joel 2. 28, 29. Vindicated. ch. 26  
Jer. 31. 31. etc. Vindicated.      
2. Schools and Nurseries of learning in order to a gifted Ministry. 

Asserted. Chap. 27.  
Objections answered.    
3. Orderly way of admission of men into a Ministerial function necessary. 

1. Asserted by several reasons, Chap. 28.  
2. Explained by distinguishing of Callings.  
3. Ordination defined, in the parts of it explained.    
4. Ministers of Christ must bring their people up to the terms of the Covenant. 

1. Explained.  
2. Asserted. Chap. 29.  
Objections answered.    
5. People in Covenant must come up to the terms of the Covenant. Chap. 30.       

The Covenant of Grace is either the Old or New Covenant. 

In which observe 

1. Agreement in 6 particulars. Chap. 31.  
2. Differences. Chap. 32.       

Differences. 

1. Real in six particulars.  
2. Supposed or imaginary. 

Nine Positions premised for a right understanding of the Old Covenant. Chap. 33.  
Differences themselves assigned.       

Differences assigned are 

1. Laying the Old Covenant too low.  
2. Putting too great a restrain● on the New.     

I. Laying the Old Covenant too low. 

1. Supposing it to consist of mere carnal promises, 

1. Interests to which this deives. 

Popish.  
Socinian.  
Antipaedobaptistical. Chap. 34.    
2. Contrary asserted, and the spiritualty of the Old Covenant maintained.    
2. Supposing it to be a mixed and no pure Gospel Covenant. Chap. 35.     

1. Meaning enquired into.  
2. Grounds. 

Examined.  
Enervated.     

II. Putting too great a restraint on the New Covenant. 

1. Limiting it alone to the Regenerate. 

1. To which something is spoke. 

1. By way of concession, that sundry Divines seem to speak to that purpose.  
2. By way of Avoidance, from their own words.    
2. Contrary asserted. 

1. In Old Testament-times. 

1. By confession of the advesarie.  
2. By Scripture-testimony. 

36      
2. In New Testament times. 

1. by New Testament Scriptures 

Mat. 28. 19  
Mat. 22. 24  
Heb. 10. 29  
1 Pet. 2. 9 

37      
2. By Arguments of sundry sorts. ch. 38  
3. Objections answered. ch. 39  
4. Corollaries drawn.      
1. Professed Believers are under a Covenant of Grace, and not a Covenant of Works. chap. 40  
2. Interest in a Church-state, is of equal atiude with the Covenant. c. 41  
3. Such Covenant-interest is sufficient to give access to, and interest in particular visible Churches. chap. 42  
4. Dogmatical Faith entitles to Baptism. chap. 43  
5. Impenitence and unbelief in professed Christians is a breach of Covenant. chap. 44    
Five Positions concerning particular Churches 

1. Where nothing is wanting to the being of a Church, yet much may be wanting for the wel-ordering.  
2. A people in a vicinity ought to associate themselves.  
3. Professing Christians upon tender, aught to be received.  
4. Reformation of abuses is the work of Christians, rather than separation.  
7. Rules concerning separation.  
5. Together Churches out of Churches unwarrantable.    
2. Terminating it only in the person actually entering & excluding the issue, in which 

1. Question stated as to Abraham's natural issue Chap. 45  
2. Arguments concluding the natural issue of Abraham to be in Covenant. Chap. 46  
3. New-Testament Testimonies evincing it. Ibid.  
4. Objections from Rom. 9 6, 7, 8. answered. Chap. 47  
5. The extent of it to the issue of Believers in New-Testament times. 

1. Asserted. Chap 48  
2 Proved.    
1. By Scripture testimonies 

Rom. 11. 16. Chap. 49. & 50  
1 Cor. 7. 14. Chap. 51  
Galat. 4. 29 Chap. 52.  
Matth. 19 14.  
Mark 10▪ 14  
Luke 18. 16. 

Chap. 53      
2. By several arguments. Chap. 54.  
6. Corollary for Infant-Eaptisme. Chap. 55 

1. By Arguments asserted, objections answered.  
2. The reality of connexion between the Covenant and the Seal vindicated. 

Chap 56    
3. Sin of Sacrilege upon the repulse charged. Ch. 57  
4. The title of all infants of professing parents asserted. Chap. 58    
7. Practical uses concerning parent and issue inserred. Changed 60 

1. All possible engagements to holiness of life. Ibid.  
2. Parents must see that their children's breeding answer their birth.  
3. There is great danger in opposing God's Covenant-people  
4. Consolation from this Birth-priviledge, 

1. In reference to Nations.  
2. In reference to single persons. 

1. Themselves.  
2. Their posterity.                

The Analytical Table being chiefly intended for, and suited to learned capacities, the vulgar Reader may here see the whole of the following Treatise, as it is digested into Chapters, and these easily found by the pages opposite to them.  

Chap. 1. AN Introduction into the whole. page 1  
Chap. 2. The Covenant of God entered with mankind distinguished. page 8  
Chap. 3. A Covenant between God and fallen man in the proper nature of it asserted. page 10  
Chap. 4. The Covenant of grace is between God and man, and not between God and Christ. page 13  
Chap. 5. The Outward, and not the Inward Covenant, is a Covenant, properly so called. page 19  
Chap. 6. Six positions tending to clear the thing in question. page 24  
Chap. 7. The Covenant of Grace calls for conditions from man. page 33  
Chap. 8. A grand Objection against this Doctrine answered. page 36  
Chap. 9 Further Objectious against the former Doctrine answered. page 48  
Chap. 10. God in the days of the Gospel, keeps up the power and authority of his Law. The obligation of it is still enforce, to bind the consciences of Believers. page 53  
Chap. 11. The Moral Law is a perfect rule of righteousness. page 62  
Chap. 12. The Moral Law binds as it was delivered by the hand of Moses. page 73  
Chap. 13. God entering a Covenant of Grace with his people, keeps up his Sovereignty in exercise of Discipline, in the correction and chastisement of his people for sin. page 77  
Chap. 14. 〈…〉 between the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. page 86  
Chap. 15. Differences between the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. page 87  
Chap. 16. A further difference between the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. page 91  
Chap. 17. Works incumbent upon the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace. page 93  
Chap. 18. Further differences between the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. page 99  
Chap. 19 Objections against the former Doctrine answered. page 113  
Chap. 20. Further differences in the conditions in the Covenant of Works, and the conditions in the Covenant of Grace. page 115  
Chap. 21. Faith is a condition of the Covenant of Grace. page 118  
Chap. 22. Objections against the conditionality of Faith answered. page 130  
Chap. 23. Repentance is a condition of the Covenant of Grace. page 136  
Chap. 24. Objections against the conditionality of repentance answered. page 144  
Chap. 25. What degree of obedience, the Covenant of Grace calls for from Christians. page 148  
Chap. 26. The necessity of a Ministry to bring men into Covenant with God, and to bring them up to the terms of it. page 160  
Chap. 27. Schools, and Nurseries of learning, in order to a gifted Ministry necessary. page 173  
Chap. 28. An orderly way of admission of men into the Ministerial function, necessary. page 180  
Chap. 29. Ministers of Christ must bring their people up to the terms of the Covenant, pressing the necessity of faith and repentance. page 188  
Chap. 30. A people in Covenant must come up to the terms of the Covenant, being engaged to God they must answer their engagements. page 190  
Chap. 31. The distribution of the Covenant of Grace into the Old, and New Covenant, with the harmony and agreement, that is found between them. page 202  
Chap. 32. Differences assigned between the Old and New Covenant. page 205  
Chap. 33. Positions tending to clear the first Covenant, under Old Testament-dispensations. page 210  
Chap. 34. The Old Covenant was not made up of mere carnal promises, but contained New Govenant-promises, that were spiritual and saving. page 219  
Chap. 35. The Old Covenant was a pure Gospel Covenant, and not mixed. page 224  
Chap. 36. The Covenant of Grace, admits Christians in Gospel-times in a state of unregeneration, and is not limited in the bounds of it to the elect regenerate. page 231  
Chap. 37. New Testament-Scriptures asserting the latitude of the Covenant of Grace in Gospel times. page 235  
Chap. 38. Arguments evincing the Covenant of Grace in Gospel-times in that latitude as before is asserted. page 248  
Chap. 39 Objections against this latitude of the Covenant answered. page 257  
Chap. 40. Professed believers are under a Covenant of Grace, and not a Covenant of Works. page 262  
Chap. 41. Interest in a Church-state is of equal latitude with the Covenant. page 267  
Chap. 42. A man in Covenant with God, and received into the universal Church visible, needs no more to give him access to, and interest in particular visible Churches. page 270  
Chap. 43. A dogmatical faith entitles to Baptism. page 289  
Chap. 44. Impenitence and unbelief in professed Christians is a breach of Covenant. page 294  
Chap. 45. The question stated concerning the birth-priviledge of the issue of believers. page 295  
Chap. 46. Arguments concluding the natural issue of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to be taken into Covenant. page 301  
Chap. 47. Rom. Chap. 9 Verse 6, 7, 8, vindicated. page 309  
Chap. 48. The Covenant in New Testament times takes in parents, with their children. page 316  
Chap. 49. Rom. 11. 16. vindicated. page 323  
Chap. 50. Arguments from a late hand for engraffing into the Church invisible, and breaking off from it, answered. page 330  
Chap. 51. 1 Corinth. 7. 14. vindicated. page 349  
Chap. 52. Galat. 4. 29. vindicated. page 366  
Chap. 53. Mat. 19 14 Mark. 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. vindicated. page 393  
Chap. 54. Reason's evincing the birth-priviledge and covenant-holiness of Believers and their issue. page 401  
Chap. 55. A Corollary for Infant-Baptisme Infant-baptisme by arguments asserted. page 410  
Chap. 56. The reality of connexion between the Cavenant and initial seal asserted. page 422  
Chap. 57 The withholding Infants of Christian parents from baptism, is the sin of Sacrilege. page 437  
Chap. 58. The children of all that are Christians in profession, are by virtue of Covenant-interest, to be received into the Church by baptism. page 448  
Chap. 59 A defence of the former Doctrine respective to the latitude of Infant-Baptisme. 468, page 458  
Chap. 60. The application of the whole in several inferences. page 478    
A TREATISE OF THE Covenant OF WORKS, AND OF THE Covenant OF GRACE..  

CHAP. I.  
An Introduction into the whole.  
I Shall not make it my business, for an Introduction into this Work, to inquire after the derivation of the word. Etymologies are known to be no definitions; The denomination being usually given, from some adjuncts, variable, according to times & places, and not from any thing that is of the essence of that which is enquired after, in which those are highest in Criticisms, in giving their judgements of them, can yet ordinarily go no higher than conjecture; The common acception of the word in Scripture is that which will give the greatest light, in finding out the nature of Scripture covenants, which as most other words is variously used. Sometimes is used Properly, implying a covenant in deed and truth, strictly so called, and containing all the requisites of a Covenant in it. Sometimes Tropically, for that which contains some parts and adjuncts of a covenant, and so carries some resemblance to, and stands in some affinity with it. This Tropical figurative, and the native proper sense must be carefully distinguished, and may by no means be confounded, by those that will understand the true nature of a covenant, and avoid those manifold mistakes, into which some upon this a loan account have been carried: 
Figurative acceptions of the word Covenant.  The figurative acceptions of the word, are divers, sometimes the homage required, or duty covenanted for, is called a covenant by way of Synecdoche, seeing a covenant between a Superior and Inferior doth comprise it, so Jerem. 34. 13. I made a Covenant with your fathers, in the day that I brought them out of the Land of Egypt, which Covenant is no other than the Law that he gave them, Exod. 21. 2. Sometimes the promise annexed, is called by the name of a covenant, by a like Synecdoche, Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, Gen. 9 11. Sometimes the Seal is called by the name of a Covenant, by way of Metonymy of the adjunct, serving to ratify and confirm a covenant, Gen. 17. 10. This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee, every man-child among you shall be circumcised. Sometimes Christ the Mediator of the covenant is called by a like figure, the covenant, Isa. 42. 6, 7. I will give thee for a covenant of the people, and light unto the Gentiles. Sometimes the Lord Christ's undertaking, to work the graces covenanted for, in the hearts of his people, in the way of his power, exerted in the conversion of sinners, is called by the name of a covenant, Jerem. 31. 33. This is the covenant that I will make with the whole house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; of which more in its own place. Sometimes a covenant is taken for that peace, which usually follows upon covenants, Job 5. 23. Thou shalt be in league with the stones of the field, and the beasts of the field shall be at peace with thee, Hos. 2. 18. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground; and I will break the bow, and the sword, and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. When yet neither a Law, nor a Promise, nor Seal annexed, nor yet the Mediator, or any undertaking of his, can be a covenant properly so called. A Law from God with a Promise annexed, assented to by man, is a covenant; and when a Seal is added, there is a condescension to our weakness, for the more abundant ratification and confirmation of God's stability in his Promises. In our enquiry after such covenants, which God in his gracious condescension is pleased to enter with man the general nature of a covenant must be held, every species must partake of its Genus; We must not make God's covenant with man, so far to differ, from covenants between man and man, as to make it no covenant at all; we must also observe that which differences it from covenants merely humane, that covenants divine and humane be not confounded together. In order to which we must know that in every covenant properly so called, these requisites must concur.  
First, 
Requisites in a Covenant.  it must not be of one alone, but at least of two parties, one can make no bargain or agreement. Secondly, there must be a mutual consent of these parties. When Nahash the Ammonite, offered to make a Covenant with Israel, on condition that he might thrust out all their right eyes, 1 Sam. 11. 2. the Israelites refusing and running the hazard of a fight, rather than undergo it, here was no covenant. Thirdly, each party must engage themselves one to another, for performance of somewhat covenanted for, whether debt, duty, or promise. When Abraham agreed with the Hittites for a burial place for four hundred Shekels, Gen. 23. 15, 16. There was a covenant properly so called, having apparently in it all requisites of a covenant. So also in Jeremy's purchase, Jer. 32. 10. and the Levites hiring of himself to do the office of a Priest, Judg. 17. 10. Micah and he mutually agree, he is to do the office of a Priest, and Micah is to pay his covenant-wages; so that he hit right of the nature of a covenant, that defined it to be A mutual agreement between parties upon Articles or Propositions on both sides, so that each party is tied and bound to perform his own conditions. This holds forth the general nature of a covenant, and is common to all covenants, public and private, divine or humane, differencing it first from a Law or Precept, where there is a command out of sovereignty propounded, without any obligation or engagement on the Lawgiver or Commander. Secondly, from a single promise, where there is a signification of the will of him that makes the promise, touching some good to him to whom the promise is made, without any restipulation, from him; And to let pass several Divisions of covenants, little pertinent to our purpose (which may be seen in Civilians and Politians, particularly in Grotius lib. 2. De Jure Belli & Pacis, cap. 15.) and to speak to such, which may give some light to the present work. Covenans of this nature properly so called, are either between equals, where either party may indifferently indent with other, 
Distinctions of Covenants.  neither standing engaged to other, otherwise then by covenant, as in the instances before, mentioned. The Priest was not engaged to officiate for Micah, nor Micah to give money or raiment to the Priest, but by, virtue of contract, one was the others equal, in regard of any dependence one upon the other. Or else they are between Superior and Inferior, the Superior condescending to the Inferior, to deal by way of covenant, when yet the whole that is required by him, is of debt, and might without agreement or stipulation be required and exacted. This superiority and inferiority, is either mixed and imperfect, or else it is absolute and sovereign: Mixed and imperfect superiority, and inferiority, is, between parent and child, master and servant, equal in being, but Superior and Inferior in relation; Of this nature was that of Isaac with Esau, Gen. 27. 34. Take I pray thee thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field to take me some venison, and make me savoury meat, such as I love, that my soul may bless thee before I die; Esau was tied as a child to do what Isaac required, though he had hinted or promised no blessing; Superiority and Inferiority, absolute and sovereign, is only between God and his creature, no other is an absolute Superior; and such is the covenant, when God enters covenant. It is of sovereignty that God makes a Law; It is of condescension and goodness that he enters covenant, in which man may not indent, but must accept, professedly accepting, and in sincerity of heart performing, what God in covenant demands; yet it is a covenant, and properly so called, that he enters with his creature, especially that which he enters with mankind, having all the ingredients, and forenamed requisites of a covenant, as in the sequel (God willing) shall be demonstrated. God is engaged to retribution, and man to fealty, and either of both by consent. Covenants between any parties, whether Superior and Inferior, or equals among themselves, are either simply and nakedly such without any farther solemnity, or ceremony, or any thing more than is essentially necessary in a Covenant, a mutual engagement between each other on such terms and propositions as are mutually agreed. Or else they are covenants with addition of ceremonies, solemnities, ways of ratification and confirmation; as instances might be given in covenants, both humane and divine; As the committing the words of the Covenant to writing Jer. 32. 10. Calling in witnesses, in the same place, and Ruth 4. 10, 11. giving of the hand, making oath, Ezek. 17. 18. or any other National custom in use, for confirmation, as the setting up of a stone, Joshuah 24. 26, 27. the division of a Calf, and passage between the parts of it, Jerem. 34. 18. laying upon themselves by way of imprecation, such a judgement that then befell that beast, in case of falsification, so that some making definition of a covenant, over and above what is essential, make addition of such ways of ratification; so Ravanellus defines a Covenant to be, A mutual agreement of two parties, 
Mutus pactio disarum partium, quâ altera alterise ecritis conditionibus obligar ad aliquid faciendum, dandum aut accipiendum, adhibitis signis & Symbolis externis, ad solennem testificationem confirmationis causa, ut promissio sit inviolabilis, Sic & Ursinus.  in which either ties himself to other upon certain conditions in the use of some outward signs and tokens, for attestation and confirmation, that the promise may be inviolable. The covenant which God pleases to enter with man, especially with fallen man, under which we are, and our fathers in old Testament-administrations were, is not a bare naked covenant, but in the highest way of solemnity, committed to writing, John 20. 31. confirmed by witnesses with miracles, Heb. 2. 4. by oath, Heb. 6. 13. 17. by seals, Matth. 28. 19 Matth. 26. 28. compared with Rom. 4. 11. And when he might have dealt with man, by way of sovereignty, ruling solely by prerogative and command, not letting man know any reward for his service, or at all to have understood the issue and event; yet he is pleased to wave such right, and to deal by way of covenant, and that in this way here mentioned.  
First, 
Reason's why God deals with man in a Covenant-way.  That his people might be willing in the day of his power, Psalm 110. 3. Obedience extorted, contributes not that honour to him, whom we obey, we confess a necessity in ourselves to yield, but scarce acknowledge any worth in such a Superior to command; serving no otherwise than Israel did Pharaoh, as a bond man serves his master, one volunteer that goes out of choice, more honours an expedition, than ten that are pressed by power for service, only waiting an opportunity by slealth, out of dislike, as David's soldiers out of shame, to quit the service, I Sam. 19 3.  
Secondly, to vanquish all temptations, and overcome all assaults that may occur in man's way of obedience; Adam in innocency was foiled by a temptation, which he had overcome, in case he had heeded the terms of the covenant, the curse that was threatened, and the promise that was contained in it; man in his fallen estate undergoes many trials, and is encountered with variety of temptations, had he not a word on which he might hope, a word of promise in way of covenant from God; he could not stand, but of necessity must perish.  
Thirdly, that love rather than fear might principle man in his obedience, as seeing more of goodness to induce, then of wrath to scare him into it; God will have his servants, sons. The free honour of a child to his father, rather than the compulsory fear of a servant, pleases him.  
Fourthly, for the aggravation of sin; The more of condescension, goodness, bounty, and love appears, in God's way of dealing; the more of equity is seen, and the more ingratitude and folly appears in man's disobedience.  
Fifthly, for man's greater consolation; An up-right-hearted man finds abundance of peace, in his covenant entered with God; when he prays and seeks the greatest mercy in prayer, he is able to say, In thy faithfulness answer me, and in thy righteousness, Psal. 143. 1. Paul can say, that God the righteous Judge shall give him a Crown of righteousness, 2 Tim. 4. 8. Having engaged by covenant, righteousness ties him to make good his engagements; This is God's end, in his entrance of covenant, and ratification of it by oath, consequently, in committing it to writing, and confirming it by seal; That by two immuntable things in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us, Heb. 6. 18. These strong consolations were the end of God, in ratifying his Covenant, They are the support, and Spirit reviving cordials to his people in Covenant; See the result of the Psalmists meditations, In the multitude of my thoughts within me, thy comforts delight my soul, Psalm 94. 19 I will both lay me down in peace and sleep, for thou, Lord, only makest me dwell in safety, Psalm 4. 8. The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life, of whom shall I be afraid? Psal. 27. 1.  
Sixthly, for the greater terror of the adversaries of his people, when they see themselves engaged against them, and God stands in a covenant unviolable engaged for them; when they see, that their work is to ruinate and destroy him that God will save. Hence it is while their Rock sells them not, one of them chases a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, Deut. 32. 30. Paul in bonds can make Felix tremble on his Throne, Acts 24. 25. Hamans' wisemen, and Zeresh his wife spoke words of terror, upon experiment made, If Mordecai be of the seed of the Jews, before whom thou hast begun to fall, thou shalt not prevail against him, but shalt surely fall before him, Ester 6. 13.  
Seventhly, the Lord hereby puts a name, and an honour upon his people. David took it to be an honour to be related to Saul, and, so to become the son of a King, much more then, is it an honour to be brought into this relation to God. This honour have all the Saints, and they are taken into covenant for honour sake, The Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his Commandments; and to make thee high above all Nations which he hath made, in praise, and in honour, and that thou mayest be an holy people to the Lord thy God, Deut. 26. 18, 19 They are, the portion, the inheritance, the children, the espoused ones, and whatsoever else that speaks a near relation is theirs.  
This was God's way of dealing (I doubt not) with the Angels though (we being not interested in it) there is no necessity that it should be written for our learning: Sure we are, it was his way of dealing with man, as well before his fall, (as presently shall be shown) as out of more abundant grace and condescension for his restitution. And not mentioning for present any more, then that which is essential in the covenant, of God with man, I suppose it may be thus held out to us: 
The Covenant between God and Man defined.  A mutual compact or agreement between God and man upon just and equal terms prescribed by himself, in which God promises true happiness to man, and man engages himself by promise for performance of what God requires. This description here laid down, comprizes the way of God, in every one of his covenants with man both before and after his fall, under Old and New Testament-revelations, all that is essential in any covenant that he enters; Equals covenanting do either of them article and indent, but God condescending to a covenant, man must not article, but must assent, and engage for performance of what is prescribed, otherwise it will hear the nature of a Law, but not of a Covenant. It is true, all men are bound upon tender from God, to accept; It was the sin of Jewish and heathenish people, to stand out whensoever the Gospel was preached; but they were no covenant-people till they gave their assent, and then they were received as a covenant-people, and baptised. Exceptions cannot be taken against, or challenge made of this definition of covenants in general, nor of the covenant which God in particular entereth with man; and these standing, they will give us light, and afford us singular help for a right understanding of the covenant of God, entered with man in the several species, and distinct ways of administration of it.   

CHAP. II.  
The Covenant of God entered with mankind, distinguished.  
THere is a twofold covenant, which God out of his gracious condescension, hath vouchsafed to enter with man. The first immediately upon the creation of man, when man yet stood right in his eye, and bore his image, the alone creature on earth, that was in a capacity to enter covenant. We have not indeed the word covenant, till after man was fallen, nor yet in any place of Scripture, 
God entered Covenant with man in his estate of integrity.  in reference to the transactions passed between God and man in his state of integrity, neither have we such expressions that fully and explicitly hold out a covenant to us, but we find it implied, and so much expressed, from whence a covenant with the conditions of it is evinced. That Law, with the penalty annexed, given to our first parents (Gen. 2. 17. Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not ●at; for in the day that thou eatest, thou shalt surely die;) plainly implies in it, a covenant entered; man was in present possession of life (that is according to Scripture. phrase, happiness) in his whole person full and complete according to his present capacity, This is to be continued (a● is there evidently implied) till sin dispossess him of it; Till he sin he shall not die; As long as he persists in his integrity, his life is to be continued, of which the Tree of Life (as is not to be doubted) was a Sacrament. The second, God was pleased to enter with man upon his fall, 
Grace is the fountain and first rise of every Covenant of God with man:  which was a covenant of reconciliation, the most unhappy variance between earth and heaven having intervened. The former, is, usually called a ●ovenant of Works, the latter, is, called a covenant of Grace, though indeed, the fountain, and first rise of either, was the free grace, and favour of God. For howsoever the first covenant was on condition of obedience, and engaged to the reward of Works, yet it was of Grace, that God made any such promise, of reward to any work of man, when man had done all (even in that estate) which was commanded, he was still an unprofitable servant, he had done no more than duty, and no emolument did thence accrue to his Maker. It was enough that he was upheld, and sustained of God in the work, to live in him, and upon him, when the work was done he might have been justly annihilated. If merit be taken in a proper sense, Adam in innocency was too low for it, all his work being an homage due, no profit redounding to God, and the work bearing no proportion to the reward. But a more superabundant measure of Grace is seen in God's entrance into covenant with man in his fallen condition, and infinitely more savour is shown in his reconciliation, then in his preservation▪ Therefore this by way of eminency hath the honour to be styled the covenant of Grace, the other retains the name of the covenant of Works. These two bearing these denominations have their respective agreement, and differences, which are to be enquired into: but before I reach those, it is necessary that somewhat be spoken to assert a covenant of grace, in Gospel-times, and to give us some further light for a right understanding of it.   

CHAP. III.  
A Covenant in the proper nature of it, between God, and fallen man, asserted.  
BEfore I proceed any further in this work; one great rub that lies in the way, is to be removed, otherwise, not only, all that which I have said; but also, all that which I shall speak on this subject, will fall to the ground, and that is their objection that say, that God hath not entered any covenant, properly so called, with fallen man. He hath by way of Sovereignty, laid commands upon man; Of free grace hath made rich and large promises, by way of legacy bequeathed life and salvation to him, but hath entered no covenant properly so called (as these say) with him, which is purposely done to avoid those conditions, which are asserted in this covenant. If this stand, the division before laid down, of a Covenant into a Covenant of Works, and a Covenant of Grace necessarily falls, such a division must not be suffered, where any one member of the division is not, If therefore there be no covenant of God with fallen man, nor no such thing as the covenant of Grace, there can be no such division of the covenant, and all agreement or differences assigned; will be between an entity, and a nonentity; between that which hath a reality, and a mere Chimaera. A covenant therefore in the proper nature of it, is to be asserted and the speed●est way to make this good, is to prove from Scripture the name and the thing, that the word Covenant is there, and the thing, in the proper nature of it, which the words hold out; and all of this respective to the transactions between God and fallen man. The word we find in places without number, it were a needless labour to give instances, when every Reader is able to furnish himself with such multitudes. But when this cannot be denied, the impropriety of the speech is objected. It is called by the name of a Covenant (as is said) when in strict propriety of speech, it is no covenant; But to avoid this, the thing itself may be as easily proved as the word, and when we have nomen, and nominis rationem, than we have a covenant, not equivocally not yet analogically, but properly so called. And here I may deal liberally with any adversary, and undertake to make proof, not only of all the essentials of such a covenant in Scripture, but the usual adjuncts, not only of all, that makes up the nature, but all accessories usually added to the solemnity of covenants. The essentials or real properties of a covenant, are contained in the usual definitions which afterwards we shall see laid down from several hands, all of which are in short comprised in these words, A mutual consent of parties with stipulation on both sides. Parties, consent, and mutual engagement is all that is required to the same being of a covenant; when two parties agree, and either of them both, have their conditions to make good, there is a covenant or bargain; see it exemplified in several instances given, Chap. 1. All of these we find in that one place, Deut. 26. 17, 18, 19 in the covenant that God enters with his people, Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his Statutes, and his Commandments, and his Judgements, and to hearken to his voice: And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his Commandments; And to make thee high above all Nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God, as he hath spoken. There are the Covenanters, God and his people; There is consent on both parties, Thou hast avouched, the Lord hath avouched; And there is a stipulation on both sides; On God's part, To make them high above all Nations; which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour: On the people's part, To keep all his Commandments, to be an holy people. There are covenant-mercies from God to his people, unto which of grace he engages himself; and there are covenant-duties unto which man stands engaged, Psal. 103. 17, 18. But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting, upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; to such as keep his Covenant, and to those that remember his Commandments.  
The usual solemnities of a covenant, 
In the usual accessories on solemnities.  are also found, in the transactions between God and his people, as well as the essentials of it. 1. Covenants used to be written▪ for memorial for posterity, and so is the covenant, between God and man, as in Old, so in New Testament-times. These things are written that you might believe, and that believing you may have everlasting life, John 20. 31. 2. Covenants used to be confirmed with outward visible signs, as the kill of beasts, Gen. 15. Jer. 34. this was done in the old administration, Exod. 24. Half of the blood was sprinkled upon the Altar, to denote Gods entering of Covenant, vers. 6. The people also were sprinkled with blood, to show their voluntary entering into covenant, vers. 8. And in the new dispensation, a new and unheard of ratification was used, the blood of the Mediator of the Covenant, Math. 26. 27, 28. This Cup is my blood in the New Testament, which was shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins. This latter is a plain allusion to the former, in which you may find. 1. A threefold agreement. Either of both these were covenants. 2. Either of both these, had their ratifications and confirmations. 3. Either of both were confirmed with blood. 2. A threefold difference. 1. The former was the Old covenant, which was antiquated; This is the New. 2. The former was ratified, and sanctified with the blood of beasts: This is ratified and sanctified, in the blood of Christ. 3. That blood could never take away sin, Heb. 10. This was shed for many, for remission of sins.  
Thirdly, covenants use to be confirmed by seal: so, is, this covenant, between God and his people, which is to be spoken to elsewhere.  
As the being of a covenant is thus plentifully proved by Scripture-testimony, so we might as amply prove it by arguments drawn from thence. 
Arguments evincing a Covenant in the proper nature of it.  The Churches of Christ are espoused unto Christ, Hos. 2. 19, 20. And I will betrothe thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betrothe thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgement, and in loving kindness, and in mercies; I will even betrothe thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord. 2 Cor. 11. 2. I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you to Christ; and Spouses are in covenant with their Bridegroom. The Churches of Christ are married to Christ: Isa. 54. 5. Thy Maker is thine Husband, the Lord of hosts is his Name, and thy Redeemer the holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall he be called. And wives are in covenant with their husbands. Their sins against God are branded with the names of Adulteries, Whoredoms; and these are not barely disobedience of a Command, or neglect of a favour, but breaches of covenant. The Churches of Christ are servants of Christ, Levit. 25. household servants, Ephes. 2. 19 and servants are their Masters by covenant. Their sins in this relation are not barely obstinacy, stubbornness, or ingratitude, but they are charged with treachery, falsehood, dealing falsely in covenant, and their hearts being not steadfast in covenant. It is above me to conceive, how man can be a covenant-breaker, (not alone respective to man, but God, as he is frequently charged) when there hath passed no covenant between God and him. They may question, whether there were ever any such thing, as a covenant in the world, that deny this to be a covenant, in the proper nature of it; some objections raised in their due place will be answered.   

CHAP. IU.  
The Covenant of Grace is between God and man; and not between God and Christ.  
HAving asserted a covenant in the proper nature of it, it is necessary, before I proceed further on, to give differences between this covenant of Works, and the covenant of Grace, to speak something by way of Explication, covenant being taken in so various and ambiguous senses, or at least so many senses put upon it, which I take to be a misunderstanding of the Scripture-covenant, I shall lay down certain Explicatory Propositions for clearing of the thing in question. And the leading on shall be this. The Covenant of grace is between God and man, between God, and those of fallen mankind, that he pleases to take into covenant, God and man are the two parties in the covenant; It is not made between God and Christ. This is so plain, that a man might think there needed no words about it, but that there are some that will have man to be no party in it, and that it is entered only with Christ on behalf of those that God hath chosen in Christ to himself. To this I shall speak first by way of concession, yielding to them of this opinion, these three things that follow. 1. That there is such a covenant of which they speak, which was entered between God and Christ, containing the transactions which pass between the Father and the Son, the tenor of which covenant we find laid down by the Prophet, Esay 53. 10, etc. and commented upon by the Apostle, Phil. 2. 6. There we see, first the work that Christ by covenant was to undergo, To make his soul an offering for sin, that is, as elsewhere is expressed, to give his life a ransom for many, and as he covenanted, so he did, He became obedient to death, even the death of the cross, Phil. 2. 8. and that, upon account of this covenant entered, Christ himself speaking to it, and of his work in it, saith, John 10. 18. This Commandment have I received of my Father. Secondly, the reward that he was to receive, which is laid down by the Prophet in many words. 1. He shall see his seed, ver. 10. As Isaac being received from the dead in a figure, saw a seed, had an innumerable posterity; so the Lord Christ who was received from the dead in truth; hath his seed in like manner, believers innumerable, which are called his seed in resemblance to the seed of man. 2. He shall prolong his days, not the days of his seed, as some would have it, making this one with the former, and rendering the words videbit semen longaevum, being delivered from death, he shall live and reign eternally, Revel. 1. 18. 3. The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand; he shall irresistibly do whatsoever is the Father's pleasure to be done in the work of man's salvation. 4. He shall see the travel of his soul, and shall be satisfied; upon this work done, he fully enjoys the whole of all his desires. 5. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong. He obtains a perfect victory, hath a plenary and full conquest over every adversary. 2. We yield that the whole of these covenant-transactions; between God and Christ, was on our behalf. Making his soul an offering for sin, he offers it for those that are fallen by iniquity; All is, (as is there said) for the justification of many. Whatsoeve it is, that upon the work done redounds to himself, yet the reason of undertaking was for us, Unto us he was borne, unto us he was given, He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, he was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification; He endured the mulct, and we reap the benefit. 3. We confess that it is the work of Christ that we enjoy a being in covenant, as it is his gift that we enjoy the blessing of Ordinances. But when all these are yielded, the truth must be asserted, that there is a covenant to which Scripture constantly speaks, which is entered of God with man, and not with Christ, which me thinks with much ease might be made to appear.  
1. There are frequent testimonies of God's entry of covenant with his people. 1. With the leading persons in the covenant, which stand as the root of many thousand branches, which are their offspring in covenant. He entered covenant with Abraham, Gen. 15. 18. Gen. 17. 2. The like he enters with Isaac, Gen. 26. 3. with Jacob, Gen. 35. 11. and therefore he is so frequently called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And the covenant of God is alike known by the name of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 2. He enters covenant with the whole body of the people of Israel, Deut. 5. 1, 2. Hear O Israel, the statutes, and judgements, which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep them, and do them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb, the Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us who are all of us alive this day; And this whole visible body of Israel was not Christ.  
2. There are testimonies of Israel's entrance into covenant with God, Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. Ye stand this day, all of you before the Lord your God; your Captains of your Tribes, your Elders, and your Officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the stranger that is in thy Camp, from the hewer of thy wood, unto the drawer of thy water, that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day, Psalm 50. 5. Gather my Saints together unto me, those that have made a Covenant with me by sacrifice, Deut. 26. 17. Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways.  
3. The particular time, and place of God's entrance into covenant with his people, is, in Scripture noted likewise. In Horeb as we have heard, which was the first year of their coming out of Egypt, the third month, Exod 19 1. Again, in the fourth year, the eleventh month, the first day, Deut. 1. 3. Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. compared. This day saith the text. Now, there was no day, in which the covenant of God, with Christ, was entered, no day, when it was not entered, but it was from all eternity, as, all the works of the Trinity are, ad intra.  
4. Covenant duties are imposed, to walk before the Lord, to be perfect, to be an holy, peculiar people, Gen. 17. 1. Exod. 19 6. These are not imposed upon Christ, but upon Christians.  
5. The people of God have the praise of keeping, and are under the blame of covenant-breaking, which praise of faithfulness, and blame of perfidiousness is ascribed to them, and not to Christ Jesus.  
6. They that have the seals of the covenant given them, are in covenant; but man receives the Seals, both of Baptism and the Lords Supper; as, the people of God of old, did Circumcision, and the Passeover, therefore, man is in covenant.  
7. If the covenant were made, with Christ, and not with man, than he is a Mediator between God and himself, and not between God and man. This is plain, in that he is the Mediator of the covenant, viz. between persons in covenant; But he is not a Mediatiour between God and himself, which were absurd to imagine, but between God and man, There is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 1 Tim. 2. 5.  
There is only I think that one difficult text of the Apostle to be objected against this thing, Gal. 3. 16. Now to Abraham and his seed, were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ, from whence some conclude, that the covenant was entered of God, with no other of Abraham's seed, but with Christ, consequently not with man, but with Christ only. As this was not in my thoughts in my first Edition, so, I shall not now (as I soon might) weary myself, and reader, in wading into all the difficulties about it, being such as have occasioned, not only the Jews to insult, as Calvin observes but Hierom (the greatest Linguist among the ancients) to speak words unworthy of such an Apostle, which I shall spare to repeat, and, all, upon the occasion of the Apostles words, That the promises, were not made to Abraham, and his seeds, as of many, but his seed, as of one, on which the forenamed father says, Running over the whole Scripture, both with his eye, and memory; he doth not find the word seed ever used in the plural number, but always in the singular, whether it be in the better, or worse sense. But Gomarus on the words takes him up as being too short in his memory, and quotes samuel's speech, 1. Sam. 8. 15. to the contrary, where the word is used plurally, Rivet indeed, Exercit 108. in Genes. seems to help him out, though he do not mention him, affirming, that the word [seed] is never used in the plural number, for the posterity of men; but always collectively used in the singular number. The place objected in Samuel speaking of the seed of the earth, but Ravanellus on the Apostles behalf, pleads, That it is uncertain, whether the word be only used of the Hebrews in the singular number, for though it be not used plurally, in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, yet it cannot thence be gathered, that the word hath only the singular number, and wants the plural; when it is without all doubt, that all the words which have been in use with the Hebrews, are not to be found in the Old Testament. Howsoever, I am not the man, from whom a satisfying Comment on these words may be expected; others more able, that have traveled in it, may be consulted, yet I doubt not, but enough may be easily said, to vindicate it from this gloss that is here put upon it, and to make it appear that this text will not bear this doctrine, that the covenant of grace is not entered with fallen man, but with Christ only, which may appear by these following Reasons. 1. There is no safe opposing any one difficult text (about which Expositors are at so much difference among themselves) against, so many that are full, and clear against it. The texts that are against it are (as I may say) without number, and this, I think, stands alone, with any colour for it. Thus the Papists have adventured to fasten their purgatory on 1 Cor. 3. 13, 14 and some few like difficult places. 2. The word covenant is not in the text, neither under the more proper word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; promises, in the plural number, repeated again, verse 19 in the singular, and a promise, and a covenant (as Paraeus on the words observes) much differ. 3. If they will needs understand by promises to, a covenant with, as every covenant is a promise, though every promise be not a covenant, they differ as the Genus and the Species, yet there is that in the text, (as Master Bulkley in his Treatise of the covenant observes) which makes against them, they say this covenant is made with Christ, and with none but Christ; but in the text, it is otherwise, Abraham is made a party in the covenant, as well as Christ, which serves to overthrow their exclusive particle. 4. [Christ] here in this place may be taken collectively, as [seed] is usually taken, and so the word is taken, 1 Cor. 12. 12. As the body is one, and hath many members, & all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. And so Mr. Bulkely, Diodati, Rivet, Gomarus, and our last Annotations upon the words expound it. 5. Being understood of Christ personally (which with submission to better judgements, I confess most satisfies me) it must not be understood of Christ, as a party in Covenant, for blessedness; but as a Mediator making blessed. There are many promises in Scripture made to Abraham, and the seed of Abraham, and there is much difference among interpreters, to which of these promises this text refers; The Reader, if he please, may consult Paraeus on the words, and Junius in his parallels, but to what text soever it is, that these words do refer, I am confident that the Apostle speaks not, of any blessedness received by covenant; but a promise of making Nations blessed, and this is not indeed to [seeds] as of many, but to [seed] as of one, which is Christ; which I gather by comparing the words in hand with v. 8. of the same chapter, and the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen, through faith, preached before the Gospel to Abraham, saying, In thee shall all Nations be blessed. This is the promise that this Text holds out, which is not a covenant for blessedness, but a promise to make blessed repeated again, verse 19 The Law was added, because of transgressions till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made, which is not Christ, collectively, or mystically, but personally considered, not entering covenant but as Mediator of the covenant. So that this text serves nothing for this purpose. A learned Writer indeed says, It is beyond my brain to conceive that God should immediately make a Covenant with us, who were children of disobedience, and of wrath, who could not be capable of any such covenant and conditions. That Christ hath a hand to bring us into covenant, before was yielded, and how far he hath a hand further to carry on; the covenant may be yet further considered, but man is a party in covenant, and as God may make promises, and give good things to fallen man, so he may enter covenant with him likewise.   

CHAP. V.  
The outward, and not the inward Covenant, is a covenant, properly so called.  
WHereas there is an usual distinction (almost in all that write or speak of the covenant) of a double covenant between God and his people, one external, and the other internal; one passing outwardly, and the other inwardly kept and observed. Or (as Dr. Preston expresseth it) a single and double covenant, which I shall forbear to examine, seeing I know there is a right meaning; though I much doubt whether there be in the Reader a right understanding. My second Proposition shall be, that it is the external Covenant, not the inward, that exactly and properly is called by the name of a Covenant: and to which privileges of Ordinances and title to Sacraments are annexed. This Proposition, occasioned by this received distinction, is, of three heads, which in case the Reader please, he may subdivide into three distinct Positions.  
1. The outward, 
The outward and not the inward Covenant, is properly a Covenant.  and not the inward Covenant, is, most exactly and properly called by the name of a Covenant, which I thus make good: 1. That covenant to which the definition of a covenant doth belong, hath exactly and properly the nature of a covenant, this none can deny: The definition sets out the nature of the thing defined; But the definition most actly belongs, to the outward covenant, not to the inward; This is plain; An agreement of parties, on terms and Propositions is the definition of a covenant: Now the outward covenant, is an agreement on terms and Propositions, as I have abundantly declared, in that covenant God engages himself to man for his happiness; and man engages to faith and obedience. The inward covenant hath no terms or Propositions at all, for man to make good, upon account of his covenanting: seeing the performance of the conditions of the Scripture-covenant, is his very entrance into the inward covenant. He that believes and reputes keeps covenant, nothing more is expected of God, or promised by man: But believing, and repenting, is the first closing with God in covenant, according to them that speak of an inward covenant. 2. A covenant to perform conditions is a covenant properly so called; But the outward covenant, not the inward, is a covenant to perform conditions, This is plain: The conditions in the inward covenant, are the covenant. 3. That which confounds entrance into covenant, and keeping of covenant, is no covenant properly so called; In a covenant properly so called these are distinct: But the inward covenant confounds entrance into covenant and keeping of covenant, and therefore in exact propriety of speech is no covenant.  
2. The outward, 
The outward Covenant is most usually in Scripture called by the name of Covenant.  and not the inward Covenant, is, most usually in Scripture, called by the name of a Covenant; which is plain, in that, they that have no part, or portion, in the inward covenant, are, yet still spoken of, in Scripture, as people in covenant; God calls all Israel his people, and that upon covenant terms; Deut. 29. 10▪ 11, 12, 13. Al of those, that thus covenanted with God, were not in the inward covenant. This people at their worst, and the wrost among them, are called the people of God, as by those that were strangers to this covenant: These are the people of the Lord, (say the men of Babylon) and are gone forth out of his land, Ezek. 36. 20. so, also by the Lord himself Jer. 2. 32. Can a Bride forget her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number. How often doth God own Israel as his people, when he yet brands them as a rebellious, revolting, stiffnecked, treacherous, and adulterous people. They that forsake the covenant of God, that break covenant, that deal falsely in it, upon whom God brings a sword to avenge the quarrel of his covenant, are in the outward, not in the inward covenant: But such there be among God's covenant-people, as he frequently complains, that break covenant, etc. These, are not then, in his inward, but outward covenant.  
The great objection is, (and all that carries colour against this) Jer. 31. 32, 33. where the Lord differencing the Old and New covenant, saith, This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my Covenant they broke, although I was an husband to them, saith the Lord: But this shall be my Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. That is alone the inward covenant, and the elect regenerate are alone within it. The inward covenant than is called in Scripture a covenant, and is in exact propriety of speech a covenant.  
For answer, I shall have further occasion to speak to this Text. In this place I shall only put some Queries.  
1. Whether those that carry this Text to an unconditionate covenant, and restrain it alone to that which they call the inward covenant, do not make the covenant in the time of the Law, and that in Gospel-times essentially different, and consequently, either make two covenants of grace, distinct, in kind; or thrust all that were under the Old covenant, out of all hope of salvation, contrary to all Interpreters, who make these covenants, one in substance? See the last larger Annotations on the words.  
2. Whether such an Interpretation, do not utterly contradict, New-Testament-light, which holds out the New covenant in like latitude with the former, in which many are called, but few are chosen; and where conditions are as explicitly, and fully required, as in Old Testament dispensations?  
3. Whether, when Scripture speaks of things, in opposition to men's erroneous conceits, (for a further Explanation of them, and rectifying men's judgements in them) it do usually lay down a full, complete, and formal definition, to which nothing is to be added? or whether it doth not, usually supply that, in which men through mistake were defective and short? And whether those Texts, Esay 58 6, 7. Is not this the fast that I have chosen, to lose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out into thy house, when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thyself from thy own flesh? Jer. 22. 15, 16. Did not thy father eat and drink, and do justice and judgement, and then it was well with him? He judged the cause of the poor and needy, and then it was well with him; was not this to know me, saith the Lord? Jam. 1. 27. Pure Religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world, are not parallel to this text in their way of delivery. And in case we cannot find a full definition of a religious Fast in that of Esay, nor the whole of it that makes up saving knowledge in that of Jeremy, nor the whole that makes Religion complete in that of James; why is it that we should earnestly contend, that the full nature of a covenant is in this text expressed, being fully parallel in the way of delivery to those other texts. 
Men enjoy privileges of ordinances and interest in Sacraments upon account of the outward Covenant.   
Thirdly, it is upon the account of the outward Covenant, and not the inward, that men enjoy privileges of Ordinances, and interest in Sacraments; Men that are so far honoured as to enjoy an outward covenant, have just title to these privileges. It is in behalf of the Jew outwardly that the Apostle having so decried his condition, respective to the approbation of God, puts the question, What advantage hath the Jew? what profit is there of Circumcision? Rom. 3. 1. The Jew and Circumcision are there one; A Jew outwardly, and circumcision in the flesh, go there in equal latitude. He that by nature is a Jew (as Paul speaks, Gal. 2. 15.) is of the circumcision; And to these, the Oracles of God are committed; The instruments, deeds and evidences of the covenants, say the last Annotations. It was the privilege of Israel, Psal. 147. 19 Rom. 3. and then, the privilege of no other Nation; Now it is, the privilege of all, ingraffed in their stead. This is confessed, even by a great part of those, that understand the inward covenant, (or covenant keeping to acceptation,) almost whensoever they mention a covenant, in that, they baptise infants, upon covenant grounds, even all their infants that make a covenant profession, and that upon just warranty. It is further plain in reason, The outward covenant must have privileges suitable to itself, otherwise there is no manner of benefit, or advantage of it. This privilege of the Sacrament is suitable, being outward, as the covenant is outward; This is elsewhere spoken to at large, and therefore I shall hear forbear.  
I have indeed been challenged for this distinction of an outward and inward covenant, as though I had been the sole Author of it, when all know that it is a distinction, that of a long time, among Divines hath been in common use; and in case it had not been commonly received, I should have forborn the use of it. As, I heard Mr. Ball, once in discourse, say, that he denied any such distinction, of an outward, and an inward call to the Ministry, all calling being external, unless the man called were a Prophet, that which men term, an inward call, being only qualifications fitting for the work: So that I deny, in exact propriety of speech, the inward covenant, is any covenant, but the answer of the soul, unto that which the covenant requires. And whereas it is said of me by way of conjecture. It is probable that he thus distributes them, from the blessings promised, whereof some are inward, and some outward; for though he explain not himself fully, yet I know no other sense that it will bear. To this I say, that I thus distinguish them, to apply myself to the Readers understanding, that hath been accumstomed, so to call them; and further I say, that men, that barely covenant, and keep not covenant, have only privileges that are outward, They are visible Church-members, and they have visible Church-priviledges, and those, who answer to covenant engagements (which usually is called the inward covenant) have privileges both outward and inward. A Jew outwardly had outward privileges, A Jew inwardly (that is, he that answered to his outward profession, that worshipped God in spirit) hath both those that were outward and inward. It is further said, It is evident that his outward Covenant hath no seal; for it is a Covenant de sigillis conferendis; If therefore it have a seal, it is either the same which is promised, or some other. What this Author means, when he says, it is a covenant de sigillis conferendis, I am to learn; If he mean that the seal follows the covenant, and is put to, after the covenant, so it is in all covenants whatsoever. He says, they no where tell us, what is the seal of their outward covenant; me thinks, we had no need to tell, what the seal of that covenant was, that the Jew entered; was it not circumcision? and did there not another follow, viz. the Passeover? Now I tell him that Circumcision and the Passeover, were, and Baptism and the Lords Supper, are, seals of this covenant. The Nation of the Jews were in covenant, as our Author (though he would, yet) must not deny; They were not all in the inward covenant; and yet they had these seals. He says, we are bound to give the seals to such, Vocation which is effectual only to bring men to an outward profession of saving faith, is larger than election, and makes men such, whom we are bound to baptise; And such we say have right to them. And to help him a little further. Those men, that he says the Church must baptise, though without right, we say, are truly in covenant, and have right; when he knows, what a child he is to baptise, he knows, who we say, are in covenant, and have covenant-right to baptism; so that a second covenant, of which he speaks, to give right to a first, is a strange fancy. But seeing I am no better understood, I shall endeavour (if it may be) to clear my meaning in certain positions which here follow.   

CHAP. VI  
Positions tending to clear the thing in question.  
1. THose that take upon themselves a Christian profession, being separate for God, calling him by the Name of Lord, that have Ordinances of God as their inheritance, that acknowledge a Deity, and no other but the true Deity; a necessity of worship, and none but the Christian worship, these with me are in Covenant with God, as was the whole state of the Church of the Jews, and the whole face of the visible Church of the Gentiles, that were ingraffed in their stead. This to me is plain, in that they are the Church or Churches of God, Act. 7. 8. Gal. 1. 2. The called of God, Matth. 22. 14. The people of God, Isa. 1. 2. Psal. 90. 7. They sacrificed to the true God, Psal. 50. 7. Are the sons of God, Gen. 6. 1. Deut. 14. 1. Rom. 9 4. Are a people nigh unto the Lord, Deut. 4. 7. Psal. 148. ult. God professing himself to be their God, Psal. 90. 7. Are children of the Covenant, Acts 3. 35. Saints, Psalm 90. 5. Acts 26. 10. 1 Cor. 14. 33. Believers, Act. 8. 12, 13. Acts 21. 20. Luke 8. 13. Disciples, Matth. 10. 1, 4. Acts 9 1. & 15. 10. Christians, Acts 11. 26. That all of these imply a covenant-state; and that unregenerate men, have in Scripture, all this honour, is clear; These therefore with me are in covenant. I know, that as to all of these eulogies, it is answered in a word, that they are equivocal. An answer that I can scarce take into my thoughts without horror; as though God's Oracles were all over, from one end of the Bible to the other, like those of Apollo, and there were no reality, either in their separation for God, or gifts that they receive from God, (as illumination, conviction, faith) or privileges that they enjoy; When there can be no plain denial, that all of this here mentioned, argues a covenant-state, yet exceptions are taken. It seems (saith one) he takes all to be in Covenant that bear the name, [Christian.] And then questions; What? Though they know not what Christ or Christianity is? Is taking a name, entering into Cevenant? The poor Indians that by thousands are forced by the Spaniard to be baptised, are said to know so little what they do, that some of them forget the name of [a Christian] which they assumed. And does not our Author think that a man may take as plausible exceptions against his words, (where he saith, The rule is, That a serious professor of the faith is to be taken for a true believer, if he would travel as far as India for it,) as he doth here against God's Word? Do not we know, that force may make, these poor Indians, to appear serious in their profession? And it is wonder, that it should be so strange with him, that taking a name, should be entering covenant, or at least that it should imply a covenant-state: Let him consult Isa. 4. 1. In that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, we will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach; and those manifold Scripture-Texts, which express the relation of God's covenant-people to him, in these words, A people called by his Name; or on whom the Name of God is called. Distinction should be put, between children of the covenant, by descent from parents in covenant, whether Jews or Christians, (who continue their covenant-relation, till they professedly cast it off, notwithstanding their ignorance) and such that of mere aliens are to be received, having no other title than their own present qualification. This aught to be voluntary, as well, in renouncing their old false way, as embracing the present, as we see it was, in those coverts through the Acts of the Apostles, and, is not to be, without some competency of knowledge, discerning the evil of their former course, and the happiness attainable in the present. And, I am easily induced to believe, that more knowledge by the industry of teachers, is now required, then was in the primitive times, seeing there is not so much of God, by miracle to persuade, and as it were to overrule: So that it is not a naked taking of a name that is intended, but that which together with it still attends upon it: As a wife is called by her husband's name, and withal, makes her abode in his house; so it is with a Covenant people, and was with Israel; They bore the name of God, and they made abode in the Church of God, enjoying his Ordinances as their inheritance. It is objected, God oft bestows his Word on Infidels, and in England there are men that deride the truth of Scripture, and esteem it a fiction, and yet for credit of men come ordinarily to the Congregation. These have the Word given, and so have other unregenerate men, but not by Covenant that I know of, That God doth bestow his Word on Infidels, to me is strange: It is true that he often tenders it to them, but in case they remain Infidels, they put it away from them, and bestowing implies not only a tender but an acceptance. It was the great advantage of Israel, above other Nations, that to them was committed the Oracles of God, when others had not that honour. And to speak, of Gods giving his Word by Covenant, is a most improper speech, seeing the Word is the very Covenant draughts; as though we should say, he gives his Word, by his Word. And these sure are no open deriders that for the credit ofmen, make such a public profession: this would work restraint, on the one hand, as it puts upon profession on the other. And in case any such thing be, though the Covenant is perfidiously broke, yet (as I conceive) it is not totally cast off, as long as an open profession is continued. What shall we say of those, that take their sons, and daughters, to give them to Moloch? this can be no low crime, and is an high departure from the true God, yet these bring forth children unto God; and they are Gods children, that they thus sacrifice, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. So also, Psal. 106. 35, etc. Israel was mingled among the Heathen, and learned their works, and they served their Idols, which were a snare to them; yea, they sacrificed their sons and daughters unto Devils, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and daughters; Yet this, as appears cast them not out of Covenant; God notwithstanding remembered for them his Cavenant, ver. 45. This was therefore doubtless but a partial apostasy; Taking in the worship of Idols, they did not totally cast off the worship of God: God was not totally cast off in Judah, neither did God cast off Judah: Ahaz was of the worst of Kings, and yet his posterity was reckoned among the people of the Lord. Had the Jews at that time been, as severe disputants against a covenant-state, as are risen up now, the Church of God had wanted an Hezekiah, He had never lived, (much less wrought so happy a Reformation) in the Church of God.  
2. Those that are looked upon by men, 
Posit. 2.  as in Covenant with God, and so ordinarily judged (as the people of Israel were) by the Name that they bear, their abode in the Church, the profession that they make, and so accordingly styled, are truly, and really in Covenant. A man may know a man, to appertain to such, or such a person, because he sees him in his family, hears him call him Master, sees him, sometimes at least, in his work, and knows, him to have the repute of his servant; Though to know him to be a faithful servant, requires more diligence of enquiry, and a stricter scrutiny: So, a man may be as easily known, to appertain to Jesus Christ; The same Characters make him known, all that is required, to being in covenant, is, visible, open, evident: but sincerity of heart in covenanting is invisible, and secret. And therefore the Jew outwardly, Rom. 2. 28. is called by the Vulgar, Vatablus, Tremelius, Arias Montanus, and Castalio, Judaeus in manifesto; by Calvin, Judaeus in aperto; by Beza, Judaeus in propatulo: The Jew inwardly, is called Judaeus in abscondito, or occulto: Their Church, or covenant-station, giving them those great advantages after mentioned, was open and manifest. Those that say, Lord, Lord, as, Mat. 7. 21. are of those that avouch God to be their God, and God avoucheth them to be his people. And therefore when they come with their sacrifices, though in their sins, and God upon that account testifies against them; yet he says, I am God, even thy God. It is confessed by an eminent adversary, that we must judge those that make profession, to be in Covenant with God: we must give them the name of Christians, and men in covenant with God, and we must use them as Christians in works of Charity and Ordinances, and Church-communion, and so must use their children as Christians children. And seeing reason to judge so, according to Scripture-character of men in covenant, they are so. Either in this we judge right, or else we proceed upon mistake, If we judge aright, than all is well: If we mistake, then, all in these proceedings is null. Water hath been applied to the child of such an one, but no Sacrament dispensed; and according to a man's hopes, thoughts or fears of his father's regeneration, are his hopes, thoughts and fears of his own baptism, and consequently of his interest in Church-communion; for this, stands, or falls according to his father's interest, or non-interest in the covenant. A grand Rule is laid down by the said Author, That a serious Professor of the faith is to be taken for a true Believer: and this being laid down, more are added. If this Proposition were a Scripture-Maxime than it would have borne a farther superstruction, but, being neither found there, nor any proof made, that it is any way deduced thence, mother and daughters, may all justly be called into question, and seeing he cannot but know, that very many (as to the thing for which it is produced (which in order to admission to Ordinances) will utterly deny it, he might have doom well to have made some essay to have proved it. I do yield that charity is to hope the best, but but that we should put our charity to it, or our reason either, for probability or certainty, when we no where so taught, and have a more sure rule for our proceeding, I see no reason. I can scarce meet with a Minister that says, (and I have put the question to many of the most eminent that I know) that he baptizeth any infant upon this ground of hope that the parent is regenerate, but still with earnest vehemence professes the contrary. I desire the Reader to consider Master Cobbets third and fourth Conclusions in his just Vindication, page 46. 52. There is a bare external being in the Covenant of Grace, saith he, of persons who possibly never shall be saved. Concl. 3d. The Church in dispensing ●n enjoined initiatory seal of the Covenant of Grace looks unto visibility of interest in the Covenant, to guide her in the application thereof. Nor is it the saving interest, of the persons in view, which is her rule, by which she is therein to proceed. Concl. 4th. Visibility of interest, and saving interest are there opposed. See also Master Huds●n, pag. 249. John Baptist did not in his conscience think they had all actually, really and completely repent and reform themselves, whom he baptised, but he baptised them unto repentance, Matth. 3. 11. and they by receiving the same bound themselves to endeavour the practice thereof. It were a sad case for Ministers, if they were bound to admit none, or administer the Lords Supper to none, but such as were truly godly; or that they judged in their conscience to be so, or were bound to eject all that they judged were not so.  
3. Man's obligation of himself in covenant unto God, 
Posit. 3.  upon the terms by him proposed, necessarily implies God's obligation to man. Where God makes tender of the Gospel, by his Ministers to any one out of covenant, there he makes tender of the Covenant; and where a person, or people, professedly accept, that is, engage themselves, (as myriads of thousands did through the Acts of the Apostles) this person, this people, each man of them is in covenant. As Scripture calls them by the name of Saints, Disciples, Believers, Christians, so we may call them Covenanters. They have all a sanctity of separation, which Camero says, is real, and arguments are drawn from thence to a right in Baptism, There is in most of them, if not in all, some graces that are real; either common or saving, and a covenant doth not wait, till the terms be kept, and the conditions made good, before it hath the being of a covenant. And whether these be every way sincere, or any way dissembling, yet it is acknowledged, that they really oblige themselves: And God howsoever dissembles not, but is bound by himself, upon his own terms, which they profedly accept, to confer all that the covenant holds forth, so that, wheresoever man is obliged, there a complete covenant is made up, for Gods tender goes before, and man is the last party, and completes the Covenant.  
4. Sincerity, 
Posit. 4.  and integrity of heart; or fully reality, in a man's intentions, to stand to the whole of a Covenant, is not of the offence, and being of it. Both parties stand engaged, upon their respective terms, though one part should have unsincere intentions. A wife is a wise, and the marriage is complete, when both parties have publicly expressed consent though she hold a resolution to be stubborn, refractory, profuse, etc. A man consenting to serve, whether in bare words, or taking earnest, as is most usual, or by hand and seal, as in the case of apprentices, is a servant although he intent with Onesimus to purloyn, or take his opportunity to be gone. Some thinks it makes for their advantage, to say, that unregenerate men are unsincere in covenant; but that concession, utterly destroys them. If they be unsincere, or as the Psalmist speaks, not steadfast in covenant, than they are in covenant, A propositione secundi adjacentis, ad propositionem primi adjacentis, valet argumentum. If it be true that Catiline is a seditious man, than it is true, that he is a man: that Peribomius is a vicious man, than he is a man; that Judas is treacherous and perfidious in covenant, than he is in covenant: A man's conviction, that he is an unjust steward, or an unfaithful servant, doth not conclude him to be no servant, or no steward, but the contrary. And whereas it is said, The differences must be taken notice of, between humane Covenants, and ours with God; or else all will be marred. Men know not one another hearts, and therefore make not laws for hearts, nor impose conditions on hearts: and therefore if both parties do confess consent, though dissembledly, they are both obliged, & the Covenant is mutual. But God offers to consent only on condition that our hearts consent to his terms, and therefore if we profess, consent, & do not consent, God consenteth not, nor is, as it were, obliged. This were somewhat to purpose, in case it could be made to appear that Scripture denies all being of a covenant between God and man, where the allseeing eye of God sees not all integrity and sincerity. But Scripture-language which is the fasest for us to follow, being (as we have heard) far otherwise, there is nothing marred in nonobservance of any such supposed difference; See Psal. 78. 34, 35, 36. When he slew them, than they sought him; and they returned, and enquired early after God. And they remembered that God was their Rock, and the High God their Redeemer. Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth: and they lied unto him with their tongues.  
5. There is a real and serious purpose in many unregenerate persons to serve the Lord, 
Posit. 5.  and to come up to as much as they think he in covenant requires, though with Austin they have a great mind to delay, and often to put off, the thought of, their more exact, and serious service; and too ordinarily think that they keep covenant, when they break it, having not as yet any right knowledge, either of their own hearts, or God's commands, and in this posture, in which they thus stand, before they come up any higher, yea, though they never come higher, they reach unto graces in themselves real, true, and good, and all do, the works which God commands; There is a common grace which is not saving, yet real, and so true, and good, and so true grace, as well as special grace which is saving, saith Master Baxter Saints everlasting Rest, Part. 3. Sect. 6. Which may be a fair answer to that which is objected against me, that in my explication of Dogmatical faith, I add by way of exclusion [though not affecting the heart to a full choice of Christ] where he seems (saith my adversary) to imply, though he express it not, that the faith that he meaneth doth affect the heart to a choice of Christ which is not full. But if so, then, 1. It is much more than assent, or a mere Historical, Dogmatical Faith. 2. But is the choice, which he intimateth real as to the act, and suited to the object? That is, the real choice of such a Christ as is offered, and on such terms? If so, it is justifying faith: If not, either it is counterfeit, as to the act, or but nominal, as to the object, and is indeed no choosing of Christ. That which is real and true, is neither counterfeit nor merely nominal, so far as they know, either Christ or their own hearts, they undissembledly choose, and take to him, as expecting to be happy in him, and not in any other object; though too often it is upon misinformation, and when they come to a right understanding of the terms, they are in danger to quit the way in which they might enjoy him. It is further said That, I think that there may be an undissembled profession, which yet may not be of a saving faith; But than I conceive, saith one, it is not an entire profession of the whole essential object of Christian faith, viz. of assent and consent. In which he doth but cast dust in his Readers eyes, in confounding the entireness of the object, and the integrity of the subject. There may be an entire profession of the whole essential object of faith, where the will is brought in to make no more full choice, or consent then hath been said, and the desired integrity of the subject wanting; I am told, It will be an hard saying to many honest Christians, to say that a man not justified may believe every fundamental article, and withal truly profess repentance of all his sins, and to take God for his Sovereign to rule him, and his chief good to be enjoyed to his happiness, and to take Christ for his Lord, and only Saviour, and his Word for his Law and Rule, and the Holy Ghost for his guide and Sanctifer, and the rest which is essential to Christianity. I think it will be nothing hard for any honest Christian to say, that a man not justified, may believe every fundamental article, as to assent, and that he may be convinced of the necessity of such repentance, and accordingly to make profession of it, as john's converts (who were not all justified) did, and were baptised into it, or that such an one may freely yield, that God hath right of Sovereignty and rule, and that he is the chief good to be enjoyed for happiness, and that he ought to take Christ for his Lord, and Saviour, etc. and that this may be done truly, not only as to reality of assent, but as to reality of purpose to make this choice, so far as the man knows his own heart, or the mind of God in this work, though there be not that integrity, to yield up himself wholly, which yet by the power of Ordinances through the Spirit, in God's time may be done, and through grace perfected.  
Lastly, 
Posit. 6.  God setting up a visible Church upon earth, in order to that which is invisible, will have those admitted, that give assent to Scripture-doctrine, and accordingly wake profession: And this, of itself in fero Dei, brings them into covenant-right, and visible Church-membership. And therefore according to the mind of God (and, as Apollonius speaks, jure Dei in this estate) are to be received, Though they shall hit, or miss of the mercy of the covenant, accordingly, as by grace they come up to, or by sin fall short of the Propositions contained in it. A Scholar (saith Mr. Hudson) that is admitted into a School, is not admitted because he is doctus, but, ut sit doctus; and if he will submit to the rules of the School, and apply himself to learn, it is enough for his admission. The like may be said of the Church-visible which is Christ's School; Vindicat. pag. 248. The door of the visible Church, (saith Master Baxter, Saints Rest. Part. 4. Sect. 3.) is incomparably wider than the door of heaven; and Christ is so tender, so bountiful, and forward to convey his grace, and the Gospel so free an offer, and invitation to all, that surely Christ will keep no man off: if they will come quite over in spirit to Christ, they shall be welcome: if they will come but only to a visible profession, he will not deny them admittance. This seems to me to speak the mind of Jesus Christ for their admittance, and that in foro Dei, as well as in foro Ecclesiae, they stand in covenant-relation, and have title to Church-membership. Thus the Reader may see my thoughts in this thing; and though I doubt not, but that some will question much that I have said; yet now at last, I hope, my meaning may be understood.   

CHAP. VII.  
The Covenant of Grace calls for Conditions from Man.  
A Third Proposition which I shall here lay down, 
The Covenant of Grace calls for conditions from man.  is, that God's covenant with man hath its restipulation from man, when God engages to man, to confer happiness upon him, he requires conditions from him. This I know hath strong opposition by men of two sorts, and they of different stamps, and for different ends. The first deny all Gospel-conditions, all covenant-termes on man's part, to the end they may assert justification before, and without Faith, Salvation without Repentance, and Obedience, which though it be contradicted by abundant testimonies of Scripture (placing unbelieving, impenitent and disobedient ones in hell: under the wrath of God, yea such unbelieving, impenitent ones that have laid highest claim to Christ, Matth. 7. 23.) yet it seems wholly to follow, and necessarily to be evinced from this absolute unconditionate covenant. If Christ have wholly finished, not only the work of man's redemption, but also of his salvation upon the cross, without farther work of application (as one in a distinct Treatise hath made it his endeavour to prove) than we may, as he there doth, decry, both our faith in Christ, and Christ's intercession for us. Herein one of late (according to his wont weakness) is very industrious, and whereas the Scripture tells us, Christ dwells in our hearts by Faith, Ephes. 3. 17. he would prove, that Christ enters into us, without us, dwells in the unbelieving, and in reference to this opinion of his, he makes it his business, as, to deny Faith, in reference to Justification, so, all Gospel-covenant-conditions. All other covenants besides this were (saith he) upon a stipulation, and the promise was altogether upon conditions on both sides. But in this covenant of Grace, viz. the new covenant, it is far otherwise, there is not any condition in this covenant, I say the new covenant is without any condition whatsoever. And he further tells his hearers, that he is on a nice point, Faith is not the condition of the covenant. Others, utterly distasting the aforenamed opinions, of Justification without faith, or salvation without obedience, or repentance (which seem to be the natural issue and necessary consequents of an unconditional covenant,) yet, with great resolution do affirm; the covenant to be without conditions, joining in the premises with these heterodox teachers, but peremptorily denying the conclusion. 
Arguments for a conditional Covenant.  Against both of these that oppose it, either more desperately, or more innocently, I affirm (and might quote a cloud of witnesses) that the covenant of grace hath its conditions; which to me is clear.  
First, by the definition of a covenant, given in, by the Author before named, a few pages before his assertion before mentioned. It is a mutual agreement, between parties, upon certain Articles or Propositions, on both sides, so that each party is bound and tied to perform his own conditions. It is in the definition and of the essence of a covenant in general (according to him) to have conditions, yet this covenant in particular, with him, is without condition; Here is a species, that partakes not of the nature of the genus, a particular covenant that wants the essence of a covenant, which is the same as though he should find us a man that is no living creature, a Vine or Figtree that is no plant, a piece of scarlet of no colour; such a thing is this unconditional covenant. If the essence of a covenant require it, than this covenant is not without it.  
Secondly by the express Texts of Scripture, which lay down conditions of the covenant, either in express words, or those that of necessity imply a condition. See John 8. 51. Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. Who sees not there; First, a Privilege granted by way of covenant. Secondly, the condition on which it is to be obtained. John 8. 24. If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. Heb. 3. 6. Whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence, and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. Who knows not, If, to be a conditional particle? All pardon and justification (if Scripture may be heard) is suspended on men's not believing, John 3. 16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Mar. 16. 16. He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved; and he that believeth not, shall be damned.  
Thirdly, by Analogy with the covenant of Works, entered of God with Adam in innocency, Gen. 2. 17. This, on all hands that (I know), is granted to have been conditional, and who sees not in the Texts mentioned, conditions as express in the Gospel, as not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to man in Paradise? either, both, or neither, must be conditional.  
Fourthly, from the nature of conditions in covenants. A condition in a covenant, is somewhat agreed upon by the Parties in covenant, upon performance of which the benefit of the covenant is obtained, and upon the failing of it, the whole benefit is lost, and the penalty, whatsoever it is, incurred. In covenants between equals, either indent, and article what those conditions shall be upon defaylance of which the benefit is lost, and the penalty incurred. In covenants between superior and inferior, the superior doth prescribe, and the inferior doth yield. In all covenants there are such conditions, that upon performance or failing of them, the covenant doth stand or fall: such there are in the Gospel-covenant. There we are enjoined to believe and repent, upon obedience to and performance of these, we reap the benefit of the covenant. Upon failing in them the benefit is lost, and the penalty incurred. He that believeth not, shall be damned. Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. There are then conditions in this covenant.  
Fifthly, from the absurdities that will follow upon the denial of conditions on man's part in the covenant. First, than man is out of danger of being faulty in the covenant, he can be no covenant-breaker▪ He cannot be charged that his heart is unsteady in it. This of itself is plain, He that is tied to nothing, fails in nothing; he that is engaged to no seruce, neglects no service; As God hath that glory that he keeps covenant, so man hath that Privilege, that he is not in a capacity of breaking of it. The Church might have spared that Apology for themselves, that they had not dealt falsely in the covenant, Psal. 44. 17. seeing they were under no such engagement, that they could falsify, or in any such capacity of being false; but we find God complaining against his People for breach of covenant, Jerem. 11. 10. Isa. 24. 5. Psal. 78. 10, 37. we find him giving out his threats to avenge the quarrel of his covenant, Levit. 26. 25. Master baxter's Questionist (who seems contrarily minded) thought it an exception of validity, That it follows from his doctrine, that the New covenant is never violated by any. I am sure it follows from this doctrine, that it is not in any capacity of violation. Secondly, than we may say (as the Apostle in another case) Our preaching is in vain, at least to salvation vain, the Gospel in man's mouth is no power of God to salvation. In faith or unbelief, in a penitent or unrepentant condition, in holiness or disobedience, God will save; he looks neither at faith, uprightness, or any qualification, when in a covenant-way he engages himself to confer salvation. In case God doth not regard it, to what end is there any pains to work a people to it? This I know some Assertors of this doctrine will disclaim, but let them show how they will avoid it.   

CHAP. VIII.  
A grand Objection against this doctrine answered.  
HEre an objection of weight; 
A grand objection against the conditionality of the Covenant of Grace answered.  by reason of the difficulty of some Scripture-Texts, on which it is grounded, is to be taken into consideration, It is true (saith one) that in covevenants usually there is a mutual contract, and there are mutual performances, to which persons are engaged thereby. But for the thing it is certain, that however the words of foedus pactum, in Latin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, covenant in English be used, the Hebrew Berith, and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used in the Old and New Testament, do not always import a mutual contract and mutual performances. God is said to establish a Covenant with all living, Gen. 9 9, 10. between whom and God, there neither is, nor can be a mutual contract and performance. And the term rendered covenant, is not only rendered Testament; but also the holy Writers do illustrate the New covenant, rather by the metaphor of a Testament, then of a covenant, 1 Corinth. 11. 25. Gal. 3. 15. Heb. 9 16, 17. and where the Promises are set down without any reciprocal contract or duty expressed, Heb. 8. 10, 11, 12. and 10. 16, 17. Rom. 11. 26, 27.  
This argument, is against all being of covenants, as well as the conditionality of them, as indeed, if conditions be denied, all being of a covenant is destroyed, and therefore it might have been well brought in, where the covenant itself was asserted, as militating against the very being of it. But it cannot conveniently be held out in both places, and therefore it must be considered here, and for answer, let us first take what is granted, that usually in covenants there is a mutual contract, and that these words, Latin, and Greek, be used to imply such covenants, in which there are mutual contracts, and mutual performances, and to which persons are engaged on both sides; and then let us examine what is affirmed concerning those two words, Berith and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the contrary.  
And for the first, who does not know, that the word is sometimes used for a covenant improperly so called? A bare command, Jer. 34. 13. A bare Seal, Gen. 17. 10. is (as we have heard) called a covenant. And, so a bare promise here in the place quoted is called a covenant likewise; Not that beasts and birds can covenant, but they shall be as secure from the judgement there mentioned, as though there had passed a mutual contract in the strongest engagements, Eliphaz showing the privileges of the godly, saith; Job 5. 23. They shall be in league with the stones of the field, the same word is in both places; shall we now say, that a league or covenant is no act of reason, because man is in league and covenant with stones, which are unreasonable creatures? or rather shall we say with Master Caryl in his Exposition, To be in League with stones is an improper and allusive speech, stones are not capable of the formalities of a League? So we say, for God to make a covenant with unreasonable creatures, with beasts, birds, and creeping things, is an improper and allusive speech likewise. Birds, Beasts, and creeping things are in an incapacity of covenant. Gomarus' handling that question of Universal Redemption in his Comment on Gal. 1. (a Patron of the Lutherans, as he calls him, disputing for it from the form of the covenant of Grace as that Disputant styles it, Gen. 3. 17. where the seed of the woman is promised to break the Serpent's head, 
* Antecedens falsâ ●ititur hypothesi, qu●si verbis illis formula foederis gratiae contineretur.— Contrà verò foedus propriè obligation●● dua●um partium certis utrinque conditionibus complecti certum est, qualem hoc loco extare probare non potest: ideoque nec foedus propriè est. ) denies that those words contain the form of a covenant; because it is certain (as he says) that a Covenant properly so called, contains an obligation of two parties, with conditions on both sides; which cannot be proved (saith he) in those words, and therefore it is not a covenant properly so called. From which learned hand we see 1. That a covenant properly so called is of two parties. 2. That both parts have their conditions. 3. That there is a covenant between God and man properly so called, in which God and man are both obliged. 4. That no Scripture-expression holds out this covenant▪ that holds not out these conditions.  
This is the proper acception for which we contend, and improper acceptions as they do not hold forth the nature of a covenant, so we confess they do not imply mutual contracts, or mutual performances. So that the Argument is brought to this, A covenant sometimes in an improper sense is said to be made with those that cannot make mutual contracts; therefore a covenant is no mutal contract, nor hath any mutual engagements. We might as well argue, that because a stone is called a witness, Josh. 24. 27. a heap of stones is so called, Gen. 31. 48. (which have neither eyes, nor ears, to see or hear, what is done or said, nor yet a tongue to utter it) therefore there is no use of eyes, or ears, or of a tongue, in any one that is brought for a witness. As the Hebrew word Berith is improperly used, or at least used in a sense, more large then to denote a covenant, wheresoever it doth not hold out an agreement of two parties with engagements on both hands. So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whensoever it is used in that sense, seems to be taken improperly, Seeing in its received signification (according to good Interpreters) it doth denote not a covenant, but a man's last Will and Testament, which never is of force, but by the death of the Testator, Heb. 9 16, 17. which is not true of a Covenanter, his death is not required to make the covenant valid. 
a 
Testamentum Grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sumitur,  
1. Propriè, pro suprema animi seu voluntatis nostrae 〈◊〉 de eo, quod post mortem nostram fieri cupimus, sic Testamentum morte testatoris ratum est, nondum enim valet cum 〈◊〉 testator.  
2 Impropriè, pr● paectione 〈◊〉 foederè, quod viventes inter seiuire solent.   So Ravanellus, Testament (saith he) in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken, 1. Properly, for the declaration of a man's Will concerning that which he would have done after his death, and is ratified by the death of the Testator; for it is not of force while the Testator liveth, Heb. 9 16, 17. 2. Improperly, for a covenant, which living men enter among themselves. Rivet, also Exercit. 103. in Gen. speaking of those words of the Apostle, Gal. 4. 24. These are two Testaments. 
b Nomen Testamenti, sumi non debet i● proprie 〈◊〉, pro eo quod fit ab 〈…〉 sed pro foedere, 〈…〉, ut bene animadvertis Pererius.  Testament there (he saith) is not to be taken, in a proper signification for that which is done by a dying man, and ratified by his death, but, for a covenant-agreement, or order as Pererius hath well observed. Alsted in his Lexicon Theologicum having spoken to the sense in which translatours of the Bible sometimes use it, as the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, resolves, 
c Aliquid dandum est consuetudini. Testamentum propriè justam voluntatis 〈◊〉, de eo, quod quis post mortem de 〈◊〉 suis fieri velit, Graeci propriè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant.  We must yield somewhat to custom. After saith. Testament properly signifies a just declaration of a man's Will, concerning that which he would have done with his goods after his death. The Greeks properly call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Estius is very 
d Quamvi● enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, si vocis e●ymo● attendas, non plus sonet quam dispositionem & apud authores Graecos, Baeudaeo teste in commentariis Gracae linguae, significet in genere pactum, conventum, pollicitationem: consta● tamen vulgarem & 〈◊〉 ejus significationem esse, quâ denotes idem quòd apud Latinos Testamentum, id est, voluntatis decretum, de co quod quis post mortem sua●fier● velit.  full, setting out the Original denotation of the word, together with the received signification of it. For though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) if you look to the Etymology of the word, holds out no more than a disposing, and with Greek Authors (as Budaeus witnesseth in his Comme●t on the Greek tongue), signifies in general a covenant-agreement or promise; yet the common and most received signification is the same, as Testamentum in the Latin, which is the declaration of a man's Will concerning that which he would have done after his death. The Apostles Application of a Testament properly so called to the covenant of God, Heb. 9 16, 17. hath troubled many Interpreters. Erasmus on this acount questions the Author's skill in the Hebrew tongue, and Cajetan calls into question the authority of the Epistle. Most conclude from hence, that the Original of the Epistle was Greek, in that there is not Hebrew words to hold out such expressions, and the Syriack translator was put to it, to keep the Greek word, and put it into a Syriack Character. For the clearing of this doubt, it is not enough to say, that these words are sometimes promiscuously used. Berith for a Testament, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Covenant, as Camerarius notes out of Aristophanes, a Greek Poet, as Rivet observes, Seeing the Apostle applies a [Testament] in the proper received sense to that which signifies a mutual agreement. For the salving of which Estius reckons up several opinions which he rejects, some of which, others of good note follow, and afterwards acquaints the Reader with his own thoughts, in words drawn out to such a length, that I shall refer the Reader (if he please) to the Author himself. Dixon on the words, saith, The Articles of the covenant also evince it to be a Testament, and the promiser bound to make his word good, and so to die. For Jer. 31. The Lord Christ promiseth to reconcile his people to God, to take away their sins, and to be their God. Justice required satisfaction of them before they could be reconciled, satisfaction they could not make themselves, therefore he who promised to make the reconciliation with God, was found to make the satisfaction for them to God: and if satisfaction for them, then to under-lie the curse of the Law for them, and so to die. 
e Foedus N. T. & foedus est, (quia est mutuum inter Deum, & homines salutis promissae, & obedientiae fidei ab hominibus debitae pactum) & simul Testamentum est; quia hoc foedus promissa filii Dei morte, & per eam haereditate crelesti à Deo sancitum est: adeo ut non i●●merio ut foedus Testamentarium, & Testamentum foederis ob concursum utriusque queat appellari. Indè constat simpliciter quidem esse foedus, ratione pacti mutui Dei & fidelium, sed secundùm quid esse Testamentum, ratione modi, partis ac potioris in foedere nempe promissionis gratiae, quâ Deus nobis promittit se fore Deum nostrum propitium & vitam aeternam daturum tanquam haeredita●em, merito obedicntiae mortis Filii sui.  Gomarus says, The covenant of the New Testament, is both a covenant and a Testament. It is a covenant because it is an agreement between God and man concerning salvation promised, and faith owing by man: And a Testament, because it is established upon the promised death of the Son of God, and an heavenly inheritance by it, so that it may not unworthily be called a Testamentary covenant, or a Testament-covenant, by reason of the concurrence of both in one. And after concludes, Simply it is a covenant by reason of the mutual agreement between God and believers; Respectively a Testament, by reason of the way, and manner of the chief and most eminent part in the covenant, that is the promise of grace, whereby God promiseth to be our God propitious to us, and to give us everlasting life, as an inheritance by the death of his Son.  

f Circumscriptionem hujus nominis ex typis atque umbraculis legis demonstrat paulò pùst, ver. 15. & sequentibus Apostolus. cum omnino statuit, Dei gratiam eo luculentiorem heminibus explicatam esse: quòd suis non foedus, sed Testamentum dederit: Quia foedus conditiones mutuas fuisset habiturum, quas si altera pars non praestet, foedus est irritum: Testamentum verò, liberalitatis & gratiae citra ullam conditionem instrumentum est, ex quo hoeredes vocantur & instituu●tur citra contemplationem ullius officii quod ab ipsis proficisci possit▪  Junius in his parallels undertaking to give satisfaction, hath a remedy (with me) worse than the disease, though learned Mr. grail endeavours his Vindication. After a large discourse in what latitude the word Berith is taken: The Apostle (he saith) shows the limitation of it out of the Types and shadows of the Law in the fifteenth, and following verses when he shows that the grace of God, was herein more eminent and conspicuous, in that he gave unto his, not a covenant, but a Testament, giving in his reasons; because a covenant must have contained mutual conditions, which if either part did not perform, the covenant were void; but a Testament is an instrument of liberality and bounty, by which men are called and made heirs without eyeing of any duty that is to be done by them. Here by the way we see that in case it be a covenant (according to him) it hath mutual conditions, and therefore he is (together with Ravanellus, Gomarus, Vrsinus before quoted, to whom may be added Peter Martyr on Judg. 2. giving the like definition) wholly against those who make this inference; That it cannot be proved to be of the general nature of covenants, that there should be such a convertibility, as that both must seal or contract or perform. But for his position that God hath not given a covenant to his people, I wonder how it slipped from him; Such unwary expressions (in a seeming tendency to advance grace from pious persons) have made way for strange superstructions. He might have said, that those Types and Shadows of the Law, did argue it to be more than a bare and common covenant, being ratified by blood, which led to the blood of the Mediator. And so Rivet (as I understand him) answers, 
g Non hoc voluit Paulus in Epistola ad Hebraeos, cap. 9 ex simplici vocis significatione arguere, sed ex ipsius foederis circumstantiis.  Paul in his Epistle to the Hebr. (saith he) chap. 9 doth not argue from the simple signification of the word, but from the circumstances of the covenant. But his denying it to be a covenant, is that which I must oppose. He is large indeed to show in what latitude the word Berith in some Old Testament Texts is used, as also the Latin word Foedus in profane Authors; All of which, shows no more but that the word in the exact denotation and largest sense of it imports no more than an ordination or disposition, yet that hinders not, but that as, Interpreters generally render it, so, the received and accustomed use of it, is, to hold out a covenant, bargain, or agreement. As the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in its largest sense, comprizes any Assembly, even for civil uses, Acts 19 39 yea, rude congregated routs, verse 41. yet in the generally received sense, it is taken for holy Assemblies; So, it is with Berith; the word may admit of a large sense, but the received sense is with more restriction. The Jews had their covenants, man with man, Abraham with Abimelech, Gen. 21. 72. Isaac with Abimelech, Gen. 26. 28. Laban with Jacob, Gen. 31. 44. And this was the word whereby they did express their covenants, And as, the word Church is sometimes used improperly, for Church Members that make not up a whole Church, The Church in Aquila and Priscilla 's house, Rom. 16. 5. Sometimes for Church-officers, Matth. 18. 17. Tell it to the Church, who could not be the whole Church whereof infants are a part, or (as all must confess) women, who yet are no competent judges: so, there are improper acceptions of the word covenant, when the proper sense is that, which hath been held out, which is a mutual compact or agreement on terms and Propositions. The learned observe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly answers to the word Berith; Ravanellus observes out of Hierome, that Aquila and Symmachus, did so translate it; and Rivet on Genes. Exercit. 135. saith, 
h Quod Lxx. & Theodotio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dixerunt Symmachus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hoc est pactum, vel foedus vertit, quae est propria significatio Hebraicae vocis Berith. Quae vox non legitur in V. T● pro dispositione Testamentariâ.  That which the Septuagint and Theodotio call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that, Symmachus translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pactum, foedus, which (saith he) is the proper signification of the Hebrew word Berith, which word is not read in the Old Testament, for the ordering of a man's Will or Testament. Now it is not denied, but the word foedus and pactum in Latin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, covenant in English, do signify mutual contracts, in which there are mutual performances; and so the Hebrew word Berith in like manner; this being according to the learned the genuine signification of it. And if this were not the received signification of it, how did the Objection before mentioned ever come into any man's head, that the Apostle did bewray ignorance in the Scripture-use of the word, in applying it to a man's Will or Testament, and what needed so much pains for his defence in it? Hierome on those words, Gal 3. 17. This I say, that the Testament confirmed of God, saith, If any compare the Hebrew volumes and other Editions with the translation of the Septuagint, he shall find, that, where Testament is written, it doth not signify a Testament, but a Covenant, which in the Hebrew tongue is called Berith. And in case God's whole dispensations and Gospel-communications (as Junius would have it) be a Testament only, and no covenant; why is the world so abused with the word foedus, pactum in Latin, covenant in English? By which all men understand that which we call a covenant, no man understands a Testament; why do we say covenant of Works, covenant of grace, if the former only were a covenant properly, and the other a Testament? as though we should call, an Eagle, and a Lion both by the common name of a bird, persuading that a Lion were a bird, as well as an Eagle? yet if it were a Testament properly so called, it would not overthrow the conditionality, as Mr. Grayl out of Swynborn shows. Testaments have their conditions, How comes it to pass that Scripture holds out so frequently that similitude of a marriage, Is. 54. 5. Hos. 2. 19 2 Cor. 11. 2. Eph. 5. 32. to set out this transaction? A marriage contract is not a man's Testament: hath a wife barely a Legacy, and doth she enter no covenant with her husband? How comes it to pass that turning aside from God, after other lovers, is called in Scripture by the name of whoredoms, adulteries, which is the breach of a marriage-covenant? and how is sin against God, called a dealing falsely with God? we cannot deal falsely in the covenant, if it be not a covenant, but a Testament; men may carry themselves unthankfully, but falsehood argues an engagement. How is it that we find, in Old and New Testament-Scriptures, mutual engagements, between God and his people; of God to them, of them to him, in case God hath vouchsafed them a Legacy by Testament, in the death of his Son, and left them out of covenant? And how is that, without Covenant, without Christ, without God, without Hope, with the Apostle are one and the same, when yet all people that have hope in Christ are out of covenant? There be that say, The holy Writers do illustrate the New covenant, rather by the Metaphor of a Testament, than a covenant. These seem to make it neither a Covenant nor a Testament. Every one knows that a Metaphor is a figure, whereby a word is carried out of its proper signification into some other that carries resemblance with it. In case there be a metaphor in that expression, than it is not proper, but borrowed; But as I believe that Abraham spoke not by a Metaphor to God, when he said, Gen. 18. 25. Shall not the Judge of all the world do right? God absolving and and condemning the sons of men, giving rewards, and inflicting penalties, is a Judge properly so called; so I do not think that God spoke in any Metaphor to Abraham, when in the chapter before, Gen. 17. 7. he saith, I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee. God is a Judge of all the earth, properly so called, and he hath entered a covenant with his people, properly so called likewise. It is true, that we understand, that relation of God to his people, more clearly by the Analogy that it bears to Judges, that are set up among men, for absolution of the innocent, & condemning of the guilty, And so we are holpen in our understandings of the covenant of God entered with his people, by Analogy with the covenants, that are among men; but, in neither of both of these, is the word taken out of its proper sense, and applied to any other, that it will not properly bear. I find indeed an eminent Divine affirming, That a covenant is not so properly said, to be with God and man, as between man and man, not denying the duty, which man owes to God, nor the engagement by which he is obliged, but freely yielding both; and sticking only at the consent on man's part, which among men (he says) is requisite, and doth mutually concur to make the covenant valid. But neither in the covenant of nature, or grace, is this consent anteceding the validity of the covenant required in man. This I confess I am not able to reach. Nothing with me is more plain, then that, consent is prerequired in both these covenants: Adam, I confess, (as it is objected) was bound to consent, yea, I will yield more, that it is no more possible to conceive Adam to deny consent, than the Sun to be without light; seeing in his natural motion he was carried in that way of full conformity to God, that the Sun may as well be dark, as Adam averse from the will or tender of God; yet if we could conceive a dark Sun; it could not be a light to rule the day; so if we could conceive Adam denying consent to God, in the tender of covenant, Adam had not been in covenant. For fallen man it is clear; what held the Pharisees out of the New covenant, but their non-consent? rejecting the counsel of God against themselves, Luk 7. 30. as also those Jews, Act. 13. who contradicting and blaspheming, judged themselves unworthy of eternal life.  
The covenant was tendered to all those Gentile Nations, and Cities where the Gospel was preached, and all were bound to yield assent, but where there was assent of faith, there the covenant was entered; where assent is denied, there they remained, strangers from the covenants of promise; in the same way of Gentilism, as though the Gospel had never been tendered, or the Name of Christ held forth. So that these things considered, I doubt not but I have made it appear, That there is a mutual contract, and mutual performances to which persons are engaged, not only usually in covenants, but in all covenants. And that it is of the general nature of covenants, that there should be such a convertibility, as that both must, if not seal, (some contracts are without seals) yet contract, or perform, and where a seal is vouchsafed, must accept of it: and that the definition of the covenant in the general is vindicated, That God hath entered a covenant properly so called, with man, with fallen man, in which there is a contract of this nature, and engagements to mutual performances, God condescending to it of grace, and man obliged to it by duty, yet accepting voluntarily. Which (as the former) might be confirmed by the authority of Divines of eminency. Mr. Ball speaking of the covenant of God in the general entered with man, saith, It may be thus described. A mutual compact or agreement betwixt God and man, whereby God promiseth all good things, specially eternal happiness unto man, upon just, equal, and favourable conditions: and man doth promise to walk before God in all acceptable, free, and willing obedience, expecting all good from God, and happiness in God, according to his promise, for the praise and glory of his great Name. And Vrsin in his Catechism, page 91. defining a covenant in the general nature of it as before, he saith, it is 
i Foedus Dei est mutua pactio inter Deum & homines, quâ Deus confirmat hominibus se futurum eis propitium, remissurum peccata, donaturum justitiam novam, Spiritum Sanctum, & vitam aeternam per & propter Filium Mediatorem; vicissim homines se obligant Deo ad fidem & poenetentiam, hoc est, ad recepiendum verâ fide hoc tantum beneficium, & ad praestandam Deo veram obedientiam.  A mutual agreement between God and man, whereby God confirms to man that he will be merciful, forgive their sins, give them a new righteousness, his holy Spirit and everlasting life, in and by his son the Mediator: In like manner men tie themselves to God for faith and repentance, that is, by a lively faith to receive this mercy alone, and to yield true obedience to God. And Lucas Trelcatius in loco de foedere thus defines it. 
k Foedus est pactum Dei cum homine, de foelicitate aeterna, certâ conditione ci communicanda ad Dei gloriam. Pactum cum dicimus, intelligimus mutuam Dei & hominis obligationem, ex stipulatione intervenientem, ut utrimque reddatur quod promissum est. Duae ergo sunt partes foederis. 1. Promissio Dei de vita aeterna. 2. Obligatio hominis ad observationem conditionis a Deo praescriptae. Prima est libera; secunda est necessaria.  The covenant is an agreement to God with man, concerning eternal happiness to be communicated to man, upon a certain condition, to the glory of God. And then explaining himself he says, When we say an agreement, we understand a mutual obligation of God and man, by a stipulation intervening, that what is promised on both parts, may be performed. And farther saith, There are two parties of the covenant. 1. The promise of God concerning everlasting life. 2. The obligation of man for performance of the condition prescribed of God; the first is free, the second is necessary. And in conclusion, such a bottom I believe is laid in the Introduction, that will bear the whole fabric that follows after. Junius and Gomarus, are as opposite as may be, one to the other in this dispute about the covenant, as may be seen in the Appendix to the first chapter: But they both agree in this, that every covenant of necessity is to have mutual engagements and performances. Gomarus denies that the promise, Gen. 3. 15. contains the covenant of grace, because no conditions are there mentioned. And Junius to avoid conditions, denies that there is any such thing as a covenant between God and man, for if it were a covenant, he says it must have conditions. Therefore according to them both, if we grant a covenant, we must grant conditions, and the full nature of the covenant, is in no Scripture laid down, where we have not these engagements, or conditions, laid down likewise. Some think to reconcile all this by the various acception of the word. Sometimes it is soused in Scripture, that the free promise of God is thereby signified, and the restipulation of our duty withit, God requiring man to engage by covenant to that which he might require, did there no promise intervene; yet sometimes in Scripture, covenant doth signify the absolute promise of God, without any restipulation, and of this kind is that covenant in which God promiseth to give to his elect faith and perseverance, to which promise there cannot be conceived any condition to be annexed, which is not comprehended in the promise itself. So Learned Camero de triplici foedere, Thes. 1. 2. For this absolute covenant here spoke to, I desire the Reader to observe what the same learned Author hath farther in his third Thesis. This distinction of the Covenant, doth depend upon the distinction of the love of God; for there is a love of God to the Creature, from whence every thing that is good in the creature hath wholly flowed; and there is the acquiescent love of God in the creature, and this the creature hath received, not for any thing from itself, but from God, as it was loved with that first love of God: that love, for better understanding, we call God's primary or antecedent; this Gods secondary or consequent love: from that we say, doth depend both the paction, and fulfilling of the absolute covenant, from this depends the fulfilling of that covenant; to which is annexed a restipulation, not so the paction, for that we say depends on the first love. This antecedent love is wont to be called Amor benevolentiae, which can be no more than a purpose or resolution in God for good to man. The second is wont to be called Amor complacentiae, a love of delight, or content. How the former can be a covenant, or any covenant properly so called depend upon it, as preceding the latter, I do not see.  
First, this goes before the giving of Christ; the gift of Christ is an effect of it, Joh. 3. 16. Now God covenants not with man, without the Mediator as Camero himself acknowledges; and therefore this that precedes, can be no covenant made.  
Secondly, a covenant plainly argues an agreement, at least in tender from one, and professed acceptation from the other party. A covenant of parties at a distance, either party holding his distance, respective to that where the distance is held, is the greatest absurdity. Now in this absolute covenant (as it is called) there is not so much as a tender from God, much less an acceptance from man, and so, as yet a distance held, and therefore no covenant or agreement.  
Thirdly, this supposed absolute covenant, Jer. 31, 33. Heb. 8. 10. hath mercies of two sorts; graces, privileges; And though men contend that the promise of grace is absolute, seeing there is nothing prerequired of us, for the writing of this Law in our hearts, yet the privilege of remission of sins hath its conditions, Act. 10. 43. Act. 13. 38, 39 Act. 3. 19  
Fourthly, none can claim any interest in, or take any comfort from, this absolute covenant, depending on the antecedent love of God, preceding the conditional covenant, depending on the consequent love of God: before he hath entered the second which is conditional, and performed the conditions, and knows that he hath performed them. This is clear, it is made, all say, with the Elect; now none can claim his interest till he knows his Election, which is made sure only, by our saith, and new obedience, by the knowledge that we have of our faith and new obedience. But it is enough to me that a covenant comprising a restipulation of our duty, is here confessed, which is the Gospel way to salvation, without which, the acquiescent love of God is not attained. As to that Text, Heb. 8. 10. the Reader may see more elsewhere.   

CHAP. IX.  
Further Objections against the former doctrine Answered.  
THe covenant of grace entered with fallen man (saith one) is called an everlasting covenant, 
Further obctions against the conditionality of the Covenant answered.  and Heb. 8. 12. God saith, I will be merciful to your iniquities, and your sins will I remember no more. Now suppose there were conditions for man to perform, and man did fail in those conditions, what were become of the covenant?  
Ans. The conditions failing of the covenant is broke, the everlasting covenant is broke, which though it seem a contradiction to some, yet it is not so to the Prophet, Is. 24. 5. They have transgressed the Law, changed the Ordinances, and broken the everlasting Covenant. It is said to be everlasting, because it shall not be antiquated for another to succeed it, or at least that man is not to put a period to it, so Circumcision and the Passeover are Ordinances for ever, not that non-entring into it never break or transgress it; The Elect of God Regenerate, do indeed keep covenant; so do not all that enter into it. There are frequent Scripture-complaints of Breach of covenant.  
Secondly, It is said, Man hath no tie upon him, to perform any thing whatsoever with covenant, as, a condition that must be observed on his part, let the covenant itself be judge in this case; mark it in Jeremy, Ezekiel, or in Heb. 8.  
Answ. In those Texts there are graces mentioned; as God's work on the soul, and privileges promised to be enjoyed. Whatsoever is there set forth, as God's work upon the soul, is also required of man as duty, namely to be renewed in the spirit of his mind, Eph. 4. 23. To make him a new heart, and a new spirit, Ezek. 18. 31. That the Word of Christ dwell in him richly in all wisdom, Col. 3. 16. It will be hard for any to point out a promise of this nature, but it may be answered with a command, as an obligation unto duty; As the precepts must not thrust out the promise, nor duty shoulder out free grace, So, the promise must not destroy the precept; In that of Jeremy, conditions on man's part are included, so as by the assistance of grace to be performed. The tie lies upon us, on pain of loss of all that the covenant promiseth, and bearing all that-it threateneth.  
Thirdly, Suppose (saith one) there should be a fault, of performing in this Covenant, whose were the fault?  
Answ. The fault is his; who is chidden in Scripture, and beaten for it, namely those that did flatter God with their mouth, and lied unto him with their tongues, whose heart was not right with him, nor were sledfast in his covenant, Ps. 78. 36, 37. They, upon whom he will bring a sword to avenge the quarrel of his covenant, Leu. 26. 25. are in the fault.  
Fourthly, if there be conditions, than the covenant is not free, gifts must be of absolute grace and bounty, if a condition be required, the freedom of the gift is destroyed.  
Answ. This is true of such conditions, where there is merit in the condition, whereby benefit accrues to him, that engages by promise, holding proportion with the reward; But, here is nothing indented by way of covenant, but that homage which is naturally due, which God may challenge from us as creatures; without either engagement unto, or exhibition of any reward at all for their pains, and what he may require without reward, when he covenants for it, the reward is free. If Abraham had made Eliezer of Damascus his heir, upon his faithful service, the inheritance had yet been a free gift, and of grace conferred upon him. Make the Proposition universal, All conditions in promises destroy the nature of a gift in the thing promised, and then it is to be denied, A covenant of grace would then be a contradiction, seeing it is no covenant, (as hath been demonstrated) without a condition. Then the Prophet doth contradict himself in the tender of a covenant, in the most free manner as is possible, Isa. 55. 1, 2. Ho, every one that thirsteth, etc. even their conditions are required; Incline your ear, and come unto me, Hear and your soul shall live; Let the wicked for sake his way, the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and unto our God, for he will abundantly pardon, Here are free promises with conditions; Men, who have not that sovereignty, account their gifts free, and yet require conditions from them on whom they are conferred. An Alms-house is founded, and endowed with revenue, conditions are put upon the Almes-people, to reside in such an house assigned, to wear clothes of the colour and form prescribed, or whatsoever else the Founder please, and yet the gift is free. Finally, God cannot covenant with man, and keep up his sovereignty, if we leave out obedience in the Articles of the covenant. The covenant is upon equal terms, if subjection be excluded; to be a God in covenant, and not require subjection, is the highest of contradictions.  
A Learned Writer, after a large discourse held of the right that Redeemed ones have to the death of Christ before believing, saith, Here may be observed the mistake of those, who wind up the merit of Christ, as affecting God (as I may so speak;) unto a conditional engagement, viz. that we shall be made partakers of the fruits of it, upon such and such conditions to be by us fulfilled▪ It will be worth our labour to inquire what is meant by the conditional engagement, unto which he says some wind up the merit of Christ, as affecting God with it; doth he mean such conditions, that as causes or impulsive motives take with God to enter such engagement? If this be the meaning, I shall freely yield that there is no such conditional covenant, that there is no such condition in any Covenant of God with man. In this sense Master Culverwell in his Treatise of Faith, page 143. takes it, Having mentioned several conditional promises, (in which faith is expressly required, and such wherein it is necessarily understood) he saith, In all which, faith is necessarily understood, for the obtaining of the benefit promised. But yet in all these, faith, is no condition properly so called, moving God to promise life. But taking it, in this restrained sense, as moving God to promise life, he much mistakes himself, where he saith, That it confounds the Law and the Gospel, taking away a chief difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, page 141. Seeing there was no condition, thus understood in the covenant of works; There was not any such good, accrueing to God by any thing that Adam was to do, that upon it, or for it, God should make the promise of life. God hath no motives out of himself, to confer his rewards, Conditions taken in such a sense; will make the covenant of grace, and the covenant of works all unconditional. But taking the word [condition] in the sense, as, it is in ordinary use, and as it properly signifies, for duty in covenant indented, agreed upon, and assented to, on performance, or neglect of which, the promise stands or falls, it is plain that there are such conditions in both covenants, equally, in one as the other. The necessity of the concurrence of grace to the work of faith, will as soon make it no duty as no condition, and many denying the one, have learned to deny either of both, as well duties, as conditions. Mr. Culverwel therefore confesseth, that, faith in some sort may be called a condition, because the promise of life is made to persons qualified with faith, page 143. and this conditional promise well understood (saith he) page 141. may be born. And if understood, with such a restraint as the word will not suffer (we confess) Christians must not acknowledge it. This being premised, let us look into the reasons brought to back the former assertion.  
First, All such conditions, if spiritual blessings, are part of the purchase of the death of Christ, and if not, are no way fit to be conditions of such an attainment.  
Answ. They are so parts of his purchase, that they are also our act, The act of man by the power of God; God gives faith and gives repentance, yet we believe and we repent, we may as easily reconcile Christ's purchase, with the nature of a condition, as Gods free gift of grace with our duty, If the gift were of grace and no duty required, then there were force in the argument. This ridgidly followed, will disengage man from all obedience to God, seeing all power to obey, is part of the purchase of Christ.  
Secondly, It cannot be made apparent, how any such conditional stipulation can be ascribed to God.  
Answ. We find such a one in Scripture ascribed to God, no condition can in more plain terms be held our. In case we cannot see how it can be, it were safer to lay our hands on our mouths; and acknowledge our weakness, then to withstand so clear evidence. He is pleased to give his Reasons.  
First, saith he, It leaves no proper place for he merit of Christ.  
Answ. This reason I can by no means reach. Christ may merit, and upon what terms he pleases, confer what he hath merited; Duty in us excludes merit in Christ, as well as conditions imposed upon u●. See Ball on the covenant, page 133.  
Secondly, It is very improperly ascribed to God, etc. Stipulation, or engagements upon conditions, that are properly so, do suppose him that makes the engagement, to be altogether uncertain of the event thereof, for which the authority of Lawyers is quoted.  
If conditions among men be of such uncertainty, it doth not thence follow, that it is so in those conditions which God imposes, on performance of which he confers the mercies which he gives in promise. If there be so much difference between moral hope, and that Christian grace which is wrought by the Spirit, that the one is only possible, conjectural, uncertain and doubtful, the other assured and never failing; The one often ending in shame, The other never making ashamed; Then there may be a like difference in the conditions assigned by man, and those assigned by God, Men may be still uncertain, yet God may be assured, the event being not left to contingency or the freedom of man's will, (which is supposed to stand in aequilibrio,) but determined by the act of grace which is not hid from him, whose hand works it in the hearts of his people. This might seem to carry far rather force against all conditions in the first covenant, which is yet granted to be conditional, which for performance was merely suspended on man's will, but hath no colour against the conditions of the second covenant, which God works of grace as he requires of sovereignty.  
One is pleased to say, Surely they are wide (if not very wild) who affirm that all the stipulations on the part of God, upon the death of Christ are upon a condition, which himself knows to be impossible for them to perform, to whom they are made, which among Wise men are always accounted nugatory and null. And may not the like be said of exhortations, promises, threats, commands? God as well knows our disability to answer these, as to fulfil conditions, yet they are neither wide, nor wild, that acknowledge such exhortations, promises, threats, commands, without abilities in fallen man to answer them, farther than the concurrence of grace that is in Christ Jesus strengthens them; There are many more Objections raised by others which the Reader may see brought in, by Mr. Grayl and Mr. Woodbridge, and fully answered.   

CHAP. X.  
God in the days of the Gospel keeps up the power and authority of his Law, The obligation of it is still in force to bind the consciences of believers.  
THe last Position that I shall premise, is, That God in his entry of covenant with man in sin, doth so manifest his free grace, that he still keeps up his Sovereignty; so exalts mercy, that he loseth nothing of his rule and authority; His chief aim is to exalt the glory of his free grace, and to set out the riches of his great mercy, that so noble a species, as that of mankind might not for ever perish, yet he quits not man of his subjection and obedience. When the Angels fell, some stood, (whether the fallen or persevering number be greater, cannot be determined) but when man fell, mankind wholly was lost, and unless grace save, must everlastingly perish. As some, with the lost Angels must be objects on whom God will glorify his justice, Matth. 25. 41. So others, must be vessels of mercy, on whom his free grace shall be seen, to make them as the Angels of heaven. Therefore love is assigned as the alone impulsory motive; God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, John 3. 16. God who is rich in mercy, according to the great love, wherewith he loved us, when we were dead in sin, Eph. 2. 5. Of this, 
Man's fall by sin was no disobligation to obedience.  all that expect to be saved by grace, must be tender, that it be not obscured; Gods design being to advance it, our care must be that it be not lessened. In this exercise of free grace, God yet keeps up authority and rule, power and dominion still is his. Man was made of God subject to a Law and under dominion, having the law written in his heart from the Creation, and he was not divested of it by Adam's fall, nor yet delivered from it by Christ's Redemption. Corvinus indeed in his Reply to Moulin (cap. 8. sect. 7.) saith, 
a cum itaque homo jaceret sub maledictione, ad obedientiam amplius non obligabatur quia coli ab eo Deus ampliù● non volebat.  That men under an obligation to punishment are not under any obligation to obedience. God will not be served by that man that hath violated his Covenant, giving his reason of this assertion, To 
b Nam quòd coli à creature sua De●● vult fav●r●is est.  be admitted to serve is a to token of favour, which is not vouchsafed (as he says) to menunder guilt and wrath. But this is a manifest error, Man's guilt can never rob God of his Sovereignty, nor yet disengage man from his duty, Standing right with God, he is bound to homage; Under guilt, he is bound both to homage and punishment; and to be admitted to serve is not merely of favour, but of dominion and power. It was no great favour, that Israel in Egypt found, in the service of Pharaoh; to serve with acceptance is indeed a favour; but necessity, and duty ties all that are under Sovereignty. As man fallen, in right is a subject, though in his demeanour a rebel; So in his regenerate estate still he owes subjection. When God became a Saviour to the Elect of mankind, he did not cease to be a Sovereign. The children of a King and Emperor know their father to be their Sovereign, as by one is well observed. The child of God knows God in Christ to be his Lord; We are redeemed not to licentiousness, not to a state of manumission from the command of God, but to serve in righteousness and true holiness all the days of our life, Luke 1. 74. It can be no part of our Christian freedom to be from under the Sovereignty of heaven. 
The Sovereignty of God is held up.  This Sovereignty of God is two ways held forth unto us. First, in keeping up his commandments, the power and vigour of his precepts. Secondly, 
1. In keeping up his commandments.  in his exercise of discipline in chastisement, and correction. Here I shall assert three things; First, God in the days of the Gospel, keeps up the power and authority of his Law; the Obligation of it is still in force to bind the consciences of believers. Secondly, That this Law which God thus keeps up in force, is a perfect and complete rule to those to whom it is given. Thirdly, That this Law binds, as given by the hand of Moses. As to the first, when I speak thus, of the Obligation of the Law, I hope I scarce need to tell in what sense; I do take the Law, Not in the largest sense, for any doctrine, instruction, or Ordinance of any kind whatsoever, Men have their Laws and Directories: but I have to deal with the Law of God: Neither do I take it for the whole of the Word of God, all his will revealed in his Word, as it is taken, Isa. 2. 3. The Law shall go forth of Zion, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem. Nor yet as it is taken for all the Scripture of the Old Testament, as in that Text of the Apostle, In the Law it is written by men of other tongues, and by other languages I will speak to this people, 1 Cor. 14. 21. Nor yet for the five books of Moses, as it is taken in the words of Christ, All must be fulfilled that was written in the Law of Moses, Luke 24. 44. Neither do I here understand the Ceremonial Law, which stood up as a partition between Jew and Gentile, Ephes. 2. 14. All that did bind the Jews, and was not of force from God with the Gentiles, is taken off from Christians; There was a confession of guilt; a beast needed not to have been slain, if they had been innocent; this held them under hopes that there was sacrifice to take away sin, imposed on the Jews till the time of reformation, Heb. 9 10. as an Appendix to the first Table; fitted to the Jews state and condition, as a shadow of good things to come, Heb. 10. 1. Nor yet the judicial Law, given to order the Commonwealth or State of that people, farther than so much of it, as was of nature, and then did bind the Gentiles. It is the Moral-Law that I mean, that Law which was obligatory, not only to the Jews, but Gentiles, for breach of which they suffered, Levit. 18. 27, 28. Neither do I understand the Moral Law, as a covenant, upon observation of which life was expected and might be claimed. This is utterly inconsistent with the Gospel. If there had been a Law that could have given life, verily righteousness had been by the Law, Gal. 3. 21. And this righteousness giving life, utterly overthrows the Gospel. If righteousness come by the Law, than Christ is dead in vain, Gal. 2. 21. In which sense I deny that the Jews were ever under the Law. The Law was not given as such a covenant as shall God willing be shown. So the Moral Law and Ceremonial Law should militate one against another. The Moral Law holding them in themselves, looking for a righteousness of works, and the Ceremonial Law leading them out of themselves, unto a sacrifice for remission of sin. 
The Law hath a commanding power over beleeevers.  Abraham was under no such covenant, he had the Gospel preached to him, Gal. 3. 8. and so had the seed of Abraham. But it still hath the nature of a Law binding to obedience, it is for ever a rule, for the guide of our ways. That it was once of force, is without question; and above all contradiction, and therefore I need not to multiply Old Testaments Scriptures for it; There is no repeal of it, it was never antiquated and abolished; therefore it is of force; Though a Law be urged, yet if a repeal may be pleaded, there is a discharge. That it is not repealed, I shall show, and further that it is not capable of any repeal. If it be repealed, then either by Christ, at his coming in the flesh; or else by his Apostles, by commission from him, after the Spirit was given; But neither Christ in person, nor the Apostles by any commission from him did repeal it; but instead of a repeal, did put a new sanction upon it; Christ indeed as soon as he publicly appeared in the work of redemption, was charged that he came to destroy the Law; But this he did utterly disavow, and men of faith in Christ should believe him, professing that he came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Yea, that there is a greater stability in the Law in every tittle of it in regard of the permanency, then is in heaven and earth, then is in the whole frabrick of the world; And whereas the Scribes and Pharisees were then thought to be the only strict observers of the rule of the Law, and the alone men that kept up the honour of it, Christ asserts a necessity of a higher degree of obedience than the Scribes and Pharisees ever taught or practised, Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, etc. which must be understood of righteousness inherent, in conformity to the Law, as appears in the precedent words, where Christ holds discourse about the Law, and is more fully confirmed in the words that follow; Christ on this occasion openeth the commandments of the Law, showing how far Scribes and Pharisees went in their righteousness, how far we must transcend them if ever we come to the Kingdom of heaven. Neither did the Apostles by any Commission from Christ repeal it, but they add the same sanction to it. Paul foreseeing that this very thing would be charged upon him, as it was upon Christ, saith, Do we make void the Law through faith? yea, we establish (saith he) the Law, Rome 3. 31. Our doctrine is a confirmation, and no abolition of it. And both he, and other Apostles frequently in their Epistles, urge precepts of the Moral Law, as in force, and having power and command over men in covenant. Paul laying a charge upon children to obey their parents, Ephes. 6. 1. urges it from the fifth Commandment; which he there sets out with a mark of honour, as the first Commandment with promise, and paraphraseth upon the promise, annexed to it, against which children might enter their challenge, if in Gospel-times the Law had lost its commanding power. And requiring obedience from wives to husbands, the Law is quoted for it, 1 Cor. 14. 34. Having proved the equity of Minister's maintenance by an argument drawn from civil right, and common rules of equity in three particulars, he adds, Say I these things, or saith not the Law, also the same? And so quotes a Text of the Law, the Law as delivered by Moses, for it is written in the Law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the Ox that treadeth out the corn, 1 Cor. 9 9 and then cleareth it from an exception that might be taken against it. So James 2. 8. If ye fulfil the royal Law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well. The Law is of force in that grand duty, so in other precepts there mentioned, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, verse 11. yea, it is of force in the least duties, ver. 10. He that shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all, 1 Thes. 47, 8. We have the seventh and eighth Commandment quoted as of force with Christians. As also, Rom. 12. 19 Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord, quoting the Law, Deut. 32. 35.  
Neither is it capable of any repeal, being the Law of nature written in the hearts of heathens, Rom. 2. 15. more clearly therefore in the heart of Adam. These are of those things that are prohibita, quia mala; The transgression of them was forbidden, because evil of their own nature, The Creation standing, the Law could be no other: If no Law had ever been promulged, or given of God to man, yet murder and adultery had been sin, Christ not changing the Law of Creation, but taking to himself the nature of man, (the same as it was first created) when he came to save man, must of necessity keep on foot that law that was from the beginning stamped upon him; So that we see it is not abolished, but ratified, neither is it in a capacity of abolition. It is confessed by a great party, of those, that in this appear as adversaries, that there is no liberty to sin in the days of the Gospel. There be not many that will avouch the contrary, if they do, they must know that they have the Gospel against them, that hath in a readiness to avenge all disobedience, 2 Cor. 6. 10. The Apostle writes to believers, that they sin not, 1 John 2. 1. And this is the definition of sin, 1 John 3. 4. Sin is a transgression of the Law. As for those that 〈◊〉 believers have no sin, cannot sin, it is to little purpose to speak to them, or having any thing to deal with them. If they believe not John, they will not believe me telling them that that there is no truth in them, 1 John 1. 8. He that pleaseth may see a large confirmation of this truth in Mr. Burg, Vindiciae Legis, and Master Boltons' Treatise of the true bounds of Christian freedom, page 77. to 88 Therefore one much forgets himself, who in a Treatise of the two covenants, bespeaks his Reader in these words: Consider this seriously, that if you be believers, and married to Christ, the Law hath no more power over you then a dead husband hath over his relict and living wife, which he presently interprets of a commanding power, and denies, that the Law hath any commanding power over a believer. Which assertion of his, that it may be the more observed, he puts into his Index: The Law hath no commanding power over a believer.  
The same Author yet says, that the Law is a discoverer of, and convincer of sin to believers, It is a curb to the pride and presumption of believers as well as of unbelievers; But if a husband cannot by reason of death command his wife, how can be convince her of her faults, or be a curb or restraint to her? Job was in right of command over his wife, as long as he had power of reproof, to tell her of her folly, and to endavour to put a stop to it. In his answer of an objection he yields, that though the Law should be dead to a believer, and a believer dead to the Law, yet it doth not thence follow that they should sin, must sin, or will sin; Upon this supposition I say, there is not in them a capacity of sin, or possibility of sinning. He further says, There would be no sin (were it not for a Law) for the Law gives (if I may so term it) a being to sin, and therefore is called the strength of sin, for if a man should swear, covet, or kill, and there should be no Law prohibiting the same, doubtless it would not be evil, for the Law makes it evil. And if the Law hath lost its commanding power, than it can give sin no more being, yea, it hath lost its own being, power of command being of the essence of it. If the Law, Thou shalt not kill, have no power of command, then, I sin not, if I kill. If that Law, Swear not at all, have no power of commanding, then, our RANTERS high oaths, are no more sins, than our eating of swine's flesh, or 〈◊〉 not observing the Feast of the Passeover, Where there is 〈◊〉, there is no transgression: and a Law antiquated and repealed, that the power of command is gone (as in the Laws before mentioned) is no Law. If he still pr●sse that similitude of the Apostle, that a dead husband hath now power of command, But the Law to a believer is a dead husband. First, I say, if he will be pleased to inform me, how a dead husband rips up his wife's faults, how he curbs and keeps her in, (which he confesses is the Laws office to a believer) than I shall speedily give an account, how this dead husband retains power of command. The Argument is as well of force, The dead husband hath no power to discover his wife's faults, to restrain, kerb, or keep her in: But the Law is a dead husband to believers; Therefore the Law hath no such power. It lies upon him to answer this argument to free himself from self-contradiction. And I would fain see this answered, and the other maintained. Secondly, for more full satisfaction, 
Rom. 7. 1, etc. vindicated.  I say that some learned Expositors make the husband in that similitude not to be the Law, but sin, which hath its power from the Law. So Diodati in his Notes upon the place. Man signifieth sin, which hath power from the Law, the woman is our humane nature, and of these two, are begotten the depraved errors of sin; So also Doctor Reynolds in his Treatise of Divorce, page 37. setting out the scope of this similitude, thus expresseth it, As a wife her husband being dead, doth lawfully take another, and is not an adulteress; in having his company, to bring forth fruit of her body to him; so regenerate persons, their natural corruption (provoked by the Law to sin) and flesh being mortified, and joined to Christ as to a second husband. Master Burges Vindiciae Degis, page 218. saith, Sin which by the Law doth irritate and provoke our corruption, that is the former husband the soul had, and lusts they are the children thereof, and this the rather is to be received, because the Apostle in his reddition doth not say the Law is dead, but we are dead. But if he will still contend that the Law is the husband in that place; which by reason of corruption hath so much power for irritation and condemnation over an unregenerate man; I shall only give him that advice which Doctor Reynolds in the place quoted, gives Bellarmine, upon occasion of his interpretation of this similitude. Let Bellarmine acknowledge that similitudes must 〈◊〉 be set on the rack, nor the drift thereof be stretched in such sort 〈◊〉 ●f they ought, just in length, breadth, and depth, to match and sit that whereunto they are ●●●●mbled And when he confesseth power in the Law notwithstanding this death to perform divers offices in the souls of believers 〈◊〉 cannot affirm that the law is wholly dead, nor deny but that it may have this office of command likewise. The power which the Law loseth, is that which corruption gave it, which is irritation and condemnation; Corruption never gave command to the Law, and the death of corruption, through the Spirit, can never exempt the soul from obedience, or take the power of command from it. Let it be granted that the Law is the husband here mentioned, the similitude is this. That as the Law through our corruption was fruitful in man's nature to the bringing forth of sin and condemnation, So Christ by the Spirit is to be fruitful in our nature to bring forth works of grace to salvation, and so the death of the Law is merely in respect of irritation, or inflaming to sin; and binding over to condemnation, not in respect of command. That this is the full and clear scope of this similitude, beyond which it must not be stretched, plainly appears, verse 5. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins which were by the Law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. So that here is nothing against the commanding power of the Law: God still keeps up his Sovereignty, and by this Law he rules the regenerate. I wish our Author would sadly reflect upon that reason of his, The Law is not authorized by Christ to reign and rule in the consciences of his people, For his Father's peace, his own righteousness, and his Spirits joy. There is none that speaks of the reign of the Law in the consciences of the people of God, but God in Christ reigns, and by his Moral Law rules, for all these reasons, So far are these from excluding his rule, by his Law in his people's hearts. If this rule of the Law be destructive to Christ's righteousness, than Christ's coming for righteousness must needs be to destroy the Law, which Christ disclaims. And the rule of the peace of God in our hearts, is so far from excluding his rule by his Law, that without it, it can never be attained, Great peace have they that love thy Law, and nothing shall offend them, Psalm 119. 165. This is the confidence that we have in God, that whatsoever we ask according to his will, we shall receive, because we keep his commandments, 1 John 3. 22. A Commandment hath a command●●● power, and only they that keep them have this peace ruling in their hearts. The Spirits joy, and the power of the Law to command, are so far from opposing one the other, that the Spirit gives testimony of God's abode in no other but such as confess and yield to this power. He that keepeth his Commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him: and hereby we know that be abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us, 1 John 3. 24. And of like nature is that which he further hath, Though the Law (the former husband) be dead to a believer, yet a believer is no widow, much less an harlot; for he is married to Christ, and is under the Law of Christ, which is love. If the moral Law respective to the power of command be dead, than love is dead with it. Jesus Christ reduces the ten Commandments into two: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. If then the Law be dead, this love from the heart is dead, and so a believer is either a widow or an harlot. Master Burges, Vindiciae Legis, page 12. shows at large that to do a thing out of obedience to the Law, and yet by love and delight, do not oppose one another, which if the Reader consult with his enlargement of it, he shall need to go no farther for refutation, nor his own satisfaction. Men are wont to expect in children and servants (much more in wives) both love and obedience: If this rule hold, they must quit the one, and cleave to the other; Either they must take to love, without obedience, or obedience without love. These two which cannot be severed (if ye love and keep my Commandments) this Divinity makes inconsistent. God gave Laws (saith our Author) to man to declare his own Sovereignty, and his creatures duty. And we must tell him, that to keep up his Sovereignty, and his creatures duty, he continues his Law. They that take power of command from it, divest him of his Sovereignty, and exempt the creature from duty. I know there are many evasions, if it might be to shuffle off, and evade this doctrine; if not wholly denying the Law, yet weakening the power of it in Gospel-time.  
Some say, that it binds us as creatures, but not as Christians. And then it is to be feared, that they taking themselves to be above creatures in that they are Christians, being raised in a nearer relation to God, then mere creatures, they will take themselves to be disobliged▪ But if the creature be cast into hell, for transgression; as a drunkard, an adulterer, a covetous person, what will become of the Christian? But it binds both as creatures and Christians, Christ having put his sanction upon it.  
Others say, 
The Law binds the whole of man.  that it binds the unregenerate part of man, but not the regenerate part, that is free. Paul delighted in the Law of God after the inward man, Rom. 7. 22. That is, as Interpreters understand, so f●rre as regenerate; How could he delight in it as a Law, and not subject to it? It seems these think that only wicked ones are bound, or rather wickedness to be alone obliged; It will shortly be a mark of unregeneration (as it seems it is with some already) to be subject to it; They that urge it upon men, and press it as their duty, have the name of legal Preachers, and stranger, from Gospel-mysteries put upon them. It is a wearisome thing to rake further in this puddle; I hope it is plain in that which hath been said, that God holds up this part of his Sovereignty in keeping up his commandment, the authority of his Moral Precepts in the hearts of his people.   

CHAP. XI.  
The Moral Law is a perfect Rule of Righteousness.  
AS God keeps up his Law for a Rule to his people, so it is a perfect and a complete Rule to those to whom it is given. This is a doctrine unanimously, heretofore maintained by Protestant Writers, but opposed by Papists, Arminians, and Socinians. Papists have their traditions, added as well to the Law, as to the Gospel, which is an accusation of the written Law, as imperfect: They have also their Evangelical counsels, which though they are not commanded, yet (as Bellarmine speaks) are commended, as raising Christians to an higher perfection, than ever the Law required. Socimans (with whom many Arminians join) affirm, that Christ hath instituted new precepts of obedience in the Gospel; and added them to the commands of the Law, such as transcend and exceed all that were delivered in Old Testament times. Gerrard having disputed for the perfection of the Law against Papists, cap. 14. De Evangelio, saith, The Popish opinion of new Laws promulgated by Christ, the Pho●inians (which is an other name of Socinians) greedily embrace; making a fair way for Mahometism, seeing that in the Alcoran it is in like manner said, That Moses gave a Law, less perfect, Christ more perfect, and Mahomet most perfect of all. Gerrard quotes this passage out of the Cracovian Chatechisme in the same chapter. Christ came not only to fulfil the Law for us, but added new precepts to it. These new precepts, (the same Author saith) they make twofold● Some of which do appertain to manners, some to ceremonies, or outward rites in worship. He names three that appertain to manners: To deny a man's self; take up his Cross, and follow Christ: Which three precepts my Author in way of opposition saith, belong to the first commandment. Peltius in his Harmony of Arminians and Socinians, chap. 4, 5, 6. showeth their combination against the Orthodox party, as in many other things, so in this proposition now controverted. He there quotes from Socinians these positions: That Christ in the New Testament did not only abrogate the Ceremonial and Judicial Law, but did much increase and add unto the Moral Law: That he came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it; which fulfilling (saith he) is nothing else but a perfecting of it, and addition of what was wanting: That we ought not only to observe those things that are given us of God, and not abrogated by Christ, but those precepts in like manner that are added by Christ. Much more from many Socinians, and Arminians, may be seen in that Author to that purpose. Dr. Hammond in his Practical Catechism, speaking of Christ's Sermon in the Mount, agrees indeed with the Papists, against the Protestants, That Christ doth not here expound Moses, and vindicate the Law from false glosses, but that he adds to the Law, and names many additions to the sixth, seventh, and other Commandments, but dissents from them, in that they make these Evangelical Counsels, and makes them precepts, not precepts of Moses, but of Christ, added by him to the Law: but, this with much modesty, as though he would not be peremptory in his opinion. So that 
* Authorities vouchsafed for the perfection of the Moral Law as a Rule.  Mr. Burges, page 166. handling controversies about the Law, saith, I shall now handle the perfection of it, and labour to show that Christ hath instituted no new duty, which was not commanded before by the Law of Moses. And this question, (saith he) will be profitable, partly against the Arminians, partly the Papists, and lastly, the Socinians. He further saith, page 169. That Christ did not add, new duties which were not commanded in the Law, because the Law is perfect, and they were bound not to add to it, or detract from it, Therefore we are not to conceive a more excellent way of duty, then that prescribed. Further, if we speak of holy and spiritual duties, there cannot be a more excellent way of holiness this being an Idea, and representation of the glorious nature of God. Dr. Ames in his Sciagraphia, handling the Decalogue, makes this, his first doctrine, 
a Lex ista Dei quae in Decalogo continetur est perfectissima regula ad vitam hominis dirigendam.  The Law of God contained in the Decalogue is a most perfect Rule for guidance of the life of man. He gives four reasons, with an use of information, 
b Ut legem istam Dei eo loco habeamus quo debemus, i.e. ut non aliter de eadem cogitemus quam ut de vitae nostra unica forma & tanquam de illa norma quae nullum habet defectum sed perfecta est in sese & perfectionem omnem à nobis requirit  That we esteem this Law as it ought to be esteemed, and that, as the only Rule of our lives, and such a Rule that hath no defect, but is perfect in itself, and requires all perfection in it. Davenant de Justit. actual. cap. 40. pag. 463. saith, 
c Ipsa lex Christi est exactissima & perfectissima regula Sanctitatis & justitiae  The Law of God itself, is a most exact and perfect Rule of Holiness and Righteousness: And in the proof of it saith, 
d Passim in Scriptures confirmatur quae perfectionem legis divinae mirificè extollunt.  This is every where confirmed in Scripture, which wonderfully extols the perfection of the divine Law. Downham in the preface of his Tables of the Commandments saith, that, The Law of God is perfect, requiring perfect obedience both inward and outward, not only in respect of the parts, but of the degrees. The Leyden Professors say, 
e Tam perfecta est haec lex ut nihil ei in praeceptis moralibus aut à Christo aut ab Apostolis ipsius additum fuerit quoad exactionem bonorum operum normam sub novo Testamento sit adducta.  The Law is so perfect, that nothing in Moral precepts, either by Christ or his Apostles, as any more exact rule of good works hath been added under the New Testament. Disp. 18. §. 39 Vrsinus in his definition of the Moral Law inserts this, 
f Obligans omnes creaturas rationales ad perfectam obedientiam internam & externam.  Binding all reasonable creatures to perfect obedience both inward and outward, page 681. Chemnitius entitles his third Chapter de Lege, 
g De perfect â obedientiâ quam Lex requirit.  Of the perfect obedience which the Law requires, and presently lays down these words, 
h Variis autem corruptelis omnibus temporibus, & olim, & nunc depravata est doctrina de perfect â obedientia, quam Lex Dei requirit.  This Doctrine of the perfect obedience which the Law requires, in all ages past hath been, and is now depraved. Bucan in his common places, page 188. thus defines the Moral Law; 
i Est praeceptio divina continens piè justeque coram Deo vivendi regulam, requirens ab omni homine perfectam & perpetuam obedientiam.  A divine injunction, containing a rule to live piously and justly before God, requiring of all men perfect and perpetual obedience towards God. I shall conclude with the Confession presented to both houses of Parliament, by the Assembly of Divines, chap. 19 2. The Law after his (i.e. adam's) fall, continued to be a perfect Rule of Righteousness, and as such was delivered by God on mount Sinai in ten Commandments; To these more might be added, but these are sufficient to show the great consent of Protestant Writers.  
But I shall not rest barely upon the authority of these testimonies, but also offer to consideration these following Reasons. 
Arguments evincing the perfection of the Moral Law.   
1. If the Law be not a fully perfect, and complete Rule of our lives, than there is some sin against God which is not condemned in the Law, This is clear; Deviation from any rule given of God, is a sin: Deviation from that, supposed additional rule, is a sin; But there is no sin which the Law doth not condemn; Sin is a transgression of the Law, 1 John 3, 4. He that sins, transgresseth the Law.  
2. If the Law alone discovers and makes sin known, than it is a perfect, full, and complete Rule; this is plain: Omne rectum index est obliqui. But the Law alone discovers sin, Rom. 3. 20. This office is ascribed there to the Law, which is no other but the Moral Law. Had not the light of that Rule guided the Apostle in this work, he had never made any such discovery: And it is the moral Law written in the decalogue that he means, as appears in the quotation; I had not known lust, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet.  
3. That which alone works wrath, is the alone Rule and guide of our lives. This is clear, in what sense soever it is, that we take working of wrath: whether we understand it of working of wrath in man against God, as some do; Man's heart being apt to rise against him that will exercise Sovereignty over him, Or of the wrath of God kindled against man; upon transgression of the Law. But it is the Law that works wrath: it is ascribed to it, and it alone, Rom. 4. 15.  
4. That which being removed will take away all possibility of sinning, that is alone the Rule of our obedience: This is plain; were there any Rule, the transgression of it would be still our sin. But the Law being removed, all possibility of sin is taken away: Where there is no Law, there is no transgression, Rom. 4. 15.  
5. If the Law only adds strength to sin, viz. for condemnation, than the Law is the alone rule of obedience: This is plain; Any other Rule whatsoever adds like strength to sin, and upon transgression will condemn. But the Law only adds strength to sin, 1 Cor. 15. 56. The strength of sin is the Law.  
6. Either the epithet [moral] is not justly given to the Law; or else it is a perfect Rule of manners, that is, of obedience: This is plain, for moral denotes, as Amesius observes, that use of it. But this epithet given to the Law, and appropriated to it, was never (as I think) upon any such account challenged. Ergo.  
7. Either this new Rule doth transcend the old Rule of the Moral Law; requiring a more exact degree of perfection, as Papists speak of their evangelical counsels, and Socinians of their additional Gospel precepts, or else it falls short and admits of obedience in a degree more low. If it require obedience more high, then even the doers of the Law, in the greatest height and possible supposed perfection; though equal to the Angels, are sinners: The Law might be fulfilled, and yet disobedience charged. If it fall short of the old Rule (which it seems is the opinion of some who confess an imperfection in our personal righteousness, as it refers to the old Rule; and assert a perfection, as it relates to the new Rule) than the new Rule allows that which the old Rule condemns, and so they bring in a discrepancy between them and find an allowance for transgression. So that I think, I have sufficient authourity, divine and humane, with reasons that are cogent, to conclude that which I have asserted, That the old Rule, the Rule of the Moral Law, is a perfect Rule, and the only Rule.  
Six several exceptions are taken against the 
a Exceptions taken against the perfection of the Law.  perfection of this Law, or singularity of it, as a rule by a learned hand.  
1. It is demanded, What say you for matter of duty, to the positive 
b 1. Exception.  precepts for the Gospel? of Baptism; the Lords day; the Officers and government of the Church, & c? Is the Law of nature: the only rule for those? And foreseeing what would be answered as well he might, he adds, If you say, they are reducible to the second commandment, I demand, 1. What is the second commandment, for the affirmative part, but a general precept to worship God, according to his positive institution? 2. Do ye take the precept de genere to be equivalent to the precepts de speciebus? etc. To this I think I may answer out of his own mouth, where he says, The neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second commandment. In case we break the commandments in the neglect of them, than the commandment requires the observation of them. For which Master Burges Vindiciae Legis page 149. Balls Catechism, Amesius his Sciographia, Dod on the commandments, downham's Tables, Zanchy, each of them on this commandment; and Cawdry and Palmer on the Sabbath, Part. 2. Pag. 176. may be consulted. For further clearing of this point, we must consider of the preceptive part of the Moral Law, which alone in this place is our business to inquire after, 1. As it is epitomised in the Decalogue, those ten words, as Moses calls them, Exod. 34. 28. Or else, as commented upon, and more amply delivered in the whole Book of the Law, Prophets, and Scriptures of the New Testament. 2. We must distinguish of the manner how the Law prescribes, or commands any thing as duty, which is either expressly, or Synecdochically, either directly, or else interpretatively, virtually, and reductively; I very well know, that the Law is not in all particulars so explicitly, and expressly delivered, but that, 1. The use, and best improvement of reason is required to know, what pro hic & nunc is called for at our hands for duty. The Law lays down rules in affirmative precepts, in an indefinite way, which we must bring home by particular application, discerning by general Scripture Rules, with the help of reason (which sometimes is not so easy to be done) when it speaks to us in a way of concernment, as to present practical observation. 2. That hints of providence are to be observed, to know what in present is duty, as to the affirmative part of the commandment of God. If that man, that fell among thiefs, between Jerusalem and Jericho, had sat by the way, on the green grass, without any appearance of harm, or present need of help, the Samaritan that passed that way, had not offended, in case he had taken no more notice, than the Priest and Levite did: But discerning him that case, as he then was, the sixth commandment called for that, which he then did, as a present office of love to his neighbour, according to the interpretation of this commandment given by our Saviour, Mark 3. 4. When the Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath day, He demands of them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day, or to do evil, To save life, or to destroy? It was not their mind that Christ should kill the man, only they would not have had him, then to have cured him: But not to cure when it is in our power, according to Christ's interpretation, is to kill. If diligent observation be not made, the commandment may be soon transgressed. 3. Skill in Sciences, and professions is to be improved by men of skill, that the commandment may be kept. The Samaritan poured wine and oil into the travellers wounds, knowing that to be of use, to supple and refresh them. Had he known any other thing more sovereign, which might have been had, at hand; he was to have used it. As skill in medicines is to be used for preservation of men's lives, so also skill in the Laws, by those that are versed in them, for the help of their neighbour, in exigents; concerning his estate and livelihood. 4. We must listen to God's mouth, to learn when he shall be pleased at any time further to manifest his mind for the clearing of our way in any of his precepts. There was a command, concerning the place of public, and solemn worship, Deut. 12. 5. Unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your Tribes to put his Name there, even to his habitation shall ye seek, and thither shalt thou come, Now thou must depend on the mouth of God, to observe what place in any of the Tribes; he would choose for his habitation. When God commands, that all instituted worship shall be according to his prescript; This is a perfect Rule implicit, and virtual; tying us to heed the Lord at any time, more particularly discovering his will, and clearing this duty to us. Was not the Law of worship perfect, to Abraham, unless it explicitly told him that he must sacrifice his Son? And if any take themselves to be so acute, as to set up a new Rule, as some are pleased to style it, than they antiquate and abolish the old Rule, and singularly gratify the Antinomian party. Two Rules will no more stand together then two covenants; calling it a new Rule, men make the first old: Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away, Heb. 8. 17. It is added moreover, doth not the Scripture call Christ our Lawgiver, and say the Law shall go out of Zion, etc. Isa. 2. 3. And was not the old Law his? Saint Paul, I am sure, quotes that which belongs to the preceptive part of the Moral Law, and calls it the Law of Christ, Gal. 6. 2. His Laws were delivered in the wilderness, whom the people of Israel there tempted and provoked; This is plain, for they sinned against the Lawgiver, and from his hands they suffered. And who they tempted in the wilderness, see from the Apostles hand, 1 Cor. 10. 9 And as to the Scripture quoted, the words are exegetically set down in those that follow them. The Law shall go out of Zion, and the Word of the Lord out of Jerusalem: Which is no more, but that the Name of the Lord, which was then known in Judah, shall be great from the rising of the Sun, to the going down thereof. It is further demanded, And is he not the anointed King of the Church, and therefore hath legislative power? For answer, I desire to know what King the Church had, when the old Law was, before Christ came in the flesh? The Kingdom was one and the same, and the King one and the same then, and now, as I take it. Many shall come from the East, and West, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. The Gentiles coming in at the Gospel-call, are under the same King, and in the same Kingdom. And if all this were granted which is here pleaded for, it is no more than a change in some positive, circumstantial Rites, and what is this to the question handled by our Author; That our righteousness which is imperfect according to the old Rule, is perfect according to the new? when old and new in that which is naturally Moral, is one and the same. When the Law required heart-service, and love with the whole heart, upon spiritual ends and motives, upon which account all fell short in their obedience, and performance, shall we say that Christ did dispense with any of this, that so the Rule being lower, our obedience now may answer. Others that make Moses and Christ two distinct Lawgivers and agents for God, in holding out distinct precepts, give the pre-eminence to Christ, and account his Law to be of more eminent perfection. This Author on the contrary seems to make the Laws of Christ to stoop far beneath those of Moses.  
2. For Justification of this accusation of the Moral Law of imperfection, 
2. Exception.  it is added, the Moral, taken either for the Law given to Adam, or written in Tables of stone, is not a sufficient rule for us now, for believing in Jesus Christ, no nor the same Law of nature as still in force under Christ. For a general command of believing all that God revealeth, is not the only rule of our faith, but the particular revelation and precept are part, etc. To this I say,  
1. As before, I think I may answer out of his own mouth, where he says, Neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second commandment, and unbelief is a breach of the first. If we break the commandment in unbelief, than the Commandment binds us to believe.  
2. Much of that which I have spoke by way of answer to the former, may be applied to this likewise.  
3. I shall hereafter speak to this, that faith is a duty of the Moral Law, where the Reader may have further satisfaction.  
4. If Adam had no command for faith, than he was not in any capacity to believe, and by his fall lost not power of believing: And consequently it will not stand with the Justice of God to exact it at our hands, having never had power for the performance of it.  
5. I say, there was power in Adam, for that faith that justified, but not to act for justification. Adam had that habit, and the Law calls for it, from all that are under the command of it: But the Gospel discovers the object by which a sinner through faith is justified.  
3. The same answer may serve to the third exception, which indeed is the same with the former, 
3. Exception.  only a great deal of flourishing is bestowed, in discourse of the understanding and will, paralleling them with the Prefaces, grounds and occasions of Laws, not needful to be repeated. And at last bringing all to the Articles of the Creed, to which enough already is spoken.  
4. It is said, 
4, Exception.  But what if all this had been left out, and you had proved the Moral Law the only Rule of duty? doth it follow therefore that it is the only Rule? Answ. If the Moral Law be the only Rule of duty, than I take it to be the only Rule; for I inquire after nothing but duty, and I take righteousness to be matter of duty, and then the only Rule of duty, is the only Rule of righteousness. It is further said, Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding. And I say, Rewarding is none of our work, but Gods, and I look for a Rule of that work which is ours, and that we are to make our business, I confess an imperfection in it, to give life, but assert a perfection as the Rule of our lives, It justifies no man, but it orders and regulates every justified man.  
5. It is further said, 
5. Exception.  The same I may say of the Rule of punishment. To which I give the same answer: It is not our work, but Gods, either to reward or punish. And here he speaks of a part of the penalty of the new Law, And I know no penalty properly distinct from the penalty of the old. He is wont to compare it to an Act of Oblivion, and Acts of Oblivion are not wont to inflict penalties, but serve to remove them when another Law imposes them. That of the Parable is instanced, None of them that were bidden shall taste of the Supper; when the sin for which they there suffer is a breach of a Moral command.  
6. It is said, 
6. Exception.  The principal thing intended is, that the Moral Law is not the only Rule, what shall be the condition of Life or Death, and therefore not the only Rule according to which we must now be denominated, and hereafter sentenced, Just or unjust. To this I have already given a sufficient answer, and if I had not, our Author answers fully for me, where he says, The precepts of the Covenant, as mere precepts, must be distinguished from the same precepts considered as conditions, upon performance of which we must live, or die for non-performance? And I speak of them as mere precepts, and so they are our Rule of righteousness, & not as they are conditions either of the covenant of works or grace. And a man may be denominated righteous, by the Laws Rule, when he cannot stand before the sentence of it as a covenant, of which we have heard sufficient. After a long discourse against all possibility of justification by the Law of works, as though I were therein an adversary; or that the Antinomian fancy were above all answer; that a man cannot make the Law his Rule, but he makes it withal his Justification, he goes about to prevent an objection, and says, If you should say, this is the covenant and not the Law, he will reply. 1. Then the Law is not the only Rule. To which I say, When my work is to make it good, that the Law is our only Rule, I marvel that he will so much as imagine, that I will say that which makes it not the only Rule. But perhaps, he thinks I do not see, how it cannot follow, as indeed I do not, neither can I see any colour for it. 2. He replies, It is the same thing in several respects, that we call a Law and a Covenant (except you mean it of our covenant-act to God, of which we speak not) who knows not that praemiare, and punire are Acts of a Law? And that an Act of Oblivion or general pardon on certain terms is a Law, and that the promise is the principal part of the Law of Grace. To which I say, that praemiare and punire are essential in a Law. Some have power of command, so that their words in just things is to be a Law, where most deny any power of punishment; as an Husband over the Wife. Some parents have Authority to command children, (children remaining under the obligation of the fifth commandment as long as the relation of a child continueth) when they have neither power to reward or punish. Jacob took himself to be in power, to command Joseph (among the rest of his Sons, as appears in the charge concerning his burial, Gen. 47. 29, 30. and chap. 49. 29. So compared) and yet he was not in power either to reward or punish him. And though they be acts of a law where he that gives the Law is in power; Yet they are no parts of a Rule, nor any directory of life to him to whom they are proposed. I know that an Act of Oblivion or general pardon may be called a Law, as many other things are, catachresticè and abusiuè; but that it should be a Law properly so called, I know not. The Romans defined a Law, whilst that a Democraty was in force among them, to be Generale jussum populi, aut plebis rogante magistratu. Afterwards when the State was changed, and the Legislative power was in other hands, they defined it to be, Jussum Regis aut Imperatoris. And Tully's definition of a Law is, that it is, Ratio summa insita in natura, quae recta suadet, prohibetque contraria. Here jussio, suasio, and prohibitio are expressed, which are not found in Acts of Oblivion. That every man, who is within the verge of such an Act, may be said to be acquit by Law, I willingly grant; seeing that act takes off the force of the Law condemning him: But that it is a Law, strictly so taken, I know not.   

CHAP. XII.  
The Moral Law binds, as it was delivered by the hand of Moses.  
A Third branch of the general Proposition before delivered follows, which is, that the Moral Law, as delivered by the hand of Moses, is obligatory to Christians; This I confess is more disputable, then either of the former before spoken to; In those, we had to deal with Antinomians, on the one hand; Papists, Arminians, Socinians, on the other hand, with some few others that are pleased in those points alone to strike in, with Arminians and Socinians, and in other things to oppose them: But in this Papists agree not among themselves, but one is against another; neither is there that agreement amongst Protestant Writers that might be desired, which must not be concealed; some are for the affirmative, and some for the negative, and some seem to stand in a neutral indifferency. Bellarmine among the Papists, is for the affirmative, lib. 4. de justificatione, cap. 6. and takes up Soto for the contrary tenant, who affirms (as he quotes him) that Christians are not only delivered from the Ceremonial Law, and the guilt and terror, of the moral Law, but from the whole Law, as written in the books of Moses, with this caution (as he reports him) that we are to keep the Law of Moses as it is natural, and as it is in the Gospel, and in the Epistles of the Apostles, but not as it was written by Moses; for Moses (saith he) could not bind us, but it is Christ that binds us, for we are Christians and not Jews. Soto hath Suarez, and Medina (as Master Burges observes) with him, and among the Protestants, Zanchius de redemptione lib. 1. cap. 12. and Musculus in his common places go the same way, affirming, that the Moral Laws which go under the name of the decalogue, as they were delivered by Moses to the Israelites, do not concern Christians, but as they are agreeable to the Law of nature, and confirmed by Christ. Paraeus (as is observed by Rivet in his Explication, of the Decalogue, page 11.) giving in his judgement of the differing opinions of Bellarmine and Soto, affirms that the opinion of Bellarmine is most safe to be followed. Rivet himself, in the place quoted, takes it to be a strife of words, and the difference to be inconsiderable; and in case the authority be granted, there seems indeed less danger, though the Minister be waved. The Antinomian (as others have observed) is by both parties opposed; Some may think, that the Law, thus gains in its authority, in as much, as Christ is, of much more excellency than Moses, when the Master of the Vineyard, saw his servant neglected; he said, They will reverence my Son, Mat. 21. 37. But if the servant be once despised, and set so light by, as we read from some hands, Away with stammering Moses, it may be feared, that the Son will not long remain in honour, when servants fared so ill, we find that the Son had little better entertainment; And, in my thoughts, there is scarce a readier way than this, to strip us of the whole of the Law of God. Keeping up to their own principles, they can look on no more, of the Law, as binding Christians, then that which is held out to us, in New Testament-Scriptures. If this be granted, we must have a New Testament Text, for every Moral duty; yet to gratify adversaries in this particular, we may safely yield, that the Law concerns not Christians, as it was delivered by Moses, only to the Israelites, and so Zanchy's Position, keeping strictly to the terms may happily be defended. The Moral Laws as delivered by Moses to the Israelites do not appertain to Christians; so, neither doth Luke's Gospel, or the history of the Acts, as from him to Theophilus, nor yet, any of Paul's Epistles, as from him, to any particular Church, or to Timothy, Titus, or Philemon. But looking on Moses as employed of God, with his Church, with which he was in the Wilderness, Acts 7. 38. and upon his writings as a depositum, left with the Church, they are of equal concernment, to us, as they were to the Jews, if we be as the Church of the Jews was, a Church of God. This to me is plain, not only by those Texts of Moses quoted in New Testament-Scriptures, as we heard before, but quoted also as from Moses. The Apostle pleading for Ministers maintenance, saith, For it is written in the Law of Moses, 1 Cor. 9 9 How were this argument of force, if Moses his writings were not of use? That of Peter is convincing, 1 Pet. 1. 15, 16. But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, be ye holy for I am holy; This was written by Moses, Leu. 11. 44. Leu. 19 2. Leu. 20. 7. and why should we be engaged to holiness, eo nomine, because Moses writ it, and gave it in charge, in case Moses his writings do not bind Christians? This also to me is plain, in reason, Christ was King then, as now, his Church is the same, now, as then, we, and they make up one Kingdom, Matth. 8. 11. The Laws of Christ therefore (unless they appear to be repealed) are now, in force as in former times. There is not a temporal Obligation (saith Master Burges Vindiciae Legis, page 162.) laid upon a perpetual duty. The duties are confessed, to be perpetual, why should Moses then deliver them to be only of temporal permanency? Neither is there any thing brought by Soto, or any other hand to evince the contrary. In the close of the words already quoted, he says, Mose-could not bind us, but Christ, for we are not Jews, but Christians, To this we say, He could not bind us, authoritatively, but ministerially, and because Christ binds, therefore Moses binds; seeing, Moses was a servant, in that house, where Christ was a Son, Christ was King of his Church, in Moses his days, Israel tempted Christ in disobeying Moses, 1 Cor. 10. 9 He commanded for Christ, when he gave command to the Israelites, and these commands are of concernment unto Christians, who are their fellow subjects. The Arguments produced by Soto are satisfyingly answered by Bellarmine. Soto saith, that the Preface of the law leads to the Israelites only, I am the Lord thy God, that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage. But it was the Jews, and not Christians, that were in Egypt. This is false, as one of these Jesuits truly answers the other, we were in Egypt as well as the Nation of the Jews; They were our fathers, and we their children, 1 Cor. 10. 1. It was once indeed otherwise with us, being branches of the wild Olive; But the natural branches, being cut off, we are grafted into their stead, that mercy of deliverance from Egypt, being a Church-mercy, is our mercy. He further objects that of Luke 16. 16. The Law and the Prophets were until John, and is answered, that, that is understood of the Law, prophesying by figures, and not instructing in manners, which is further explained, Matth. 11. 13. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, that is, all the prophecies of the Messiah to come, whether delivered in words by the Prophets, or by signs and Law-ceremonies did not reach beyond John, who was the last of the Prophets, who did bear witness of Christ. Some say, that in case the Law bind, as it was delivered by Moses; then all that Moses did deliver, is obligatory to Christians, Quâtale, is, omne, and so the ceremonial Law, binds, as doth the Moral, and we shall bring our necks under that yoke. To this answer, all that Moses did deliver doth bind, unless we have a release, or discharge from the same authority, by which he spoke, and hence an argument is drawn, for proof of that which we have in hand, If the ceremonial Law had bound Christians to this day, had it not been revoked, and abolished, than the moral Law, which is no where revoked, or abolished (as hath been shown) doth still bind Christians. This is plain, there is no reason, that the ceremonial Law should be obligatory, above the Moral; But the ceremonial Law had bound Christians to this day, had it not been revoked and abolished; This is as plain, when the great question was, in the primitive times, whether the ceremonial Law did bind Christians, whether they were to circumcise their children, after the manner of Moses; and consequently to observe other Rites. This is decided, in making it appear, that these were abolished, as being shadows of good things to come, and an end put to their obligation. It may be further objected, that if all be of force, that Moses wrote, as from him, then that of divorce of the wife, on any cause is of force likewise. That was commanded by Moses, as the Pharisees, Mat. 19 7. tell the Lord Christ from Deut. 24. 1. To this Chemnitius hath answered, that Moses delivered this, Tanquam legislator, as one, that gave orders to that people, as, to their political estate; not, Tanquam Theologus, as a Prophet, raised up to deliver the mind and will of God unto them. Moses his writings therefore are in force, not only ratione materiae, as containing such precepts upon which Christ in the New Testament hath put a divine sanction; but by virtue of a sanction from heaven put upon them, as delivered by him, and the obligation still remaining. If Moses once be neglected, I shall fear, that Peter and Paul will not long be honoured, Moses being a servant in the same house, with them, and the rest of the Apostles, and penmen of New Testament-Scriptures.   

CHAP. XIII.  
God entering a Covenant of Grace with his people, keeps up his Sovereignty in exercise of discipline, in the correction and chastisement of his people for sin.  
AS God holds up his Sovereignty, under the covenant of grace; in keeping on foot his commandments; so, also in his exercise of discipline, upon those, with whom he is in covenant. He neither suffers them to be without Law, nor to go on in transgression of his Law, with impunity and freedom. As they have his precept, to keep from sin, so they are in danger, of his hand, in case of sin; Those that are against us in the former, are our adversaries in this likewise. As they plead a manumission, of Christians from the mandatory power of the Law, so, they will also have them exempted from all chastisement or correction. Against these we maintain that the people of God in covenant, even those, whose hearts are steadfast, in covenant; do suffer under the covenant of grace, in case of sin, and that for sin; For proof of this, I shall bring Scripture of three sorts.  
1. Giving instances, of the Church and people of God; under sore and great afflictions for sin, and these places are even without number, Esay 42. 24. Lam. 1. 8. 3. 39 5. 16. Micah 1. 5. Yea, they lie under sufferings, till they acknowledge sin, till their stomaches are brought down, and they humble themselves for sin, Leu. 26. 41. Against this, is objected, that among these afflicted ones, there were reprobates, as well as elected ones; and Elect ones in the state of unconversion, and they might suffer for sin, which the child of God does not, nor can not; To this I answer; 1. There were true converts among these, or else the whole world had no converts in it. 2. These, in their confessions, and humiliations, involved themselves among the rest; and make themselves, of the number of those, that by sin draw down sufferings; as we have Ezra, Daniel, and others for examples.  
2. Instances of the most precious Saints sinning and suffering for sin; 1. Moses and Aaron, Numb. 20. 12. The Lord spoke unto Moses and Aaron, because, ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this Congregation into the land which I have given them; Both their sin and their sufferings, are noted there, which Moses seems never to have done with, Deut. 1. 37. Deut. 3 26. Deut. 4. 21. Deut. 34. 4. 2. David, his sin we find, 1 Sam. 11. at large related, his sufferings, in the next chapter, he suffers in all his relations, 1. As, a father, his child dies. 2. As, an husband, his bed is defiled. 3. As, a Prince, the sword is brought upon his land. 3. Solomon, 1 Kings 11. 11. For as much, as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my Covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the Kingdom from thee, and I will give it to thy servant. 4. Hezekiah, 2 Chron. 32. 25. 26. But Hezekiah rendered not again according to the benefit done unto him, for his heart was lifted up, therefore there was wrath upon him, and upon Judah and Jerusalem. Notwithstanding, Hezekiah humbled himself, for the pride of his heart, both, he, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of the Lord, came not upon them, in the days of Hezekiah. In which words we see, his sin, his suffering for sin, and his humiliation upon account of his sin. Here also exception is taken; These here mentioned say some, lived under Old Testament dispentations; To this I answer. 1. We may take up Paul's words in behalf of these, 2. Cor. 10. 7. If any man trust to himself, that he is Christ's, let him of himself, think this again, that, as he is Christ's, so they were Christ's. Moses, that suffered (as we have heard) upon the account of sin, esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches, than the treasures of Egypt, Heb. 11. 26. And David that suffered in like sort, in spirit called him Lord, Matth. 22. 43. 2. That we may not lose Old Testament-Scriptures, for if we lose them here, we shall hold them no where, let us look upon Prov. 3. 11, 12. My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord; neither be weary of his correction, for, whom the Lord loveth, he correcteth, even as the father the son, in whom he delighteth. In which words we see, 1. The sufferings of the people of God thrice repeated. 2. The impulsive cause, employed in the word [chastisement] which ever is for some fault, Psalm 39 11. 3. The hand that inflicts [the Lord] 4. His way of dealing as a [Father] in love and not in vengeance. Now turn to Heb. 12. 5, 6, 7. and there we shall see the Apostle. 1. Quoting this Scripture. 2. Checking them for not heeding it. 3. Commenting upon it; Ye have forgotten the exhortation, which speaketh unto you, as unto children, My son despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him; For whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth; If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you, as with sons, for what son is he whom the Father chasteneth not? These words of the Apostle, confirm all the Old Testament proofs before mentioned, give a shrewd check, to all those that would cast them off, and are a full New Testament-proof of the point in hand, our aversaries tell us, that the children of God, in New Testament-times, have that great and happy privilege, to be free from all chastisements for sin, The Apostle, on the other hand says, that, it is their happiness to be chastised, and would be their sorrow, if they were without chastisement. For this cause (saith the Apostle) many are weak, and sickly among you, and many sleep, 1 Cor. 11. 30. There, we see, judgements inflicted, the persons suffering, and the cause of suffering assigned. The judgements are set out. 1. By the quality or kind, such as were visible on the outward man; as, their sin was open, so was their suffering. 2. By their several degrees, in which they suffered; some weak, languishing, under infirmities; some sick, taken with diseases; some fallen asleep, surprised with death. The persons suffering are set out. 1. By their multitude [many]. 2. By the application of the stroke, Corinthians had sinned, and Corinthians suffered. The cause is employed in the illative particle [For] and expressed in the foregoing words, their unworthy addresses unto the Lord's Table, sinfully eating and drinking, they eat and drink their own judgement, and though it cannot be said, that all were in grace, that thus suffered, yet there were some at least in grace among them, in that the Lord chastened them in the world, that they might not be condemned with the world. The Lord Christ speaks fully to this in his letter from heaven to Laodicea the Church of, Rev. 3. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten.  
As Scripture, expressly holds out this truth, so, it is also clear in reason, if God should not hold up his Sovereignty, in this way of exercise of discipline; upon his children, his love could not be continued to them, but would be withdrawn from them, as we see in Christ's words but now mentioned, Rev. 3. 19 as, also in those words of Solomon and the Apostle, Pro. 3. 11. Heb. 12. 5, 6, 7. The love of God is such to his children, and such a league of friendship is passed between them (say our adversaries) that it will not suffer him to strike them. We say, his love is such, that he cannot forbear to strike, and will not suffer that they should sin, and carry it with impunity. There are indeed some such parents, that are so indulgent, that, children must neither have, check, nor stroke from them, what course soever they take, they scarce hear words, much less do they suffer stripes. These, call this love, but a wiser than they, calls it by the name of hatred, Prov. 13. 24. He that spareth the rod, hateth his son, but he that loveth him, chasteneth him betimes. Pity, will not suffer, to make children smart; But it is greater pity, that the want of smart, should bring them to the condemnation of hell, Prov. 23. 13, 14. Withhold not correction from the child, for, if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die; Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. A child in sin, must either be beaten, or spared; Beating will not be his death, but sparing tends to his condemnation. The similitude is not ours, but the Holy Ghosts. One of the most terrible texts in all the Bible may be found (as one says) Hoses 4. 14. I will not punish your daughters, when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery, He spares not some, that he may for ever spare them, chastening them in the world, that he may not condemn them with the world; He spares some, and everlastingly destroys them.  
2. Otherwise, God would be reconciled to the sin of his people, and in league, not only with their persons, but with their wickedness, which is most abhorrent to his holiness. We read of God's reconciliation to the world, but never to the wickedness of the world; God may be at peace with those that have sinned, not imputing their trespasses, but he will never be at peace with sin.  
3. It will not stand with his honour to suffer his to go on in impunity in these ways. Their wickedness will be said to be by his allowance. Men in sin, are ready to say (as the Psalmist observe) that God is such a one as themselves; Psalm 50. 21. and that because they sin, and he keeps silence. And men of the world will say the same, if his people go on in sin, and prosper. This, the Lord sees and takes care, this way to prevent, Ezek. 39 23. And the heathen shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity, because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them. He will make it appear, that he is no patron to them in that which is evil.  
4. God hath given in charge, to Magistrates, his vice-gerents for to punish. They are revengers to execute wrath upon them that do evil, Rom. 13. 4. they are sent of God for the punishment of evil doers, 1. Pet. 2. 14. They have no commission to spare, upon supposal of any interest, in God or grace, when they are found in any acts that are wicked. What they do, God does, they acting by his command, and by virtue of his commission.  
For further clearing of this point, and, if it may be, to work a right understanding, I shall lay down several Positions.  
1. God considered in his absolute Sovereignty, may inflict sufferings, without injustice on his innocent creatures, there is no absolute necessity, that sin should go before all manner of trouble; Punishment cannot be without a fault; that, always implies guilt, where justice is followed. Yet, such is God's Sovereignty, that he may lay affliction where there is no transgression. We do it upon our fellow-creatures, we tread upon worms that never did offend us; God may much more do it upon his creatures, yea, God does it. How much do bruit creatures suffer in the world, and unwillingly suffer? as the Apostle speaks, Rom. 8. 20. and that from God's hand, that hath made them subject to these suffering; that, which God doth unto one creature, he may do unto any creature; that which he doth to the meanest, he may do to the most noble creature. As a potter may make vessels, some to honour, and some to dishonour; so God having more transcendent Sovereignty, may make some creatures, ever blessed; and others during pleasure, to remain in misery.  
2. It stands not yet with God's ordinate justice, to strike his people, where there is no fault. The terms of the covenant being pre-supposed; none can suffer that have not offended. every one, upon engagement from God, must be happy, that is innocent. This is plainly employed in those words, In the day that thou eatest, thou shalt surely die, sin not, and suffer not, and more explicitly held out in those words, do this, and live, under death is comprised all evil, from which man upon covenant is free, that doth not sin: Under life is comprised, all bliss, which, upon covenant, all are to enjoy that yield full obedience; So; that the inlet of suffering, is from sin, Rom. 5. 12. God having, (as I may say) tied himself, not out of Sovereignty, to afflict, when man hath not offended.  
3. When way is made by sin, to divine justice, to bring evil upon man, yet the reason why, this, or that evil, is inflicted, on this or that man; is not always man's provocation by sin; All afflictions are not punishments; nor yet corrections, or chastisements. There are often other ends and motives. Sometimes, God looks solely at himself, alone at his own glory, in his strokes; of this we have many instances, John 9 1, 2. John 11. 4. The same we may say of the viper upon Paul's hand, Acts 28. 4, 5. Sometimes he looks at his people in the sufferings that he inflicts.  
1. The patients themselves, laying afflictions upon them, not as corrections respecting bypast faults, but trials for discovery of their graces. That which God laid upon Job, was not for his sin, but to make it appear, that Satan had form a false charge against him, that his whole service of God, was upon by-ends, and base accounts, and that sufferings (God appearing against him in contrary providences) would presently draw him into all wickednesses. It was a sore affliction to Abraham, to leave his country, and his father's house, to offer up his son Isaac, yet these were no corrections, or chastisements, that we know, but temptations.  
2. He looks upon others, that are no sufferers, to bring about mercy to one, by the sufferings of another; so it was in joseph's sufferings, Gen. 50. 20.  
4. The corrections that God lays upon the godly, are far different from those that he lays upon the wicked. His hand upon his own children, differs much from his hand upon his enemies. God deals otherwise with a Nation, that is a stranger to him, than he deals with a people that are his own, Jerem. 30. 11. Though I make a full end of all Nations whither I have scattered thee; yet will I not make a full end of thee, but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished. Though both suffer, yet they do not equally, and alike suffer. So, it is with the Elect, and reprobate, both suffer from the hand of God; but there is great difference in their sufferings. 1. They differ in the cause from whence their sufferings respectively do arise: The sufferings of the wicked, are out of pure wrath, wicked men, being under a state of wrath. The sufferings of the people of God, are out of present displeasure, but yet out of love, Prov. 13. 11. Heb. 12. 6, 7. 2. They differ in the end of their sufferings. A piece of silver is trodden upon, with the feet to scour and brighten it, but a worm or spider, to crush or spoil it. 3. They differ in the respective improvement, that either make of them, the godly are are bettered by their afflictions, their sufferings are their purges, and purifications, Psalm 119. 67. Their ears are thereby opened for discipline, Job 36. 10. the wicked are more and more hardened by them, and grow more and more wicked under them, Esay 1. 5. 2 Chron. 28. 22. The Sun hardens the earth, but softens the butter and the wax.  
The sufferings of the people of God many times proceed from as high displeasure in God, as can stand with love, and the more high the sin is, the greater and sorer is his displeasure: They work in God as great a dislike as can stand with his purpose, not utterly to leave and cast them off. When David had sinned, in that high manner as he did, the Text saith, The thing that David did displeased the Lord, 2 Sam. 11. ult. Few men have had more of God's heart than he, yet we see, his heart rises in sore displeasure, against his wickedness. We may see how he takes him up for it, we can scarce see, in all the Scriptures, a man so chidden. The Prophet reckons up the courtesies and high favours that he had received from God, I anointed thee King over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul, and I gave thee thy Master's house, and thy Master's wives into thy bosom, and g●ve thee the house of Israel, and of Judah, and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given thee such and such things. And as he had before aggravated his wickedness, in a parable; so in express terms, he further lays it open. Wherefore hast thou despised the Commandment of the Lord; in doing evil in his sight, thou hast killed Vriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife. Then he falls to threatenings, three great evils (as we may there see) follow upon this evil; yet, all this while that the Lord thus chides him, that he thus threatens and beats him, he doth not cease to love him, as appears in nathan's words, verse 13. The Lord hath put away thy sin; some will have love and anger to be inconsistent, hatred and wrath inseparable; God is angry, as they say, with none, but those that he hates, and when anger appears, love is no more; But all know that this is false among men, a father is many times angry with his child, that he would be loath to hate; It is as false with God, he was wrath with Moses, but he never hated Moses, he owns his with much love, when he manifests much dislike and distaste of their present actions.  
6. These sufferings of the godly must by no means be accounted satisfactions of divine justice, as coming from vindicative wrath, nor any part of the curse, that is due from vindicative justice for sin. Having a tendency not to harm, but to reform; not to destroy, but amend; they are only fatherly corrections, and chastisements, not properly (at least as some rigidly understand the word) punishments; satisfaction was the work of Christ, and the whole of the curse was divolved upon him, Gal. 3. 13. Papists do distinguish between the friendship that is lost by sin; and the justice that is deserved. The friendship that is lost, is made up again, as they confess, of free grace; but the justice deserved, must by the offender be satisfied, which how impossible it is, for man to do, and how injurious to the sufferings of Christ, to attempt the doing of it, let us guess by the definition that Bellarmine gives of it, Lib. quart. de peniten. cap. 1. Actio, quâ is, qui alierum laesit, tantum facit, quantum satis est, ad injuriam compensandam, sive, is qui laesus est, justè exigit. All that we can suffer, can never satisfy, the wrong that our sins have done to the divine Majesty, God may justly exact more, then either on earth, or in their imaginary purgatory; any man can discharge. As the sufferings of this life, are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed; so, neither do they match the evil that justly might be inflicted. They are all just, but not from God's revenging justice. In themselves they have the nature of curses, but they are no part of the curse, which upon the breach of the covenant of works, and upon the transgression of the Law, is menaced. As a skilful Physician, makes poison up into a medicine, so doth God turn curses into blessings; they serve not to kill, but to cure his people.  
7. These sufferings, are not yet barely as some use to speak from sin, but chastisements for sin, not only to prevent sin, that it may not be committed; but because men have already sinned. The Corinthians were chastened, not alone, lest they should profane the Lords Supper; but because they had profaned it. God afflicted David, not only lest he should commit adultery, but because he had committed adultery: He threatens Eli, and punisheth him, not only, lest he should be too indulgent to his sons; but because he had been too indulgent to them. It cannot be conceived, how afflictions should prevent sin to come, if they do not correct sin already past, why are men afraid to sin upon account of sufferings, but because upon sin they have suffered? Smart for sin, makes a child of God watchful against sin. The child, that hath seen his father's frown is afraid lest he should frown again; that hath been scourged▪ knows what a father thinks of a fault, and is afraid of a second.  
It is here objected, that it stands not with justice, in this way, to afflict believers, seeing Christ in their stead hath made satisfaction, and to punish one sin twice, is injurious. Answ. 1. These know, that Socinians deny, that Christ hath made any satisfaction, and if these two cannot stand together, viz. Christ's satisfaction, and believers correction, they will soon assume that believers do suffer, (for which the Scripture is very full) and therefore Christ hath not satisfied, and so their dangerous error will be supported. 2. One truth must not be produced to the overthrow of another, Christ satisfaction, takes us out of the hand of condemnation, and delivers from revengeful wrath, but not out of the hand of discipline; when God becomes a Saviour, he doth not cease to be a Sovereign; a father, that is a Judge, may lash his child, that he never intends to sentence. If any will see further Objections raised and answered, let him consult Mr. Burges of justification. Part. 1. Lecture 5. pag. 33.   

CHAP. XIV.  
Agreement between the Covenant of works and the Covenant of grace.  
HAving asserted a covenant of grace, and premised such things that may contribute some light, towards a right understanding of it, I must proceed to inquire into the respective agreement, and differences between these covenants. The former is an easy work, there being no controversy or dispute raised about it, and therefore I shall briefly pass it over. They agree, 1. In the general nature of a covenant, both are covenants strictly so called, as hath already been demonstrated. 2. They have one and the same author, that is God. He proposed the terms of the covenant, to Adam, for himself, and all of his posterity, and he enters covenant with the posterity of Adam, in their fallen condition. 3. The parties in covenant, are in both of them, God and man, God propounding, man accepting, though there be (as we have heard) that would have it otherwise. 4. In either of both, there is a tendency to man's happiness, Life is given in promise in both, as we see Rom. 10▪ 5, 6, etc. where both covenants are distinctly considered, what difference or agreement there may be in the life promised, will after be spoke unto. 5. In both of them there is a restipulation from man as there is an engagement from God; as, God engageth himself for reward, so man is engaged to duty; the former was never doubted, the later hath been largely proved. 6. In either of both, righteousness is called for from those that enter covenant. For the first it is not questioned, in that it is a covenant of Works. Failing in doing was death. Interest in perfect righteousness is required in the latter, which is called, the righteousness of faith, and is the righteousness of the Law, performed, not by ourselves, but by another, Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth, Rom. 10. 4. Sincerity, in inherent righteousness is required likewise, both of these will be morefully demonstrated. 7. Either of both are indispensable, the conditions being not performed, the penalty of the covenant in both is inflicted, Adam's posterity had experience of the one, and all unbelievers, and impenitent ones, will bear the other; not believing, not repenting brings death, as sometimes not perfectly obeying. That distinction, of the covenant of grace, calling for one thing, and accepting of another, afterwards will be considered. 8. Neither of both covenants are personal, as entered with any single person, or persons, and determined in him or them, but both of them, include posterity. In the covenant of works, it is not so expressly delivered, but not to be doubted. That covenant was entered with Adam, for all his, the latter is more express, to the covenanters and their seed, both in Old and New Testament-Scriptures, which by a party is questioned, but remains largely to be confirmed.   

CHAP. XV.  
Differences between the Covenants of Works and the Covenant of Grace.  
HAving spoken to the agreement between these two Covenants, I must now more largely inquire into the differences, which will prove a work of greater difficulty, there being so much opposition. The first and leading difference is, that being both of them between God and man, 
The Covenant of Works was entered into in man's state of integrity.  they were entered into in a different estate and condition of man. The first was entered in statu instituto, in man's integrity, when man had not at all, by sin incurred the displeasure of God, or weakened his abilities for obedience; Man then stood as he came out of God's hand, bearing in himself a lively resemblance of God. 
The Covenant of Grace was entered into in man's fallen condition.  The second was in statu destituto, in man's fallen estate, now in sin, under wrath, dead in sin, and wholly disabled from yielding obedience, of this there is no controversy, and therefore I need not make more words about it. And from hence all other differences which I shall observe; or which (as I suppose) are observable, have their rise, which are these following.  
The covenant of Works, 
The Covenant of Works was to man's preservation.  or (as learned Camero calls it) the covenant of Nature, was for preservation of man in life, that is, in present bliss and happiness, to hold him in the condition in which it found him, which is employed in the penalty threatened, as was before noted; man must not die till sin enter, and expressed in that promise of God, Do this and live; His life must be continued as long as his obedience lasted, his happiness must have been perpetuated, (though not necessarily in the same degree, God might have translated him from a life on earth to a life in heaven) had he kept to the terms of the covenant. The covenant of grace is for man's restitution, 
The Covenant of Grace was to man's restitution.  reconciliation and recovery; He was before in bliss, and if he had so abode, he might with good reason have taken up Peter's words, It is good for us to be here. Now he is in misery, and must be restored, if ever he be blessed, and so a farther difference doth arise.  
The covenant of works had its precedency, 
The Covenant of Works was first in time. The Covenant of Grace in order of time followed after.  was first in time; The covenant of grace in order of time follows after; This must needs follow, Man's estate in integrity being before his fall, the covenant made in his integrity, must needs precede the covenant entered into in his fallen condition, unless we will place the third of Genesis before the first, the fall of man before his creation; And therefore that is utterly a mistake in one, who in the very entrance upon his Treatise of the two covenants, gives the covenant of grace the precedency in time, giving this as his reason, why he places the covenant of Grace before the covenant of Works, because the covenant of Grace was in being before the covenant of Works, quoting for proof, Gal. 3. 17. The covenant which was made before of God in Christ, the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul. But this can by no means serve his purpose, unless we should conclude that the covenant of Works had its beginning in Mount Sinai at the giving of the Law by Moses, and the covenant of Grace, of only four hundred and thirty years more ancient standing. And that, will as little serve his purpose which he after brings in, that there was an agreement and covenant between God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ about the salvation of man before Adam sinned, yea, before the world began; Seeing that covenant between the first and second person of the Trinity, was not the covenant, which he hath in hand to treat upon, namely the covenant which God entered with man, as he himself confesses; No covenant can be made with man before man be in being, A no●ens can be no party in a covenant. And whereas we are told that the same covenant which was made with Jesus Christ before time, was afterwards made with man. I desire that all would observe what is laid down in that Treatise concerning that covenant. Christ for his part was by covenant to become a Mediator, Surety, and Saviour; for all those that his Father should give him. And must we become such Mediators Sureties and Saviour's also? God the Father did promise to Christ, as is further said, all the things that did belong to his Mediatorship, and things to gratify and satisfy him for his Mediatorship. May we by covenant expect such things from the Father likewise? If we are neither tied to the same work, to which Christ by covenant was tied, nor are to receive the like gifts, as he by covenant was to expect, we are not in the same covenant that past between the Father and Christ. And though these two were one, which must not be yielded, (the covenants ad intra, which the persons of the Trinity make with themselves, and those ad extra with the creature may not be confounded) yet that would evince no such precedence in time, seeing there was alike agreement in the whole Trinity for the creation of man, and God's covenant with him in his integrity, as is fully assented to in the same Treatise, to the utter overthrow of all that which upon the former supposition he had built. To that question, To what end should the covenant of Grace be made before man stood in need of Grace? he answers, Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world; And he had all things then as present and real before the eyes of his glory, as now he hath, viz. Man's Creation, Fall, Recovery, and in this sense there was no precedency of time in regard of any of God's Counsels or secret actions. And then there can be no precedency of one of his covenants before another, we must find then a sense according to which there is a precedency, which is not found in any covenants of the Trinity among themselves (which in exact propriety of speech are purposes rather than covenants, and were before all time) but in the actual entrance and assent by the creature given, which is in time, and admits precedency; In which consideration the covenant of works hath its precedency before that of Grace, as the state of integrity was before the fall.  
Whence farther yet follows that the covenant of works, 
The Covenant of Works was a small time in force.  was but a small time in force, at least but a small time of use, only during the space of man's integrity, which some say was only one day, in all probability not long, in that man enjoyed no fruit of that blessing in Paradise, Increase and multiply. 
The Covenant of Grace is of everlasting continuance.  But this second, is, of everlasting continuance, when the first Covenant was violated by our first parents, and so made useless, that of grace succeeded, which is our only plank after shipwreck, but none shall ever succeed this second. Adam failing of salvation by the covenant of Works (which he entered in the first place) is saved by the covenant of grace, into which after his fall he entered, and into which he was of grace admitted; but he that is not saved by the second, must everlastingly perish, and so I understand that text, Heb. 10. 26. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, then there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation; where, by sinning wilfully, I understand an utter rejection of God's tender of this sacrifice of Christ's blood, which I gather from the Apostle in the words that follow, the proof that he brings of that sad assertion, He that despised Moses Law, died without mercy under two or three witnesses, of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy that hath trodden under foot the blood of the Son of God, and counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing? This is that wilful sin of which there is no expiation. When man had cast off the yoke, a sacrifice was found, Christ made his soul an offering for sin; but when Christ is rejected, there is no other sacrifice to be looked for. In the covenant of grace God hath made known his whole mind concerning man's salvation, by what means, and upon what terms man shall be saved.   

CHAP. XVI.  
A further difference between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.  
ANother difference of great importance between these covenants, 
The Covenant of Works had no Mediator.  and which necessarily (as the two former) flows from the first, is, That the first covenant between God and man was immediate, no Mediator intervening, no dayman standing between them, to make them one; But for the second, man being fallen by sin, a Mediator was necessary that God and man now in that distance, should be reconciled. I know some have contended, that not only man in integrity, but the Angels themselves, stood in need of Christ's mediation, producing their grounds for their assertion, and then this difference between these covenants, falls, neither of both are immediate, both standing in need of a Mediator. The grounds are,  
First, Obj. That the obedience of man and Angels was imperfect, and stood in need of pardon, and for the righteousness of Christ which he performed to the Father, was accounted perfect, quoting that place of Eliphaz in his speech to Job, Job 4. 18. Even his Angels he charged with folly. If Angels stood thus in God's eye, under such a charge, then much more man, as Eliphas there argues. 
Sol.  But I would demand of these, concerning this supposed imperfection in man and Angels, thus supplied by Christ's perfection, whether it were properly, and of its own nature a sin? If not, then there is no place for pardon; If it were, than it must be divolved on Christ, and laid upon him to expiate, and so man fell, 
Cujus enim participatione justi sunt, ejus comparatione nec justi sunt. Aug. ad Orosium contra Priscil. cap. 10  (or at least lay down grovelling) before his fall; and the good Angels by reason of sin, are evil as well as those that are fallen; but these are absurd. In that of Eliphaz therefore (if it must be understood of Angels of glory) sin, is not charged or implied, but only defect, standing in comparison or competition with God, an imperfection negative is yielded, they match not God in perfection, but in his presence cover their faces with their wings, Isa. 6. 2. but no imperfection privative, they want no perfection of which they are in any capacity, and whereof they have any necessity; God made no creature in such a necessity of sinning, or in such a being that needed pardon.  
A second ground is, Obj. That though a Mediator was not necessary by way of reconciliation, yet he was necessary by way of preservation in righteousness. 
Sol.  The second fully overthrows the first, in that which it grants, and I know not how that can be proved that it affirms, Man was not preserved, and therefore it appears, that he had no such Mediator appointed for his preservation. And it seems (according to this opinion) man could not have stood, unless Christ had been incarnate, and so his fall was not, from the freedom of his will, but the principles of his creation, For the Angels, how they can be said, to stand by grace received from Christ, a Mediator; I know not, they being no fellow-members with us, though fellow-servants; And howsoever accidental benefits come to the Angels, by Christ, in their joy to see lost man restored, and reconciled; as to God, so also to their fellowship and communion; (according to that of the Apostle, Ephes. 1. 10. Col. 1. 20. in their experimental knowledge also, of the wisdom of God in this great mystery, 1 Pet. 1. 12. Ephes. 3. 10.) yet, I doubt not that it was for man, whose nature he assumed, that Christ was incarnate, and that he is a Mediator between God and man, 2 Tim. 2. 5. and not between God and Angels, and that for fallen man, and not for man in his integrity; Therefore I conclude the first covenant was immediate; no Mediator intervening, all the blessings of the first covenant flowed from the whole Trinity, as the Creation itself, without respect to Christ incarnate, there was no revelation of that high mystery to man in innocency, In which the Reader may consult G●marus in Colos. 1▪ 20.  
The covenant of grace is by a Mediator; 
The Covenant of grace is by a Mediator.  man's fallen condition in so great a distance from God, necessarily calling for it. Two cannot walk together unless they be agreed, Amos 3. 3. That fallen man may walk in covenant with God; it is necessary that a way of agreement be found, This the second person of the Trinity, by covenant with the Father hath undertaken, and therefore he is styled The Mediator of the New Testament, Heb. 9 15. A Mediator of a better Covenant, Heb. 8. 6. The Mediator of the New Covenant, Heb. 12. 24. Many obstacles were in the way of man's covenanting with God; and attaiment of the mercies and grace of the covenant, all of which lay on the Mediator, to remove, that God and man might once more be at one; All of these Christ undertakes and effects, and so is the Meditatour in this work.   

CHAP. XVII.  
Works incumbent upon the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace.  
THis work of Christ in his Mediatorship, I suppose may fitly be reduced to these heads.  
First, to bring man into a capacity of covenanting with God.  
Secondly, to bring man into the bond of the covenant; professedly to accept it.  
Thirdly, to enable those whom he brings to glory; to perform the duties of the covenant, to be steady and upright in it.  
Fourthly, to crown those with glory; whom by grace be brings up to the terms of the covenant.  
1. He is to bring man into a capacity of covenanting, 
Christ brings man into a capacity of covenanting with God.  of which sin had made mankind uncapable, for though it should be granted, that God in absolute justice, is not bound to punish sin wheresoever he finds it; and that it is not against his Essence (as some would have it) to pardon sin without satisfaction, yet his ordinate justice is thus bound, That law of his, being presupposed, The day that thou eatest, thou shalt surely die, he cannot recede from it; the penalty of this Law must be born; in order to reconciliation, and justice satisfied for man's transgression, which must be done by such a one, that can answer the claim of divine justice. The beasts of the Forests, and cattle of a thousand hills (which were yet often given to God in sacrifice) could not do it. The Apostle tells us, that it is impossible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sin, Heb. 10. 4. They were never guilty, and they are no valuable consideration, nor yet the Angels who are above mankind, as the bruit creatures are below. Man had sinned, and a sacrifice from among mankind, is to be found, Neither can man in sin, and under the taint of it be accepted, all that he can suffer is due for himself, and therefore can be no other man's discharge. In the payment of my own debt, I set free no other debtor; Neither can any, that is mere man go thorough with it, here is pure justice without relaxation, as to the value, confessed by those who yet contend whether idem or tantundem be paid by Christ, the same in kind, as was owing by man, or the like in value and estimate; He that is brought under a divine attachment, must not come out till he have paid the uttermost farthing, which man in torments is ever in discharging, and never can discharge; It is as easy to make a world, as by way of ransom to deliver a soul. Christ therefore that knew no sin, is made sin, that is, an offering for sin. God manifest in the flesh, he that was God and man, hath undertaken the work, man to suffer, and God to satisfy in suffering, and so God is in Christ reconciling the world to himself, 2 Corinth. 5. 19 The immediate effect or result of this price of man's redemption, (I suppose) is the putting of man into a capacity of a covenant with God, yet when this is done, till more be done, by Christ in the way of his Mediatorship for man, men are not yet in covenant, not the Elect among men. This is evident in those Ephesians, that were raised up together, and made sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, Ephes. 2. 6. There was no time in which Christ had not paid the price of their ransom, yet there was a time, and then but lately over, that they were without Christ, being aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world, Ephes. 2. 12. Elect Infidels are not till their call, in covenant, they stand not actually reconciled, and one with God before Faith, for then there needed no Ministry of reconciliation to follow. If this were granted, than Christ did the whole for man's salvation on the cross by himself, and doth nothing now in heaven, by way of intercession, nor any thing by his agents in a ministerial way upon earth, neither could man before faith, be underwrath, in which he is yet concluded by our Saviour himself, John 3. 36. A state of wrath, and an actual reconciled estate cannot stand together. There is a price paid, and (as I may say) in the Father's hand, but to be applied according to the good pleasure of the Father and the Son; A man may purchase a prisoners liberty; so that he hath it in his just and legal power to set him free; and yet take what time he pleaseth in discretion to impart it to him, and actually deliver him. In this work there are three parties; God the Father, as Creditor, Christ Jesus, the Surety Man, the Debtor. The Father might have refused this discharge from the hand of Christ, and exacted it of the principal; Christ might have refused to have made such payment, he was not in the Obligation; There was a relaxation of the person, as is agreed on all parties; Man must come in and manifest his acceptance, Till he is content to leave his old master, sin and Satan; This new Lord gives him no entertainment, he must be content to come out of bondage, or else he can enjoy no freedom.  
2. The next work of Christ, 
Christ brings man within the verge of the Covenant. 1. By his tender of it.  is to bring man within the bond of the covenant professedly to accept it, for which there is yet a double work. First, to make tender of it, this hath been Christ's work as the Prophet of his Church in all ages. In what latitude in was carried in the days of the fathers before the flood, it is rather obscurely pointed at; then plainly showed; yet there was then a distinction, between the posterity of Seth, and that of Cain, and so contived till the days of Noah, when the sons of God saw the daughters of men; children of the covenant, saw those out of the covenant; Men within the visible Church, saw women without the Pale, and joined themselves in marriage with them. From Abraham's days it was confined to his posterity, and held within his line, and those few that as proselytes joined themselves unto them. In Gospel times it is enlarged, the tender is made not to Jew's only, but also to every Nation under heaven, the Commission being to preach the Gospel to every creature, none by Nation so contemptible, that is to be excluded. In Christ Jesus there is neither Barbarian, 
2. By shaping the heart for it.  nor Scythian, Jew or Gentile, Col. 3. 11. And, as there is to be a tender; so also it is his work to shape the heart for acceptation of it, to embrace the terms, and enter into it. God shall persuade▪ Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, Gen. 9 27. The inhabitants of the Isles peopled by Japhets' posterity shall become the Israel of God, shall succeed the Jews in a Church-state, and vissible profession of the name of God, The hand of the Lord was with them, namely, those that preached at Antioch, and a great number believed, Acts 11. 21. where believing (after the manner of the History in the Acts) is no other than embracing the Doctrine of Faith, they were made Disciples; many of which after fell off, even from their profession.  
A third work is to enable those whom he brings to glory (those among them in covenant that are called according to his purpose) to perform the duties of the covenant, 
Christ brings up to the terms of the Covenant.  to be steadfast and upright in it, and this is by Circumcising their heart giving them a new heart, writing his Law in their hearts, putting it into their inward parts, keeping them by his mighty power through faith unto salvation; of which more hereafter. 
Christ crowns those that come up to the terms of the covenant   
The last work is to crown with glory those that by grace he raises up, to the terms of the covenant, thus qualifying them, he crowns them, I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge shall give me at that day, 2 Tim. 4. 7, 8. I go to prepare a place for you, and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself, John 14. 2, 3.  
Here some difficulties offer themselves, If the covenant of works (passed between God and man in his integrity) were immediate, 
Difficulties removed.  and the transactions of it without reference to Christ, then if follows that faith in Christ is not commanded in that Law, Obj. which was given to man for a rule, There being no possibility of it, there could be no command for it, and there was no possibility of Adam's believing it, 
Faith is a duty of the moral Law.  seeing Christ was not revealed, and was not as Mediator of any use. This opinion is strongly maintained by Arminians. Armin. in resp. ad artic. decimum nonum. Corvinus Contr. Molin. cap. 11. And to this end, that they may make it good, that God cannot in justice require faith in Christ, from man in his fallen condition, unless he withal confer upon him abilities to believe, seeing he never had that power from him in his integrity, and state of purity, and upon this supposition the argument seems of force. We vindicate God's justice in commanding works; though to us now impossible, seeing once we had power to reach the highest of his precepts, and his command, is no rule of our impaired strength, but of our duty. But if men never had that power, and the Law never required it, it is injustice (according to all parties) to exact it. Answ. Let those that fall to the Arminians in this tenant, (that they may make the Law an imperfect rule, and an insufficient direction) see how they can avoid it, how they can vindicate God's justice thus impeached. But the Orthodox party have still maintained that Adam had, in his integrity that faith that doth justify, though then it performed not that office of justification, as he had that faculty whereby we see dead bodies; though then there was no possibility of such sight, there being no dead bodies to be seen. And that faith in Christ is commanded in the first precept of the Law is manifest. There we are commanded to have God for our God, no Interpreter will deny, that the affirmative is contained in that negative: Thou shalt have none other gods but me. Now God is the God of believers, Heb. 11. 16. No man can have any communion with God, but by faith in Christ. And so consequently this faith is there required; what Expositor of the Law doth not put trust and affiance in God, within the affirmative part of the first commandment, as well as fear, love, and obedience? And without Christ there can be no affiance or trust. If we conceive the moral Law, to reach no farther than the duties expressly there named, or the evils forbidden, we shall make it very scant and narrow, we shall see small reason, of that of the Psalmist, Thy Commandment is exceeding broad, Psalm 119. 96. But in case we take in all that by necessary consequence may be inferred, according to the approved rules of interpretation, then scarce any duty is more clearly laid down then this of faith in Christ. And whereas one faith, A man cannot preach Faith in Christ out of the Moral Law, I say, a man out of the Moral Law, may evince the necessity of Faith in Christ; unto every one that lives in Gospel-light, to whom Christ is tendered; The Law requires the duty, and the Gospel discovers the object, no man out of the Law could have evinced Abraham that he must offer his son, nor that he must have left his country, but when God's mind was made known to him, the Moral Law did bind him to obedience, and he had sinned against the Moral Law, in case he had refused. There is no command given of God to any man, at any time, of an nature whatsoever, but the Moral Law ties him to the observation of it, not immediately, explicitly, but upon supposition of such a command intervening. Therefore ye shall observe all my Statutes, and all my judgements, and do them, I am the Lord, Levit. 19 37. Faith in Christ being commanded of God, I John 3. 23. the Moral Law obliges to obedience of it. See Molin. Anatom. Arminianis. cap. 11. Respons. Wallaei. ad Censuram Johannis Arnol. Corvini cap. 11. Ball on the covenant, page 105. Burges Vindiciae legis. page 117.  
A farther difficulty here offers itself, Obj. and an obstruction laid against that which in this Treatise is after intended. If the covenant, or second covenant (as opposite to that of works) be in Christ, and grounded on the work of reconciliation, than it is commensurate with it, 
The Covenant of grace not commensurate with election.  and of no greater latitude, and only the elect and chosen in Christ, the called according to God's purpose, being reconciled, only these are in covenant; when the Scripture (as shall be, God willing, made good) confines not this covenant within the limits of the invisible Church, known only to God. But it is as large as the Church visible.  
To this I answer, Answ. that the Prophetical office of Christ, as Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, and so much of his Kingly office as consists in a legislative power, hath its foundation (as well as the covenant) in this work of reconciliation. Had not this been undertaken by Christ for mankind, man had never enjoyed that light, man had never had an Oracle, or an Ordinance as the fruit of his Prophetic office, yet, these Ordinances are not commensurate with reconciliation, nor of equal latitude with election, So neither is the covenant, but either of both in order towards it. As Ordinances therefore are Christ's gift from heaven, as the fruit of his death and resurrection, when yet all that partake of these Ordinances do not yet die or rise with Christ; So, is the covenant, when yet all in covenant are not steadfast in it, nor obtain the graces of it. Therefore I know not how to admit that which a Divine singularly eminent hath laid down; That all the effects of Christ's death are spiritual, distinguishing and saving; Seeing gifts of Christ; from his Father's right hand are fruits of his death, yet not spiritual, distinguishing and saving. That they are in some sort spiritual, I dare grant that is, in ordine ad spiritualia, (if I may so speak) they have a tendency to a spiritual work. That they are distinguishing from the world, (as it is taken in opposition to the Church visible) I yield, for I do not enlarge the fruit of Christ's death to all mankind, assenting to Master Owen and Master Stalham in the grounds that they lay, of God's respite of the execution of the whole penalty on man, with the continuance of outward favours not to be upon the account of Christ, but for other reasons; yet I know not how to affirm, that Ordinances which yet are fruits of his death, are all saving, spiritual and distinguishing, seeing they neither confer salvation nor saving grace on all that partake of them, So that Christ, is a Mediator of this covenant; and yet those enter into it that have not reconciliation by Christ Jesus; The Ephesians that were afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ, Ephes. 2. 13. that is, brought into a visible Church-state in the fruition of Ordinances, made free of that city whose name is, The Lord is here, Ezek. 48. 35.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
Farther differences between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.  
A Farther difference of importance, between these covenants, is, in the conditions annexed unto either of them, and here the difference is brought to the height. This alone so diversifies them; that they are not barely, in circumstance and way of administration; but in substance two distinct covenants; The least difference in conditions, diversifies bargains and agreements on what part soever the difference is. 
Conditions in the Covenant of works and the covenant of grace of God's part seem to be the same.  Conditions of the covenant between God and man are of two sorts, either such in which God engages himself, or in which man is engaged; either the stipulation on God's part, or else the restipulation on the part of man. The former unto which God is engaged, are, either rewards in case of covenant-keeping, or, punishments in case of covenant-breaking; The one the Lord promises, The other he threatens. I find no material difference in the conditions on God's part in these covenants. Life is promised in both, in case of covenant-keeping; and death is threatened in both, in case of covenant-breaking. Some indeed have endeavoured to find a great difference in the life promised in the covenant of works, and the life that is promised in the covenant of grace; as also in the death that is threatened in the one, and the other, and thereupon move many, and indeed inextricable difficulties, What life man should have enjoyed, in case Adam had not fallen? And what death man should have died, in case Christ had not been promised? From which two, endlessely more, by way of consectary may be drawn; by those that want neither wit, nor leisure to debate them. In which the best way of satisfaction and avoidance of such puzzling mazes; is to inquire what Scripture means by Life, which is the good in the covenant promised; and what by Death, which is the evil threatened? Now for the first, Life contains all whatsoever, that conduces to true happiness, to make man blessed in soul and body. All good that Christ purchases, and heaven enjoys, is comprised under it, in Gospel-expressions. I am come that they might have life, and that they may have it more abundantly, John 10. 10. He that hath the Son, hath life, and he that hath not the Son, hath not life, 1 John 5. 12. On the contrary, under Death is comprised, all that is injurious to man or mankind, that tends to his misery in soul and body. The damnation of Hell being called death, the uttermost of evils being the separation of soul and body from God, John 8. 51. 1 John 3. 14. Sin which leads to it, and is the cause of it, is called death in like manner; Ephes. 2. 1. And the separation of soul from the body, being called death, sicknesses, plagues, are so called in like manner, 
Life promised in the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace is one and the same.  Ex●d. 10. 17. Now happiness being promised to man in covenant, only indefinitely under that notion of life, without limit to this or that way of happiness, in this or that place, God is still at liberty, so that he make man happy, where, or how he pleaseth to continue happiness to him, and is not tied up in his engagement either for earth or heaven. And therefore though learned Camero in his Treatise de triplici foedere, Thes. 9 with others, makes this difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. In the covenant of Works, (which he calls nature) life was promised, and a most blessed life, but an animal life in Paradise, in the covenant of Grace a life in Heaven and spiritual. And Master Baxter in his Aphoris. of Justification, page 5. saith, that this life premised was only the continuance of that state that Adam was then in, Paradise, is the opinion of most Divines. Yet with submission to better judgements I see not grounds for it; seeing Scripture no way determines the way and kind of this happiness promised, and in case that we take liberty to say, that when long life is promised upon earth (in many texts of Scripture) that the promise is made good though it fail on earth, in case it be supplied in heaven, life being the marrow of the promise, much more than is it made good, when it is indefinitely promised, without limit to a man whilst on earth, in case it be made good by his translation into heaven. And indeed there are strong probabilities, heaven being set out by the name of Paradise in Christ's speech to the thief on the cross; and in Paul's vision in that rapture, 2 Cor. 12. if we may make such a supposition of man's standing, now he is fallen, that he should not have continued a life of immortality on earth, but have been translated into heaven. He had that blessing from God as other living creatures, to be fruitful and multiply, Gen. 1. 28. and how the world could have contained all those individuals at once; which to eternity man should propagate, cannot be imagined. And to conceive, that an end in time should be put to propagation; when an animal life in the use of the creature should be continued, is scarce consistent with reason. But a thousand of these God can expedite when we are at a stand; He promised life, and he could have made it good, 
Death threatened in the Covenent of Works and in the Covenant of Grace is one and the same.  and we see he limited not himself, where, or how to confer it. And what I have said of life promised, the same I say of death threatened, in case man upon sin be brought into a state of misery, Justice is done, and the threat takes hold, where, and howsoever this misery be suffered, whether it had been in sorrows, and horrors on earth, in separation of the soul first, for torments and the body to follow, or in a speedy dispatch of soul and body to hell. God's way of execution after the sin committed, (on those that are not by Christ ransomed) does not argue that the penalty in the covenant necessitated him to it, might not he at once have poured out the whole of his vengeance on vessels of wrath, when yet we know, that he takes time for the execution of it? A Learned Writer enquiring into this death that was here threatened, saith, that the same damnation that followed the breach of the second covenant, it could not be; When I suppose it rather should be said, that in substance and kind, it can be no other; Infidels that were never under any other covenant then that of works; and covenant-breaking Christians are in the same condemnation, there is not two hells but one and the same, for those that know not God, and those that obey not the Gospel of Christ, 2 Thes. 1. 8. Neither is there any Limbus, or distinct place for infants in original sin, and out of the covenant of grace. Neither can I assent to that speech, To say that Adam should have gone quick to hell, if Christ had not been promised, or sin pardoned, is to contradict the Scriptures, that makes death temporal the wages of sin. It were I confess to presume above Scripture, but I cannot see it a contradiction of Scripture; A burning Fever, a Consumption, Leprosy, Pestilence, etc. are in Scripture made the wages of sin, yet many go to hell and miss those diseases. And if it be said Scripture so makes death the wages of sin, that all must suffer it, I answer, Those Scriptures are all of them leges post latae, appointed of God, as his way upon man's fall, neither absolute justice, nor yet the penalty threatened necessitating him to that way of proceeding. He takes the same way where his justice hath already satisfaction, Those that are privileged from death as the wages of sin, thus die; God tied not up his own hands, as States do their Judges, and ministerial officers, to one way of execution; and this his way with the unbelieving is voluntary, and not necessitated, Upon these grounds it is, that I find no reason to widen the differences between these promises and privileges in either covenants.  
The identity of conditions, in the covenant of Works and Grace, on God's part we have seen; The great diversity in the conditions called for from man comes to be spoken to.  
And in the first place this difference offers itself. The conditions of the covenant of Works were in man's power, 
The conditions in the Covenant of works were in man's power.  being left to the freedom of his will; he had abilities in himself without seeking out for further assistance than a mere general concurrence to perform them. This ability in man to answer whatsoever was called for at his hands from God, appears  
First, in the integrity of his nature; Being made like God, his principles must needs carry him to a conformity with God, and these principles were connatural to man, in his first being and beginning. Man being made of God to contemplate his glory, and to enjoy communion with himself, he made him not defective in any of those noble qualifications that serve for it, or have a tendency to it. Papists indeed will have this to be a supernatural gift of grace, 
Quam veluti aureo quodam fraeno pars inferior parti superiori, & pars superior Deo facile subjecta contineretur. Bellar. De. Grat. primi hominis, cap. 5.  and above the glory of man's first creation. Bellarmine compares it to a bridle given to curb that lust which riseth against reason in us. That rebellion of lusts in man, they conceit, would have been, if man had not fallen; which, as it lays a high charge upon God; in such an aspersion of his pure work drawn after such a pattern; so, it makes way for other opinions, that the first motions without consent are no sins, and that lust in the regenerate, is not sin. But as the bottom is rotten, so, also the building that is raised upon it is ruinous. There was an happy agreement in man, as well with himself, as with his Creator: The fall brought in a necessity of support and supply of Grace.  
Secondly, this appears from the equity which must be granted to be in the command of God; which requires that the work given in charge be not above his abilities, that is charged with it. The Arminian argument from a command, to abilities to keep the command, from a threat to conclude a power to keep off from the thing threatened, is of force, as long as the person under command keeps himself in the same station, and strength, as when the command was given. But applying this to man in his fallen estate (who had sinned away his abilities,) the strength of it is wholly lost. The command of God retains its perfection; when we are under the power of corruption. The Law is nothing abated, though we be weakened.  
3. It appears in the work itself which was charged upon man upon performance of which he was to expect happiness. There is no more explicitly mentioned, than that negative precert: Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat; the day that thou eatest, thou shalt surely die. This, all may yield might easily have been kept if the command had been heeded, or the menace observed. The Jews at their worst could observe the commands of nonlicet meats, and this was a command of like nature, yet this was not all unto which man was tied, Being made in the image of God; he had clear light to discern good from evil, and as all yet retain, darkly and obseurely; so he had the Law written in his heart, clearly; Adultery, Murder (though no otherwise condemned, then by that light which he had by creation) in that estate had been sin. The former positive Law was evil because forbidden, take away the prohibition, and there had been no sin in eating. These are forbidden, because evil: The Law imprinted by creation, being presupposed, there needed no further Law to make them sinful. They that never had the written Law, are condemned for these practices, by that Law which by nature is written in their hearts. But against these, there was in nature an Antipathy; Man's pure nature had them in abhorrency. As now there needs no Law more than nature doth suggest, to forbid the eating of poison, feeding on dust, or carrion: So then there needed no more Law to condemn these practices; so that obedience in that state was in man's power must necessarily be yielded.  
The conditions of the covenant of Grace are not performed, 
The conditions in the Covenant of Grace are not performed without special assistance.  but by special grace; a power from God must concur for their work in man; Man hath no abilities in himself to answer what God requires, and if he rise not up to the terms of this covenant, till he raise himself, he will for ever fall short of it. As the covenant was vouchsafed of grace, so grace must make us meet to partake of the benefits of it.  
This appears. 
Reasons.  1. In the state and condition in which God finds man, when he first enters covenant with him; yea, after covenant entered, till a change be wrought, and abilities conferred to answer that which God in covenant requires. This state of man the Apostle expresses, Ephes. 2. 1. Dead in trespasses and sins, alive, and in power for nothing at all, but sin. This was the condition of Heathens, never in covenant; and so of the Jews who were a people in actual covenant, and owned of God as his inheritance, as God willing shall be shown. Their conversation was the same as the Apostle there confesseth; Among whom we also had our conversation in times past, in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath as well as others. This in abundant other expressions in Scripture is discovered, holding forth the same thing, Rom. 5. 6. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. That infant, Ezek. 16. 4, 5. had no more possibilities of life, then is to be found even in the state of death.  
Reas. 2. It appears in that power which is exercised by God, in the change of those in covenant with him, whom he fits for himself for Eternity. This power in Scripture is set out, in several expressions. First, Creation, Ephes. 2. 10. We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works. All ability to good is from the frame into which grace puts us; As there is a power out of man, which gives him Being, So also there is an answerable power, for his new Being; He that is begotten of God, keepeth himself, and the evil one toucheth him not, 1 John 5. 18. Secondly, Quickening. The dead have not power to raise themselves, without a further power for their Resurrection; Neither is it in the power of man, Who is dead in trespasses and sins, Eph. 2. 1. Thirdly, Taking away the heart of stone, and giving an heart of flesh, Ezek. 36. 26. To change the nature of things, which is here done, is the work of an Omnipotence, which was Satan's argument not denied by Christ, If thou be the Son of God, command these stones to be made bread, Mat. 4. 3. Fourthly, Causing to walk in God's statutes, Ezek. 36. 27. A work as of authority, so of power. Fifthly, Plucking out of the power of Satan, an act of the free grace and power of God, 2 Tim. 2. 26. Sixthly, Drawing, A work of power in him that draws, weakness in him that is drawn. Joh. 6. 44. No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him. And therefore the Spouse prayeth, Draw me, and we will run after thee, Cant. 1. 4. There must be more power in God for conversion, than in Satan for the souls ruin. Grace must have advantage of temptation, but Satan can allure, persuade; Our first parents had woeful experience of his faculty this way, He hath his moral persuasions, If God make use of nothing more, they are even; yea, Satan hath the advantage, by so much as we are more apt for sin than obedience. And, as these metaphorical expressions hold it forth; So in plain terms it is expressed in Scripture. The Apostle prays for the Ephesians, that the eyes of their understanding being enlightened, they may know what is the exceeding greatness of God's power, to those that believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, Ephes. 1. 19 And by way of simile makes Application, ch. 2. verse 1. etc. Even when we were dead in sins, hath he quickened us together with Christ, and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, Ephes. 2. 5. Lest any should say the former Metaphors are stretched above their line; when they are brought in to hold forth that for which they have been produced; the Apostle here makes application, and shows that the like mighty power, which was exercised of God, in raising Christ, dead in the grave, and setting him up above all principalities and powers, is exercised in raising those who are dead in sin, to sit in heavenly places with Christ. The Apostle entering a similitude, chap. 1. 19 makes not an end of it till, chap. 2. v. 8. Only having named the exaltation of Christ upon his Resurrection, does not leave till he have showed how high he is exalted; and having named man's low ebb in sin; does not leave till he hath set out how low; which draws out the similitude to such length, in which this truth is set forth unto us, which comparison with the application, leaves the necessity of an Omnipotent concurrence in this work without exception.  
Reas. 3. This further appears in that inability which is in man, to accept that which God of grace doth tender, unless God cure the faculties by his power. He is wanting, 1. In power to understand, or to discern the glory of that grace which is offered: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can be know them, because they are spiritually discerned, 1 Cor. 2. 14. This native blindness in man; with the necessity of an Omnipotency for cure, is plain, not only in the Heathens, who (wanting the light of Revelation,) are, as St. Paul speaks, darkness; But also in those to whom light is brought, and the word preached; that stand in actual covenant with God, as appears▪ Deut. 29. 1. & 4. Compared, The Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive, (speaking to men in covenant) and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. 2. In will to desire, and heart to embrace any such tender; but on the contrary there is a readiness still to oppose, which is plain, not only by the stirs that are raised wheresoever the word is preached, as we see through the History of the Acts, So that it is grown into a Proverb, Evangelicum ciet bellum, But also by the struggle to withstand any motion or conviction which the Word works; what Stephen tells the Jews that they did, that each man by nature is apt to do, to resist the Holy Ghost. Acts 7. 51. There is much resistance in the heart, which grace by power does not utterly take away, but overcome and subdue.  
4ly This appears in God's indication, and full declaration of himself, what his work is, & what is to be expected from his hand in the covenant-conditions which he requires of us, which we find from his mouth in several Texts of Scripture. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God. Deut. 30. 6. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, Ezek. 36. 25, 26, 27. But especially in that Text, Jer. 31. 31, 32, 33, 34. The days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt (which my covenant they broke, although I was an husband to them, saith the Lord:) But this shall be the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days (saith the Lord) I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people, and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying; Know the Lord; for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more. In which Texts, a necessity of supernatural grace, 
Jer. 31. 33. cleared.  for the ends mentioned, is abundantly set out unto us: Had man power left in nature for this work, or nature so repaired in all, that abilities were universally conferred, this declaration needed not. No reason can be given of these engagements, by those that deny any necessity of an Omnipotent concurrence. These are usually called Promises, and they run indeed, in the nature of Promises; so that they deserve not blame, that so conceive of them. Generally taken also to be absolute Promises, saith Mr Baxter, Aph. of Just. page 9 and being Promises, they must indeed be absolute ones, we bring not the condition of faith to accept of them; Here is nothing prerequired, as in Promises that are conditional; Being Promises, (if Promises) of Grace, as some have distinguished, and not Promises to Grace; they are spoken to those that are in their unbelief and unregenerate condition; Yet that which is necessarily required to make up a full Promise here is wanting; In Promises (properly so called) some may claim their interest, and know themselves to be within their verge, and conclude the thing in Promise (upon terms at least) to be theirs, which here none can do. This indeed concerns the Elect; but being in unregeneration, they know not their Election, it is not as yet made sure by them. So that as to us it is without any determinate object; None can say, my interest is in this Promise. These were delivered to the whole body of Israel; when not one in many, did reap the benefit of them. Mr. Baxter therefore makes them Prophecies, De eventu, Prophecies of what shall happen. I suppose they may be fitly called, the declaration or indication of God's work, in the conditions to which he engages, and of the necessary concurrence, of the power of his grace, in that which he requires: As Austin and others have interpreted, that which is affirmed of our Saviour, That he is the true light, which enlighteneth every man that comes into the world, John 1. 9 not to be so understood, that all in the world are enlightened by him, for many are in darkness; but that all that are enlightened, have light by his light, explaining it with this similitude: Such a Schoolmaster teacheth all the children in a Town; that is, all that are taught, he teacheth. Some go to no School at all, so, these Promises, I will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed; All of their seed that are circumcised in heart, he circumcises, and so in all the other, none of all these are done without his special work. This was little heeded by the generality of the people of the Jews; if they minded duty, it was well, they little thought of assistance through grace; Tugging it out by their own strength, and looking for no more from heaven, than that which they had in hand; Therefore entering Covenant; and walking in their own strength; they broke Covenant, and were never able to rise to the duties of it, as is hinted in that of Jeremy. Therefore God promises a new covenant, in which there shall be a full discovery, and right understanding, of the meaning of the Covenant; I will write my Law in their hearts, I will put it into their inward parts. So that as the commandment of love was a new commandment; so this covenant was a new covenant, both given of old, both a new cleared, for a right understanding. There was nothing wrong (saith Mr. Dixon) in the former Covenant, but it was imperfect, and all things in it were not expressed clearly. Annot. on Heb. 8. 7. That which was chiefly defective (as it seems) was this here mentioned, and therefore Mr. Baxter says well, that this place doth comprise but part of the covenant, not the whole, though he be taken up by another for it in these words, God saying expressly, this is my Covenant; to say it is not, is not to interpret the Word, but to deny it; God says to the People of Israel, Is not this the fast that I have chosen, to lose the bands of wickedness, to undo every burden? If any one should interpret that Text, would he say the whole of a Religious Fast, is there expressed, and a full definition of a Fast laid down? or would he instead of interpreting, deny that Scripture? So also that of James, Jam. 1. 26. Pure religion and undefiled before God the Father, is this; To visit the fatherless and the widow, and to keep a man unspotted of the world. Will any say, that the whole of Religion is set out in that Scripture, or will he be put to it, to deny the Scripture? I suppose he would rather say, that that which those Jews (to whom Isay speaks) did in & use to do Religious Fasts with supply of that which Isay calls for (in which they were defective) makes up a Religious Fast complete. That which the scattered Tribes did in Religion; with what James further calls for, would render a man entirely Religious: So also that of Jeremy 22. 15, 16. Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in Cedar? Did not thy father, eat and drink and do justice and judgement, and then it was well with him? He judged the cause of the poor and needy, and then it was well with him; was not this to know me, saith the Lord? Will any say, that that was all the knowledge that Josiah had of God? or will he say rather, that this was an evident proof of the sincerity of it; so I say, that which the Jews already understood to be in the covenant, together with that which those places of Jeremy and the Hebrews further hold forth, set out the entire nature of a covenant; and so in all of them, Scripture is interpreted, not denied. And whereas one affirms, that there is no condition on man's part, in those texts in question, an adversary of all conditions on man's part in the covenant replies. If you mean such conditions that God requireth of us; yet worketh in us; it is there punctually expressed. As God's work, it is there indeed expressed; but not as our duty, which lame understanding of the covenant, hath wrought as much mischief in our age; (setting up free grace, without any eye upon his sovereignty, looking at God's work, and not at all on man's duty) as their looking at duty in that age without eye had to the power of grace, to enable for it. Hence are those desperate counsels; Sat still, do nothing; doing undoes you: and that not toward Dilemma. Art thou out of Christ, thou mayst break thy heart in working, and profit nothing: Art thou in Christ, than all is wrought to thy hands. And so doing still is vain; and Mr. baxter's Questionists like demands. How can you make it appear that according to the new Covenant▪ we must act for life, and not only from life; or that a man may make his attaining of life, the end of his work, and not rather obey it out of thankfulness and love? To which I suppose he hath received a satisfying, and (if throughly weighed,) a sadning answer, Appendix, p. 78. 79, etc.  
Fifthly, This appears in that differencing work, which is seen among men here in the flesh. There is a great difference between those that are of God, and those that are in the world, that lies in wickedness. This is from the power of grace, enabling to answer to that unto which God in covenant calls, and not from the different improvement of any power of man, or the exercise of that freedom of will, which together with the whole species of mankind he hath received. The Apostle puts the question, Who hath made thee to differ? 1 Cor. 4. 7. In which he intends to stop all mouths from boasting, as appears in the next words; If any therefore shall answer in Grevenchovius his words (as I have seen them quoted, or in any words that hold out or infer the same thing,) I make myself to differ: The Apostle will not sit down by it, He expressly tells us; It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth; but of God that showeth mercy. Rome 9 16. If grace makes the difference and not man; then grace enables man to go higher than his own power, and to go higher than any power that can be in any other. Seclude this differencing grace, and the praise will be wholly man's. That any have power and possibility for good, (according to these Divines) may be of God; but that any is better than another it is from self that makes to differ.  
Bradwardine hath to this purpose a notable similitude, 
a Si filius miles acceptis à patre naturalibus, ordine atque armis strenuè militaret sicque forsit an in superbia erigeretur inflatus; quomodo in ipso cradicaretur superbia, & plantaretur humilitas? Si ei ab aliquo diceretur, Non glorietur omnis mile: in conspectu patris sui; Ex ipso enim est in militia. ut qui gloriatur i● patre suc glorietur, & quid habes quod non accepisti? Si autem accepisti, quid gloriaris quasi non acceperis? Posset enim rationaliter respondere dicendo, quare non deberem de mea militia gl●riari? Accepi quidem à patre meo natural a mea, quia nullus generat semetipsum, accepi & ordinem, quia nulli conceditur infig nire semetipsum; accepi & arma, qui a similitur & caeteri militum non nascebar armatus, nec sum fabor armorum: debitum tamen usum istorum, qui omnibus praevalet non accepi ab alio, sed habeo me ex meipso, crebas victorias fama celebri di●lugatas non accepi ab alio, sed ●abeo ex m●ipso. Pro hujusmodi igitur in me ipso merito gloriabor, in alio autem nihil▪ sic & de quolibet milite Jesu Christi.  If a son (saith he) being a soldier, should receive from his father a commission and arms, together with natural abilities for war, and fight stoutly should be puffed up and grow proud: How may this pride, saith he, be beaten down, and humility planted? If any one should say to him, Let not any soldier glory in the sight of his father; for what he is in arms, he is from him: So that he that glorieth, let him glory in his father; for what hast thou that thou hast not received? He might very well and rationally answer (saith our learned Author,) why should not I glory of my atcheiuments in arms? I have received natural abilities indeed from my father, for none doth beget himself; I have received a oommission from him, for none may put himself into any such power; I have received also arms from him, for neither I, nor any other soldier was born armed; neither am I any armourer. But the right use of all these which is above all, I had from none but myself, and not in any other; and so every soldier of Jesus Christ. Brad. De causa Dei. lib. 2, cap. 23. ad finem. That is, he may vapour against God, upon such supposal as this soldier vapours against his father. If acts of grace make to differ and stop the mouth of all boasting; than it is grace that enables unto these covenant-duties and engagements.  
Sixthly, This appears by the absurdities that will follow upon denial of this doctrine of the concurrence of grace in the work of man's salvation. 1. Man being left to the power of his own will, 
Necessity of the concurrence of grace.  to answer to the terms of the covenant (so that all shall be suspended according to man's improvement to will or nill, to be active or idle, willing or disobedient,) when the event in all, even in the Elect must rest doubtful; when Christ hath done all in the work of man's salvation, it might (notwithstanding all such work of his) so fall out, that he had effected nothing. He might have been a Saviour, and not one man in the world have been saved; He might have been a Head, without any one member; a Shepherd, and not a sheep in his flock; a Lord, and never a one to have done him any service. It might have so fallen out, that he might never have been able to have said to the Father; I, and the children that thou hast given, etc. This is evident; As some have withstood, so might others; As the most withstand, so might all. Yea, it would have been no otherwise, If God's Ministers should go forth, and the hand of the Lord not with them to work men to believe, Acts. 11. 21. But this is full against God's covenant with Christ, which must stand firm and inviolably remain. He shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days; the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand, Isa. 53. 10, 11 Therefore it is of grace, that it may be sure; not of man, that it should be doubtful. 2. Then it will also follow, the work of man's salvation begins in an act; not in an habit; in somewhat that a man does respective to God, and not in any thing that God does in and upon man. The first beginning work will be ascribed to him that wills and runs, not to him that shows mercy. But this is contrary to all Gospel-Revelations, concerning the way of our change: I will circumcise thy heart, that thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart, etc. Deut. 30. 6. I will write my Law in their hearts, and put it into their inward parts, as Jer 31. 33. No man can come to me, except the Father draw him, Joh. 6. 44. I will take away their hearts of stone, and give them hearts of flesh, Ezek 36. 26. If man were alone in the work, or had the priorety before any power infused, there had been none of these undertake. 3. This will make vain and void the prayers of the people of God, which in the Scripture is put into their mouths; Draw me, and we will run, Cant. 1. 4. Turn thou us, O Lord, and so shall we be turned, Lament. 5. 21. Create in me a clean heart, and renew a right spirit; acknowledging their own weakness to do, and a necessity of grace to effect, what in order to their salvation is called for.  
7ly. If the Apostle may be heard, his authority will put it out of question, Exhorting to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, which is done no other way than in coming up to that which God calls for in covenant, he gives in his reason for encouragement; It is God that works in us the will and the deed. The special hand and power of God concurring in this works, is our encouragement from the Apostle to set upon it. How can he encourage to this work upon this account that God works in us, to will and to do, if there were not a work of God upon us before there be any such work done by us? We work, but he sets us on working; We will, but he sets us on willing; Let all the glosses that have ever been put upon these words to promote the will and work of man; and enervate the free grace of God, in the great concernments of salvation, be examined, and they will all fall of themselves before this Text of the Apostle. See Dr. Ward in his Sermon called Gratia discriminans.   

CHAP. XIX.  
Objections against the former doctrine answered.  
BUt some say, Absurdities, and those not a few follow upon this Doctrine. Object. 1 Then salvation in this new Covenant, is as impossible for a man, as in the old, had he still remained under a Covenant of Works. If we can no more rise up to the terms of the Covenant of grace than we can to the Covenant of works, where then is the difference?  
To which I answer; Answ. that a man void of grace can no more be saved by the Covenant of Grace, than a man under an impossibility to work can be saved by the Covenant of Works, will easily be granted. By grace we are saved, Ephes. 2. 8. not of ourselves. It is still equally impossible in both to be self-savours. Here is the difference. Grace raises us, unto that to which the Gospel calls us, in a selfdenying way through faith; but works us not to that self perfection in those degrees of inherent righteousness, as to be saved by works.  
Secondly, This doctrine lays man as low as a stock or a stone; a dead carcase, nothing is done by him but what is done in him, and so must needs be injurious to man. Object. 2 To this I answer. First, it lays him no lower than sin hath cast him, nor doth it make him worse than sin hath made him, Answ. and the Word of God doth discover him, and that is dead till grace quicken and raise him. His heart is of stone till grace, take it from him, and in enmity against God, till grace circumcise and work that change, to love the Lord with all the heart, etc. Secondly, This is not an absolute death, in which man is, through sin, and therefore the similitude holds not, that equals a stock, stone, or dead carcase with him; It is only a death respective, as to spiritual obedience he is dead, There is in him a life natural, able for all actions and motions of the life of man as man, There is in him also a moral life, able to improve naturals to a civilised conversation. That to which fear or hope can work a man, thither he may raise himself by the freedom of will, this puts no new life into him, nor works any change of nature in him. He is also able for those works which God sanctifies as his instrument, for the work of a spiritual life, He 〈◊〉 read and hear the Word, hath power to know much in it, and retain it. Thirdly, he is a subject susceptible, slands in a capacity of a life of grace, of spiritual actions and motions: having an understanding, will, affections, wanting not any faculties in their substance. The new man attains not a new soul, but only renewed qualifications, which yet are of more glory, than the faculties themselves, carrying such a glorious resemblance of God. Better know nothing than not know God, to desire nothing, than not to desire good. The want of this, turned Angels into Devils, and so man stands in a vast difference from stocks, stones and those to whom he is thus injuriously compared. This doctrine is not injurious to man, as it is traduced. Object. 3  
Thirdly, some say, This will render preaching vain, all mans-paines for Conversion of souls will then prove useless, and to no purpose; we may let men alone till God work; and when he hath begun his work, they will set on working. This indeed speaks hard to a sort of men in our times; that deny any previous working in the soul for regeneration, or any preparatory work to conversion, So that all uncoverted, stand equally distant from the grace of it, in so much that it can be said of no one rather than another, which Christ said to the Scribe, Thou art not far from the Kingdom of God, Mar. 12. 34. I see not how these can make the preaching of the word of any use; Our Brethren that went into America, and offer the Gospel to savage Indians there, may as well find Christ there, as bring him thither. The dark places of the earth may be equally happy, with those, where light is in most glory, if light contribute nothing to the work of change, and the happy frame of Christ in us. But those that have learned, that infused habits are wrought in the soul in the same manner, 
Habitus infusi infunduntur ad m●dum acquisitorum.  as those that are acquired, may easily return a satisfying answer. That opinion▪ that the soul is by an immediate creation infused, how generally soever it is received, yet never was thought of force to render the way of marriage useless for procreation; God infuses not a soul by creation into any, but an organised body, an Embryo fitted to receive it. Neither can this opinion of the power of grace in the work of Conversion, render in vain the labours of those that are spiritual Parents. Conviction is in order before Conversion, and men must see themselves necessitated to do what they do, before ever they enter upon it. The soul knoweth what it doth, when it first believes, and sees a necessity to accept Christ before it receives him, which is the work of the Word in the souls, of those that are brought to Christ Jesus. It is not in vain for God to send his Ministers to show the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven to those that are blind, when this is the way of God to open their eyes and give them sight. It is not in vain that he sends them to those that are without strength, when this is his way to enable them with power. It is not in vain that Paul plants, and Apollo's waters, when yet it is God that gives the increase, when God will use Paul and Apollo's for the increase that he gives. Ministers should persuade, and people improve endeavours as though they were Pelagians, and no help of grace afforded, They should pray and believe, and rest on grace as though they were Antinomians, nothing of endeavour to be looked after; So the injury that the Pelagian doth to grace, and the Antinomian to our endeavours, will be on both hands avoided.   

CHAP. XX.  
Farther differences in the conditions in the Covenant of Works, and the conditions in the Covenant of Grace.  
2ly. THe conditions, on man's part in the Covenant of Works, kept man within himself for righteousness. 
The conditions in the Covenant of Works kept man within himself for righteousness.  That righteousness in which he was to stand in God's sight, was inherent, wrought by himself; co-natural to him, flowing from the principles of his creation, in conformity to God. And therefore properly his own; as now a man's reason, will and affections are properly his, He needed no other, nor no more righteousness than that in which he stood. Though he had that faith which now serves to justify; yet it needed not, nor could be improved to take in any other righteousness without himself for justification. Man stood then on his own bottom. His dependence was on God for being, but that being, which God pleased to communicate, was in that integrity and purity, that he needed not any farther. But the conditions of the Covenant of Grace, carry man out of himself, 
The conditions in the Covenant of Grace, carry a man out of himself to be righteous by another's righteousness.  He must be righteous with a righteousness extrinsical, or else he will never be able to stand in judgement. Paul was as high, as he that was highest, in that righteousness, which he could lay claim to, as his own, wrought by himself, as well before conversion as after. Before conversion he was as high, as a Pharisee, or a Jew according to the letter could reach, either in privileges, or duties; as we may see in that gradation of his, Phil. 3. Circumcised, and therefore of the body of the people of God, and no alien from the Commonwealth of Israel; Circumcised the eighth day, and therefore born of Parents in the same Church-communion; Of the stock of Israel, and so the seed of Abraham, and not descended of ancestors that had been Proselytes; Of the Tribe of Benjamin, of that part of Israel that held the truth of worship; of whom was salvation, and not of the Apostated tribes; An Hebrew of the Hebrews, and therefore had not forgotten the language of Canaan; As touching the Law, a Pharisee, a man of no vulgar account, but of the most exquisite Sect; Concerning zeal, persecuting the Church, therefore not lukewarm or cold in the faith; As touching the righteousness that is of the Law blameless, therefore of a conversation exact, walk up to his principles. After conversion, he knew nothing by himself, 1 Cor. 4. 4. His heart condemned him not, He exercised himself continually to have a conscience void of offence, both to God and man, Acts 24. 16. Yet he durst rest, in none of these, I am not (saith he) hereby justified, 1 Cor. 4. 4. What things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ; yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the Law; but that which is through faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith, Philip. 3. 7, 8, 9 The ignorance of this, was the bane of the body of the Jewish Nation. The Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel which followed after the Law of righteousness, hath not attained to the Law of righteousness; wherefore? because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law, Rom. 9 30, 31, 32. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God, Rom. 10. 3. And still, it is the undoing of a great part of the world; Man being naturally inclined, to look after a righteousness of his own, and extremely opposite to this righteousness, which in the covenant of grace is tendered, and by which in a Gospel-way he must be saved. The righteousness of the former covenant, was wrote in the heart by nature; and such remainders left, that the man that minds any righteousness, alone looks after it. But this, is only of Revelation, He must have light without him to lead to this righteousness, which is not his own, nor inherent in him: What naturally he did not know, he is naturally ready to oppose and refuse. Men know not how, till they be taught of God, to see a reason of it; or to understand that it is of any use. A man may be wise with another man's wit, strong with another man's strength, learned by another man's knowledge, as well as righteous (as they conceive) by another man's righteousness: Hence are the scorns that are put upon it, and the Treatises that are wrote against it; Vain man would fain be somewhat, as wise, Job 11. 12. so also righteous. This takes all from man, strips him of all in, which he may glory, as Romans 3. 27. This which man so opposeth, the covenant of grace establisheth; And that which he so advanceth, the covenant of grace disclaims. 
The conditions in the Covenant of works were for man's preservation in present happiness.   
3. The conditions on man's part in the covenant of works were for man's preservation in statu quo; in that condition in which he was created, To hold him in communion with God, which was his happiness; he expected not to be bettered by his obedience, either respective to happiness (no more is promised than in present he had,) nor yet in his qualifications respective to his conformity to God in righteousness and true holiness. What improvement he might have made of the habit infused, by the exercise of obedience; 
The conditions in the Covenant of grace are for man's reparation.  I shall not determine, But no change in qualifications was looked after, or given in promise.  
The conditions of the covenant of grace are serviceable to man in his return to God, for his recovery, as to his state of happiness lost; so to the repair or new frame of his qualifications depraved and spoiled. This is plain of itself, and will be further explained in that which follows, Other differences there are assigned by Divines to difference these two covenants; some of which fall in with these that I have mentioned, and some to which I cannot in all things consent. See Camero de triplici foedere, 1 Thes. 9 * These I thought to be most material, and with these I shall rest satisfied.   

CHAP. XXI.  
Faith is a condition of the Covenant of Grace.  
HAVING asserted conditions, in the covenant of grace, and held forth several differences between the conditions, in the covenant of works, and in the covenant of grace, we are now further to inquire, what these conditions are, that are called for in this covenant, on which we treat: Those Divines, that with concurrent judgements, acknowledge this covenant to be conditional, are not yet, so unanimous, in their assignation of them. For a full discovery, some things are to be premised, as truths taken for granted, rather than disputed 1. That God covenants with man, and engages himself to him, not only for justification, but also for salvation. Not only for pardon of sin, but everlasting life and glory. Not only to be reconciled to him; but to confer eternal happiness upon him. 2. Whatsoever God requires of man, in order, either to his justification, or salvation, without which he is not justified, or saved, and man engages unto, in order to his justification, or salvation, this is a covenant condition. This I take to be clear, in case there be any such thing, as a condition in any covenant, and it is also granted by a professed adversary of all conditions in the covenant of grace, faith and repentance are (saith he) means, of our enjoying the comforts of the covenant, but not conditions going out of the nature of a covenant; for every means, is not a condition, though every condition be a means; but, when a means is by stipulation, and contract appointed; for the acquiring of any thing, than it is a condition. Whatsoever then we can find, thus required of God, in this way of contract, and stipulation; is a condition by the confession of our adversaries. 3. Whatsoever is required of man, in order to his justification, is a condition of his justification, and all that is required, in order to his eternal salvation, is, a condition of salvation, God making tender of both, and man engaging himself to seek both, whatsoever is required in order to either, respective to that, is a condition. 4. That, which is a condition of justification, is also a condition of salvation, in that, salvation presupposes a justified estate, but, it holds not on the contrary, that, which is, a condition of salvation, is not therefore a condition of justification. More is required, to hold us up, in constant communion with God, then to bring us into a state of actual reconcilement to God. This being premised, the work will be more easy, to assign conditions in this covenant. The condition, immediately serviceable, for man's return to a reconciled state with God; and consequently of his justification, is faith, which almost all acknowledge to be a condition, and Camero, with several others, makes it to be, the sole condition of the covenant. A condition it is, as, is above contradiction, John. 3. 15, 16. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that, whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life, Mark 16. 16. He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved; but, he that believeth not, shall be damned. Acts 10. 43. To him, give all the Prophet's witness, that through his name; whosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins, Acts 13. 38, 39 Be it known unto you therefore men, and brethren; that through this man, is preached unto you forgiveness of sins. And by him, all that believe, are justified from all things from which, ye could, not be justified, by the Law of Moses, Acts 16. 31. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy whole house, Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth, to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, Rom. 10. 4. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness, to every one that believeth. In all these texts, and several others, faith is required of men, in covenant, and if men did not engage to believe, they could not be so much as professed covenanters. This is in reason further evident.  
1. That which gives us interest in the Mediator of the covenant, without which we have no title to him, 
Reason's convincing Faith to be a condition of the Covenant of grace.  or portion in him; is a condition of the covenant: This is plain of itself, without interest in the Mediator of the covenant, we are as though no covenant were entered, and the former distance held up. But it is faith that gives us interest in Christ the Mediator, He dwells in us by faith, Ephes. 3. 17. He is set forth a propitiation through Faith in his blood; They that believe receive him, John 1. 12. Others hold a distance from him; To as many as received him, to them he gave power to be the sons of God, even to those that believe in his Name.  
2. That which receives all that grace gives, must needs be a condition of the covenant of grace; This is as plain, to be under a covenant of grace, and void of the gifts of grace is a vain entrance upon it, and the reception of the gift is a condition necessarily requisite. But Faith receives all that grace gives; It is of Father that it might be of grace, Rom. 4. 16. God gives nothing, at least tending to eternity, but he puts it into the hands of Christ; He is the Father's treasury and store-house, Col. 1. 19 It pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell. And that of his fullness we should all receive, Joh. 1. 16. And faith receives all from him, He that believeth, out of his belly flows rivers of living water. Joh. 7. 38.  
3. That which interest us in, and giveth title to all privileges, of a people in covenant with God through Christ, is a condition of the covenant: This is plain, the end of the covenant being to confer those privileges upon us; But Faith interests us in, and giveth title to all these privileges, Paul is sent to the Gentiles, to turn them from Satan to God, to bring them out of Satan's kingdom, and to bring them in a covenant-way into Christ's Kingdom, That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified (saith Christ) by faith that is in me. Christ is the object of a Christians faith, on whom it is terminated; Faith which is in Christ, receives that leading privilege, forgiveness of sins; without this privilege we are strangers to all other privileges; Being under sin, we are heirs of wrath, and in no capacity of mercy. Faith interests us in this. Acts 10. 43. To him give all the Prophet's witness, that through his Name, whosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins. Acts 13. 39 And by him, all that believe are justified, from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses. Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. Faith interests us in the consummating privilege, an inheritance among them that are sanctified. He that believeth hath everlasting life, John 6. 40. Faith interests us in all intermediate privileges, which a man in covenant can enjoy in the way to this inheritance. Adoption of sons is this way obtained, John 1. 12. Gal. 3. 26. Pacification of Spirit, Serenity and tranquillity of mind, Isa. 26. 3. Rom. 5. 1. Boldness at the throne of grace, Ephes. 3. 12. There is no privilege bottomed on Christ, that hath foundation in him, but Faith receives, Faith then must be a condition of the covenant.  
4. That which puts into a capacity to receive the mercies of the covenant; held forth in Promise, is a condition of the covenant, and the want of it strips off all hope and expectation of it; But Faith puts into a capacity to receive all the graces of the covenant given in promise; Said I not unto thee, if thou wilt believe, thou shalt see the glory of God? John 11. 40. God exerts and glorifies his power in great things for good unto those that exercise the grace of Faith. Paul saw the Cripple had faith to be healed, Acts 14. 9 Sure if there be such a thing as a condition in any covenant, in the world any such thing as a conditional covenant, then sure faith is a condition of the covenant of grace; Some conceive an absolute covenant made of God for grace, as Jer. 31. 33. This with me is very disputable, and I have given my reasons. But the covenant made to grace, must needs suppose grace. There is no covenant for happiness made with any creature, but upon terms and conditions.  
For further clearing of this point, 
In what sense faith is here taken.  we must know that faith is considered under a double notion. First, as an instrument, or (if that word will not be allowed) as the way of our interest in Christ, and privileges by Christ. Secondly, as an inherent grace or Christian duty to which both the Law and the Gospel call. The radical grace from which others flow, though not in their being, yet in their farther growth and increase. I speak of Faith now in the first acception. Neither as a part, or any way a working cause, of the farther progress in inherent righteousness, so it will come in the second place, but as interesting us in another righteousness, and so I say it is a condition in the covenant of grace, immediately serviceable for our return to God, and reconciliation in Christ. For clearring of which, 
Propositions tending to clear the point in hand.  I shall clear it in some propositions.  
First, God will by no means justify a wicked person, no man in sin shall stand and live in his sight. He that hath made a Law to forbid it, ordained hell for the punishment of it, will not justify the person that is convinced and found guilty of it. Some say it is against his essence. The justice of God (which is God) ties him to take vengeance, sure I am it is against his declaration of himself, Exod. 34. 7. when he sets out his name in several particulars, this is one, by no means clearing the guilty. Some indeed have said (conceiting with themselves thereby to promote free grace,) that God justifies sinners as sinners, which, as it must needs, if true, bring in the salvation of all, à quatenus ad omne valet argumentum, than a man need no more but sin, to conclude his salvation, and the more sin, the stronger evidence; so, it is utterly destructive to the Gospel, and overthrows the whole work of Christ's merit, as the Apostle saith, If righteousness be by the Law, then, Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2. 21. So we may safely say, If a man be justified as a sinner without a righteousness. So that the truth is, God justifies as righteous, what he esteems as an abomination in man, that he doth not himself; but this in man is an abomination to him; He that justifieth the wicked, and condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord, Proverbs 17. 15.  
Secondly, Man hath no righteousness of his own, to bring in plea for his justification, in which he can appear before God in judgement. This will be plain if we consider the ways of acquital where proceedings are just and legal. This must be, either as innocent, when a man can plead not guilty to that which is given in charge; So did David when Cush, the Benjamite did traduce him, Psalm. 7. 3. If I have done this, if there be iniquity in my hands. And so did Paul to the charge of Tertullus, Acts 24. 13. Upon this account Pilate was willing to have acquitted Christ, I find no fault in this man, Luke 23. 4. Or else by way of satisfaction or discharge of the penalty which the Law imposeth, so in all penal Laws, when the penalty is borne, the delinquent is discharged. Man cannot be acquitted as innocent, his guilt is too palpable. There is no men that sinneth n●t, (saith Solomon) 1 Kings 8. 4, 6. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, Gal. 3. 22. The Law speaks that language, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God, Rom. 3. 19 Man is under that guilt that he is wholly silenced; which renders the way of salvation by works impossible. Neither can he be acquitted by way of satisfaction; where the way of pure justice is held, the debtor under charge can never come out till he hath paid the uttermost farthing, Mat. 5. 26. Which here amounts to such an height, that man may be ever paying, but never able to satisfy: Our guilt is according to the majesty of him, whose Law is transgressed, and wrath incurred. This is seen in Devils and damned souls, who bear in their own persons the reward due to their sins. That man, that must suffer it in his own person, may well say with Cain, My punishment is greater than I can bear, Gen. 4. 13.  
Thirdly, Man in this sad and perplexed estate, hath yet a righteousness of grace tendered him, a righteousness without the Law, but witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, Rom. 3. 21. And this is by way of discharge of his guilt by another's suffering; Our name was in the Obligation in case of sin to suffer death, Christ was pleased (by consent and covenant with the Father) to put in his; and as he was thus obliged, so he suffered, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, 1 Pet. 3. 18. We broke the Law, and he bore the penalty, whether idem or tantundem, the same in specie, or the same in value, is scarce worth dispute, So that it be yielded that justice was answered, and the Father satisfied, and that we come out not on our own, but our sureties account. And this (as I yet conceive) is by Christ's passive obedience; His suffering in the flesh is our freedom, his death is our ransom. There needs no more than innocency not to die, and when guilt is taken away, we stand as innocent, no crime then can be charged upon us. But to reign in life (as the Apostle speaks) to inherit a crown, there is farther expected, which we not reaching, Christ's active obedience imputed to us (not adding to ours (but being in itself complete) is accounted ours, and we are discharged.  
And whereas some say, Object. that being freed from death, upon that very account we reign in life, and therefore in case his sufferings, deliver us from death, they necessarily confer upon us life, there is not, nor can there be conceived any medium between them.  
I answer, Answ. It is true of our natural life and death, A man not dead, is alive. But taking [death] in Scripture-sense, for the wages, of sin, which comprizes (as we have heard) all misery, and [life] for an immarcessible crown of glory, there may be a medium conceived between them, and is not only conceived, but assigned by Papists in their Limbus infantum. Neither will it serve to say that Christ's active obedience, served only for a qualification to fit him for the work of suffering; none but innocent man free from sin, could be a sacrifice for sin, seeing Christ had been innocent, though he had never come under the Law, to have yielded that obedience. His person had not been, as ours, under the Law, unless of his own accord he had been made under the Law, Gal. 4. 4. Somewhat might be said for the subjection of the humane nature in Christ, the manhood of Christ, which was a creature, but the person of Christ God-man, seems to be above subjection, Much may be said for the subjection of the Son of David, so considered, he may say with David, I am thy servant, and the son of thy handmaid, but not so of the Lord of David, had he not for our sakes made himself a servant; We know the mortality of the humane nature, yet Christ had never died, unless he had made himself obedient unto death, neither needed he to have served unless he had humbled himself, Phil. 2. to take upon him the form of a servant. See the confession of Faith, agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines, chap. 8. sect 5. and Dr. Featlies' speeches upon it.  
Fourthly, This righteousness of Christ, whether passive or active, or both passive and active, is made ours by faith. This is our way of interest and appropriation of it to ourselves, Faith and no other grace, this grace and no other Gospel-work, gives us title; and therefore, as it is called the righteousness of God, so, also the righteousness of faith; These two, are promiscuously used and taken, for one another, Rom. 10. 3, 4. Phillip 3. 8. Called the righteousness of God, being the free gift of God, wrought by Christ who is God, denied to be our own righteousness, being neither wrought by us, or inherent in us, called the righteousness of faith, not of works, not of love, not of patience, or meekness. It is alone faith, and none of these graces that puts out itself to receive it; love in a graciously disposed soul, cleaves to Christ for communion, but receives him not for justification. These two stand as relatives, there is no soul entitled to this righteousness, but by faith; and faith is it that entitles to it, & the believing soul hath interest in it, Therefore justification in Scripture is ascribed to faith, and denied to works, when neither faith, nor works can bear us out of themselves before the tribunal of God; but faith takes hold, and the soul by faith rests on this righteousness of grace, which the Gospel tenders. It is true, that faith receives the Spirit as well as it receives the blood of Christ, Joh. 7. 39 Gal. 3. 14. But this is for another use, for the work of sanctification inherent, 
The acceptation of Christ as a Lord, doth not justify.  not justification by righteousness imputed. And it is also true, that faith accepts Christ as a Lord, as well as a Saviour: But it is the acceptation of him as a Saviour, not as a Lord that justifies; Christ rules his people as a King, teacheth them as a Prophet, but makes atonement for them only as a Priest, by giving himself in sacrifice; his blood for remission of sins; These must be distinguished, but not divided, Faith hath an eye at all, the blood of Christ, the command of Christ, the Doctrine of Christ, but as it eyes and fastens on his blood, so it justifies. He is set out a propitiation through faith in his blood, Romans 3. 24. not through faith in his command, It is the blood of Christ that cleanseth all sin, and not the Sovereignty of Christ. These confusions of the distinct parts of Christ's Mediatorship; and the several offices of faith may not be suffered. Scripture assigns each its particular place and work. Sovereignty doth not cleanse us, nor doth blood command us; faith in his blood, not faith yielding to his Sovereignty doth justify us. There are several acts or fruits of justifying faith, Heb. 11. But all are not justifying; It is not Abraham's obedience, Moses self-denial, Gideon or Sampsons' valour that was their justification, but his blood (in which faith alone gives interest) who did enable them in these duties, by his Spirit. Paul went in these duties as high as they, living in more clear light, and under more abundant grace, I doubt not but he out-topt them, and yet he was not thereby justified, as 1 Cor. 4. 4. James indeed saith, that Abraham was justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son on the Altar, James 2. 21. But either there we must understand a working faith with Piscator, Paraeus, Pemble, and others, and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct questions; The one, whether faith alone justifies without works; which he concludes in the affirmative. The other, what faith justifies, whether a working faith only, and not a faith that is dead and idle; or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle, who straight infers from Abraham's justification by the offer of his son. And the Scripture was fulfilled, that saith, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. How otherwise do these accord? He was justified by works, and the Scripture was fulfilled, that saith, he was justified by faith; Neither can I reconcile what he saith, if this be denied, with the whole current of the Gospel. The Rhemists indeed understand those texts of the Apostle, where he excludes works from justification, to be meant of man's moral works, done before faith and conversion; The works of the Law done without Christ, Annot. in Rom. 3. 20, 28. As though the Law did not command those duties, unto which Christ through faith strengthens a Christian converted by grace; And when the Apostle concludes the impossibility of being justified by the works of the Law, his meaning should be unless grace assist the Law, that it may justify: This could not be, the Apostle calls it a righteousness of God without the Law, not a righteousness of the Law, with addition of strength from the Gospel; All works before or after conversion inherent in us, or wrought by us, are excluded from justification. See Ravanellus in verbum, Justificatio. Num. 3. page 867. This justification wrought freely by grace through faith, Rom. 3. 24. is no way consistent with justification by works. And what the Apostle speaks of election, we may well apply to justification, the same medium equally proves the truth of both, If by grace, than it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, than it is no more of grace, otherwise works were no more works, Rome 11. 6. And these things considered▪ I am truly sorry that faith should now be denied to have the office or place of an instrument in our justification; 
Faith justifies as an instrument.  nay, scarce allowed to be called the instrument of receiving Christ, that justifies us because the act of faith (which is that which justifies us) is, our actual receiving Christ, and therefore cannot be the instrument of receiving. This is too subtle a notion: we use to speak otherwise of Faith; Faith is the eye of the soul whereby we see Christ, and the eye is not sight. Faith is the hand of the soul whereby it receives Christ, and the hand is not receiving, And Scripture speaks otherwise, We receive remission of sins by Faith, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified is received by Faith, Acts 18. 26. Why else is this righteousness sometimes called the righteousness of Faith, and sometimes the righteousness of God which is by Faith, but that it is a righteousness which Faith receives; Christ dwells in us by Faith, Ephes. 3. 17. By Faith we take him in and give him entertaintment We receive the promise of the Spirit through Faith, Gal. 3. 14. These Scriptures speak of Faith as the souls instrument, to receive Christ Jesus, to receive the Spirit from Christ Jesus. The instrumentality of it in the work of justification is denied, because the nature of an instrument (as considered in Physical operations) doth not exactly belong to it, which if it must be always rigidly followed, will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kind in Moral actions, The material and formal causes in justification are scarce agreed upon, and no marvel then, in case men mind to contend about it, that some question is raised about the instrument. But in case we shall consider the nature and kind of this work, about which Faith is implied, and examine the reason and ground upon which Faith is disabled from the office of an instrument in our justification, and withal look into that which is brought in as an instrument in this work in the stead of it; I do not doubt but it will easily appear that those Divines, that with a concurrent judgement (without almost a dissenting voice have made Faith an instrument in this work) speak most aptly and most agreeably to the nature of an instrument. The work about which Faith is implied, is not an absolute, but a relative work, a work of God towards man, not without the actual concurrence of man, such, in which neither God nor man are sole efficients, nor any act of God or man can be sole instruments, but there must be a mutual concurrence of both; This must needs be granted, unless we will bring in Doctor Crispes passive recipiency of Christ, Christ's abode in man without man, in spite of man, and suppose him to be justified in unbelief; And hereupon faith is disabled from this office in justification by this argument. If Faith be an instrument, it is the instrument of God, or man. 1. Not of man, for man is not the principal efficient, he doth not justify himself. 2. Not of God. For (1) It is not God that believeth, though it is true, God is the first cause of all actions. (2.) Man is the causa secunda, between God and the action, and so still man should be said to justify himself. (3.) For (as Aquinas) the action of the principal cause, and of the instrument is one action; and who dare say, that faith is so God's instrument? (4.) The instrument must have an influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause, by a proper causality; & who dare say that faith hath such an influx into our justification.  
I answer, It is the instrument of man; and though man do not justify himself, yet he concurres as a willing, ready agent with God in it; God is a justifier of those that believe in Jesus, Rom. 3. 26. God hath set Christ forth a propitiation through faith, Rom. 3. 25. It is one God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith, Rom. 3. 30. And because it is the instrument of man in a work of this nature, it is also an instrument of God. As some have observed a communication of Titles between Christ and his Church: (the Church being called by his Name,) so there is a communication of actions in these relative works; Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, Eph. 3. 17. We believe, and not Christ, and yet faith there is Christ's instrument, whereby he takes up his abode; God purifies the hearts of the Gentiles by faith, Acts 15. 17. They believed, and not God, yet faith is God's instrument in the work of their purification; so on the other side, the Spirit is God's work, yet we by the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the flesh, Rom. 8. 13. Man neither justifies nor sanctifies himself, yet by faith he is raised to close with God in both; 
Fides percipit justificationem, efficit sanctificationem.  and so Faith as an instrument receives righteousness to justification, and therefore is called the righteousness of faith which is our justification, and works sanctification; provided you understand not the first work, which is properly regeneration, and precedent to faith, but the farther progress and increase of it; The Spirit working faith, faith takes in a larger measure of the Spirit, John 7. 37. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture saith, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water; but this he spoke of the Spirit, which they that believe on him, should receive. The Spirit will do nothing without our faith, and our faith can do nothing without the Spirit; Man cannot justify himself by believing without God, and God will not justify an unbelieving man. Faith then is the act of man; man believes, yet the instrument of God, that justifies only believers; so that what is here spoken by way of exception against faith as an instrument, holds of efficients, and instruments sole and absolute in their work, and causality. But where there is a concurrence of agents, and one makes use of the act of another to produce the effect; that in such causality is wrought, it will not hold.  
The promise or grant of the new Covenant in the Gospel, is (instead of faith) made the instrument in the work of justification. This is indeed Gods, and not man's. It is the covenant of God, the Promise of God, the Gospel of God; but of itself unable to raise man up to justification. It is often tendered, and justification not always wrought; & so disabled from the office of an instrument by Ke●ker. in his Com upon his first Canon, concerning an instrument. 
a quam primum ergo instrumentum, principali agenti non subservit, instrumenti naturam a mittit.  Assoon as the instrument servs not the principal agent, so soon it loses the nature of an instrument. He instanceth in an horse that obeys not the reins of his rider, but grows refractory, than he ceaseth to be an instrument for travel. A sword is not an instrument of slaughter, where it slays not; nor an axe an instrument to hew, where it cuts not: neither is the Gospel an instrument of justification, where it justifies not, & without our faith, it never justifies. Where the Minister is a Minister of condemnation, the savour of death to death, there the Gospel becomes an instrument of condemnation and of death. The efficacy that is in the Gospel for justification, it receives by their faith to whom it is tendered. Heb. 4. 2. Unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them, but the Word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 1 Thes. 2. 2, 13. You received not the Word of God (which you heard of us) as the word of men, but (as it is in truth) the Word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. So that the Gospel in itself considered, is wanting in that honour assigned to an instrument, to have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality; If none dare say, faith hath such an influx, they may much less say, that the Word hath such an influx. The Gospel is an outward instrument, saith Ravanellus, Faith an inward; They both making up one instrument, full and complete, yet Faith is more aptly and fitly called an instrument, Seeing that faith gives efficacy as an instrument to the Word, the Word may be without Faith, and so no instrument at all; but Faith always presupposeth the Word of Promise, & is not without its object. Therefore to wind up this whole dispute, in which I have studied to be brief, though I fear some will think I have been too tedious, Seeing that those that make Faith the instrument in justification, make the Gospel an instrument likewise, and dare not go about to strip it of its honour. I hope that they that make the Gospel an instrument, will acknowledge Faith to be an instrument in like manner; being in their efficacy as instruments so inseparably joined, and so all the controversy may be fairly ended and concluded.   

CHAP. XXII.  
Objections against the conditionality of Faith answered.  
AGAINST this which hath been said, it is objected by one, that Unbelief is not a bar hindering one, Objections. from having part in Christ; God bestows Christ without any regard to our belief or unbelief: Which words how high soever against the Gospel, yet he undertakes to salve with a distinction. There is a twofold receiving of Christ, saith he, (1) There is a passive receiving of Christ, You will say, (saith my Author) what is passive receiving of Christ? I answer, (saith he) A passive receiving of Christ, is just such a receiving of him, as when a froward Patient takes a purge, or some bitter physic▪ he shuts his teeth against it; but the Physician forceth his mouth open, and pours it down his throat, and so it works against his will, by the ever-ruling power of one over him, that knows it is good for him: Thus I say, there is a passive recipiency or receiving of Christ, which is the first receiving of him; when Christ comes by the gift of the Father, to a person whilst he is in the stubornesse of his own heart. (2) There is an active receiving of him, etc.  
This distinction carries a full contradiction in itself, There cannot be in the same subject, a mere passive and active recipie cy of the same thing, as appears in the similitude brought to illustrate it; This froward Patient that hath a medicine forced into him, in which he is merely passive, cannot again afterward receive that medicine. If Christ be th●s forced, and enters against our will, than we cannot actively at any time after receive him, And could it be reconciled unto itself, yet it stands in full opposition to Scripture; Christ stands at the door and knocks, Re●. 3. 20. He waits till his locks are wet with the dew of the night, as Cant. 5. 2. But he makes no forcible entry; we read of God's power in changing the will that it freely accepts, but not forcing gifts of grace upon any against their wills: Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, Psal. 110. 3. He works a will, Philip. 2. 13. Christ dwells in none that rise in hostility against him, and the position, which the distinction is brought to assert, (That unbelief is no bar hindering one from having Christ) is no better; If unbelief be no bar to our receiving of Christ; than it is no bar to salvation; where the Saviour enters, he brings salvation, He that hath the Son, hath life, 1 John 5. 12. But we find it evidently a bar to salvation, according to Scripture, Joh. 3. 36. He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. He that believeth not shall be damned, Mark 16. 16. Yea, according to the Author himself, There is no person under heaven shall be saved (saith he) till he have believed; which is a truth according to Scripture. They could not enter into the rest of Canaan, that did lie in their unbelief, Neither can they enter into the rest of heaven, Heb. 4. 1. Then Christ dwells not in our hearts by Faith, Ephes. 3. 17. But also in a state of unbelief; Then God is not a justifier of those that believe in Jesus, as Rom. 3. 26. but equally justifies men without Faith in Jesus; Then Christ is not set out a propitiation through Faith in his blood, but without any Faith in it; Then they that believe are not only justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses, but they that believe not. And God gave his Son, that he that believes not on him should have everlasting life. This doctrine lays all the honour of Faith in the dust; Then Habakkuk might have spared this speech, that the just shall live by Faith, Habbakuk 2. 4. and Paul might have found another way of life in the flesh than by Faith in the Son of God.  
Secondly, Object. It is said that the justification of a sinner was with God from eternity; It was in his purpose before all time to discharge his Elect, and to lay nothing to their charge; So then this is, as election itself, unconditional.  
To which I answer, Answ. That this ovethrows the redemption wrought by Christ, and the price paid by his sufferings, as well as the necessity of Faith; What need Christ to be at all that pains, to undergo all those sorrows, as to be a man of sorrows, to do that which from all eternity was done? Then, as Paul says in another case, Christ is dead in vain: This, some have seen, yet rather than leave their opinion, have chosen to swallow it down, and the absurdity with it, and do maintain that Christ did not purchase, procure, or work any love from God for man, but only published and declared that he was from eternity beloved; A fit conclusion drawn from such premises: Then Christ was no Author of eternal salvation, as Heb. 5 9 but only the publisher, He was a messenger from God, in the days of his flesh, but no Saviour of man; He did not redeem us with a price, but only made known that we were so far in the love of God from eternity that no redemption needs. Secondly, I say, God's purpose of a thing doth no put it in being; He takes his own way, to bring about in time, that which he purposed before all time; All that is done, even every work under the Sun, was alike from eternity in the purpose of God, Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world, Acts 15. 18. So the house that was built this day, was built from eternity; The child that was born this day, was borne from eternity; We may as well say that the Elect were glorified from eternity, so that they need to look after no other glorification, as to say they are justified from eternity. All the works of God were in his purpose from ever, who sees all things at once; and not as we can comprehend them in their respective succession? But we inquire after things as they are in themselves and not as they are in God's purpose.  
Thirdly, Object. Some say justification can be no other, than an act of God from eternity, being an immanent act, and not a transient. Transient acts are in time done, in the juncture of time when God pleases to do them, but immanent acts of God are from eternity. Answ. To which I first answer, that it is not without danger for us to bring the actions of God under our examination, and then to fix School-notions upon them, according to which they must be bounded, When (as Master Burges well observes) we are here in mere darkness, and not able to comprehend how God is said to act or work. Treatise of Justification, page 166. How much more safe were it for us to learn à posteriore, from the mouth of God in Scriptures, what his actions are, and the order how he works, than à priore, to conclude that they are thus and thus, and therefore thus of necessity he must work? Yet if we may be so bold as to look into this act of his, and take it into consideration, 
Quae real●m & evidentem mutationem extrinsecus nullam infert. Transiens actio est quae revera mutationem infert.  according to this notion; we may far rather conclude that justification is an action transient, not immanent. An immanent action (as the Schools tell us) is terminated within the subject, and works no real nor evident change out of it: and they instance in our conceptions of, and resolutions about things, Kek●rman, p. 107. A transient act is not terminated within the subject, but hath its effect, and is terminated upon some other object. Now, if by way of analogy we may apply these to God, for we otherwise can reach none of his actions; it is easy to conclude that justification of a sinner is a transient, and no immanent act; It works man from a state of wrath to a state of friendship and love, of a vessel of wrath, brings man into favour and esteem, which though it work no Physical change in man, yet the whole effect is terminated in him; That act of Pharaoh, had as real an effect upon Joseph, and was terminated in him in his advancement out of prison, for rule in Egypt, as though a Physician in case of sickness, had wrought a cure upon him. Though I were not able to hold it our, that justification were a transient act, but according to our conception of the actions of man, it should rather appear to be an action immanent in God, so in him that it had no effect out of him, yet I must follow the Scriptures that make justification an act in time, not from eternity. Paul having mentioned a state of sin under which the Corinthians were, saith, such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, 1. Corinth. 6. 11. Once they were not, but now they are in a state of justification; It hath its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in which it is acted, a season in which it is vouchsafed. It is affixed to faith. Acts 13. 38. Now faith is not from eternity, it comes by hearing; A Ministry is continually employed for reconciliation and pardon of sin, 1 Cor. 5. 19 John 20. Which were in vain if justification were as election, from before the foundation of the world; They work them not to election, but only call upon them to make their calling and election sure; There are seniors and juniors in this privilege, one obtains it before another; Andronicus and J●nia were in Christ before the Apostle, Rom. 16. 7. These evident proofs would take with my faith, above a thousand such subtleties. But herein the Schools, in their application of these acts to God, speak according (as to the point in hand) to the mind of Scriptures.  
Fourthly, Object. It is farther objected that Christ is the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world. His death hath been of efficacy in the Church through all ages, And he bore our sins in his body, 1 Pet. 2. 24. All our sins did meet in him, Isa. 53. 6. and therefore from the beginning we were justified.  
I answer, Answ. it profited all those, and only those in each age to whom it was revealed, and by whom it was applied, and not those that have no interest in him. Over and above the Decree of God for man's salvation, there was a necessity of the death of Christ for our redemption, which Christ in the fullness of time paid on the Cross. And over and above the death of Christ, there is a like necessary of the application of it to our souls for life; The work of redemption was finished on the Cross, when Christ triumphed over principalities and powers. But much of the work of our salvation was behind; Election did not overthrow Christ's redemption, but did establish it; Redemption doth not overthrow our application, but doth establish it likewise. There is a farther work of Christ's to be done, his intercession in heaven being one part of his Priesthood, which he is gone to discharge as the High Priest into the holiest of holies; A farther work to be done by man through believing. Not to have interest in Christ's death, is all one as though he had not died; He that believes in him shall not perish. See Baxter of Justification, Aphorism 15. Davenant de morte Christi, cap. 5. p. 58, etc.  
Lastly, it is said by another, If Faith be a condition of the Covenant of Grace, Object. than it can be no instrument of our justification; If it be a condition in this Covenant, it justifies as a condition, and then it cannot justify as an instrument, and so I pull down what I build, and run upon contradictions.  
I answer, Answ. I should rather judge on the contrary, that because it is a condition of the covenant, in the way as it is before expressed, that it is therefore an instrument in our justification; God tenders the gift of righteousness to be received by Faith. He covenants for this Faith, for acceptation of this righteousness. By believing then we keep covenant, and receive Christ for justification, We as well do what God requires, as receive what he tenders; We do our duty, and take God's gift, and thereby keep covenant, and receive life, and so Faith is both a condition and an instrument.  
Here I might by way of just corollary infer, 
A justified man is fitted for every duty, to which God is pleased for to call.  that a justified man reconciled to God in Christ, is a man fitted for every duty unto which God calls, which he is pleased to require; Faith is his justification, the instrumental work of his reconciliation to God; and all things are possible to him that believeth, Mark 9 23. There is not a duty commanded, but a believing man through Christ is strengthened for it; The Word works effectually in th●se that believe, as 1 Thes. 2. 13. We see the great works that were achieved by those of ancient time, both in doing and suffering, Heb. 11. and all of those are ascribed to Faith, what Christ can do as in reference to duty, that they can do to acceptation; They can do all things through Christ that strengthens them, Phil. 4. 13. Christ overcomes the world, John 16 33. And this is their victory whereby they overcome the world, 1 John 5. 4. Christ treads down Satan, Rom. 16 20. And they resist him strong in the Faith, 1 Pet. 5. 9 A man of Faith is for universal obedience; He is a man for dependence on God for the fruition of all promises. A word from God is enough for Faith. He knows how to rest upon him, for the good things of the earth, he is above anxious thoughts, what he should eat, what he should drink, or wherewith he should he clothed, knowing that godliness hath the promise of this life, 1 Tim. 4. 8. and therefore, Though the figtree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the Vines, the labour of the Olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat, the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no heard in the stalls, yet he will rejoice in the Lord, he will joy in the God of his salvation, Hab 3. 17, 18. he knows how to rest upon him for spiritual privileges, for adoption of sons, for everlasting salvation; He rests upon this, that he that liveth and believeth in Christ shall not die for ever. He knows how to manage all states and conditions, he knows how to be full, and how to be hungry; he can bear prosperity, and not be puffed up; He can be under adversity, and not be cast down; In the worst of times, the just lives by faith, Hab. 2. 4. He can make use of every Ordinance for his spiritual advantage. The word preach is for his benefit, Being mixed with faith when he receives it, Heb. 4▪ 2. He knows how to improve the Sacraments for his spiritual growth, those seals of the righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. Abel by Faith exceeded Cain in sacrifices, Heb. 11. 4. and so do these exceed all unbelievers in their performances. All of these might be farther and more fully enlarged, but that it is done at large by better hands; Master Ward in his Life of Faith, Master Culverwel, especially Master Ball in his elaborate treatise on that subject.   

CHAP. XXIII.  
Repentance is a condition of the Covenant of grace.  
THe condition immediately serviceable for man's reconciliation to God, we have seen; that which respects his reparation in his qualifications, to hold up communion with God, follows, which is, Repentance. The end of Christ's coming in the flesh being to save sinners: He saves them not in their sins; but from their sins; and therefore calls them to repentance, and engages all to it, that he receives into covenant. As God will have a self-outed, and believing people, So, he will have an humble and an holy people. So John Baptist the forerunner of the Mediator, began his Ministry, Repent, giving in this, as his reason, The Kingdom of heaven is at hand, that is, a New Testament-state, in which the covenant of Grace was to be opened, and the glorious privileges of it made manifest, Matth. 3. 2. With the selfsame words, Jesus, the Mediator of the covenant, begins his Ministry, Matth. 4. 12, 17. verses compared. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. To this he resolves to engage those that he receives. So it was with the twelve, that were men employed to bring Nations into covenant. They thus began their Ministry, 
Faith and Repentance are distinct graces, and not one and the same.  Mark 6. 12. They went out, and preached that men should repent. Neither let any make these two (Faith and Repentance, or Faith and Obedience, which is comprised under Repentance) one and the same, and old project to introduce justification by works. The Scriptures evidently distinguish them, Paul makes them two distinct heads in the Ministry, when he preached either to the Jews or Gentiles, Acts 20. 21. Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. They are two distinct heads, of Catechism in the Apostles times, Repentance from dead works, and Faith towards God, Heb. 6. Repent ye, and believe the Gospel, Mark 1. 15. There are those acts in Scripture attributed to Faith, that will by no means be ascribed to love or obedience, as the taking in of the privileges before mentioned. If Faith work by love, as the Apostle speaks, Gal. 5. 6. And love be the end of the commandment, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and faith unfeigned, 1 Tim. 1. 5. then faith is a distinct thing from love. If by Faith the Worthies of old wrought righteousness, than righteousness may be distinguished from it, Heb. 11. 33. As Faith and Hope make two Graces, so Love a third, 1 Cor. 13. 13. It is not the Gospel way to confound them together, They must not be divided, but they are to be distinguished. In this of repentance which is a Gospel-grace and condition of the covenant, we may observe 

First, A necessary pre-requisite to it.  
Secondly, The essential parts of it.    
A necessary pre-requisite to this of repentance (as to the other of Faith) is Conviction, 
Godly sorrow is a prerequisite to repentance.  Compunction, Remorse, Unto which the name of repentance is often given, though it be of far more narrow comprehension than the whole work; yea, it reacheth not unto any thing which is of the essence of it, Called repentance (as some say) by a Synecdoche, the part for the whole; but I rather take it to be a Metonimy; Sorrow is rather an adjunct than a part of it, yet such an adjunct that still accompanies it, and makes way for it, as the needle (as the Ancients use to express it) enters the cloth, not to stay, but to let in the thread. An Officer enters an house, to throw out one inhabitant, and to let in another, but not to stay himself. It hath its name from pain, grief, or trouble, which affects the soul for sin, which must needs follow, when once we look upon it with shame and wearisomeness. Who can imagine a man to have his eyes opened, to see that through his whole life, he hath risen up in hostility, and opposition against God? hath taken off that stamp, which God in creation put upon him? run his soul upon everlasting hazard, and all of this without sense of shame, fear, or trouble? Who can imagine that the soul can leave so ugly a path, as that of sin formerly so pleasant, and desired, without any grief or trouble of mind that he hath so long held it? Or that any will make out for help in a Saviour, till they see themselves through sin in a lost and undone condition? I speak not of infants (who neither act faith nor repentance) but of those of growth, whom God works for himself by his Ministers, 
Some degree of soul-shaking by the Law necessary.  As they have their call by the Word, So the Word hath its efficacy in some measure of soul-shaking, by the Law's discovery, by which is the knowledge of sin, as Rom. 3. 20. Evangelical allurements (on which by some the whole of the work is laid) can never (I suppose) work on the soul without Law-convictions. If these Gospel allurements draw to Christ, they must draw from sin, and how shall any be drawn from what he does not know; nor ever understood either to be evil, or dangerous? It is with me no less a Paradox, that a man may be drawn from sin, without the discovery of the Law, as to be drawn to Christ without the light of the Gospel, And to say the Gospel discovers sin, as well as the Law; taking the Gospel in opposition to the moral precepts, (as here it must be taken) is the greatest absurdity. Exem. gr. If it be questioned whether to take up arms be a sin? whether to fight a duel be a sin? whether usury be sin? or to marry within the Levitical degrees forbidden be sin, shall I determine this out of a Gospel-promise? That Jesus Christ came to save sinners. That the blood of Christ takes away all sin. That in him all that believe are justified. A thousand of these will contribute nothing to the expediting of these or like questions; or the conviction of any under guilt; The work must be brought to the rule, the action to the line for discovery; Upon the Laws convictions there may follow Gospel-aggravations; But conviction is the work of the Law, as an instrument of the Spirit. This conviction unto change is hardly without compunction, remorse, and terrors in the soul. It was not the single case of the Corinthians, but common with other Christians, as the natural work of godly sorrow, that it worketh repentance not to be repent of, 2 Cor. 7. 10. I will not stand to di●●●● whether any, ever are exempted from this preparatory work. I question not God's prerogative, I am upon enquiry after his usual method. I know some instance in Matthew, who being called, suddenly, followed Christ, and we hear nothing of any work upon his spirit to trouble; But who knows whether Matthew, a Jew, were not called by grace, before this call to an Apostleship? and if not in grace, whether it necessarily followed in that instant? The like is objected of Lydia, The Lord opened her heart, that she attended to the things that were spoken of Paul, Acts 16. 14. without any sorrow or trouble in spirit is mentioned; Neither is there mention of any joy, 
Limits put to this doctrine of godly sorrow.  or rejoicing in spirit, and she by many is believed also to have been a Proselyte. Yet this of godly sorrow, must be understood with some limit.  
1. An equal degree of sorrow, and preparative work, is not necessary in all; One man's terrors and heart-breakings, are no necessary precedent, for all others to reach.  
2. An high degree is not necessarily required of any; God can come sooner in, with Gospel-cordials, after Law-convictions, unto one than another.  
3. No man hath reason to quarrel his conversion; because his sorrow hath not been like some others; each man hath not like pain in cure of a like malady.  
4. None should beg of God overwhelming and amazing shake; and humiliations of Spirit, God better knows their frame than they understand themselves.  
5. None can judge of the truth of their repentance by the greatness of their trouble; It may possibly end in horror and work nothing better than itself; It may only have its present work to cast hell in the face, and then the person return to his old bias, to his sinful pleasures, his worldly advantages, as Saul to his Music, Cain to his building of Cities; yet when God thus ploughs, it is a hopeful sign he intends sowing, and men in this case must not reason themselves to be such soil, on whom no good can be done, as though they were past all husbandry of the Lord, He can take away a heart of stone, and turn a rock into a fruitful field. This is God's method, do not dispute, but believe.  
6. Then it is in a degree sufficient, when it effects the work for which it serves; when it brings the soul out of love with sin, takes it out of the paths of sin, when it so works to an apprehension of dangers, that it works the soul to cast itself on Christ Jesus. When horrors work desires; not of ease, but of grace, of Christ and of whole Christ, of pardon of sin, and power against sin, there is a true work.  
For the essential parts of this grace, which I make a Gospel-engagement and condition of the covenant, they are privative, or positive. Privative, is the destruction of what hath been. Positive is the introduction of what is not. Every change hath two terms. The one is terminus ad quem; which is endeavoured. The other is terminus à quo, which is left; and so in this change which grace works, 
The essentials in repentance are, 1. Privative Cessation from sin.  and to which the covenant of grace doth engage. The privative part which we are to leave, is, sin, the work of Satan. The positive part which we are to endeavour, is that which stands in full opposition; Forsaking of sin, we must follow after righteousness, and turning from Satan, we must turn to God; and therefore the Ministry which finds men out of covenant, and works them into it, is to bring them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, Acts 26. 18. The privative part is frequently enjoined, as that which binds at all times, and to all times. A man in covenant with God, is to have no more to do with sin; Cease to do evil, put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes, Isa. 1. 16. Be ye separate, touch no unclean thing, 2 Cor. 6. 17. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry; for which things sake, the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience. In the which ye also walked sometimes when ye lived in them, But now you also put off all these, anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth; lie not one to another, seeing ye have put off the old man with his deeds, Col. 3. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Old things with Christians are to be done away; This is the duty of all those that pretend to Christ; Let every one that nameth the Name of Christ depart from iniquity, 2 Tim. 2. 19 All that is in Christ, is wholly against it; His Prophetic office leads us from it, and gives us light to avoid it; In his Kingly office, his Law is against it; and his Priestly office is to redeem from it. They that are in Christ, and learn him as the truth is in Christ Jesus, attain to it, Ephes. 4. 22. That ye put off concerning the former conversation, the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts. It is the character of a man in Christ, Gal. 5. 24. They that are Christ's, have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. And this upon peril of bearing their sin, Ezek. 18. 30, 31. Repent and turn yourselves from all your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin: Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby you have transgressed, and make you a new heart and a new spirit; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? No man in sin is for glory, 1 Cor. 6. 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? The works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revel and such like, of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, Gal. 5. 19, 20, 21. Upon these terms it is that they obtain pardon of sin, Isa. 55. 7. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. Grace is no where more freely tendered than there: Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; and he that hath no money, come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which satisfieth not; harken diligently unto me, and eat you that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fastness. Incline your ear, and come unto me; hear and your soul shall live, and I will make an everlasting Covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David, verse 1, 2, 3. And yet we see upon what terms it is tendered. That which keeps from us the mercies, and brings upon us the curses of the covenant, is upon covenant-condition, to be shunned; This is true of all covenants made where any good is hoped, and evil feared. That sin against God keeps us from the mercies, and brings upon us the curses of the covenant, is clear in what hath been spoke: What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldst take my covenant in thy mouth, seeing thou hast instruction, and castest my words behind thee? Psal. 50. 16, 17. A people that keep to their terms of covenant, are in communion with God; but sin separates between a people and God; that is the ground of quarrel, Hos. 4. 1. between earth, and heaven. Men entering and keeping covenant with God, are of God, and not of the Devil; They are turned from the Devil to God, from fellowship with Belial, to fellowship with God; But he that committeth sin, is of the Devil, 1 John 3. 8. Christ that carries on the covenant (as you have heard) will never cast off those that walk up to the terms of the covenant; but he casts off, with a dreadful sentence all those that work iniquity; Mat. 7. 23. As for those Antinomian spirits, and ranting wretches, that do contend that sin is no bar to their communion with God; That God is as well pleased with man in the greatest height of sin, as the most holy duties; That this doctrine charges a change upon God, to be now pleased, and presently in wrath and displeasure; they do but deceive themselves, and make it their work to deceive others. They neither know sin, nor the direful guilt of it, nor yet God, nor his direful displeasure against it. The Apostle makes it his business to undeceive them, as Ephes. 5. 6. having reckoned up a catalogue of sins, he thus speaks; Be not deceived with vain words, for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Neither is there any change (according to this doctrine) supposed in God. The change is in them that covenant against it, and walk in it. Did they know the terror of it, they would tremble at the thought of running upon it, and by heaping up sin to treasure up wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgements of God, Rom. 2. 5. They will find this an aggregate of all miseries, and let them take beed that they call not to the rocks and mountains to hide them from it.  
The Positive part is to be followed, 
2. Positive. A return to God, and an holy walking with him.  as the Privative part to be shunned. As Timothy must flee covetousness, so he must follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness, 1 Tim. 6. 11. Faith in the former place as an instrument serviceable for our access to God, makes up (as we heard) a condition of itself, As a work or inherent grace, it is here comprised in this covenant-condition, together with others, to hold up our communion with God. As we must cease to do evil, so we must learn to do well; As we must put off the old man with his deeds, so we must put on the new man. It is not enough, not to bring evil fruit, wild grapes; but we must be fruitful in every good work. God hath a quarrel with his people upon a charge of negatives, as well as affirmatives, omissions, as well as commissions. She obeyed not the voice, she received not correction, she trusted not in the Lord, she drew not near to her God, Zeph. 3. 2. We must not alone, be free, from that charge of Christ upon the Jews, of doing the work of the Devil, John 8. 44. but we must abound in the work of the Lord, 1 Cor. 15. 58. And this upon the penalty mentioned in the former branch; Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be hewn down and cast into the fire, Matth. 3. 10. Upon these terms it is, that we avoid the curse of the covenant. Those on whom no condemnation is charged, walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; and the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, Gal. 5. 21, 22. Upon those terms, salvation, the mercy of the covenant is obtained, Christ is the Author of everlasting salvation to them that obey him, Heb. 5. 9 When the Apostle makes light of outward privileges, he puts the whole stress upon man's faith and obedience, Gal. 5. 6. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the Commandments of God, 1. Cor. 7. 19 That which is so mightily available with God in covenant, is the walking up to the terms and observance of the conditions of the covenant; But faith and the keeping of the Commandments of God, are as we see) thus available and prevalent. These two are distinguished, but never severed. That faith which looks at Christ's blood as a Saviour, accepts him as a Sovereign, and the latter about which there is most dispute, is an evidence to conclude the former; Hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his Commandments, where knowledge is put for faith, as appears in the context, 1 Joh. 2. 3. These are heard of God in prayer, Joh. 9 32. If any man be a worshipper of God, and doth his will, him he heareth. Whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his Commandment, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight, 1 John 3. 22. These are sealed of God by his Spirit, 1 John 3. 24. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. These great mercies are for men in covenant, that keep covenant: But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children. To such as keep his Covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them, Ps. 103. 17, 18.   

CHAP. XXIV.  
Objections against the conditionality of Repentance answered.  
HEre Objections must be removed; Object. First, jointly against faith and repentance, some making challenge of both as no covenant-conditions. So Mr. Baxters' questionist, How do you make faith and repentance, to be conditions of the Covenant on our part, seeing the bestowing of them, is part of the condition on God's part; can they be our conditions and Gods too?  
In case these two cannot stand together, 
The Objection retorted.  that they should be conditions both Gods and ours; we may answer by way of retortion, Answ. and I am sure we have the better end of the staff, that they are our conditions; They are conditions on our part, and therefore they cannot be Gods: That they are ours, is made known of God, as by the beam of the Sun in his Word. And I shall not stand to distinguish of an absolute and conditional covenant, that so making the whole in the absolute covenant to be Gods, and in the conditional covenant, this part to be ours, which I know not whether exactly understood, 
Faith and repentance are our conditions, not Gods.  the Scripture will bear, but in plain terms deny that they are Gods conditions, and affirm them to be ours. I know what God speaks in his Word concerning these works; That he will write his Law in our hearts, and put it into our inward parts; That he will take away the heart of stone, and give an heart of flesh; which implies this work of which we speak. I know likewise what in particular is affirmed of Christ, that he is the author and finisher of our faith, Heb. 12. 2. that he gives repentance, Acts 5. 31. that God grants to the Gentiles repentance to life, Acts 11. 18. And I have not forgot what I have said before of the concurrence of grace in the performance of every Gospel-work; Yet all this rises not up hither to make them formally Gods act, & not ours. Whose acts they be, his conditions they are; this is evident: But they are our acts. We believe, We repent, It is not God that believes; It is not God that reputes: That is an absurdity which Arminians have laboured to charge upon us, to render that which we hold of the necessity of the concurrence of grace in these works odious; But it is that which the Orthodox party have still disclaimed. The Apostle calls upon the Philippians, Phil. 2. 12. To work out their own salvation; the work is their own, as the salvation. They are a Believers own act, and not barely a spontaneous act, (on which he is carried, as a Bird in preparing a nest for her young, and Bees in preparing honey for their subsistence, in which Philosophy tells us, that they aim at no end) but they are voluntary actions of choice, done out of choice, aiming at salvation as his end. The mercy in the Covenant being on these terms tendered, With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, Rom. 10. 10. The just lives by his faith, Hab. 2. 4. They to turn to the Lord with all their heart, Joel 2. 13. They obey from the heart the form of Doctrine whereunto they are delivered, Rom. 6. 17. They do the will of God from the heart, Ephes. 6. 6. Faith and Repentance are man's work, which man in covenant does, respective to salvation, in the covenant tendered, Object. not Gods. But the Apostle, some may say, in the next words tells us, that it is God that works the will and the deed, vers. 13. There he seems to take them from us, and ascribe the formality of them to God. 
Sol.  In this co-operation of God, whether they be formally our works, or Gods, let Esay determine, Isa. 26. 12. Thou hast wrought all our works in us; When God hath wrought it, the work is ours, we have the reward of it, and we shall bear our sin in case it be neglected, and let the Apostle explain himself, Ephes. 2. 10. We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. God hath ordained good works as a Christians way and walk. 
Via ad regnum non causa regnandi.  They are charged upon man as is plain in the context, in order to salvation; They are the way that we hold in our passage on to that salvation which God of grace vouchsafes; and we are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus for these ends. Our dexterity in holy duties, is from the frame into which grace put us; So still the work is ours, though power for action is vouchsafed of God, And the conditions are ours, for discharge of which we have yet divine assistance: 
Arguments evincing that Faith and Repentance are our conditions, and not Gods, in the proper conditional covenant.  That faith and repentance are our conditions, and not Gods, take these arguments.  
1. Those conditions that are not mentioned in the proper conditional covenant, as from God, but required of God, from us, are not Gods conditions, but ours, in that Covenant. This is clear; Being there expressly required of us, and not so much as mentioned, as from God; they cannot be his engagement, but ours to perform. But Faith and Repentance are not mentioned as from God, in the proper conditional covenant, but required of God from us. Therefore Faith, and Repentance are not Gods conditions in the proper conditional Covenant, but ours.  
2. The conditions of a covenant are his that performeth, and not his that imposeth. This proposition is clear in reason, and confessed by the adversary. But we perform, and God imposeth Faith and Repentance. They are therefore our conditions, and not Gods, in this covenant.  
3. Covenant-conditions are theirs, that are charged with falsehood in case of failing in them, and non-performance of them. This is plain in all covenants: To make conditions, and to fail in them, is to be false to them. But in case of failing in Faith and Repentance, man is charged, and not God. God fails not, but man deals falsely. Therefore, they are man's conditions, and not Gods.  
4. Covenant-conditions are theirs, who upon failing in them, and not performance of them, suffer as covenant-breakers. This is clear, Israel covenanted to dismiss their Hebrew servants, and dismissed them not, and Israel suffered for it, Jer. 34. But upon failing in Faith and Repentance, God suffers not, so much as in his Name, as a covenant-breaker. He is not charged with men's unbelief and impenitence: Men themselves suffer. Therefore Faith and Repentance are man's conditions, not Gods.  
2. There are objections peculiarly against repentance, as it comprises the whole frame of obedience, Object. as before held forth to disable it from being any Gospel-condition. 
In what manner Works are called for in the Covenant of Grace.   
By this means the covenant of Grace will be (say some) a covenant of works; Repentance in this latitude (to which we have spoken) contains the whole of obedience, and being made a condition of the Covenant of Grace, Works are introduced, and a Covenant of Works reestablished.  
As there was grace in the first covenant, Answ. as you have heard, which we call a covenant of Works; So works are not wholly excluded from this covenant, which we call a covenant of Grace. God still keeps up his Sovereignty, as you have heard, and how this can be done when he leaves man, at that wild freedom, not so much as to call for homage from him, cannot be conceived, his rule even in this covenant, is to reward men according to their works. Behold I come quickly, and my reward it with me; to give every man according as his work shall be, Rev. 22. 12. Works then are not excluded from this covenant; yea, Christ the Mediator of the covenant aforehand tells us, Except our righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven, Matth. 5. 20. They had their righteousness, and (as was supposed) they made a great progress in the way of righteousness; yet we must have an exceeding righteousness, above that which they taught, and practised, or else there is no salvation in this covenant. These two covenants notwithstanding remain distinct, and not confounded together. There is a legal righteousness; such as the Law in the highest extremity of it requires, without the least indulgence in case of failing; This the covenant of Works calls for, and in this we fall short; but Christ answers, and therefore He is the end of the Law for righteousness, Rom. 10. 3. and by this, we are saved. There is a righteousness of the Gospel which God in covenant calls for, to which it is his Spirit enables, and in this we are saved.  
2. Gospel-obedience is called for in the Covenant, 
Repentance necessarily flowing from Faith, is not thereby disabled from being a condition in the Covenant of Grace.  but not as any condition of the Covenant; Faith is the alone condition, obedience necessarily flows from it, and follows upon it when once we believe; it need not to be conditioned, or indented for; seeing when we are in Christ by faith, we can then do no other than obey.  
I answer. This position here laid down, that obedience necessarily follows, and flows from Faith, is a position indeed maintained by the reformed Churches against Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and other opposites of it, from which position of ours, they infer as by necessary consequence that all commands, requiring obedience, are then needless, and all exhortations, reproofs, motives and promises to no purpose. None either commands or persuades the Heavens to move, the Sun to give light, the Fire to give heat, or the water to give moisture; That which necessarily works is let alone to work, and to take its course in working. And this Objection (taking away this Gospel-condition on this ground) is of the same stamp; Obedience necessarily flowing from Faith, includes Gospel-commands, exhortations, reproofs, as well as Gospel-conditions. If God need not, to condition, and engage for obedience, from Believers, because they thus necessarily obey, than he needs not give commands, or press obedience for the same reason, when yet the Gospel is full of exhortations, commands, menaces, promises, with application to Believers, to men professing Faith, to men in Christ by Faith.  
For satisfaction then of this Popish-Arminian objection, we must distinguish of consequents which necessarily flow from their principles. Some are natural, which of themselves have their effects, as those in the objection mentioned; Here is neither command imposed, condition required, nor promise held forth: They are not in any capacity of acting or working otherwise than they do. Others are moral, who work not by way of Physical necessity, but are kept in their way by the power of grace upholding; which does not exclude, but necessarily takes in man's endeavour in the use of means, to yield obedience, and to hold on, in all patience and perseverance. This argument followed home will be of equal force, against Faith (as a condition) as, against sincerity; seeing God's Elect shall believe, as they that believe shall yield obedience. There is a like necessity of faith, flowing from election, as there is of obedience, to flow from Faith, as Faith therefore, so obedience, either of both in their places are covenant-conditions.   

CHAP. XXV.  
What degree of obedience the Covenant of grace calls for from Christians.  
HEre is seasonably moved, and is not without some difficulty answered; what degree of obedience, this new covenant calls for from us, that so we may endeavour it, and understand ourselves when we have by grace attained to it, that having entered covenant with God, we may not be found of those that have wickedly departed; and dealt falsely in the covenant. In this there are several opinions, which are to come under examination.  
First, 
Perfection of degrees is not so called for of God in Covenant, that upon failing it, the mercies promised in Covenant are lost.  some say that it is required of Christians in an exact way, in a full perfection, as, of parts, so of degrees, answering to the perfection of the Law, as written in the heart, and given on Mount Sinai; And so required that obedience in a more low degree, will not be accepted, or the mercies promised in the covenant obtained; which doctrine of theirs (rigidly followed) stands as that two edged sword, Gen. 3. 24. keeping the way of the tree of Life, and making the way to salvation unpassable. Thus the Council of Trent, 
a Si quis dixerit, baptizatos per baptisimum ipsum solius tantùm debitores fidei fieri, non autem universa legis Christi servandae; anathema fit. Sess. Sept. Canon. Sex.  If any man shall say, that by Baptism, men are obliged to Faith only, and not to the observation of the whole Law, let him be accursed; which Chemnitius in his Examen confesses in a qualified sense, might be admitted, seeing persons baptised, owe subjection, but not in the sense, which that Canon holds forth, being an allusion to that of the Apostle, Gal. 5. 3. I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor of the whole Law; By which Gloss, Baptism makes Christ of none effect, as well as Circumcision, as it was taken, in the sense of those false Teachers among the Galatians, viz. as a leading ceremony of the Law, binding to the observation of the whole. And so also Bellar. lib. 1. de Baptis. cap. 15. 
b Baptismus non id efficit, ut homo solius fidei debtor ●it, non autem implendae universae legis. Duobus modis intelligi posse hominem baptizatum dici liberum à lege divina servanda; uno modo ut facere contra eam legem non fit injustum nec peccatum, quasi lex abrogata esset; de hoc sensu non est controversia: altero modo intelligi potest ut facere contra legem fit quidem peccatum, tamen non imputetur iis qui fidem habent, nec pendeat justificatio aut salus ab impletione legis, sed à sola misericordia quae per fidem apprehenditur.  Baptism doth not make us debtors to Faith only, but to keep the whole Law, and there explains himself, that to deny a man to be a debtor to keep the whole Law, may be taken two ways, either so, as that to do things against the Law were no sin, as though the Law were abrogated. This he confesses Protestants do not say, and in that, he saith there is no controversy, or else so, that justification or salvation doth not depend on the fulfilling of the Law, but only on the mercy of God by faith applied, this he makes the Protestants error, and so brings in justification by the Law, and utterly confounds the covenant of works and grace together, only I confess the business seems much mollified by the explanations, that they give of those words, fulfilling of the Law. First, curtelling the Law, in taking off, the first foams, and motions of actual sin, yea even all that goes before consent of will, making it no sin at all, as also multitudes of actions, some of them foul enough, as not within this verge, such, which they call by the name of venial sins, which are besides the Law, but not against it, bending, (as some merrily speak) but not breaking the Commandments, though they would never give us a catalogue of sins, mortal, or venial, nor any certain mark or character, whereby they might be distinguished. All these are pared off, as no breaches of the Law, nor (in their own nature) deserving, the sentence of eternal death, and the temporal punishments due to them after death is holpen out, by their Indulgences. Secondly so helping themselves out with distinctions, at least some among them, that keeping the Law with them is no other than the grace of sanctification, in the very sense as the Orthodox hold it forth; He that pleases may read what Jansenius hath, chap. 81. of his Harmony, Opposing Luther for his denial, that the first and great Commandment in the Law in this life can be fulfilled; and charging it with blasphemy, Luther having Augustine's authority in several places, (as Jansenius confesses) for to second him (affirming with him, that this Commandment in this life cannot be perfected or fulfilled, but it is to be fulfilled in the life to come, giving his reason 
a Nam cum est aliquid carnalis concupiscentiae quod vel continendo foenetur, nam omninò ex tota anima diligitur Deus.  As long as there is any thing of carnal concupiscence to be restrained, God is not with the whole heart loved.) The good Bishop knows how by distinction, to salve Austin, and maintain his doctrine to be good divinity, and denying Luther that favour, to leave him under the brand of blasphemy, so that the result of all with him, is this, 
b Diligitur tunc Deus ex toto cord; cum quis ex intima & sincera erga Deum affectione occupatur potissimùm in his quae Dei sunt, prae omnibus illi placere students, ac sollicitus ut non tantum quaedam Dei mandata perficiat, sed cuncta idque non seniter & ex tristi animo, sed gnaviter & hilariter, dolens ex animo si quid vel ab alliis vel à se per carnis infirmitatem admittatur contrium divinae voluntati. Jansenii Harmon. c. 81.  God is then loved with the whole heart, when any one, out of inward and sincere affection to God, is principally exercised in those things which are of God; studying above all things to please him, and carefully to observe not one, but all his Commandments, and that not slothfully, and against heart, but diligently, and cheerfully, grieving from the heart if any thing by others or himself through infirmity of the flesh be admitted contrary to the will of God. So that some might think, all controversy in this point, may cease; and that the difference between us, were no more than a strife of words, seeing we do not only confess that this aught to be done, but also urge a necessity of doing of it, and they say the Law is fulfilled when it is done, 
The Law a rule of our duty, not of our strength.  But here, 1. Much wrong is done to the Law (as though it were a rule of our strength, not of our duty, that it answered, and might be applied to each man's impaired strength, and weakened abilities, or that the Gospel-grace of godly sorrow for sin against the Law, were the keeping of the Law, making repentance a satisfactory discharge, for disobedience; When these men cannot bring up man's nature to the straight line of the Law, they bring down the Law to the crooked nature of man. 2. It is injurious to man, puffing him up with conceit of answering the Law, setting him up as high as he should be laid low, ready to say with the young man in the Gospel, All these have I kept from my youth, when holding out the Law in its just latitude, (as it was happily brought home to the Apostles conscience) sin would revive, and he would see himself in a lost condition.  
A second opinion is, 
The Covenant of Grace doth not call for perfection, and accept sincerity.  that the covenant of grace requires perfection in the exactest way, without help of these men's distinctions in an equal degree with the covenant of works, but with this difference; In the covenant of works there is no indulgence or dispensation in case of failing, but the penalty takes hold the curse follows upon it; But the covenant of grace, though it call for perfection, such is the exactness of it, yet it accepts of sincerity, such is the qualification of it through grace, or the mercy in it. If I should take up any opinion in the world for the Authors sake, or those that have appeared as Patrons of it, than I should embrace this; The reverence deservedly due to him that (I suppose) first manisted himself in it, hath caused it to find great entertainment, but upon more than twenty years' thoughts about it; I find it labouring under manifold inconveniences.  
1. It establishes the former opinion opposed by Protestants, and but now refuted, as to the obedience and the degree, called for in covenant; And if I should be indulgent to my affections, to cause my judgement to stoop, Dislike of the one, would make me as averse from it; as an opinion of the other would make me prone to receive it. Judgement therefore must lead, and affections be waved.  
2. If this opinion stand, than God accepts of Covenant-breakers, of those that deal falsely in it, whereas Scripture charges it only upon the wicked, upon those of whom God complains, as rebellious, Deut. 29. 25. Josh. 7. 15. Jeremy 11. 10. Jeremy 22. 8, 9 Yea, it may be charged on the best, the most holy in the world lying under the guilt of it, according to this tenant.  
3. Then it will follow, that, as none can say, that they have so answered the commands of the Law, that they have never failed, they have not (if put to answer in the greatest rigour) once transgressed, so, neither can they with the Church make appeal to God, That they have not dealt falsely in the Covenant, nor wickedly departed from their God, Psal. 44. 17. Every sin (according to this opinion) being a breach of it, and a dealing falsely in it.  
4. Then that great promise of mercy from everlasting to everlasting, upon them that fear him, and his righteousness, unto children's children to such as keep his Covenant, and to those that remember his Commandments to do them, Psalm 103. 17, 18. only appertains to those that so keep the Law, that they sin not at all against it.  
5. Then our Baptism-vow is never to sin against God, and as often as we renew our covenant, we do not only humble ourselves that we have sinned, but we afresh bind ourselves, never more to admit the least infirmity, and so live and die in the breach of it.  
6. Then the distinction between those that entered covenant and broke it, as Jerem. 31, 32, 33. and those that have the Law written in their hearts, and put into their inward parts to observe it, falls, all standing equally guilty of the breach of it, no help of grace being of power to enable to keep Covenant. Each of these five last arguments are replied to, by a distinction of the precept, and conditions of the Covenant. Men that are sincere, break the precept, (as is said) but not the conditions. But I know no precepts in covenants, which are not conditions. Faith and Repentance are Precepts, and I think, the alone Precepts, and I know not, neither do I hear of, any other Conditions.  
7. Then it follows that, Sincerity is never called for as a duty, or required as a grace; but only dispensed with as a failing, indulged as a want. It is not so much a Christians honour or character, as his blemish or failing, rather his defect than praise. But we find the contrary in Noah, Job, Asa, Hezekiah, Zachary and Elizabeth, Nathaniel, an Israelite indeed that entered covenant, and kept covenant. Sincerity is a degree towards perfection in obedience, and if the command looks no lower than perfection in degree, the imperfect degree is not commanded, though it be indulged. And therefore I conclude, that, as in the Law, there was pure justice as well in the command given, as the penalty threatened, without any condescension or indulgence. So, in the covenant there is mercy, and condescension, as well in the condition required, as in the acceptance through grace. The Covenant requires no more than it accepts.  
The alone Argument, Object. so far as ever I could learn, that hath brought some of reverend esteem heretofore into this opinion, is That if the covenant requires not exact perfection, in the same height as the Law calls for it, than a Christian may fall short of the Law in his obedience, and not sin, perfection being not called for from him, nor any more called for from him, than through grace he doth perform, he rises as high as his rule, and so sins not through any imperfection, therefore to make it out that a believers imperfections are his sins, it must needs be, that the covenant requires perfection, as to make good that he may be saved in his imperfections; it must be maintained that it accepts sincerity. But this argument is not of weight, Christ entering a Gospel-covenant with man, 
Sol.  finds him under the command of the Law, which command, the Law still holds, the Gospel being a confirmation, not a destruction of it. All imperfection than is a sin upon that account, that it is a transgression of the Law, though (being done against heart, and laboured against) it is no breach of covenant; We are under the Law as men, we are taken into covenant as Christians, Retaining the humane nature, the Law still commands us, though the covenant in Christ, through the abundant grace of it, (upon the terms that it requires and accepts) frees us from the sentence of it.  
Here is objected, What shall we think of those Texts in the New Testament, which require us to be perfect, 2 Cor. 13. 11. James 1. 4. Yea, perfect as God is perfect, Matth. 5. 48. reproving weakness and infirmity, and commanding a going on to perfection. Answ. We are to think of them as Protestant Divines, ordinarily do in their commenting upon them; We deny, saith Rivet, that the perfection of which Scripture speaks, either when it commands us to be perfect, or gives testimony of perfection, or integrity to some, consists in a freedom from sin, Exercit. 52. in Genes. pag. 267. The Text quoted out of James, serves well to explain the rest, Let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing, whence we may argue, 1. That perfection which Christians may attain, is the perfection that the Apostle calls unto, This is plain in the text, He calls for perfection, that we may be perfect: But Christians can reach no further a degree in perfection than sincerity; Therefore the Apostle calls only to sincerity. 2. That is the Apostles meaning, where he speaks of perfection, that himself gives in as his meaning; This is clear, he is the best interpreter of himself; But he expresses himself by perfect there to mean entire, or lacking nothing. A perfection of entireness, or integrality than he means, a perfection of parts, and not of degrees. For that text of Paul, 2 Cor. 13. 11. Finally brethren, farewell, be perfect, etc. let us compare with it, that which he testifies of some in Corinth, 1 Cor. 2. 6. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect, that is, those that have a right, and more full understanding of Gospel mysteries, put in opposition to the weakness of novices, which perfection is, (according to the Apostle) the way to unity of judgement. As for the Text, Mat. 5. 48. Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect, If it be strained to the highest, it calls for a divine increated perfection, our adversaries then must yield, that there is a sicut similitudinis, non aequalitatis, in that place. And if the context be consulted, we shall find, that it is opposed to that half hypocritical-righteousnesse, which was found in Scribes and Pharisees; which all must exceed that enter into the Kingdom of heaven. In Heb. 6. 1. a novice-like imperfection in knowledge, is reproved; and a further growth towards perfection is called for; It is further objected, If perfection were not the duty of a Christian, and unperfectness, and infirmity his sin, why doth the Apostle groan, and grieve under the remainder of his natural infirmities, and press on to perfection, Rom. 7. 14. to the 24. Phil. 3. 12, 14? The conclusion here is granted; The one is a duty, the other is a sin, and because of failing in the one, and the burden of the other, the Apostle groans. Foreseeing that this would be yielded him, there is added by way of objection, Or is such unperfectness a sin, only in reference to the rule of the Law, and not the rule of the Gospel, or that the Law doth, but the Gospel doth not call for perfection? Answ. There is not one rule of the Law, as I have demonstrated at large, and another of the Gospel, seeing the Gospel establishes the Law; Only the Gospel-covenant, calls for those sincere desires, which grace works, to conform us in our measure of the rule of the Law.  
There is yet a third opinion, which I may well doubt whether I understand; but so far as I do understand, I am as far from assent to it, as, either of the former, and that is of those who do not only assert a personal inherent righteousness, as well as imputed against the Antinomians; But also affirm that this righteousness is complete and perfect, which if it were meant only of the perfection of the subject; 
Our Evangelical righteousness is imperfect.  as opposed to hypocrisy, dissimulation, or doubleness, implying that they do not only pretend for God; but are really for him, that they do not turn to him feignedly (as Israel was sometimes charged, Jerem. 3. 10.) but with an upright heart, or of the perfection, or entireness of the object, respecting not one, or only some, but all commandments, which is called a perfection of parts, we might readily assent to it. The covenant calls for such perfection, Gen. 17. 1. Walk before me, and be thou perfect, and many have their witness in Scripture, that they have attained to it, as Noah, Gen. 7. 9 Job, Job 1. 1. Hezekiah, Esay 38. 3. But a perfection above these is maintained, a perfection complete and full, Righteousness signifies (as is said) a conformity to the Rule; and a conformity with a quatenus, or an imperfect rectitude, is not a true conformity or rectitude at all: imperfect righteousness is not righteousness, but unrighteousness. It is a contradiction in adjecto, though holiness be acknowledged to be imperfect in all respects, where perfection is expected, in reference to the degree that it should obtain, or the degree which it shall obtain, or in reference to the excellent object, about which it is exercised, or in reference to the old covenant, or the directive, and in some sense the preceptive part of the new Covenant, in all these respects it is imperfect, and righteousness materially considered is holiness, and therefore thus imperfect, but formally considered, it is perfect righteousness, or none, this not in relation to the old rule, but the new Covenant; Upon this account, they are charged to discover gross ignorance, that use and understand the word righteous, and righteousness, as they relate to the old rule, as if the godly were called righteous (besides their imputed righteousness) only because their sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement with the Law of Works; This, and much more to assert, a personal perfect inherent righteousness, as is said; all which as it is here held out to me, is new, and I must confess myself in ignorance all over; I never took imperfect righteousness to imply any such contradiction, no more than imperfect holiness. Isaiah, I am sure, saith, All our righteousness are as filthy rags, Esay 64. 6. No greater charge of imperfection can lie against the most imperfect holiness, than the Prophet lays upon our righteousness. Neither do I understand, how holiness should be imperfect, taken materially, and righteousness perfect, taken formally in reference to a rule. We may (for aught I know) as well make holiness formal, and refer it to a rule, and righteousness material, in an absolute consideration, without reference to any rule at all. And in such consideration I do not know how there can be perfection or imperfection either in holiness or righteousness; it is as they come up to, or fall short of the rule that they have, the denomination of perfection or imperfection. Paul's Gospel-frame, whether you will call it righteousness, or holiness, is set out, Rom. 7. full of imperfection, yet all this, as in reference to the rule, as it answered or fell short in conformity to it, verse 22. I delight in the Law of God after the inward man. And whereas a charge of ignorance, is laid even upon learned Teachers; that commonly understand the word righteousness, and righteous as it refers to the old rule, I profess myself to have little of their learning, but I am wholly theirs in this ignorance. I know no other rule but the old rule; the rule of the Moral Law that is with me, a rule, a perfect rule, and the only rule. The perfection of this holiness and righteousness in man's integrity, stood in the perfect conformity to this Law, and the reparation of this in our regenerate estate (in which the Apostle places the image of God) must have reference as to God for a pattern, so to his Law as a rule. As an image carrying an imperfect resemblance of its sampler, is an image, So conformity imperfectly answering the rule is conformity likewise. A perfection of sufficiency to attain the end I willingly grant, God condescending through rich grace to crown weak obedience, in this sense our imperfection hath its perfectness; otherwise I must say that our inherent righteousness is an imperfect righteousness, in an imperfect conformity to the rule of righteousness, and without their reference to the rule there is neither perfection nor imperfection in any action. See Doctor Davenant disputing against justification by inherent righteousness upon the account of the imperfection of it de justitia habituali, pag. 349 and how fully he was persuaded of the imperfection of this righteousness appears in sentences prefixed before two Treatises as may be seen in the margin. 
Omnis humana justitia injustitia esse deprebendi●ur, si divinitus districtè judicatur. G●egor. Moral. lib. 21. Cap. 15. Nostra fiqua est humilis justitia, rect● forsitan, sed non pura, nisi fortè meliores nos esse credimus quam patres nostros, qui non minùs veraciter, quam humiliter ajebant, Omnes justitiae nostrae tanquam pannus me●st●utae m●lie●is. Quo modo enim pura justitia, ubi adhuc non potest culp● deesse? Bern. in Serm. 5. de verbis Esajae p●ophetae.   
In the last place I shall conclude that sincerity, in the way and work of God, (which Scripture also calls by the name of truth, integrity, simplicity, uprightness, perfectness, an heart in the work of God, 
The Covenant of grace requires and acccepts sincerity.  whole and unfeigned) is that which the covenant of grace doth require, and that which it accepteth; This God in covenant gives in charge, and this he rewards and crowns. The Law stands as a rule, and the charge in it, is, the highest top of perfection, without the least indulgence in any case of failing, suitable to the abilities that once were put into our hands, God in Gospel-condescensions, will have this rule eyed; with a single and upright heart universally eyed, and observed, both in our returns from sin, and in our application to God in new obedience. This doing of the will of God from the heart, with good will-doing service, Eph. 6. 6, 7. Serving with a willing mind, 1 Chron. 28. 9 This preparing the heart to seek the Lord God of our fathers. Ezra 7. 10. This delight in the Law of God in the inward man, Rom. 7. 22. though it be in much weakness, and with strength that is little, Rev. 3. 8. by reason of inward corruptions, Rom. 7. 23. Gal. 5. 17. enemies without, Ephes. 6. 12. is required of God in covenant, and through grace accepted. And as faith (which as we have heard is the other new covenant-condition) brings us into communion with God; So this of a sincere heart and walk, holds in communion, Faith gives access to God in grace, and through sincerity we walk with God in grace, to glory; Both of them are called for of God, both accepted with God, and both of them crowned with glory. That in this degree obedience is both required, and accepted, in the Gospel is evident. This where oever it is, God observes and eyes. 2 Chron. 16. 9 For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is, perfect towards him: Herein thou hast done foolishly; therefore, from henceforth thou shalt have wars. These have letters testimonial from heaven, Job 1. 8. Hast thou not considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth? a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Gen. 7. 1. Thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. According to the degree of this, higher or lower they have praise, 2 Chron. 29. 34. The Levites were more upright in heart to sanctify themselves than the Priests: yea, where there is integrity in a single act, this God notes, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thine heart, Gen. 20. 6. These God protects, & with his omnipotence preserves; 2 Chron. 16. 9 The eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect towards him. He is a buckler to them that walk uprightly, Prov. 2. 7. In these God takes pleasure; I know, my God, that thou triest the reins, and hast pleasure in uprightness, 1 Chron. 29. 17. Unto these God speaks peace; Do not my words do good to him that walketh uprightly? Mich. 2. 7. This the people of God plead with God, as an argument to find favour in his eyes, Psalm 26. 1. Judge me, O Lord, for I have walked in my integrity, 1 Chron. 29. 17. As for me in the uprightness of my heart, I have willingly offered those things, Psalm 18. 23. I was also upright before him, etc. This hath been the high ambition of the servants of God in their most sad troubles to reach. David begging mercy, saith to God, Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts, Psal. 51. 6. This hath upheld the souls of the Saints in their greatest difficulties, with all joy and consolation, 2 Cor. 1. 12. For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God we have had our conversation in the world. Yea, this is a mark of him who is entirely the Lords, professedly, and really his. When the question is put, Who shall dwell in God's holy hill, Who shall abide in his Tabernacle? answer is returned, He that walks uprightly, and worketh righteousness, Psal. 15 1, 2. And when a like question is put, Isa. 33. 14. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who amongst us shall dwell with everlasting burning? We have the like answer returned in the words that follow; He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly. And Jesus seeing Nathanael, saith, John 1. 47. Behold an Israelite indeed. There are many Israelites in name, but here was an Israelite indeed, and this is his character, in whom there is no guile; His inside was the same with that without. In the discharge of this, the Saints of God have promised to themselves upon good grounds, all happiness, Psal. 119. 6. Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments. The want of this renders all that is done, void and vain, as to the acceptation of God, when the heart glances aside, and is not right with God, in worshipping him, doth not seek him. Math. 15. 8. This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Israel is an empty Vine, he bringeth forth fruit to himself, Hos. 10. 1. Their heart is divided, therefore shall they be found faulty, verse 2. Amaziah did that which was good in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart, 2 Chron. 25. 2. Judah hath not turned unto me with their whole heart, but feignedly, Jerem. 3. 10. Psal. 78. 34, 35, 36, 37. When he slew them, than they sought him, and they returned and enquired early after God, and they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer; nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouths, and they lied unto him with their tongues, for their hearts were not right with him, neither were they steadfast in his Covenant. By all which I suppose it is evident that God in covenant calls for obedience, requires integrity of heart in it, will not accept where sincerity of heart is wanting, and where it is, he crowns it with happiness and glory. And from what hath been spoken, a full definition of the new covenant may be thus given. 
The Covenant of Grace defined.  A gracious Covenant of God with fallen man, whereby God engages himself upon faith in Christ, and return to God in sincere obedience, to confer on man remission of sins, and all whatsoever that tends to everlasting happiness. They that profess to believe and return to God are in Covenant; They that do believe and sincerely return, enjoy the blessings and mercies of the covenant. This Arminians make the decree of God, and will have no other than such conditional Election, not an Election unto faith and obedience; but because it is foreseen that men will believe and persevere in sincere obedience; in which they are opposed by the Orthodox. See Moulins Anatomy of Arminianism, chap. 12. Sect. 10. This is the covenant of grace published and promised in the Gospel, which Arminians would make one with Election, confounding the Will of God's Decree with the Will of his Command, and Promise. He that would see more into the nature of sincerity, that he may answer to that which God in covenant doth require may peruse Ball on the Covenant, chap. 11. and Doctor Preston on Gen. 17. 1.   

CHAP. XXVI.  
The necessity of a Ministry, to bring men into Covenant with God, and to bring them up to the terms of the Covenant.  
FRom hence several Corollaries may be drawn, and Inferences made. 1. Of the necessity of a Ministry a constant standing Ministry, as, to bring men into covenant with God▪ so, to bring them also up to the terms of the covenant, to a lively saving faith, and sincere obedience; God works not man into covenant by immediate voice, Neither doth he use the Ministry of Angels, in his ordinary way of working of it. But when he would take in, the Nations of the world, into covenant with himself, he sends out his Ministers for that work, giving them a Commission with gifts and abilities suitable to disciple all Nations, Matth 28. 19 
Where a Ministry is not, there is no Covenant-people.  Where a Ministry comes not, there that people remain out of covenant, in the state of the Ephesians before their call, as it is set out by the Apostle, Ephes. 2. 12. without Christ, aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 
Where the Gospel is tendered and refused there is no Covenant.  And where the Gospel-covenant is tendered, and not received, there that people continue out of covenant, rejecting the council of God against themselves, Luke 7. 30. and rendering themselves unworthy of everlasting life, Acts 13. 46. This was the case of the people of Athens, There Paul preached, yet there he settled (for aught we read) no Church of believers, though he had there some particular Converts, Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, 
Where the Gospel is tendered, there is a people in Covenant.  with others, Acts 17 34. Where the word was delivered, and there received, there was a people in covenant with God, as at Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, etc. Those Ministers had the honour of planting, of laying the first foundation, of preaching where Christ before had not been named, Rom. 15. 20. A people thus brought into covenant, do not always come up to the terms of the covenant; All covenanters keep not covenant, their hearts are not steady in it; Therefore there is no less necessity of a Ministry, in established Churches, to keep up a people in Covenant with God, through the terms of the covenant to bring them to the happiness promised, Theirs is the work of watering, of building on another's foundation, of preaching Christ, where Christ before, at least was known by name, and in some sort professed. That there was such a Ministry in the Church of the Jews, to teach Jacob his Laws, and Israel his judgements, to require what God in covenant called for, is not denied that a Ministry was necessary in the Primitive Apostolic times, to work men into covenant, and for the plantation of Churches, is confessed likewise. But when the Apostles left the world, than this order (as some say) sell with them, all Ministerial power died with them. We are made to believe (saith one) because the Apostles were ordained by God to be Teachers of the people, and endued with gifts for that end, that therefore there is a like divine, though secret Ordination from God in the making of our Ministers. Compassionate Samaritan, page 24, 25. But if the Scriptures may be heard, this may soon be decided: I shall therefore by arguments make it appear.  
First, that God hath established a Ministry, and appointed it through all the ages of the world to be perpetuated.  
Secondly, I shall give reasons to manifest the necessity of such a Ministry to be thus established and continued.  
That such a one is established, appears  
First, 
Reason's proving the establishment of a Ministry to be perpetuated through all ages.  By the work that they have to do, given them in commission, by Christ Jesus, Matth. 28. 19 20. Go, Disciple all Nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Here is commission given for the dispensation of the Word and Sacraments. That of the Word, is either for laying the first foundation, or for the superstruction, either for their work of planting, preaching where Christ was never known by name; or else for watering, to carry on that happy beginning. Their first work in laying the first foundation, is given in charge in these words, Disciple all Nations, which was not the work of one age. Though Egesippus (as he is quoted by Doctor Andrews, Preface to the Decalogue, page 7.) saith, That there was no known Commonwealth in any part of the world inhabited, but within forty years after Christ's passion received a great shaking off of Heathenish Religion; yet the whole work after so many Centuries of years, is not yet done; Those that are learned in Geography say, that there is not above the nineteenth part of the inhabited world, that bears the name of Christian, and a great part of those so over-runne with Barbarism, that they have little more than a name that they live; when yet we believe the work shall be more universal, that as God was once known in Jury, his Name great in Israel; So it shall be from the rising of the Sun to the going down thereof, Mal. 1. 11. And that the Kingdoms of the world shall become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, Revel. 11. 15. Their work of superstruction or building up of Disciples, is given them in charge in these words, teaching them to observe all whatsoever I have commanded you. As long as homage is due to Christ, so long a Ministry is to be continued to call for it, and give directions in it, which we find farther held out, Ephes. 4. 11, 13, 14, 15. There is an enumeration of Ministerial functions, extraordinary and ordinary, as there is an appointment of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists; So, also of Pastors and Teachers, their work is there pointed out, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; as also their duration and continuance, till we all come in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. When in the world all are Saints, and no imperfection can be found in these Saints, nor any thing wanting in the Mystical body of Christ, when there is not an error to be found, either in judgement or practice, nor a seducer, or false teacher feared, then, and not before, a Ministry may be spared; This will not be, as long as there is a Devil in Hell, and a man with corruption upon earth. There is not a man that opposeth a Ministry, but the being of that man is an unanswerable argument for the establishment of it. Their work for dispensation of the Sacraments is given in charge explicitly in those words, Baptising them, etc. as implicitly in that charge, Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded. This of Baptism answers in duration to that other Sacrament of the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 26. As oft as you eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, you show forth the Lords death till he come.  
Secondly, It appears in the promise of Christ Jesus, annexed by way of encouragement in this work, verse 20. Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. This is we see to the uttermost extent of time, always, even all days, to the world's end. And howsoever some quarrel may be raised about the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Saeculi being taken in so various an acception in the holy Scriptures; yet the subject matter whereon it is spoken, is a work of more lasting (as hath been observed) than one age, together with the phrase annexed; The consummation or finishing, plainly signifies that this promise is for perpetuity till Christ's coming at the end of ages 
* There was an end of ages at Christ's first coming, Heb. 9 26. There shall be an end of ages at his second coming. See Gomarus Tom. 2. p. 530. . That which puts a period to the Lords Supper, must alone put a period to this work; And for any to make a promise to a dying man, ready to yield up the ghost, for help for many years, who is but to live few years, were a strange promise; And to settle a function of the Ministry with a promise of assistance through all ages, when it must be extinct in that age, were as strange a promise. A promise to a Nonentity, or mere Chimara. Ministers than are in the Church as Stars, not as Meteors; they grow as Plants, not as Mushrooms, their duration is not for a year, for an age, but through all ages.  
Thirdly, this appears by the Apostles care for a succession, Being not suffered to continue by reason of death, they took care for others to fill up their places; in the Churches which they had planted. Therefore Paul (called, not by man, but by a vision and voice from heaven) gives order for a Ministerial call by Ordination, Giving charge to Titus, Tit. 1. 5. to ordain Elders in every City, and this by laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4. 14. to whom the care of Church-inspection was by him committed, Acts 20. 17. compared with verse 28. And Paul and Barnabas in their journal, Acts 14. 23. Ordained Elders in every Church, and recommended them to God with prayer and fasting, of which more afterwards.  
Fourthly, this appears in the settled Pastors, which were found in constituted, established Churches. Epaphroditus in Philippi, Philip. 2. 25. Archippus in Colesses, Col. 4. 17. Those of Ephesus, which gave the Apostles meeting at Miletum, Acts 20. 17. John who lived longest of the Apostles, and wrote his Revelation towards the ending of his days in the Issle of Pathmos, Rev. 1. 9 in his banishment there for the testimony of Jesus Christ; writes several Epistles to the Angels, of the several respective Churches in Asia, which Angels were to be his survivors, and are not denied by any, to be Ministers of those several City-churches there mentioned, Whether these Churches were such as have been called Diocesan, Presbyterial, or Congregational, is not here to be questioned, but that they were Ministers appointed over their several charges, is out of question.  
Fifthly, This appears by the charge given for respect and esteem to be given to those who thus stood up in succession in such established Churches, 1 Thes. 5. 12, 13. We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake. Phil. 2 29. Receive him therefore in the Lord with all gladness, and hold such in reputation. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief, for that is unprofitable for you, Heb. 13. 17. These were not to be reviled, railed upon; but reverenced, honoured and obeyed; and an Order not in being, is not to be thus honoured.  
Sixthly, it appears by the Ordinance of the Lord Jesus for their livelihood and subsistence, 1 Cor. 9 13, 14. Do ye not know that they which Minister about holy things, live of the things of the Temple? and they which wait at the Altar, are partakers with the Altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel; should live of the Gospel. Here we find three things implied. 1. That there was a particular order of men in the time of the Law, separated by God for the Ministerial work, and designed by his especial appointment for that business. 2. That there is a proportionable Ordinance of Christ in Gospel-times of select men for that business. 3. That maintenance by God's appointment was designed, as for one, so for both in their respective times and succession.  
Seventhly, It is farther cleared, by that hand of Providence, that hath answerably provided in all ages, men for this work, in a constant succession. No age since the Apostles, have wanted them, I say not that there was a Ministry in every age, in equal purity and lustre, yet all ages held up that order, and Papacy, when the Minstery was laid most low, found out those that were faithful to Christ jesus. Some set Providence so high, that they make it a rule of life, as well, as, Scriptures; Me thinks it may be confessed, that it gives some light to doubtful Scriptures, The analogy of faith being held firm, somewhat may be gathered from it. To give instance in those Scriptures which seem to bear witness of a glorious call of the jews, which most receive, and some question, God so ordering by providence, that in the revolution of so many ages, they still continue a distinct people, separate from others not joining in their worship, but retaining still their own; and keeping up the Scriptures of the Old Testament, when no such thing can be said of any captivated dispersed people, it seems to speak that they wait for, and as it were, expect when the veil may be taken off; that they may return to the Lord. But here, providence seconding such clear Texts of Scripture, such that leave not a doubt behind them unless men shut their eyes against the Sun, may sure be acknowledged to be an additional demonstration.  
For reasons of the necessity of such an established Ministry to be continued in constituted Churches. 
Reason's evincing a necessity of such an established Ministry.   
1. The Church of God is to continue, and have its abode through all ages of the world; as long as a world is to continue, so long a Church is to continue, in which God may have glory by Christ Jesus, Ephes. 3. 21. and therefore compared to a mountain, as for eminence, so for continuance, Psalm 125. 1. to an house built by Christ himself on a rock, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. Now a Ministry and a Church cannot be separated; It is of the integrality, if not of the essence of it. A Church settled by a Ministry, may continue being for some time, though in much imperfection, without a Ministry, but will soon be without being. This is confessed of all that would hold up a Church in being; whether Episcopal, Independent, or Presbyterial. They that would levelly a Ministry (which is the work of many) would levelly all Churches upon earth also. They would drive God from off the earth, and lay his glory in the dust.  
2. There must be intercourse between God and his people, between earth and heaven in all ages. It shall at no time be truly said with those Apostates, Ezek. 8. 12. The Lord hath forsaken the earth. Now there must be men designed, Ambassadors appointed to carry on this work. As the Priests in the Law were ordained for men in things appertaining to God, as Heb. 5. 1. So the Ministers of the Gospel have a parallel institution in succession, 1 Cor. 9 14. God in no age carries it on in an immediate way and manner.  
3. Take away this Ordinance of a Ministerial function, and all spiritual miseries to an utter confused Chaos will presently and necessarily follow. First, Ignorance, all spiritual darkness and blindness. As the setting of the Sun brings darkness upon the Horizon, so the absence of a Ministry brings darkness upon the Church. They are the light of the world, Matth. 5. 14. John Baptist was a burning light, John 5. 35. Paul was sent to bring a people from darkness to light, as Acts 26. 18. Their Ministry is called a Vision, without them men are without light. It is the highest of contradictions to cry up light, and cry down a Ministerial function. Secondly, Wickedness; this follows from the former. If a man walk in the night he stumbleth, (saith our Saviour) because there is no light in him, John 11. 10. An ignorant man cannot be above a wicked man, Ephes. 4. 18. Alienated from the life of God by reason of their ignorance that is in them: As that Prodigal (which the wise man brings in complaining, that he had not obeyed the voice of his Teachers) was almost in all the evil in the midst of the Assembly, Prov 5. 12. So, they may say that want Teachers; Blind places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty, Psal. 74. 20. Thirdly, Error, Heresy, Blasphemy. This is evident. 1. In Reason. Men that want a guide must needs go astray, Sheep without a Shepherd, cannot long hold their walk. The Apostle knew, that after his departure, ravening wolves would arise, not sparing the flock, Acts 20 29. What a Wolf is to the flock, that a seducer is to the Church. These waited the opportunity of the Apostles absence; Smite the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered; when there is no shepherd in Israel, every man does that which is right in his own eyes, as when there is no King in Israel. 2. By Experience, What gross opinions in worship did the Israelites entertain in Moses his forty days absence from them? Let us go no further than ourselves, Since a Ministry in England was blasted, and men made it their honour to revile and reproach it; how fruitful have we been in those monsters, from the lowest step of Semiseparation, to the highest pitch of Rantisme? which hath occasioned all those attestations to the truth of Christ Jesus against Errors, Heresies, and Blasphemies of this time, from the Ministers of Christ, in most parts of this Nation. Jesus Christ leaving not himself without witness, In which we may see lists of them unto trembling amazement. But if we cannot see it at home, let us hear of it from abroad, from the pen of a Protestant Divine, making observation of the state of the Church in England, gives this sad, and too true report unto the world: 
* Anglia bis 4. annis facta est collu●ies & lerna omnium errotum & sectarum: nulla à condito orbe provincia tam parvo spa●io tot manstrosas haereses protulit, atque haec. Referunt. Theo● Cestrens. in attestatione sua excusa. Anno Domini. 648.  That England in four years' space is become an ●eap and sink of all Errors and Sects, No Province from the beginning of the world, ever brought forth, in so little a space, so many monstrous Heresies, as this. Honor. Reggus Comment de statu Ecclesiae in Anglia, pag. 1. Hath Christ any thing that he may enjoy unquestioned among us? As he may not have an Ambassador, so he must not enjoy a Day, or an Ordinance, not so much as his Deity among us. 3. If neither Reason nor experience, will serve to convince us, let the Apostle be heard, Ephes. 4. 11, 14. He gave gifts unto men, some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors, and some teachers, that we be not as children ●ost to and fro, with every wind of Doctrine. One end of the Ministry is establishment of Saints against Errors. And it is not the least of the cunning sleights of men to throw down a Ministry, that error may be introduced, and Heresies planted, we must not look to be secure from Seducers, longer than a Ministry ballasts us.  
It is objected that in New Testament-times, 
Objections against a Ministerial Ordinance answered Joel 2. 28, 29. vindicated.  there is a Promise, that God will pour out his Spirit on all flesh, sons and daughters shall prophesy; your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. And also upon the servants, and upon the handmaids, in those days will I pour out my Spirit, joel 2. 28, 29 So that now this office is not with limit to some, but promiscuously in all.  
First, Answ. Old Testament-prophecies must be understood according to New Testament-Interpretations, Not always, as in the letter they may seem to hold things out, but as the Spirit of God there unfolds them; and as the event to those that live in after-ages in the Church, clears them. The rigid adhering to the letter of mystical prophecies, hath brought many into dangerous snares. This holds the Jews in blindness, Looking after a Messiah, with a temporal rule and power, they will receive no other. This caused many in Christ's time, to expect Elijah in person, and not to regard John, who came in the power and Spirit of Elijah. This holds those of the Church of Rome, that they see not that Antichrist, who opposeth Christ in a mystery, but expect one that opposeth Christ openly. And let others take heed, that it do not deceive them, while they look after a personal reign of Christ upon earth, which some mysterious Scriptures seem to imply, when open clear Texts do manifestly contradict.  
Secondly, when in New Testament-times, this prophecy was first fulfilled, observe what way was taken for the fulfilling of it, The Spirit comes in the form of tongues, fiery and cloven, and sat upon each of the Apostles, and this Peter says, was that which was foretold by Joel the Prophet, Acts 2. 16. There is a singular analogy between Scripture-signes, and the thing signified; whether ordinary in Sacraments, or extraordinary in Visions. This shows in what manner, and way, the Spirit is communicated, in all Languages, and Nations, and that the Spirit is received by the hearing of Faith; If Peter may interpret Joel, a Ministry is established, and not overthrown.  
Thirdly, those high expressions there, serve only to set out the abundance of knowledge which men by the Ministerial work should reach in Gospel-times; what Prophets then saw, and those that saw visions, and dreamt dreams knew, that men of all ranks should see, What the Prophets diligently enquired after, 1 Pet. 1. 12. they should understand.  
Fourthly, I could wish that these men would compare another prophecy of New Testament-times, Zach. 13. 2. where the Lord promises to cause the Prophets, and the unclean spirits to pass out of the land. Prophet's there, are men of unclean spirits; those false spirits that are gone out into the world. These shall be brought to a serious conviction, and shall be ashamed every one of his Vision, of the spirit of the which they use to speak, the revelation of which they were wont to boast; and shall no longer wear a rough garment to deceive, sh●l relinquish that calling, function or practice, giving in this reason; I am no Prophet, man taught me to keep cattle from my youth. Because they were bred for husbandry, man another way, therefore they are not for this function; In the case of extraordinary inspiration, this indeed holds not; Amos pleads, Amos 7. 14. I was no Prophet, nor a Prophet's son, but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of Sycamore fruit; He was thus trained up, and therefore lived in this calling, in which he was trained, till God gave him an extraordinary call; and this he pleads, The Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy to my people Israel, verse 15. Robinson the learnedst Pen (I suppose) of that party, undertaking to defend the liberty of all, promiscuously to preach the Gospel, and that it is no proper work of a Select Ministry, instances in Christ and his Apostles, who preached (saith he) in the Jewish Church without contradiction: And whereas we except against this; that they were extraordinarily called, and qualified, he answers, that the exception, though true, yet is not of force, for their argument is not that they preached (which their extraordinary call would warrant,) but that they preached and were not excepted against by the Jews; who did not believe any extraordinary immediate call of theirs, yet never excepted against them; but received them, upon the account of private men, and therefore it appears that it was their ordinary course, that any gifted man might preach without control.  
Ans. It is wonder, Answ. so quicksighted a man, could not see that Christ himself was excepted against by the Jewish Elders, and that upon this very point, how often we know not, but we see it upon record, in three several Evangelists that the excepted against him. The chief Priests and the Elders of 〈…〉 to him as he was teaching, and said, by what authority 〈◊〉 thou these things, and who gave thee this authority? Luke 20. 21. Matth. 21. 23. Mark 11. 7. Their argument runs thus: They that preach the Gospel must have their authority for it. Thou undertakest this work, produce thy authority, let us see thy warrant? Christ answers not, that it was each man's liberty, and duty, who had gifts, as he must have done, else he was wanting in his defence of the truth, in case their proposition had been false, but puts a question, in which he clearly holds out his extraordinary call; The baptism of John, whence was it, from heaven, or of men? As John Baptised, so I preach. He baptised not, neither do I preach without authority, whence we may collect that he that may presume to set up a new Sacrament, without farther authority, may with the same liberty, undertake to be a Gospel-Preacher.  
2. That Prophecy is objected, Object. Jerem. 31. 31, 32, 33. 34. This shall be the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; 
Jerem. 31. 31, 32, 33, 34. vindicated.  After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me from the least of them, even unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord, for I will forgive their inquity, and remember their sin no more.  
This Text is frequently produced for several purposes, Answ. as to assert an unconditional covenant, (that all lies on God's hand, and we are engaged to nothing) so to decry all Gospel-Ordinances, all use of a Ministry to teach the good knowledge of the Lord; Some make use of it for one of these ends, and confess it will not serve for both; It will set up an unconditional covenant, but it will not destroy New Testament-Ordinances; Others will have it serve both, when the truth is aright understood, it serves for neither.  
The two first branches of the former answer will give satisfaction here; If Old Testament-Prophecies are to be understood according to New Testament-Interpretations, than no unconditional covenant will here be established, nor yet Gospel-Ordinances decried; seeing in the New Testament, covenant-conditions are clearly and undeniably held out, and a Gospel-Ministery established, which already in both parts is fully cleared. A Ministry is set up with instructions to require faith and repentance, and that upon those terms, that without them there is no remission of sins, no salvation.  
2. As to that, for which it is here produced, it rather serves for overthrow of mutual conferences, Christian communion for mutual edification, than the Ministerial power. The Text is, not that ye shall have no more Teachers in public; But they shall teach no more every man his brother, and every man his neighbour; for every one shall know him, etc. The Apostles charge, Col. 3. 16. flies full in the face of this Interpretation, Let the Word of Christ dwell in you plenteously in all wisdom, speaking to one another, This Prophecy is so strained, that there is no need of such admonition, nor any use of brotherly exhortations. Certainly neither of these inferences from this Prophecy, were in the Apostles thoughts, when he exhorted the Thessalonians, 1 Thes. 5. 11. Comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do, adding in the next verses: And we beseech you brethren to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake, etc. The council had been more suitable, to have bid them to have ceased this mutual consolation, and edification; And, as for th●se that were over them, that distinction of over, and under, was Antichristian, that they must cease to honour, and make it their business to levelly them. But above all, it is wonder, how those that are high, in setting up, all for Teachers, and will have liberty of prophecy promiscuous, can with face urge this Text, The letter of it being against, brother and brother, neighbour and neighbour, teaching one another, and not against a Ministerial way for edification.  
3. For the full interpretation of the words, that of King James must be acknowledged; In mystical prophecies, it is far more easy to confute an absurd interpretation; than find out a true one. One that joins in the former part, to establish an unconditional covenant, against New Testament-light, yet leaves them in the latter, and says, The not teaching one another, there spoken of, is meant of that obscure teaching which was under the Law. I wish that his party would here heed him, and that himself would consider, that when he would have them to recede from the rigid adhering to the letter of this part of the prophecy, for overthrow of all helps for knowledge, whether he have not equal cause to recede from that which he, would with like rigour fasten upon it; I shall undertake as clearly from the New Testament, to hold out conditions in the covenant of Grace; as any other man shall find either warrant, or Ordinance for public, or private admonition or exhortation; They shall not have so much need of teaching as formerly, say the Annotations on that place, and it is plain, that, that is often spoken in Scripture negatively; that is meant comparatively; I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, Hos. 6. 6. When he would have both mercy and sacrifice, though mercy preferred above sacrifice. Calvin hath fully spoken to this objection, satisfying both his Adversary and his Reader, giving them a full refutation, and the Text a good interpretation: 
a Quòd autem fanatici homines hinc occasionem arripiunt, abolendae exterrae praedicationis, acsi sub Christi regno esset superuacua, facilè corum insania rejell●tur. Haec corum est objectio Post Christi adventum non debet quisque; proximum suum docere; sacessat ig●tur externum Ministerium, ut internae Dei inspirationi detur locus. Atqui praeter●unt quod in primis animadversione dignum erat. Neque enim in totum Propheta negat quin docturi sint alii alios, sed haec sunt verb●●, non doccbunt, dicendo, Cognosce Dominum, acsi diceret, non amplius occupabit hominum mentes igneratia qualis antehac, ut nesciant quis sit Deus Scimus autem duplicem esse Doctrinae usum Primò, ut qui poenitus rades sunt a primis elementis incipiant deinde ut qui jam sunt initiati majores faciant progressus. Quum ergo Christianis quam ●u vivunt proficiendum sit, certum est, ne minem usquo adeò satere. qaiu ●oceri opus habeat utpars non postremae sapieriae nostrae sit docilitas; Quae autem proficiendi sit ratio si velimus esse Christi discipuli, Ptulus ostendit ad E●●es. cap. 4. 11. Constituit pastors & Doctores, etc. Hinc apparet nihil minùs Prophetae venisse in mentem, quam spoliari Ecclesiam tam necessario bono.  In that some fantastic spirits, (saith he,) take occasion from hence to abolish all outward preaching of the Word, as though in the Kingdom of Christ it were superfluous, their madness may easily be answered. This is their objection: (saith he) After the coming of Christ a man ought not to teach his neighbour; let an outward Ministry then be gone, and give way to an inward in piration. But they pass that by (saith our Author) that in the Prophet which is chiefly worthy of observation; The Prophet doth not deny that one should teach another, but these are his words; They shall not teach one another, saying, Know the Lord; as though he should say, such ignorance should not possess the minds of men as heretofore, that they should not know who the Lord is, for we know there is a twofold use of teaching. First, That those that were altogether ignorant, may begin with the first elements; and afterwards that they that are thus entered, may make a farther progress. Therefore when Christians as long as they live aught to learn, there is none so wise, but need to be taught, so that a teachable disposition is not the least part of wisdom, and what our way to profit is, if we will be Christ's Disciples, Paul showeth in his Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. 4. 11. He gave gifts unto men; some Pastors, some Teachers, etc. Whence it appears that nothing else came into the Prophet's thoughts, than to spoil the Church of so great a benefit. Thus far judicious Calvin on Heb. 8. verse 8, 9, 10, 11. In case these words [not only] might be supplied as some would have it, men shall not only teach one another, Know the Lord, but all shall know me; giving instances of the like, of necessity to be supplied in other Scriptures, than the whole scope of the place were cleared: For the Jews as they did make use of the teaching of men, so, for the generality they rested in it; Here they are taught that which they never minded, the necessity of the concurrence, of Gods teaching with man's, that when man discovers the object, God should put in frame the Organ. Certain it is, that when other prophecies foretell in New Testament-times, men's zeal, to stir up one another in the knowledge of God, (as Isa. 2. 3. Zech. 8. 21, 22, 23. yea, the very Chapter whence this prophecy is taken, ver. 6. and the Apostles in the New Testament call upon men for the mutual help of each other for edification) this Prophecy does not stand alone for the destruction of it.   

CHAP. XXVII.  
Schools and Nurseries of Learning, in order to a gifted Ministry necessary.  
AS a Ministry is to be established, to bring men into Covenant, and to bring them up, to the terms of the covenant, so all that necessarily conduces to it, is necessarily to be provided. First, Nurseries, Seminaries, Seed-plots, for gifts and abilities fitting for it, and suitable to it. Qui vult finem, vult media, is a certain rule; the end ever supposes the way to it. He that will be a workman, must have tools; He that will fight a battle, must have arms; He that will make a Purchase, must have moneys; As, other things, so, the Ministry must have its due preparations. Christ having commissioned the twelve, for the work of discipling Nations, they must not set upon it, till they were enpoured for it. We have not inspiration; that is to be supplied by education, the way that Paul gave in charge to Timothy, Give attendance to reading, 1 Tim. 4. 13. Meditate wholly on these things, that thy profiting may appear to all, verse 15. As he had not health by miracle, but in the use of means, 1 Tim. 5. 23. so, neither had he gifts for the Ministry, but by study. A way for the advancement of study is therefore necessary, and though neither Law nor Gospel, do in the letter expressly appoint them; no more than they did Synagogues for the Jews, and the like places of Assembly for Christians, yet by way of necessary consequence, both Law, and Gospel call for them, seeing they expressly call for that, which without these cannot be effected. A School to teach letters, with the Art of spelling, that we may be able to read, is not any where appointed, The Holy Ghost speaking to men of the light of Reason; and requiring knowledge of the Law by searching the Scriptures, and meditation in it, knew, this was needless: As petty Schools for private Christians, so are Schools of a higher nature, for the Ministerial Function; Therefore, as all Sects whatsoever had their Schools, to advance their way; Stephen met with some of them at Jerusalem, 
Universities of necessary use.  Paul at Athens, so, we find the like for the propagation of the knowledge of the Law of God, The Sons of the Prophets say to Elisha, 2 King. 6. 1. Behold, the place where we dwell is too straight for us. Sons of Prophets, were no other than Pupils, or Scholars of the Prophets, and we see, that they made their abode together, and their number increased; To this Solomon alludes in the Proverbs, in the Person of Wisdom, My son, receive my instruction; and our Saviour also, Wisdom is justified of all her children, Mat. 11. 19 Such a place there was at Naioth in Ramah, whither David fled, and Saul followed him, 1 Sam. 19 20. There was Samuel, and a company of Prophets. Naicthum venerunt, etc. They came to Naioth, which was the dwelling of the Prophets, who exercised themselves in the Law of God, that the doctrine of salvation might be propagaed throughout the whole region of Israel. So Calvin on the place, Naioth habitatio quaedam, etc. Naioth was the dwelling of the Prophets in Ramah, where the believers gave themselves up to the study of God's Law, and were called the sons of the Prophets. Pelican in locum, pag. 200 And from these wor●s Willer on the place (out of Peter Martyr) concludes, that The noble foundation of Universities, and Schools of Learning, is grounded upon the example of the Prophets. To this end there was a College in Jerusalem, where Huldah the Prophetess did live, 2 Chron. 34. 22. And Jeremy who lived in the same time, speaks of the Prophets of Jerusalem, as of the Prophets of Samaria, Jerem. 23. 13, 14. In either places they had, as appears, Schools of the Prophets. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Schools for learning were still held up by the Jews. They had their University in Tiberias, as Weemes observes, Christian Synagogue, page 148. In Babylon, saith he, there were three famous Universities, Neharda, Sora and Pambeditha. He farther saith, Colleges were appointed to receive strangers, and were called Labrothenu, which is corruptly read Libertines, Acts 6. 9 By the same providence, on like warranty in the days of the Gospel, they have been set up at Alexandria, Antioch, where many famous men taught publicly (saith Wille● further out of Martyr,) as Pentianus, Origen, Clemens. These through God's goodness are continued; wheresoever the Gospel is preached, so that the use of Schools, the necessity of Universities, is evident as well in Scripture as the light of Reason. Objections answered.  
Object. But the Universities of Europe are a cause of universal sins and plagues, Object. we wa●t the Universities. the S 〈◊〉 and Seed plots of all Piety. But have not those fountains, ever sent what streams the times liked, and ever changed their 〈…〉, according to the Prince's eye and palate? Bloody tenant, page 173. Answ. Answ. So from the Prophets of Jerusalem (as Jeremy complains) profaneness went into all the land, Their Universities (it seems) were as foul as ours which the Prophet bewailed, and had a zeal to purge but not to destroy and wholly ruinate. The streams from thence (blessed be God) have not run in one channel. We have from thence sweet waters (as well as bitter streams) that have made glad the Cities of God.  
Object. Object. I honour Schools for Tongues and Arts, but the institution of Europe's Universities, devoting Persons, for Scholars in a Monastical way, forbidding marriage and labour too, I hold (saith one) as far from the mind of Jesus Christ, as it is from the propagating of his name and worship. 
Sol.  Bloody Tenent. page 173. Answ. I am of your mind, They very well agree to both, as may sufficiently appear in that which hath been said They that propagate his Name and worship, must know it; and this is the way to attain to knowledge, For the forbidding of labour, I know no such express statute, but the very being of Schools, of this kind is inconsistent with it. A School for Tongues, and Arts, cannot be a shop for Trades, Can we think, those Sons of the Prophets that studied under Elisha, or those Prophets under Samuel, had their employments of manufactures or tillage? If they had been men of labour, they would sure have had an Axe among them, and not have been put to borrow. To be a Prophet and an Husbandman, as Zach. 13. 5. taught from youth to keep cattle; cannot stand together, as hath been shown. The Levites had no land for tillage, nor yet do we read that they drove any trades, Their work we find prescribed them, Deut. 33. 10. They shall teach Jacob thy judgements, and Israel thy Laws, they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt-offering before the Altar. So for Ministers of the Gospel, we hear of their labour in Word and Doctrine, their charge to preach in season and out of season. For the forbidding of marriage; there is no such thing, who hath not known men, in that state in the Universities, and Resident in Colleges? It is true that those Students, that have their maintenance from the Founder's donation, upon marriage lose their place, but do not incur expulsion. And the thing is very equal, seeing those places are not intended for a settled abode, (as some abuse them) but for Preparation for public employment, whether in Church or State, and who blames those ties of Apprentices from marriage, for the term of their service to know their trades? If wives and families should be taken in, they would soon find the inconvenience that the sons of the Prophets complained of, their dwellings would be too straight for them.  
Object. Object. Have not the Universities sacrilegionsly stole this blessed name of Christ's Scholars from his People? Is not the very Scripture-language itself bec●me absurd, to wit, to call God's People, especially women (as Dorcas) Scholars? Answ. Bloody tenant, ibid. And was it not an equal sacrilege, for some peculiar men to take the title of the Sons of the Prophets, who (as it is plain) were not their children, but their Scholars, and therefore the Prophets, (under whose tuition they were) were called by them, as, by the name of Father, 2 King. 2. 12. so, also by the name of Master, 2 King. 6. 5. being those Masters of the Assemblies that the Wise man speaks of, Eccles. 12. Others heard the doctrine, and as sons received the instructions of the Prophets as well as they, yet the title is given peculiarly to some, who in a peculiar way were separate for that work, not common to all men, much less to women. Besides, the word Scholar is plainly in relation to Schools, men may learn Christ and be his disciples, is confessed, though they be not Scholars in this way.  
I know no Schools of the Prophets in the New Testament, Object. but the particular Congregation of Christ Jesus. And I question whether it be any thing but sin that hath dried up this current of the Spirit, in those rare gifts of tongues, to God's sons and daughters, serving so admirably, both for the understanding of the Original Scriptures, and also for the propagating of the Name of Christ. Who knows but that it may please the Lord, again to clothe his People, with a Spirit of zeal, and courage for the Name of Christ, yea and pour forth those fiery streams again of tongues, and prophecy in the restauration of Zion? Bloody tenant page 174. I am glad to here it confessed, that sin is displeasing to God, and that any judgement on the Church is confessed to be let in at this gate; I am glad farther to hear that tongues serve, so admirably to propagate the Name of Christ, whence I infer, that while this judgement for sin continues, there is a necessity of other courses to attain this, that is acknowledged to be of this excellency. Since the judgement was laid on the earth for sin, men have got their bread with labour, and so must as long as the judgement remains. The like pains must be for learning as for a living; When God shall please to pour out again these fiery streams, we then shall confess the unusefulnesse of Schools to this purpose, in the mean space their use is evident. And seeing it is acknowledged that men must dig with daily study, and labour to come at the Original fountains; let none be like Pharaoh to urge a tale of brick, and deny straw. If they must thus dig, let them not be necessitated to go to the Papists to sharpen their spades, as sometimes Israel to the Philistines, with their goads and mattocks, which yet necessarily will be, if their Schools be kept up, and ours cried down. Mr. Ainsworth is brought in for an instance, who (as is said) had scarce his peer, among a thousand Academians for the Scripture-Originals, and yet he scarce set foot within a College walls. His abilities in the tongues is evident (which was his Masterpiece) but his education I know not but one Swallow makes not a Spring. I have known a man excellent, in the most exquisite manual trade, who yet never served a Master to learn it, yet this never took men off the way of Apprenticeships If Mr. Ainsworth scarce set foot in a College walls, yet he reaped the fruit of their labours that were studied, and thi● way excelled. Is this the honour that you profess to give to Schools for Tongues and Arts, to persuade men not to set their foot within them?  
Another goes yet here farther, Object. not only to put down Schools, and demolish Academies for learning but to deny any necessity or use of learning at all, yea, any necessity of a Ministry for interpretation of Scripture, as the Compassionate Samaritan, page 29, 30, 31. One interest (among others by him named) of Ministers, is to persuade the people, that the Scriptures, though we have them in our tongue, are not yet to be understood by us, without their help, and interpretation, so that in effect we are in the same condition with those we have so long pitied, that are forbid to have the Scriptures in their own tongue; for it is alone, not to have them in our own tongue, and to be made believe that we cannot understand them, though we have them in our own. Is the cabinet open to us? and do we yet want a key? has so much labour been spent? so many translations extant, and are we yet to seek? Let us argue a little with them; either the Scriptures are not rightly translated, or else they are; if they are not, why have we not been told so all this while? why have we been cheated into errors? if they are rightly translated, why should not English men understand them? The idioms and proprieties of the Hebrew and Greek languages, which some say, cannot word for word be expressed in English, might all this while have been translated into as many English words, as will carry the sense thereof.  
For the dilemma concerning the Scriptures rightly translated, or not rightly; I may apply that of Job, chap. 6. verse 15. How forcible are right words, but what doth your arguing reprove? and answer in a word, that they are rightly translated according to the reach of a humane work, and more rightly than the translation followed so much by the Evangelists and Apostles. I suppose, all will yield that ours is more exact after the Original, than was that of the Seventy; And yet there was no cheat in those translations; if there had, those witnesses of Christ had not been silent; and yet not such a perfection that will bear no amendment. There is still use of examination of them, of asserting and defending them; But be it granted that the translation is every way exact and full, does it follow that there needs no help or interpretation? The people of the Jews had the Original itself, and spoke the language in which Scripture was written; yet the Priests lips were then to preserve knowledge, and the people were to seek the law at his mouth, Mal. 2 6. The cabinet was open to them, as it is to us; yet there needed a key for farther opening. Those two Disciples, with whom Christ had to deal with, upon the way, had the Scriptures, either in the translation, or Original, as is evident from Christ's own words, reproving them for not believing all that the Prophets had written, and yet a key of interpretation was needful, and useful; Christ opened unto them the Scriptures, Luke 24. 32. If this Compassionate Samaritan were questioned (as the Eunuch was by Philip) understandest thou what thou readest? he would not have given his answer, How shall I understand without an Interpreter? But would straight have answered, Yes, as well as any linguist in the world; I have no need of your help for interpretation. The cabinet is open, spare your key. This was one of the Arts, that some Prelates made use of, to keep up a reading Ministry, to persuade, that Scripture were so plain distinctly read in our own tongue, that they might be understood without any interpretation. But the plainness and easiness of a rule, and the use of means for understanding of it stand together; We maintain a plainness in Scripture for the simple to understand, but not sitting idle, and lazy; but searching the Scriptures, and making use of those gifts of Christ, which he shed forth from the right hand of the Father, for the edifying of his body, till we come into the unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man. That we might not henceforth be as children, tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness of those that lie in wait to deceive, Ephes. 4. 12, 13. We may soon see their artifice that labour to bear them down, Thus they know their cunning sleight may be carried in the dark, and their impostures lie undiscovered. Our compassionate man, pretending to avoid a cheat; acts the part of the most notable cheater. The Prophet stood for that office of the Priests, that their lips should preserve knowledge, even when they had corrupted the covenant of Levi, Whatsoever their way was, yet this was their duty, so must we for the Stewards of the mysteries of God, It is their work to dispense them, and the people are to seek at their mouths for them. But enough I hope hath been spoke for a Ministry, for a knowing Ministry, and objections against it fully satisfied.   

CHAP. XXVIII  
An orderly way of admission of men, into the Mininisterial function necessary.  
AS men for the Ministry are to be trained up for the work, So there must be an orderly way of admittance to it, 
Self-consecration to the Ministerial work unwarrantable.  the way which Scripture traces out to us. Self-consecration is alone beseeming the Priests of Jeroboam, 2 Chron. 13 9 the lowest of the people that have neither inspiration, nor education, that have been taught of men (not any thing that may conduce to the dividing of the Word aright; but) how to keep cattle, Zach. 13. 5. or some answerable employment, in its due place commendable, but no introduction to the Ministerial honour. These run, and stay not for sending, and going without commission, they go without assistance, and soon run themselves into those bogs, in which without special grace, they are irrecoverably plunged; they want home-reproofs, the wounds of friends, Zach. 13. 6. that they may no longer wear a rough garment to deceive; When the Apostle lays down the greatest necessity of preaching, he puts the question, How shall they preach, unless they be sent? Men that go upon this work, must be able to make good their call. The Ministry of the Gospel being of divine institution, as well as the Priesthood of the Law; there must be a call from God for the one as for the the other; Heb. 5. 4. No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. There is none that expect not a call from God in this work, but have their brand in the Scripture, Jerem. 14. 14. The Lord said unto me, The Prophet's prophecy lies in my name, and I sent them not; yet they say, sword and famine shall not be in this land: by sword and famine shall those Prophets be consumed, Jerem. 27. 15. For I have not sent them, saith the Lord, yet they prophesy a lie in my name, that I might drive you out, and that ye might perish, and the Prophets that prophesy unto you. 
A call from God to the Ministerial work must be expected.  And as they run on their own heads, so they vent their own tenants, and prophesy out of the deceit of their own hearts, Jerem. 23. 26. Those shall never find comfort in the work, that are not able to say with the Apostle, Christ sent me to preach the Gospel, 1 Cor. 1. 17.  
1. The work is Gods, the advancement and setting up of his Kingdom, the ruin and demolition of the Kingdom of Satan, Acts 26. 18. The whole of all that they do is of high concernment to him; Each man will see to his own business, and find labourers for his own work; God hath no less care, Jesus Christ is no less mindful, Harvest-Masters provide harvest-labourers; The Master of this harvest provides labourers for his work, and gives them commission, Mat. 9 38.  
2. All necessaries for the work, inward, outward, are to be supplied from him. They must have livelihood and provision from heaven, they must receive instruction from heaven, They must be taught of God, that they may teach; God must protect; he must encourage and embolden, he must command success, and give increase. They are agents in his hand, and must be appointed by him; it is no marvel, if they that be not sent of him, be left destitute of all  
3. He is a God of Order, and he will have Order observed, and in no way is Order seen so comely, as when all know their places, and stations; When in a great house or a mighty Army, each man will do what work he pleases; undertake what place of trust and command he pleases; each Soldier in an army will be a Commander, each servant in a family a Steward, there must needs be high and great confusion. The manifold absurdities that will unavoidably follow, in case each man may thrust himself into this work, and so drive on his own interests, see in Master Hall his Pulpit guarded, Argument. 5. This power of putting men into this work, equally concerns the whole Trinity, Each one of the persons hath his hand in the separation of men for it; Jesus Christ in a vision, sent Paul upon this errand, Acts 26. 18. see further, 1 Cor. 1. 17. Eph. 4. 11. He is, an Apostle by the will of God, Col. 1. 1. which is understood of the Father. God set in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, 1 Cor. 12. 28. The Holy Ghost hath here an hand, Acts 13. 2. The holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them, Acts 20. 28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. And this sending or authorising, is, as their gifting, 
The call of God is either extraordinary and immediate, or ordinary and mediate by the Ministry of men.  or fitting, either extraordinary and immediate, nothing of man intervening; or else mediate by man's Ministry and his approbation. Paul had both an immediate way; both his authority, and ability for the work; he professes that he is an Apostle; not of man, nor by man; he owes it not to man as the Author, so may any Minister of Christ say, he owes it not to man as an instrument; so only Prophets and Apostles can say: As his Calling was thus immediate, so in like sort was his instructions for it, Gal. 1. 12. For I neither received if of man, neither was I taught it; but by the Revelation of Jesus Christ. They that divide these, are exceedingly to blame; assuming authority without man, but confessing that for abilities, as they must look up to God, so they must make use of man, must apply themselves to reading, and make use of the helps of others.  
The immediate Call is by Vision, 
The immediate call is by vision, revelation, etc.  Revelation, or whatsoever otherway God pleases to manifest himself. Thus in a vision Paul was called; where that is not, the mediate Call only remains, which is the way of all that attain to gifts by education, study, and the blessing of heaven on their endeavours. This is called, as in Scripture, 
The mediate and ordinary call is by Ordination.  so in Church-writers, by the name of Ordination, and the whole work (containing as well that which is essential to it, as the adjuncts of it) may be thus described. An act of men in a Ministerial function, 
Ordination described, and in the several parts of it explained.  associated in a Presbytery; setting some apart upon proof and examination, as Presbyters and Elders in the Church, by fasting and praying with imposition of hands. We find no other, but men in Ministerial function, in all the holy Scriptures acting in it. 
Men in Ministerial function are to act in it.  Paul and Barnabas ordain Elders in every Church, which in their journal they visit, Acts 14. 23. Timothy is directed in the way of it. 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man. Titus is enjoined to ordain Elders in every City in Crect, Tit. 1. 5. He is named alone, but the naming of one excludes not others, and therefore it appears, that in Timothy's Ordination, a Presbytery, or a combination of Presbyters did join, 1 Tim. 4. 14. which way in our Church hath ever been held. The Bishop (supposed by some, to be vested in the whole power of Ordination) never had authority to ordain alone; but grave Presbyters according to the Canon, were to join with him, though by reason of greatness, his vote ordinarily did overmuch sway in it. Some would have the people here to have their hand, in that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place of the Acts, chap. 14. 23. implies a lifting up of the hand. But whatsoever the word in its Etymology may imply, the use is not such, as is plain by comparing Acts 10. 41. where the immediate Ordination of God, by the same word is held forth unto us. They know the weight of the Ministerial function, and they are best able to judge of requisite abilities. One that is willing to give as much to the people, as may be, yet confesses that in Grammatical construction, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can agree with no other but Paul and Barnabas, and that it was only their act; and therefore he would find it in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which (saith he) doth not signify in every Church, as it is translated, but according to the Church instancing in the Orator's phrase, Faciam secundumte; I will do it according to thy mind: So they (viz. Paul and Barnabas) ordained them Elders, according to the Church, that is, according to the mind and will of the Church. If this were granted, it would only conclude an acquiescency in the people, and that they had satisfaction in that Ordination, carried on by Paul and Barnabas. Yet this phrase here, can no where prove that the Church or people; made choice of them, than we man prove from that injunction of the Apostle, Titus 1. 5. to ordain Elders in every City, that the whole City had there their vote in Elections; As much stress may be laid upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every City, or according to the mind of the City, in this of Paul to Titus, as upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church, or according to the mind of the Church, in that of Luke in the History of the Acts. What power the people or the faithful may have in Election, and how far it may be convenient that they may be overborne for their good, I will not here dispute. I only conclude, that we find not the people any where ordaining we read of Ordination in Churches, for the Church's use, not Ordination by Churches, taking it in that sense, for the whole community of Believers.  
These, 
This Ordination is of Presbyters and Elders.  in a Ministerial function in this act of Ordination, set select men apart for Presbyters, or Elders; so Acts 14. 23. Titus 1. 5. Titus is enjoined to ordain Elders in every City in Crect, who are the same with Bishops, as appears in Titus 1. verse 5. 7. compared. 
These Elders are the same with Bishops.  The qualification of Elders is there prescribed; and the reason is given, for a Bishop must be blameless, which will hold no congruity, if an Elder be not the same with a Bishop, Which also may be seen, Acts 20. comparing ver. 17. and the 28. together. The Apostle there speaks to the Elders of Ephesus, and he gives them a charge, to take heed to all the fl●ck, over which the Holy Ghost had made them Overseers; that is, had given them an Episcopal charge, as the word signifies. Elders must set apart men for Elders, and Presbyters are to be set apart by a Presbytery.  
This Ordination of Elders is to be in the Church, 
They are Elders of the Church universal.  or for the Church, which may be taken either for the universal Church visible, or for some particular Church, and that either congregational or classical. Ministerial functions are appointed of God, for the Church universal visible. God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secundarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, etc. 1 Cor. 12▪ 28. No one particular Church, congregational or classical, enjoys all the particular kinds there enumerated, yet so as the exercise of this function, is to be with limit to one particular only. They are Ministers of the Church universal; yet so as orderly to exercise their function, only there, where God by his providence shall design them. There are some functions (as I may say) Catholic, what such a one doth any where in his function, is good every where, as a public Notary, or Master of the Chancery, that which they do any where, is every where valid, within the limit of that power under which they act; It is of force through the whole Nation. Some functions are topical or local, as Justices of Peace, a chief officer in a Corporation, Sheriff, or Constable, who are without power out of their own limits. A Minister or Presbyter is a Catholic or Universal Officer, he hath jus in re, in the whole Church visible, for all Ministerial actions, whether of Word or Sacraments, he hath jus ad rem, in the place assigned and appointed him, where alone he is regularly to officiate, and so, hath the title of an Aggel, or Elder of such a particular Church to which he is called, Rev. 2. 1, 7, etc. Acts 20. 17. He hath a first right every where, a second right only where he is orderly placed.  
This is to be done by examination or trial, 
Ordination is to be passed on examination or trial.  if no word of Scripture did mention it, yet the thing itself evinces the necessity of it; Scripture lays down the requisites or qualifications in Ministers. First, for years, not a novice, 1 Tim. 3. 6. Some are old young, which may answer some want of years, more fit at twenty four, than others at thirty. Secondly, for conversation; Blameless, as the Steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate, Titus 1. 7, 8. Thirdly, for parts and gifts; 2 Tim. 2. 15. A workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of Truth, Tit. 1. 9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convince gainsayers. Fourthly, for graces of the Spirit, they should be as Barnabas, full of the Holy Ghost and of Faith, Acts 11. 24. From which gifts of nature must not be excluded, as strength of body in its measure, that the body may in some sort keep pace with the soul. The gift of utterance, that not only his head, but his lips may preserve knowledge, that he may be able to speak, to edification, exhortation, and doctrine; of these such that act in Ordination, should have knoweldge, of each of them so far, as they may come to cognizance, of some of these by letters of commendation from faithful persons, 2 Cor. 3. 1. of others by proof and examination, 1 Tim. 3. 10. The Apostle having laid down the qualifications of Bishops, and proceeding to that of Deacons; hath these words, Let these also be proved, and then let them use the office of a Deacon; both Bishops and Deacon must undergo examination. Timothy must lay hands suddenly on none, 1 Tim. 1. 22. He must then lay on his hands no otherwise, but upon proof and trial, which the context (speaking of sins, some open going before to judgement, others following after) seems to evince, such cautiousness cannot stand; without all possible ways and means of proof and trial  
All this is to be solemnised by fasting and prayer; in which we have Scripture-precedents, 
To be solemnised with fasting and prayers.  Act. 13. 2. When they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away, Acts 14. 23. When they had ordained them Elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. This I take not, to be of the essence of Ordination; not necessary to the very being; but the better being of it in imploring God's assistance and blessing. It is a great work, a work of glorius concernment; it is a work above our strength to manage, more weighty than our shoulders can bear, there is more than parts, gifts and endowments, (whether natural or acquired) required in it. All supplies being (as before we heard) to be expected from heaven, heaven must be implored, God must be earnestly sought in it. Fasting should add wings to our prayers, that our voice may be heard on high. A shadow of this still remained in the Church, as appers, by those Jejunia quatuor temporum at the times of Ordination; which indeed, was almost brought to a mere shadow.  
The last thing mentioned in the Definition, 
Imposition of hands to be used in Ordination.  is imposition of hands; A rite or usage in practice before the Law, Gen. 48. 14. held in the time of the Law, Levit. 1. 4. and continued in the days of the Gospel, as consisting with the simplicity of it. It was used in blessing, Gen. 48. 14. Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head in his blessing of them. Matth. 19 13. They brought children to Christ, that he should put his hands on them and pray; which accordingly he did, Mark 10. 16. He put his hands upon them, and blessed them. It was used in Offerings, Levit. 1. 4. If any man bring an Offering unto the Lord, he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering, and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him. It was used in bearing witness, as Levit. 24. 14. Where the Lord gives charge concerning the blasphemer; Bring forth him that hath cursed, without the Camp, and let all that have heard him, lay their hands upon his head. It was used in conferring extraordinary gifts, Acts 8. 17. Peter and John laid their hands, on those that believed in Samaria, and they received the Holy Ghost. It was used in miraculous cures, Mark 6. 5. Christ could do there no mighty works, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them, Acts 28. 8. It was used in designing men for office, and that either civil, for the work of the Magistracy. Deut. 34. 9 Joshua the son of Nun was full of the Spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him, and the children of Israel harkened unto him, and did as Lord commanded Moses. Or Ecclesiastical, and that for the work of the Lord in the time of the Law, Levit. 8. 10. and also in the days of the Gospel, Acts. 13. 3. And from this rite of imposition of hands, (in use in this work of Ordination) the whole work hath sometimes its denomination, 1 Tim. 5 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man; 
An Objection answered.  where imposition of hands is put for the whole work. Some I know would take all this off, as to Ordination by laying on of hands, by the objection of extraordinary gifts, which were this way conferred, as was before confessed, of which they will have that Text understood, 2 Tim. 1. 6. Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. But this is too weak to avoid, it for though we have already said; that when the Holy Ghost was given in those extraordinary endowments, hands were imposed, yet whole Presbyteries cannot ordinarily be conceived, to be vested with that power, yet they jointly in this work laid on their hands, 1 Tim. 4. 14. And that advice of Paul to Timothy, 1 Tim. 5. 22. plainly contradicts it, lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins. In case Timothy had had that power to have conferred with the calling, qualifications for the calling, he had no need to have been in that way advised, to use such circumspection. Why should he be so careful to see them first fit, in case his laying on of hands would fit them? There need not such trial whether they were gifted in case a touch of the hand would be the gifting of them. And for Timothy's Ordination in the place quoted, 2 Tim. 1. 6. it follows not from our grant; that extraordinary gifts are there specified, that authority for the Ministerial work is denied. It is plain that Moses authorised Joshua, for succession in his place; by laying on of hands, Deut. 34. 9 The people upon that took him for his successor, yet it is as plain in the Text, that the Spirit of wisdom was then conferred upon him: Authority and power are sometimes given at once, yet all that are in power to authorise, cannot empower for this business, he that will see more, may read Dr. Seaman's Treatise on this subject, and jus divinum Ministerii Ecclesiastici.   

CHAP. XXIX.  
Ministers of Christ must bring their people up to the terms of the Covenant, pressing the neccessity of Faith and Repentance.  
THen it farther yet follows; that the Ministers of Christ are to call their people unto these duties, before mentioned as conditions. They must urge and press the necessity of Faith and Repentance. These are the terms of the covenant, and stipulation, to which God in covenant doth engage, in which the Apostles of Christ spent their pains, Testifying both to Jews and Gentiles, repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, Acts 20. 21. And this must be the business of those that make it their business to preach the Gospel in all ages. Men must be taught to observe what Christ commands and teaches, Matth. 28. 20. These Christ teaches, and gives in charge; Thus he begun his Ministry, Mark 1. 15. Repent ye, and believe the Gospel. They must so preach that men may not perish; that they may not be the savour of death, But they only that believe, shall not perish, John 3. 16. They that repent not, must perish, Luke 13. 1. They must so preach Christ, that men may have their interest in Christ, that they may not be cast off by Christ, But Faith gives this interest: He dwells in our hearts by Faith, Ephes. 3. 17. Workers of iniquity must be cast off, Mat. 7. 23. Depart from me all ye that work iniquity. It is no plain dealing in any of the Ministers of Christ to make tender of promises, to hold forth privileges, and conceal the terms, upon which they may be obtained; to speak of salvation to men in sin, without so much as the name of sanctification, or application to God in a way of Repentance; to tell men in the Prodigals course, of the Father's bowels, and readiness to meet them with kisses; without mention of the Prodigals humiliation or coming in, to tell them of the many sins forgiven to the woman in the Gospel, Luk 7. 47. without once mention of those many tears, that were shed in evidence of her repentance. 
An Objection answered.  They say, that these are the strongest motives to work men from sin. This I gladly yield when the promise is tendered, and with it repentance urged. I know it was the way of the Prophet, 
The danger of severing the promise from the duty.  Esay 55. 7. and therefore a prevalent way; Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. The way also of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 6. 17. Be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you. But the severing of the promise from the duty, so that Christ is heard only in a promise, not at all in a precept, when they hear that Christ will save; but are never told that they must repent. These are but delusions; Promise-Preachers, and no duty-Preachers; grace-Preachers, and not repentance-Preachers, do but (as the Apostle hath long since given warning) deceive with vain words, Ephes. 5. 6. This will never work men from sin, but strengthen men in sin, Ezek. 13. 22. Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad, and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising life. These promises of life thus tendered, we see are lies, for men in sin, are men for death, Ezek. 18. 31. These promises, strengthen the hands of men in sin, that they return not from it. It is the observation of many, that the false Prophets so branded in the Old Testament, vented no errors in Faith, but only misapplications of truths. They promised peace, where the Lord had promised no peace; and therefore a false Prophet among the Jews is distinguished from a false Teacher among Christians, 2 Pet. 2. 1. These latter bring in damnable heresies, and so did not the former; But as ours outstrip them, in that they bring in errors in faith, so they join with them in misapplications of truths. If thou be a whoremonger, a blasphemer, a drunkard, a mad man in iniquity (saith one, or words to that purpose) and there be no manner of change wrought in thee, yet come and take Christ, etc. Does any Gospel-Text, speak of such a man's taking of Christ, without any manner of change wrought? Are not those the enemies of Christ, that rise in hostile rebellion? Psal 68 21. And while they despise him, can they receive him? We would not have such a sinner (if we can possibly imagine a great sinner) kept from Christ Jesus; but he must come in at the Gospel-door, He must come in the way of his call, He must come to receive whole Christ in each function of his, He must come for every gift, 
Whole Christ must be received, and all of his gifts embraced.  which Christ pours out, He must come for repentance from Christ, as a Prince, as well as remission of sins as a Saviour, Acts 5. 31. God hath exalted him with his right hand to be a Prince, and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. He must come by the way of Faith for forgiveness, This both Prophets and Apostles, Old Testament and New Testament-Gospel calls for, Acts 10. 43. To him give all the Prophet's witness, that through his Name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. They must come by repentance and conversion in order to forgiveness, Acts 3. 19 Repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. I do not say that there is no promise in Scripture made to a wicked man, that is the greatest Gospel-paradox; But I say, they are not made good, to wicked persons. They are made to the wicked, made good, 
Promises are made to the wicked, made good only to the believing and penitent.  that is, performed, to the believing and penitent. To find a promise made, and made good, that is, tendered and performed to a man unbelieving, impenitent is indeed a labour. One replying to this question, What, if I have not those conditions in me, as to feel myself hungry, thirsty and heavy-laden? answers, If you find not these or such conditions in you; Objections answered. than you are not to apply yourself to those promises, that are made to such as have those conditions in them; But you are to seek out for other (and more suitable) promises, which are absolute and without condition. It is worth ask where those suitable promises are to a man void of faith? For that before by the Author was mentioned, or to a man impenient, and not so much as hungering after them, such a one I mean, that upon good grounds, is able to charge the want of these upon his soul, I am sure they are under heavy Scripture-woes, even Gospel-menaces, and can they at the same time be fitted to receive the mercy of a promise? Where are his promises that hungers and thirsts not, when Christ saith, Woe to you that are full, for you shall hunger? Where is his promise that mourns not, but goes on frolic in his way, When Christ saith, Woe unto you that laugh now, for ye shall weep and lament, Luke 6. 25. Where is the unbelievers promise, when the Lord says, He that believeth not, is condemned, already; because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God, John 3. 18. Where is the impenitent man's promise, when the Psalmist saith, The wicked shall be turned into hell, Psalm 9 17. and the Apostle, That no unrighteous person shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven, 1 Cor. 6. 9 But instance is given, Isa. 43. 25. I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own name sake. But this is not the unbelieving, the impenitent man's transgressions, they still stand on record, and the bond uncancelled. This excludes motives from us, not graces wrought in us, when God justifies a believer, it's for his own name sake, or else he is a loser in his glory, when he justifies those that believe in Jesus, Rom. 3. 26. and Faith gives not glory to God, as Rom. 4. 20. but takes glory from him. As Peter said of the cripple that was cured; His name, through faith in his name, hath made this man strong, Acts 3. 16. So we may say of every sinner, justified and pardoned, His Name, through faith in his Name, hath acquit and freed him. When God pardons a penitent man, it is not for the merit of his return that he pardons him; if this were so, Peter who is so zealous, to advance his name in the place quoted; had not presently urged; Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord, Acts 3. 19 It is not for his honour to pardon any other. This is with him a rule which he will for ever follow, Those that honour me, I will honour, and they that despise me, shall be lightly esteemed, 1 Sam. 3. 30. The same Author saith, Conditions and qualifications are mentioned in some promises; and therefore we may safely infer, are understood in all promises of life and salvation, unless God deny himself, He hath threatened death and condemnation against an unqualified man; namely the unbelieving and impenitent; and therefore hath not promised them life and salvation. Believing penitent ones, have the promises of life to be made good to them, exclusively to all others. To lead the sinner to Christ for the gaining of the qualifications of grace in the way of his Ordinances, is to lead him right; He is the Author of our faith, and he is a Prince to give repentance. But to persuade a sinner to look for life, in the want of all these, or to tell him of Assurance of life without sense of these, is to deceive him. That happy Doctrine of free grace, so timely abused, even as soon as clearly preached, is now no less abused; Then, inferences were made from it, for encouragement to abound in sin, Rom. 6. 1. Now inferences are drawn to cry down duty, Righteousness imputed must overthrow righteousness inherent. The Apostle would not suffer the former; the Ministers of Christ must not bear the latter.   

CHAP. XXX.  
A people in covenant must come up to the terms of the covenant, being engaged to God, they must answer their engagements.  
HEnce farther follows, 
The evil of breach of Covenant with man.  that all people in covenant must come up to the terms and propositions of the covenant, Entering covenant they must see that their hearts art upright in it. How do we aggravate their wickedness, and hold in detestation all those persons that break covenant with men, that having past a promise, (especially having put upon it the sanction of an Oath) yet violate and transgress it. These first involve themselves in the guilt of lying, which every where in Scripture is followed with judgements, an Art which they learn of the Devil, who is a liar, and the father of lies, John 8. 44. And therefore with him have their doom in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, Revel. 21. 8. Secondly, in the pollution of God's Name, which we should have in fear and dread, Deut. 28. 5, 8. Taking it in vain, in falsehood, and deceit into their mouths, endeavouring to bring in that God, whom they pretend to serve; in whom is all their expectation, as a party in their falsehood, and ungodliness. This high crime is charged upon Israel in taking to themselves again those servants that according to covenant they had dismissed, Jerem. 34. 15, 16. Ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servaut, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty, at their pleasure to return, and brought them into subjection to be unto you for servants and for handmaids; Therein is the overthrow of all bonds of humane society, of all converse and commerce, whether in more public, or private negotiations. Truth is the upholding, and perfidiousness is the bane and utter destruction of it. When Papists have maintained that Faith, or covenant is not to be kept with Heretics; reformed Churches have concluded upon it, that there is no safety of any, league or intercourse of dealing with them. The example of John Husse is a sufficient warning. Those that hold no such principles, yet being such in their practices; are equally dangerous. We look upon these, as given up to a very Spirit of Atheism, if not wholly in their judgements to deny a Deity, and to utter with their mouths that which the Psalmists fool says in his heart, yet utterly slighting his Sovereignty, and disregarding his judgements. They have arrived at that dedolency that the Apostle mentions, Ephes. 4. 19 and therefore ranked by him with the worst of Heathens, Rom. 1. 31. and put into that black bill of ungodly persons, that will be found in the last and most perilous times, 
Breach of Covenant with God, is a greater evil.  2 Tim. 3. 3. How much more than will God and man have in detestation those; that have entered covenant in an immediate way with God, for faith and obedience and to stand out in opposition to sin, and Satan, yet (making defection from God by sin and unbelief) stand up in rebellion against him. Is the dreadful Majesty of the great God of no more regard, than to pretend to him, engage with him, and then stand up in hostility against him? Is there any thing so lovely, or honourable in sin, to allure men to run upon the wrath of God, that they may welter in it? or any thing so unpleasing in the ways of God, that neither the dread of his name, nor the bliss, held forth in promise, can persuade to embrace them? A viler thing cannot be named, than a Christian in sin, a Christian in ways of unbelief and wickedness. Were the name of a Christian off, and no covenant bonds engaging to the Lord; then there were no more than a creature in rebellion, and that were bad enough, the work of God's hand to strive with its Maker. But standing vested in this covenant-relation, honoured with this glorious Name, here is an addition of Hypocrisy, Apostasy and defection. We hate none more than those that are false to us; and we may well conclude that God hates none more than those that are false to him, and therefore challenges his people, whether they have found any iniquity in him, Jerem. 2 5. What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me, and have walked after vanity, and are become vain? A servant doth not use to quit one Master, and betake himself to another, but he gives some reason of his change. One that hath been engaged for the ways of God (as all are that are called by the Name of God, and dignified with the title of a Christian) would be hard put to it, to give a reason of his revolt from God. When God and vanity are set in competition, that God should be refused, and vanity chosen, when the fountain of living waters, that never can be drawn dry, is left, and cisterns, broken cisterns chosen, that are always running dry. How does the holy Ghost, set out these, 2 Pet. 2. 22. The dog is turned to his own vomit against, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. Can the sow find no other place than filth? nor the dog no other food than his vomit? A return to sin is more loathsome than these, and such are all the ways of all men in sin, of all of a Christian profession, that are seen in ungodly ways; Nothing so glorious as a Christian that holds to his principles, that answers in conversation to his profession, Nothing so inglorious as a Christian in sin. A Jew outwardly, and a Heathen inwardly, a face for God, and a heart for iniquity. When such as these came out of the holy land for Babylon, they, there said in way of reproach of their God, These are the people of the Lord, and are gone forth out of his land, Ezek. 36. 20. Rom. 2. 24. Insomuch that God is put to it for his vindication, not to suffer them to carry their sin with impunity, Ezek. 39 23, 24. And the heathen shall know, that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity, because they trespassed against me; therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies; so fell they all by the sword according to their uncleanness, and according to their transgressions have I done unto them, and hid my face from them. This falsehood in covenant draws present sufferings, National plagues: I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant, Levit. 26. 25. Every Christian Nation under sufferings; 
It brings National plagues.  may sadly reflect upon all that they groan under, and say their iniquities have procured these things unto them.  
But this breach of covenant with God hath greater evils, even unto eternity following upon it; 
It brings evil to eternity.  Men of sin and unbelief, that lie in distrust and disobedience, can claim no interest in the grace and mercy of the covenant. God in covenant engages to Faith and Repentance, these as we have seen are his terms, when men come not up to them, they disinterest themselves, and disengage God from any tye of conferring bliss and savation upon them. Their own folly and madness, puts a bar to their own happiness and glory. They cannot be self-saviours, yet they will not go out of themselves for salvation by another, when they have received the sentence of death in themselves, they will not come to Christ, that they may have life. He may worthily bear his own debt, that in pride of spirit, refuses another's bounty; Christ offers himself as a Surety in our stead, to make payment for us in his own person. The unbeliever will stand on his owu bottom, and make pay out of his own store, or perish; Having heaven and hell set before them; the tender of the one, and the terror of the other, quitting heaven and all the glory of it, and happiness in it; they make choice of that fire, that is prepared for the Devil and his Angels, 
No Assurance of happiness, but in performance of the terms of the Covenant.  covenant-breaking having the certain doom of destruction fastened upon it. Assurance of salvation cannot be gained, but in a way of covenant-keeping; yea, the conditions of the covenant are the basis, and never failing bottom of our Evidence and Assurance. It is gathered thus: He that believes and reputes, shall be saved. This is evidently laid down in Scriptures; A man void of saving faith, and impenitent, may give his assent to it. Then the sold is to assume to itself, but I believe and repent, therefore I shall be saved. These two (as at large hath been shown) are the conditions of the covenant; these we must find wrought in our souls, or else all Evidence is wanting, and when these are concluded, an undeceiving interest in salvation follows.  
There is a twofold work to be done on the soul that is in sin in order to bring it to salvation; There is a third to be done for assurance of salvation.  
The first work is to set the soul free from Hell, to deliver it from the sentence of Death; to which by the rule of justice, man stands condemned. A man must be fetched out of prison, before he can be for any preferment, or place of honour. This is done by the blood of Christ, Ephes. 1. 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. This is the price of our ransom, Being redeemed, not with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, 1 Pet. 1 18.  
Secondly, to make a man meet for heaven, A man so vile as sin makes, is a man fit for nothing but hell, and must have a change wrought before he be meet for heaven. Upon this ground the Apostle is so large, in returning praise for the Colossians: Giving thanks unto the Father, who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light, Col. 1. 12. As alone, the blood of Christ sets free from hell; so alone, the Spirit of Christ makes fit for heaven. This is done by a double work. 1. Of regeneration or first implantation of grace, which is called the birth of the Spirit, John 3. 5, 6. 2. By acting, improving, carrying on this work of grace; which is properly sanctification, so that when the Spirit is gone thus far, here is a certainty of the object. It is sure, nothing more sure than this; that a regenerate sanctified man shall be saved. But here is more required for a certainty of the subject. Here is certitudo de re; but more is required to attain certitudinem de se. If Peter do believe and repent, he shall be saved, is out of controversy; But that Peter doth believe and repent, is not always so soon discovered, And this is the Spirits work as the former It is not my business now to hold out what is the Spirits whole office in concluding our Assurance, but to show that the conditions of the covenant are the bottom ground, not of salvation, but of our evidence of interest in salvation. We must know that we do believe and repent, before we have assurance, and we must first believe and repent, before we know that we believe and repent. If before faith and repentance there can be no salvation; then before we know we believe and repent, we cannot be assured of salvation: But without faith and repentance there is no salvation, Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned. Luke 13. 3. 5. I tell you, may, but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish; Therefore before we believe and repent, we cannot be assured of salvation. And how assurance can be gained without a practical syllogism, and how a syllogism can be framed with any other medium, than the conditions of the covenant, is above my understanding Man is so far from abilities to conclude salvation, without faith and repentance, that be must conclude himself to be in faith, and that he doth repent, before he can conclude any interest in it. The covenant of God is the ground of our salvation; if that be waved, all is lost, and we must make good our part in the Covenant, Grace must assist to answer what the covenant requires, or no salvation. How is it a covenant, if nothing be required? and why is it required, if it must not be performed? To gather up assurance from the conditions of the covenant is a business of greater consequence, even the highest pitch of Christianity. It is a great work to believe and repent, a greater work to know that we savingly believe and repent. The work itself is difficult, no business of a lazy soul, but to know, that the work is aright done, is a greater difficulty; but that it must be gathered from the conditions, is easy to resolve. I know some finding the seal of the Spirit, 
The office of the Spirit in the work of Assurance.  and the witness of the Spirit mentioned in Scripture in order to assurance, will have the whole of the work of Assurance to be carried on alone by the Spirit, and that all is done in us without us. They expect a secret whisper from God, that we are Gods, and no more. This witness, they say, must be heeded, and our faith and repentance in the work not at all regarded, But I would know of those if the Spirit be a seal; whether the soul doth not bear the impress? and what this impress is, but the graces of the Spirit? The Seal sealing, and the impress made, fully answer one the other, Sometimes it may dimmely answer, where the wax or clay, (or whatsoever is sealed) takes not a full impression; but if it answer not, it is no Seal. The graces that the Spirit works, are its impress▪ and these are the conditions of the covenant, and so instead of an objection, we have a proof. For the witness of the Spirit, I desire to know whether it be a single witness, giving testimony to us without us, or a witness concurring with our spirits? The Text is clear, Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirits, that we are the children of God. Our spirits bearing witness, are our consciences, Rom. 2. 5. Their consciences also bearing them witness; and therefore Master Baxter rightly affirms, That the testimony of the Spirit, and the testimony of our consciences are two concurrent testimonies, or causes, to produce one and the same effect. But every conscience cannot witness thus with the Spirit, or join in a concurrent testimony. It is the witness of a good conscience, 1 Pet. 3. 21. Baptism saves (saith the Apostle) by the resurrection of Christ; Explaining himself, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, not the bare outward act of administration (which is worthily set out by the most undervaluing terms, when it is put in opposition to the inward work) but the answer of a good conscience towards God. Baptism is a seal of the covenant, and it engages to what the covenant requires, which (as we have been still catechised) is to believe in God, and to forsake our sins, and when conscience answers that this is done, Baptism is a seal that Christ saves. The seal of the Spirit is an impress of those graces; and the witness of the Spirit is a clearingup of these graces, and giving in testimony to the truth of them, opening our eyes to read the characters, which itself hath made, 1 Corinth. 2. 12. We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. So that in vain do men talk of the Spirit; that have not on their own hearts the impress of it, or of the witness of the Spirit, when a renewed conscience cannot concur, 
The immediate teste of the Spirits examined.  in testimony that these engagements are answered in faith and repentance; let that Text of the Apostle be considered, 1 John 3. 24. He that keepeth his commandments, dwelleth in him, and he in him; and hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. I know there are some that admit of all this, and freely yield, that this is a safe way to conclude Assurance from Sanctification, Confessing that the Spirit never witnesseth with an unsanctified heart, yet they contend for a farther and immediate teste of the Spirit, without any consideration had, of inherent graces wrought, or any reflection made, by the the soul upon itself, in review of any gracious qualifications. Yet here they confess danger; and limit this doctrine of theirs with divers cautions, as I have met with some, from an eminent hand, in a manuscript. 1. This is extraordinary (as they say) very seldom seen or known, it is no common way of the Spirits witness. 2. It is for the most part in, or upon performance of some duties, or conscientious employment of a man's self in the way of his calling. 3. After some great abasement of a man's spirit, and more than ordinary soul-humiliations and self-denials. 4. After some great adventures made for God, and the advancement of his Name. 5. After some great combat, and conflict with temptation, in which God gives in his Spirit, as an honorarium, or glorious reward upon victory obtained. First, by way of concession, it is not to be denied, that God in a more than ordinary measure, doth many times manifest the gift of his Spirit for this work of Assurance, and that upon these occasions here laid down, the soul hath many cheering consolations nigh unto raptures. The Spouse hath not like converse with the Bridegroom at all times; Sometimes she walks with him in the Galleries; Sometimes she is with him in the wine-sellers; Sometimes she can say in a way of exultation, My beloved is mine, and I am his. But these limits in the instances before laid down, seem to me to be a full denial, instead of proof, that it is thus immediate, without all reflex upon our graces. These being means sanctified of God, to stir up the habit of grace by his Spirit wrought within us, and to bring them forth into action, which God then farther honours with a greater measure of light, to discern his own work wrought in us. Our spirits being got into such a posture, are in an aptitude to witness with us; and God is then pleased, to come in by his Spirit, to join in Evidence; So that still the conditional promises, are not only a safe, but the alone way, in which through the help of the Spirit we get Assurance that we shall be saved. They that go about to assert an immediate teste, will never secure the soul from delusion, Satan will soon find an artifice, to counterfeit this testimony, and bear witness, in the Spirits stead, and when we think we have the Spirit of truth to assure, we shall have the father of lies to deceive. A gap will be opened to all licentious presumption, Children of disobedience will soon heed vain words, Object. that the wrath of God shall not come upon them; Neither will it be to purpose to demand, how the Prophets were assured that it was the word of the Lord that came to them, and no delusion, and to affirm that the same way we have assurance of the truth of the Spirits witness, seeing Gods extraordinary way of discovery of himself in visions, dreams, or what other way himself pleased to choose, is not the same with his ordinary way of discovery unto us, we no more understand that way of discovery than we do the way in which by power received, they wrought miracles. As for Doctrines, which men are apt to obtrude upon the Spirit; so, for testimonies, in order to our adoption and salvation, we must go to the Law, and to the Testimony. The Law and Testimony lead us, for Assurance to our own hearts, excusing or condemning in the particulars mentioned; And if our hearts condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God; and whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his Commandment, that we should believe on the Name of his Son Jesus-Christ, and love one another as he gave us commandment, 1 John 3. 21, 22, 23. And if the stress of all had not lain here, Christ had never compared the Professor, that hears and does not, to the foolish builder that raises his hopes of salvation on a sandy foundation, upon a bare title of an empty profession, without any well grounded interest, and the Professor that hears and does, to the man that builds on a rock, and so lays his hopes of salvation on a foundation, that never will deceive: Neither would the Psalmist have concluded that, he shall not be ashamed, (his hope would not make him ashamed) when he had respect unto all God's Commandments, Psalm 119. 6. And howsoever our doing does nothing by way of merit; yet our doing through grace (in which believing is comprised, which is the command of God, 1 John 3. 23.) does all; taking in the Spirits help to clear the integrity of these works, by way of Assurance. And though it be no foundation of our subsistence in grace; and therefore the Apostle durst not rest on that bottom, nor will be found in his own righteousness; yet it is the foundation of our evidence. The Apostle gives it in command to Timothy, Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, giving this in as the end of all, Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life, 1 Tim. 6. 17, 18, 19 God hath ordained these, that we should walk in them, Ephes. 2. 10. and walking in them; we are pronounced blessed, Psalm 11 9 1, 2. The efficient cause of our happiness is grace, the free favour and good will of God towards man, Being justified freely by his grace, Rom. 3. 24. The formal cause, is, the imputation of Christ's righteousness without ours, when we fall short of the righteousness of the Law; Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness, Rom. 10. 3. Therefore the Apostle observes, that David describes the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, (that is, wherein his blessedness doth consist,) saying▪ Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. The instrument or hand applying, is Faith: Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth for propitiation through faith in his blood, Rom. 3. 24, 25. But the subject on whom this blessedness rests, is the godly righteous man: The Lord hath set apart him that is godly for himself, Psalm 4. 3. The man that hath clean hands, and a pure heart, who hath not lift up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully; he shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation, Psal. 24. 4, 5. There is a concurrence of sundry causes in man's happiness, but all falls upon the head of him that is steadfast with God in covenant, that comes up to the terms and conditions of it. He is pronounced, and shall remain for ever blessed, and without holiness no man shall see the Lord. It is questioned by some, whether it be the truth, or the degree of these graces, which are conditions of the Gospel covenant, upon performance of which we may conclude our Assurance of happiness; but the determination of that (being thus put) is easy, No man in true grace shall go to hell, or miss of heaven, God doth not adorn man with that glory to reject him. The Apostle exhorts to love, not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth; and for a motive adds; Hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him, 1 Joh. 3. 18, 19 But the minimum quod sic, when it is that grace may be accounted true, is not so easy, to determine. It is not every faintish desire that is the work on which all this glory rests. It must be a work of farther power and efficacy on the soul, for satisfaction of which I shall refer the Reader to the learned labours of my much honoured neighbour, Master Anthony Burgess in his spiritual refining.   

CHAP. XXXI.  
The distribution of the Covenant of Grace into the Old and New Covenant with the harmony and agreement that is found between them.  
BY God's assistance we have been thus far carried on in the work in hand, to find out the nature of a covenant, and God's way of entering covenant with man. And for the more clear discovery of both, we have held forth the agreement which is found, between the covenant of Works; which God entered with man in his state of integrity; and the covenant of Grace entered of God with man, in his fallen condition, as also their respective differences, So that all that is essential in this covenant, (and necessarily required to the attainment of the privileges and mercies promised in it) hath been made known, and a complete definition given, with such corollaries and inferences that have been judged necessary.  
Now this covenant thus entered with man in his lapsed estate, and hitherto cleared, 
The Old and New Covenant  admits of distinction; and is distinguished in Scripture by the names of the Old and New Covenant, Heb. 8. 13. The first and second covenant, Heb. 8. 7. The first some call, and not unfitly, a covenant of Promise; under that covenant Christ was known in promises only, and not manifested in the flesh; Others call it a subservient covenant, being to lead in the second, in its full lustre and glory, which alone they call a covenant of Grace, and make it a third covenant But I shall content myself with the Scripture-termes, calling the first, Old, not because it was first in being; but because it is to be abolished, and another to succeed, the later New, because it is never to be antiquated, as the Apostle, Heb. 8. 13. explains himself. Now, it must needs contribute much to the clear understanding of the covenant; as well of the terms of it, as the mercies in it and be a great advantage for the better understanding of sundry, both Old and New Testament-Scripture; in case the agreement between this Old and New covenant, together with their true differences be rightly assigned, and those imaginary differences assigned by some (erroneous on either hand to the great prejudice of either of the covenants) be throughly examined. 
The method followed in the ensuing part of the Treatise.  A work of difficulty, but (were it well followed) of singular profit. On this by the help of God's grace I shall adventure, and in the first place lay down their agreement, afterwards their respective true and real differences, and then proceed to examination of such differences which some have assigned, which I reserve to the last place, seeing in the two first I shall be brief. The last will be found a business full of tedious difficulty, and trouble. In several things there is a full agreement between these covenants. 
Agreement between the Old and New covenant in six particulars.   
1. In the Author propounding, God is the Author of them both; God is the God, not of the Jews only, (who were in the first covenant) but of the Gentiles also, taken through grace into the second covenant, Rom. 3. 29.  
2. In the party accepting, as specifically considered, they are both entered with man; Neither Angels, nor any other creature articles, or is articled with in it; and hitherto there is an agreement of both with the covenant of works.  
3. In the motive or impulsive cause; Both of these are of singular grace, entered with fallen man in his lost condition; there was no hint of this grace before the fall, nor any need, or use of it, being not for man's preservation, but his restitution.  
4. In the Mediator Christ Jesus, who was one and the same in both: For though Moses have the name of Mediator, Gal. 3 19 Receiving the lively oracles, and giving them to the people, Acts 17. 38. as the Judges in Israel had the name of Saviour's, Nehem. 9 27. and thereupon Camero makes this difference between the Old and the New covenant, That Moses was Mediator in one, Christ in the other, Thes. 68 yet he confesses, that that mediation, by the benefit whereof men are truly and effectually united to God, belongs only unto Christ. De trip. foedere. Thes. Moses work was only to deliver the way of the worship of God in those times, and that not in his own name, but as a servant, Heb. 3. 5. He that Moses did serve, of whom he wrote, Joh. 5. 46. that Prophet like unto Moses, whom God promised to raise, Deut. 18. 15. in all ages was Mediator.  
5. They agree in the conditions annexed. Both these covenants have one, and the same conditions, on God's part, Remission of sins, and everlasting happiness, as after shall be showed more fully; They are the same on man's part, Faith and Repentance. The just then did live by faith, Heb. 2. 4. And without faith it was then impossible to please God, Heb. 11. 6. Acts 10. 43. To him give all the Prophet's witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. God then called for return to himself, and sincerity in our returns, accepting those that were sincere, Ezek. 18. 31. The eyes of the Lord run to and fro through the whole earth, to show himself strong in the behalf of those whose hearts are perfect before him, 2 Chron 26. 9  
6. They agree in the unity of Church-felloship, constituting one and the same Church of Christ. The Church in those days in which the Fathers lived, is one and the same Church with this in Gospel-times. In Gospel-times men come from the East, and West, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of heaven, Matth. 8. 11. One and the same Kingdom receives both. Their Faith was terminated upon Christ as well as ours; Abraham saw his day and rejoiced, John 8. 56. Moses bore his reproach, and esteemed it greater than the treasures in Egypt, Heb. 11. 26. They did eat the same spiritual meat, and did drink the same spiritual drink; they drank of the Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ, 1 Cor. 10. 3. The same, not among themselves, but the same with us. They are saved by the same free grace and mercy as we; Jews by nature, are justified by the same faith in Jesus, as sinners of the Gentiles, Gal. 2. 15, 16. All these identities evidence one and the same Church, ours and theirs; Therefore say I unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a Nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, Matth. 21. 43. The same Kingdom was taken from them and given to us, was taken from the Jews, and given to the Gentiles; where Sem left, there Japhet took possession, Gen. 9 27. seems Tents are Japhets. These speak the covenants, 
The Old and New Covenant in substance one.  into which we have successively entered, to be one and the same in substance. A covenant entered by the same parties, upon the same terms and propositions on either hand, is the same covenant; Such is the Old covenant entered with the Jews, and the New covenant entered with Christians, they are therefore one and the same in substance.   

CHAP. XXXII.  
Differences assigned between the Old and New covenant.  
THese covenants, are not in that manner, fully and entirely one, but there is difference in the way of administration. They are one in substance, constituting one Church, one Kingdom; but different in circumstances. Upon which account, they are distinguished, by the names of the Old and New, the first and second Covenant. Some have made it their ambition to rise as high as may be, in the number of differences, and have assigned several, where there is a full accord and perfect agreement: I shall lay down such where the difference is clear; and afterward take view, of those imaginary differences upon which any controversy of moment hangs.  
1. They differ in the agents employed, 
Differences between the Old and New Covenant.  in administration of these respective covenants entered of God, and upheld and continued with his people. The Old covenant was administered and held forth by Servants only, Prophets, Priests, and such as God pleased to appoint, whether by ordinary call, as those of the Tribe of Levi, who were appointed among men in things appertaining to God. Or, extraordinary, to whom he spoke in visions and dreams; God in sundry ways and manners (as the Apostle to the Hebrews observes) then speaking to his people, Heb. 1. 1. The New covenant is held forth by the Son, as in the same place the Apostle witnesseth. He was the Angel or Messenger of the covenant, Upon that errand he came from the Father, clothed with our flesh. This is that great salvation, which first began to be spoken to us by the Lord, Heb. 2. 3. And this he carries on, by his delegates and deputies, whom from the right hand of the Father he gifts and qualifies.  
2. They differ in their extent and latitude, as to the Nations taken into covenant. The Old covenant received only the Jews; To them appertained the Adoption, the Glory, and the Covenants, Rom. 9 4. Circumcision, the Seal of the covenant, was proper to them, with some few of other Nations, that forgetting their own people, and their father's house, joined themselves to them, whilst other Nations were known by the name of uncircumcision being without title to that Seal; and were without Christ, aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of Promise, Eph. 2. 12. Therefore the Apostles, before the veil was taken away, had that restraint upon them, Matth. 10. 5. Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any City of the Samaritans enter ye not. The lost sheep of the house of Israel (being in covenant) only were in their commission. That was a valley of vision, All other people were in darkness. They were a people of God, Others were no people. The New covenant takes in all Nations, respective to the covenant, no Nation hath any bar put to it, but in every Nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him, Act. 10. 35. Christ having taken away the partition wall; the Apostles have a commission for the discipling of all Nations, so that in Christ Jesus, There is neither Jew nor Greek, Scythian nor Barbarian, Col. 3. 11.  
3. They differ in their duration or continuance. The Old covenant had but its date of time, which being expired, it must give way for the New to succeed. Thus the Apostle reasons from the Prophet's prediction, of a New covenant, Heb. 8. 13. In that he saith, A New covenant, he hath made void the Old; now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away. This was to stand till times of reformation, Heb. 9 10. This second covenant must remain till the end of time. These are called the last days, in that, after these there must be no change of Ordinances. The Ministry now established, is to remain to the end of the world, Matth. 28. 20. and the Sacraments, until Christ's second coming unto judgement.  
4. They differ in the way of dedication or consecration. The Old covenant was dedicated, and purified with the blood of Bulls and Goats, and other Sacrifices, which according to the Law were slain and offered, as the Apostle to the Hebrews observes from Exod. 24. 7, 8. Heb. 9 19, 20, 21. When Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and Scarlet-wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people; saying, This is the blood of the Testament which God hath enjoined you. Moreover, he sprinkled with blood both the Tabernacle and all the vessels of the Ministry But in the New Testament, the dedication is in the blood of Christ. This is my blood in the New Testament shed for you, and for many for the remission of sins: Where we see, 1. An agreement, Either of both are Testaments and covenants, Either of both have their dedication, Either of both are dedicated in blood; 2. An answerable difference and opposition. The first was the Old Testament to be antiquated. The second the New, to succeed in place of the Old. The first was dedicated in the blood of Bulls and Calves. The second in the blood of the Mediator; in my blood, saith Christ. The first had no possible power to take away sin, as the Apostle presently shows, chap. 10. 4. But this is shed for many for the remission of sins. The Apostle in the words immediately before these quoted, gives the covenant the name of a Testament, though a covenant, and a man's last Will and Testament really differ, seeing herein they agree, that the covenant had its validility, as a Testament, by the death of him that made the covenant, Heb. 9 16, 17.  
5. They differ in the way of exhibition of Christ, the glory and grace of the covenant, And upon a threefold account here, there is a difference. 1. In the Old covenant we have Christ only in a Promise; to be incarnate, to suffer, and to rise again, and to be received unto glory. Under that covenant, light was by way of prophecy; In the New covenant he is evidently set forth as come in the flesh; Having been dead and now alive, Rev. 1. 18. Having suffered in the flesh, risen again and entered into glory. To us, it is not a prophecy, but a Gospel. 2. In the Old covenant, all was held out to the people under types, figures, shadows; All about the Tabernacle and Temple, Persons, Utensils, Sacrifices, did lead to Christ; all of these, darkly holding him forth. They had a shadow of good things to come, and not the image of the things themselves, Heb. 10. 1. a little of reality in a great bulk of ceremony. In the New Testament, the truth of it, is clearly, and manifestly (without figure or type) held forth unto us. 3. In the Old Testament, knowledge was dim and obscure. 
The Jews were in a state of light comparative to Heathens.  It could be no other, when it was wrapped up in prophecies and types. A prophecy is a riddle till it be unfolden, and little is known of a man by his shadow, comparative to that which is seen in the man himself. 
In a state of darkness comparative to Christians.  Therefore though the state of the Jews in Old Testament times was a state of light, comparative to the darkness that was with other people, and their land was called a valley of visions, Isa. 22. 1. yet it was little more than darkness, comparative to that light which in Gospel times is revealed. Christ was a Minister of circumcision, and when he began his Ministry in the land of Zebulon and Nepthali; the Text says, The people that sat in darkness saw a great light, Mat. 4. 16. Circumcision therefore, in different respects, was both a Privilege, and a Bondage, A Privilege, Rom. 3. 1. It was a great mercy to have light let in at any crevice, promises any way sealed and ratified to us. A Bondage, Acts 15. 10. To live in so dim a light, and to be laden in so burdensome a way, was a heavy yoke; So that, as the Apostle putting the question, What advantage the Jew had, and what privilege there was of circumcision, above and before the Gentile? Rom. 3. 1. answers, Much every way, and gives in his reason of the pre-eminence; So, in case the question should be put What advantage hath the Christian, and what privilege there is of Baptism, above and before the Jew? Answer may be made Much every way, and the reason given of the pre-eminence in Gospel-times, in the particulars above mentioned; So that, the New covenant, is a better covenant, established upon better promises, Heb. 8. 6. Promises are more full and clear. Though it must be confessed, that a Christians pre-eminence above the jews, doth not equal a jews pre-eminence above the Gentile. The jew was in covenant with God, and was heir of the Promise. The Gentiles were aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenant of Promise; having no hope, and without God in the world, Ephes. 2. 12. The jew was in the same covenant in his time, as Christians are in Gospel-times. There is not a promise in the New covenant, whether it be for privileges, conferred upon us, or graces wrought in us, but by the help of that light, we may find in the Old covenant, the same held out, as after will be more clearly manifested. The betterness is, in the greater ease being freed from that bondage, of the ceremonial yoke, and in their more distinct clearness. The glory of all, that the covenant doth tender, being in so clear, and full a way held out in Gospel-times, that he that is least in the Kingdom of God, under the glory of the New Testament-revelation, is greater in the way of Gospel-Mysteries, than John Baptist, who was the greatest of Prophets, greater than a Prophet. Those Prophets that did foresee, and foreshow the Birth, Life, Death, Resurrection, Ascension of Christ, the triumphant conquest of his enemies, his glory at the right hand of his Father, the spreading of the Gospel, the call of the Gentiles, did not themselves see it; as now the meanest that are in Christ do understand it, no more than they who now preach through Christ the Resurrection of the dead, the everlasting bliss of glorified Saints, in their eternal fruition of God's presence, are able to understand it in that measure, as the meanest that then shall have the happiness to enjoy it.  
6. They differ in the Seals annexed for either of their ratification and confirmation; for howsoever they are of the same use, leading to one, and the same thing signified, the Jews had Christ in their Sacraments, 1 Cor. 10. 4 1 Cor. 5. 7. and we have no more in ours; yet they differ in the outward stamp or effigies, as I may so speak, as well that, of initiation, as that of corroboration: The initiating Sacrament of the Jews (which gave them the denomination of the people of God) was that painful circumcision in the flesh, signum vile, & incivile, yet, those that would be the Lords, did, and must submit unto it. All of Abraham's seed with him, received that sign; And all of those, that with him would join unto the Lord. This was to be the leading Sacrament; He that was not circumcised in the flesh, might not eat of the Passeover, Exod 12. 48. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passeover unto the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is borne in the land, for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. A full Text against all that plead for unbaptized persons admission to the Lords Table, God will not suffer that disorder, that the leading Sacrament should come after. The initiating Sacrament with Christians is that of Baptism, no sooner was a man brought into covenant, but he was straight baptised; assoon as he made profession, he had this sealing engaging sign, the application of water, which is of an abstersive cleansing nature, implying our stain and guilt, and leading us thither, where purification and freedom is found, the Spirit and blood of Jesus Christ. The following Sacrament in the Old covenant, was that of the Passeover; a Lamp without blemish to be eaten in the place and way that God prescribed. That in the New Testament, is the Supper of the Lord, in ordinary, common, useful, and necessary elements, Bread and Wine, which are of a strengthening & cheering nature, Ps. 104. 15. Implying our fainting, feeble estate, our disconsolate and sad condition, and leading us, where we may find both strength and consolation.   

CHAP. XXXIII.  
Positions tending to clear the first covenant, under Old Testament-dispensations.  
BEfore I proceed to the examination of those supposed differences; which some have brought in, to the prejudice of both covenants; I shall lay down certain positions, to give some light for the more clear understanding, especially of the Old covenant, and to help us (if it may be) in our judgements of them both; as well in their agreement, as their several differences.  
First Position, God delivered unto Adam in Paradise, not only a Law or Rule of life, 
Moses delivered a Covenant from God to Israel in Mount Sinai.  but also a Covenant, (as was before showed;) So, Moses in Mount Sinai delivered unto the people of the Jews, not a Law or rule only, but a covenant likewise. This might be confirmed at large, but that others have fully done it; and I know not that there is any adversary that appears in it. The name of a covenant is frequently given to it, Deut. 4. 13. He declared unto you the covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten Commandments. See 2 Kings 18. 12. 2 Chron. 6. 11. All the essentials of a covenant before mentioned, Parties, Consent, Conditions, are found in it, as we may see in that one Text, Deut. 26. 17, 18. Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, to walk in his ways, and the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee. Yea, the solemnities of a covenant, as before hath been largely shown, are found in it.  
Secondly, 
M●ses delivered a Covenant of Grace to Israel  This covenant delivered by Moses to the people of Israel, was a covenant of Grace, the same in substance with this, under which, we live in Gospel-times. This is so largely proved to my hand by Master Ball in his Treatise of the covenant, page 102, 103, 104. and Master Burges in his Vindiciae legis, page 224, 225. that I may spare my pains; yet in brief, That covenant which teacheth Christ, in which men attain salvation, that accepts men upon repentance, in which there is pardon of sin, and in which the heart is circumcised of God; that is a covenant of grace. One of these single will evince it, much more in their joint strength will they conclude it; But the covenant delivered by Moses, was such a covenant. In that covenant Christ was taught, John 5. 46, 47. Had ye beleved Moses, ye would have believed me; but if ye believe not Moses, how will ye believe my words? Whence the collection is plain, Believers of Moses, are Believers of Christ; and Rejecters of Moses, are Rejecters of Christ: See Luke 24. 25, 26. with 44, 45, 46. John 1. 45. Acts 26. 22, 23. Rom. 3. 21, 22. The Prophecies, Promises, Types, Genealogies, Sacraments under that covenant (whether ordinary or extraordinary) all held forth Christ as might be easily shown in their several particulars. In that covenant the people of the Jews attained salvation, and were not only fed with temporal Promises, and a covenant merely carnal; not looking above or beyond the land of Canaan, as shall be shown: In this covenant men are accepted, and received into mercy and favour upon repentance; When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee in the later days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient to his voice, (for the Lord thy God is a merciful God) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he swore unto them, Deut. 4. 30, 31. In this covenant there is pardon of sin, (the great privilege of the New covenant, Heb. 8. 12.) The Lord proclaims himself to Moses; The Lord, the Lord God, merciful, and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, Exod. 34. 6, 7. See Exod. 32. 31, 32. 2 Chron. 7. 14. Psal. 25. 11. Psal. 51. 12. 7. 9 14. In this covenant the heart is circumcised (another great privilege of the New covenant, Heb. 8.) And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God. 
The ten Commandments delivered by Moses. were of this Covenant of Grace.  All of these, any of these hold out a covenant of Grace.  
Thirdly, the ten commandments, which are called the covenant of God, Deut. 4. 13. 2 Chron. 6. 11. (all that Moses delivered to Israel, being there epitomised) holds forth a covenant of Grace, and not of Works. This appears in the Preface, intimating, God's grace and goodness to that people, bringing them out of the land of Egypt, and the house of Bondage. Which deliverance had more in it than a bare temporal mercy; otherwise their passage through the red Sea could have been no Baptism as the Apostle calls it, 1 Cor. 10. 1. Neither had it been any act of justifying faith in Moses to observe the Passeover, which yet the Apostle observes, Heb. 11. 28. Then their Rock and Manna had been a viaticum in the way, but no Sacrament. There God avoucheth himself to be the God of that people; I am the Lord thy God, and he was a God in covenant to none of mankind fallen, but by an act of grace. It appears in the first commandment, where God requires them to accept him, and cleave unto him, which cannot be done but through Christ. It appears in the second commandment; in the preceptive part of it, which contains the whole ceremonial Law, in which, pardon of sin was found through Christ. Thither Interpreters reduce all the Sacrifices, Types, Sacraments of the Jews. It appears in the reasons annexed to that precept, which, as it threatens judgement on transgressors of the Law; so, mercy to those that observe it. Mercy is an act of Grace, and not vouchsafed but in Christ. It appears in the fifth commandment, in the promise there annexed, and fastened to it; So that this covenant (or this sum or epitome of the covenant between God and his people) which was put into the Ark, and the Mercy-seat or propitiatory set upon it, in the most holy place, Exod. 26. 34. was a covenant of Grace.  
Fourthly, 
Being a Covenant of Grace, it could by no means be a Covenant of Works.  this covenant (delivered by Moses and epitomised in the Decalogue) being a covenant of Grace, it could by no means be, in the whole and entire nature of it, a covenant of Works. This is plain, God doth not at once, with the same people enter covenant upon so opposite terms. These are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, either of them destructive to the other, We may argue concerning the covenant, as the Apostle doth concerning Election, If by grace, than it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace; but if it be of works, than it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more work. This I speak as for their sakes, that make it a mixed covenant, such a one as Paul's adversaries preached in the Churches of Galatia; so also for their sakes, that assert it to be a covenant of Works, never undertaking any answer to those arguments, which so clearly conclude it to be a covenant of Grace.  
Fifthly, 
What this Covenant is to any, it is to all.  What this covenant is to any, that it is to all, whether it be of works or of grace; what it is in itself in the tender and terms of it, that is the denomination of it. This is plain, men's faith or unbelief, men's obedience or transgression, cannot diversify the nature of that which God doth tender; And what God spoke to the people, he spoke to all the people, the same to all, that he spoke to any, Exodus 19 25. Exodus 20. 18. compared, and therefore that is a mistake in some that say, That the Law is, doubtless a pure covenant of Works to some men, but not to all. It is a covenant of works, occasionally and accidentally, and not only to those which are not related to, comprehended in, or made partakers of the covenant of Grace. He should rather have said, that the ten commandments had been a covenant of Grace, but sometimes by an accident or especial occasion had become a covenant of Works, which yet could not have held. The covenant of Grace and the covenant of Works are two distinct and opposite Species, They have one and the same univocal Genus, of whose nature they equally partake. Therefore as an Ox can by no occasion or accident, be a Horse, or a Horse a Sheep, or a Sheep a Lion, or a Lion a man; so a covenant of Grace, can by no occasion or accident be a covenant of Works; one and the same thing intended for one end, may occasionally and accidentally have another event; as the Ministry intending salvation, may prove an aggravat on of condemnation; but no occasion or accident can change the nature of any thing, into that which is of a kind opposite to it, and different from it. And, in such cases where the event is hindered, and another happens; the denomination is, and must be, from the primary intention. The Apostle calls the Gospel the power of God to salvation, 
Under Moses his administration, commands were frequent and full, spiritual promises were rare and more obscure.  Rom. 1. 16. The word is called the word of Life, though to some through their obstinacy, it turns to condemnation, and to death. If our author in this question, take liberty to differ from all (as himself professeth) I hope he will not be displeased, if all differ from him, Hanc veniam petimusque, damusque, vicissim.  
Sixthly, In Moses time, and under his administration, commands were frequent and full, as well ceremonial, as moral, as also menaces. The directive, and maledictive part of the Law; were clear and open, for discovery of sin, to work to a sense of danger, to put them in a posture to look for and long after the Messiah; But the promises more obscure, (I mean the promises of eternity) scarce known, any otherwise then as they were shadowed out in temporal things. This (as the Apostle shows) was figured by that veil, which was before Moses his face, when he spoke with the people upon the renewing of the Tables, Moses his face upon his converse with God in the Mount, shone with that glory, that Aaron and all the children of Israel were afraid to come nigh, Exod. 34. 30. Afterwards he speaks to the people, and talks with them; And till he had done speaking with them, he put a veil before his face, verse 33. Whereupon the Apostle having entered comparison between the Ministers of the Law, and the Ministers of the Gospel, alludes to this veil before Moses his face, 2 Cor. 3. 12, 13, 14. in these words, Seeing then we have such hope, (saith he) we use great plainness of speech, and not as Moses which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished, but their minds were blinded; Upon which Diodati saith; Moses Ministry kept the people under the shadows of ceremonies, without contemplating the mysteries which were figured by them to the bottom, which was reserved for the time of the Gospel, Heb. 10. 4. Whereof was a figure that veil on Moses his face; Not (saith he) that, that was the end of that act of Moses, but of that which the Apostle saith, may be allegorically understood thereby, namely of the obscure dispensation of the Law; Which obscure dispensation meeting with that blindness that was in the judgements of that people, held them in such ignorance, that they saw little of Grace in that covenant, but rather through their blind mistake, looked upon it (the generality of them) as a covenant of Works. And this the Apostle signifies in the place before quoted, as also, Rom. 10. 3. They being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. This caused them so tenaciously to hold to the precepts of the Law (especially to the ceremonial part, which though more burdensome, yet was easilier fitted to their corruption) that they refused Christ the end of the Law for righteousness sake, to every one that believeth, Rom. 10. 3.  
Seventhly, 
There was so much of Grace and Christ held out in the Old Covenant to leave them without excuse.  There was yet so much of grace, and Christ held out in this covenant, that they were not only left without excuse, that were under it; but convinced of sin, if they saw not Christ and the grace of the covenant in it. Christ in his contest with the Jews (who would not receive him, but stood in opposition, and raised persecution against him,) appeals to the Scriptures, Old Testament-Scriptures; Search the Scriptures, for they testify of me, and in them you think to have eternal life, john 5. 39 Where we see a double encomium of the Scriptures. 1. From the jews own acknowledgement, In them eternal life may be found. 2. From the testimony they give of Christ, In them, upon search, Christ may be found; There are such discoveries there, that hold him out, and eternal life in him, to those that search them. And they suspecting, by that intimacy of communion that he professed to have with the Father, and the heavy charge that he laid upon them, that he was about to accuse them to the Father; Christ puts it off from himself, and puts it upon one that they had least in suspicion, even Moses, Moses in whom they trusted, in whom they pretended to repose confidence; It is he that is ready to accuse them, not of breach of the Law, or transgression of any command of his, (which they could easilier have believed) but of unbelief of Moses; You have one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom you trust; for had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me. Unbelief in Christ, set forth in Moses, is a sin, which Moses his writings shall charge upon them. So also in that speech of Christ to the two disciples in the way to Emmaus, O ye fools and slow of heart, to believe all that the Prophets have spoken; ought not Christ to have suffered those things, & to enter into his glory? where we see them charged with sin, in that they understood not Christ in the Prophets, 
Many phrases in use under the Old Covenant-administration seemingly holding out a Covenant of Works, according to Scripture use hold out a Covenant of Grace.  Christ in Moses, as follows there in the next words; Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he expounded unto them all the Scriptures the things concerning himself, Luke 24 25, 26, 27. They that dwell at Jerusalem and their Rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath day, they fulfilled them in condemning him, Acts 13. 27.  
Eightly, There are those phrases in Moses, which are ordinarily quoted, as holding out a covenant of Works, and in a rigid interpretation are no other; yet in a qualified sense, in a Gespel-sense, and according to Scripture-use of the phrase, they hold out a covenant of Grace, and the terms and conditions of it; To instance in some few, Deut. 4. 1. Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes, and unto the judgements which I teach you to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you, Deut. 5. 33. You shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you; and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess, Deut. 30. 16. In that I command this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways and to keep his commandments, and his statutes, and his judgements, that thou mayest live and multiply, and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. Deut. 6. 24, 25. And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God for our good always, that he might preserve us alive as it is this day. And it shall be our righteousness if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us. We may so interpret those Scriptures (and the Jews, as it appears for a great part, did so interpret them) that they hold out a covenant of Works, when Grace was not at all acknowledged to assist in doing, nor Christ known at all to satisfy for failing, and to expiate for transgression. These seeing nothing but a reward upon labour, and punishment in case of transgression. They may yet be so interpreted as taking Grace, in the Work for change of the heart, and putting it into a posture for obedience, according to that even in Moses, Deut. 306. I will circumcise thy heart, and the heart if thy ●eed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live, and so these duties are only Gospel qualifications of truth and sincerity of obedience. In this sense (which they may well bear, and I take to be their native sense) here is no more than what we find in the Gospel, from Christ and the Apostles. They that have done good, shall rise unto the resurrection of life, John 5. 28. To them that by patient continuing in well-doing, seek for glory and immortality, eternal life, Rome 2. 5. Where (as in many other places) we may see, that according to the New covenant, a man may make the attaining of life, the end of his work, and the Reader may see phrases of his nature, to be New covenant, New Testament, and Gospel-language; unless they will charge Christ and the Apostles to have Old Testament-spirits. To save a man's self may be so understood as to bear a sense, purely legal, anti-Evangelical, and opposite to Grace or Faith in Christ, and so it is used by the Apostle, or a phrase very near it; For by Grace ye are saved through Faith, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, Eph. 2. 8. Not obscurely showing, that if we are saved of ourselves, it is not of Grace, not of Faith, and not the gift of God. Yet the phrase may be understood in a Gospel-sense, as requiring and implying no more than our endeavour in a state of grace, through the assistance of the Spirit, to walk in Salvation-way, To strive to enter in at the straight gate, and to seek the Kingdom of God, and the righteousness of it, and so we find it used, and that more than once in Scriptures, 1 Tim. 4. 16. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; in so doing thou wilt save thyself, and them that hear thee. Ministers taking heed to doctrine, save hearers, and yet are no saviours, in opposition, but in subordination to the Lord Jesus; Ministers and others taking heed to themselves, save themselves, and yet are no self-saviours in opposition to free grace, the merit of, or faith in Christ Jesus; Peter in his first Sermon after receiving of the holy Ghost preached the Gospel, yet he urged this, which some will have to be no other than a covenant of Works; Save yourselves from this untoward generation, Act. 2. 40. And the Apostle preached no other thing than Christ and him crucified, when he called on the Philippians, to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, Phil. 2. 12. To be found in our own righteousness, in that sense that Paul uses it, Phil. 3. 8. doth exclude the righteousness of faith, that was no bottom on which he durst stand; yet in the sense that Ezekiel uses it, the soul is delivered by it, Though Noah, Daniel, and Job stood before me, they would but deliver their own souls by their righteousness, Ezek. 14. 14. so Ezek. 18. 22. In his righteousness that he hath done he shall live; Noah was an heir of the righteousness of faith, Heb. 11. 7. as the Holy Ghost himself witnesseth; yet the same Holy Ghost tells us, that his own righteousness delivers his soul. So Solomon saith, Righteousness delivers from death; he doth not only say, it would deliver, were it exact and complete, but (such as it is) it doth deliver, Prov. 20.2. David (as Paul observes) describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Rom. 4. 6. Yet the same David puts blessedness upon works, Psal. 112. 1. Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord that delighteth greatly in his commandments. Psalm 119. 12. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the Law of the Lord; Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, that seek him with the whole heart. Ps. 128. 1. Blessed is every one that feareth the Lord, that walketh in his ways. And so also the Apostle James, Who so looketh into the perfect Law of Liberty, and continueth therein, not being a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the word, that man shall be blessed in his deed, James 1. 25. The Apostle Peter tells us, We are kept by the mighty power of God through faith unto salvation, 1 Pet. 1 5. Our salvation is not in our own keeping, It is not our own care, that frees us from destruction; yet John saith, He that is begotten of God sinneth not, and keepeth himself, that the wicked one toucheth him not, 1 John 5. 18. Here are the same words affirmed, and denied, and both from one and the same mouth of truth; a different sense therefore is to be enquired after. A righteousness, which is the condition of the covenant of Works; out of our own inherent strength and abilities, in an exact perfection, is denied, a righteousness, not of us, but through grace wrought in us, in sincerity, which the covenant of Grace calls for, is asserted and required.  
Ninthly, 
Though Moses delivered a Covenant of Grace to Israel, yet the Law is sometime taken in that restrained sense as to hold forth a Covenant of Works.  Though the whole Law that Moses delivered from God on Mount Sinai to the people (and is among the sacred Oracles of God for posterity) do contain a covenant of Grace, yet the Law is taken sometime in that strict sense, as containing a covenant of Works, and holding forth life upon condition of perfect obedience. So the Apostle, Rom. 10. 5, 6. puts an opposition between the righteousness of the Law, and the righteousness of Faith; So also Gal. 3. 18. If righteousness be by the Law, it is no more of Promise, So that, there is a necessity of distinguishing, between the Law, abstracted from the Promise, the Promise of Christ, I mean the Evangelical Promise, and the Law, including this Promise, and writing of Christ Jesus, so that the works of the Law, considered in the bare mandatory part of it, can save none; If righteousness come by the Law, than Christ is dead in vain; yet the righteousness witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God which is by Faith of Jesus Christ, Rom. 3. 21, 22. is, our justification, and brings salvation, Rom. 3. 21, 22. And no marvel, that Moses, and the Law delivered by Moses, should be taken in Scripture in so different an acception; when circumcision, that leading ceremony of the Law, is sometimes looked upon as a Privilege, as hath been showed, and a saving Ordinance, Rom. 3. 1. Rom. 4. 11. And sometimes as a yoke, A yoke that neither our fathers nor we were able to bear; Acts 15. 10. yea, as a deadly ceremony, dividing and cutting off from Christ. I Paul say unto you, if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing, Gal. 5. 2. So that the Law abstracted from Christ, as the greater part of the Jews took it) was a Ministry of condemnation, 2 Cor. 3. 9 It could never reach so high as salvation, but including Christ, it wa● perfect, and saves the soul, Psal. 19 7. The Apostles thinks he can never sufficiently vilify the ceremonial Fabric, looked upon, as absolute of itself, without farther relation; We see what titles he gives those Ordinances, Weak and beggarly elements, Gal. 4. 9 Rudiments of this world, Col. 2. 8. But being taken in their relative consideration, as a Schoolmaster to Christ, they are an atonement, a sweet savour, they are so called, times without end; The honour due to Christ (who was an Offering and a Sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour, Eph. 5. 2. and by whom we receive the atonement, Rom. 5. 11.) without derogation from Christ, is given to them; not by way of opposition, but subordination; and not by man's device, but God's appointment not holding the soul from him, but ministerially serviceable to lead to him.   

CHAP. XXXIV.  
The Old covenant was not made up of mere carnal and temporal Promises, but contained New covenant-promises that were spiritual and saving.  
THese Positions premised, to clear our way in a farther progress in this thing: I should now look into those differences; which several parties; have not found, but made between these covenants; and to reckon up all, which some have at least hinted and touched upon, I should weary both myself and the Reader. He that pleases may find them numerously reckoned up, by Master Ball in his Treatise of the Covenant, page 94, 95, 96. with his general censure and dislike of the most of them, though sparing a particular refutation which I also shall forbear. So many of them as are differences indeed, will fall in with those before delivered, and the other will fall before that which hath, and (God willing) may be spoken. There are only four, of which I shall (by God's assistance) take notice, upon which much controversy depends. The two former being injurious to the Old covenant laying it too low; The two latter putting too great a limit to the New covenant in respect of its latitude and extent.  
First, 
The first imaginary difference between the Old and New Covenant.  The Old covenant, under which the fathers lived, and which circumcision sealed (say some) was a carnal covenant, and contained only earthly promises, the mercies of the land of Canaan, such as were in this life to be enjoyed: But the New covenant under which we live in Gospel-times, and which Baptism seals, contains spiritual mercies and privileges, 
Ad literam non fuisse promissionem remissionis peccatorum, sed peculiaris protectionis & gubernationis & terrenae foelicitatis.  hath promises of everlasting salvation. In the device of this difference Papists have led the way, and Socinians and Anabaptists follow. Bellar. 1. l. 1. De Baptismo, cap. 4. saith, and refers to what he had said before upon the question of the difference of the Sacraments of the Old and New covenant, that the promise of God to Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, was not in the letter of it, any promise of forgiveness of sins, but of special protection, providence, and worldly happiness, with whom Stapleton and Becan the Jesuits join hands, 
Promissio terr●na erat annexa carnali Circumcissioni, & hac sola ad vetus Testamentum pertinebat; & contrarium asserere, quod facit Calvinus, nihil est aliud, quam ex lege Evangelium facere, & omnia confundere Bellar, lib. 2. de es●ec. Sac. Cap. 17.  as they are quoted by Chamier, lib. 5. de Baptismo, cap. 11. sec. 11. though Vasquez one of their fraternity dissents; And Master Blackwood in his Storm of Antichrists Garrison, saith, That these are two covenants essentially differing. The first was carnal, typical; and showing the difference between Baptism and circumcision, he saith, circumcision signed a right to Canaan, 
The several interests for which the assignation of this difference serves.  Baptism signs a right to the death and satisfaction of Christ. page 32.  
This difference of the covenants (however the reality of it will appear in the Scriptures) serves for several interests.  
1. It is this high way to bring down all the honour and esteem of Old Testament-Scriptures, 
1. To decry all Old Testament-Scriptures.  If the promises there mentioned be (as those of the Turkish Alcoran) sensual and carnal, yea, inferior to them, and determine with this life; who can put such an estimate upon them? especially having at hand by them, in the New Covenant, Promises lasting to eternity. This doctrine hath produced those Atheistical jeers and blasphemies, Old Testament-men, Old Testament-spirits; yea, by inevitable consequence, if it may stand, it will bring the bane and ruin of New Testament-Scriptures along with it. The Old and New Testament-Scriptures, as couples in ancient buildings, so answer one the other, that, neither can stand, if either fall; It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that we seek in New Testament-Scriptures. Now that is defined to be, that which God before promised by his Prophets concerning his Son Christ Jesus, Rom. 1. 2. In the promise of the Prophets then, this must be found. A righteousness of faith we there seek; now this righteousness is witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, Rom. 3. 21. They must then be heard witnessing, Christ is the All that in the Gospel we look after; he must be an Old Testament-Christ, whom the Law and Prophets hold out to us or else he is not the Christ of God; All the vilifying reproaches which are fastened on the Old Testament, fall upon the head of the New Testament; yea, upon Christ Jesus.  
2. It wholly takes Infants out of all Covenant with God; 
2. To take all Infants out of Covenant.  If that great Charter, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, contain only carnal promises, and those proper to that people, it is determined, and now no covenant for the seed remains. Hence Papists and Antipaedobaptists have their respective advantages, The Papists hence conclude Infants damnation, dying before they are taken of God into covenant by Baptism, and Antipaedobaptists joining with them in the premises; will they, nill they, they must be enforced to yield the Conclusion. They may fret and storm about the charge of it, and dip their pen as deep in gall as it can reach, yet they shall never wipe it off. That all out of Covenant with God, being no Church-Members, having no title to Church-Membership, are in a perishing condition, is a Scripture-Position above all exceptions. In case they will subscribe, as they do, to the Popish Tenent, that Infants in their first birth state, are out of covenant, and in no better condition than the children of Heathens, except the hope of better education, than they must agree, in Infant's condemnation.  
3. Antipaedobaptists, 
3. To keep Infants from Baptism.  hence find a way to keep Infants from Baptism; Being out of Covenant, they have no right to any seal of the Covenant. These several interests make them all to join in one, to conclude that the first was a Covenant carnal, and raising the men in Covenant, no higher than earthly expectations. But if truth may be heard, none of these interests will hold; 
Testimonies evincing the spirituality of Old Test●ment-promises.  certain it is, that those that were in the Old Covenant had better thoughts of it. The Apostle, speaking of the Patriarches confession, that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth; makes his observation upon it; They that say these things, plainly declare that they seek a Country. A stranger, or pilgrim, is a man not at his home, but seeks a country. Now this country must either be Earthly, or Heavenly, there is not a third which men could have in desire. That it was not an earthly country that they sought; he makes good, in that they had opportunity of return, they might have gone back to Ur of the Chaldees at pleasure. Then it follows, as he infers, that they sought a better country, that is, an Heavenly, Heb. 11. 16. Men of this opinion have not only the Apostles authority against them, but (putting himself on in a Logical dispute with them) his reasons likewise, yea, those that were most carnal, and earthlyminded among them, were taught to judge better of the Promises, that they lived under; Christ gives that testimony of the Jews, with whom he had contest, that in the Scriptures they thought to have everlasting life, John 5. 39 They had no Scriptures but Old Covenant-Scriptures, and of them, they had this opinion, which was no error of theirs corrected by Christ, but were by him confirmed in it, Christ justifies them in their opinion, that in Scripture they thought to have everlasting life, and rectifies them in the way of finding everlasting life in it. A great part of the dispute is about those words of God to Abraham, in which the foundation of the Covenant stands, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, whether in them there be promises, only of earth, or of heaven likewise? And this Christ himself determines in his answer to the Sadduces about the Resurrection, where he applies that speech of God to Moses at the bush: I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; for proof that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob live for ever, Mat. 22. 33. How injurious are they to the Covenant of God with his people, that put such unworthy limits upon it: Other people that were without Covenant had temporal mercies from God, they were protected, and provided for by him; Leave thy fatherless children unto me, and let thy widows trust in me (saith the Lord to the people of Edom,) I will keep them alive, Jer. 49. 11. The woman of Canaan thought it a privilege for dogs to eat of the crumbs that fall from the children's table; for Gentiles, who were without Covenant, to partake of any little of the mercy that the people of God in Covenant did enjoy; But if this gloss of the Covenant may stand, the dogs crumbs, are beyond all the children's provision. They will not leave their crumbs, for all that is set on the children's table. It may seem a high speech of Luther after his manner, 
Imperium Turcicum quantum quantum est, mica est quam pater familias projicit canibus  that the Turkish Empire how great soever, is but a crumb that the great Master of the family casts to the dogs; yet this is above all that Israel had in Canaan, if we look at no more, than a temporal possession. Ishmael the son of the bondwoman must be cast out, not to be heir with the son of the freewoman, Gen. 21. 10. he and his posterity must be cast out of Covenant, and in Isaac the seed must be called. But if there were no more in Isaac's grant than the possession of Canaan, the son of the bondwoman had had the better of the bargain: Ishmaelites in earthly possessions exceeded Israelites; And Esau had not need to have complained so much of the loss of his birth right, and his brother's supplantation of him; if Jacob had gained no more than a possession for his posterity in Canaan, having that blessing both promised and performed; That his dwelling should be the fatness of the earth, and the dew of Heaven from above, Gen. 27. 39 he had small cause of envy of his brother's felicity. How did the Saints of those times boast of God, exult and triumph in him, proclaiming his goodness, That there was no Rock 〈◊〉 their God? If their portion did reach (with the men of this world) only to this life, none can be able to give a reason of such triumphant exultations. And the Psalmist had never spoken of it as the world's portion, in case himself had looked for no better an inheritance. Providence was, indeed, singularly eminent over that people, yet considering their great afflictions which they still bore, and heavy chastisements wherewith they were exercised; if that special care of God, had not had an influence upon eternity, that blasphemous conclusion of the Orator, that a man might see how much the gods esteemed the Nation of the jews, in that they were so often carried into captivity, would hardly receive a satisfying refutation. Certainly their sufferings were above any other Nation, Amos 3. 2. You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities, if then they had their hope only in this life, and were not chastened in the world, that they might not be condemned with the world; as the Apostle speaks of Christians, so we might say of the Nation of the Jews; Of all Nations in the world they were the most miserable. See Chamier, lib. 5. de Baptism, cap. 11. sect. 11. Whitakers praelectiones de Sacramentis contra Bellar. pag. 125. Rivet. in Gen. 17. Exercitat. 87.   

CHAP. XXXV.  
The Old Covenant was a pure Gospel-Covenant, and not mixed.  
2ly. OThers that rise not so high against the first covenant, as to make it a covenant merely carnal; yet loath to yield to so much truth, as to confess it to be a covenant Evangelical; have found out a middle way; which yet they think may carry on their interests, and say, It is not a pure Gospel-covenant, but mixed; and therein differs from the second covenant, which is wholly Evangelical: In which they seem to go, but one half of the way with their old friends the Jesuits, from whom in this controversy they so much glean, yet, far enough to sit down with Anabaptists, to cast Infants (as they hope) out of the covenant and Church-membership, and so exclude them from Baptism. Here I shall undertake to make good these four particulars.  
1. That this expression of theirs is very untoward; 
That expression of a mixed Covenant under which the Fathers are supposed to live untoward.  and such that will bear no fair sense, without the utter overthrow, even of that difference between the Covenants, which they would build on this distinction.  
2. That the proof that they bring of this mixture of the first covenant is very weak, and not at all cogent.  
3. That they are not constant to themselves, but give and take, and know not what to determine.  
4. In case all were granted, yet they know not how to bring any thing home, of all that they say, to serve their own interests. Their expressions, I say, are untoward, in denying purity of Gospel in the first Covenant, and affirming a mixture. That which is not pure, but mixed, is a compound of pure and impure; such that hath some ingredients, such as they ought, and others such that make all adulterate: As silver mingled with dress, or wine with water, Isa. 1. 22. The false teachers (Saint Paul's adversaries) preach such a mixed Gospel, when they urged with such vehemency a mixture of works, which caused the Apostle to stand in such fear of the Corinthians, lest they should be drawn away from the simplicity that is in Christ, 2 Cor. 11. 2. They do not believe that the Gospel which Paul tells us was preached to Abraham, Gal. 3. 8. was any such impure Gospel, this sure is not their meaning, they dare not say that Abraham was under any such delusion; What then can be the meaning, but that he had promises, not only of bliss, and in reference to eternal salvation; but also promises of earthly concernment, as that of the land of Canaan, and his plantation there? The Covenant takes its denomination from the Promises, (saith one of them) but the Promises are mixed; some Evangelical, belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth; some are domestic or civil Promises, specially respecting the house of Abraham, and the policy of Israel. To this I readily agree, and then the distinction falls to nothing; Seeing in Gospel times, in New Testament-dayes, this will denominate a not pure, but mixed Gospel as well as in those times, we ourselves are under such a Gospel as well as the Jews. I know not how we could pray in faith, Give us this day our daily bread; in case we were without a promise of these things, or how man could live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, in case we had no word from God. The Apostle tells us, Godliness hath the promise of this life, and that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4. 8. It would trouble many a perplexed man in case he could not make good, that those words, Verily thou shalt be fed, Psal. 37. 3. did not at all belong to him. There is no believing man in any relation, but he hath Gospel-Promises in concernment to that relation, as appears in that speech of Paul's encouragement of servants, Epes 6. 8. Knowing whatsoever for good thing any man doth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. It It were ill with all sorts, had not they their domestic relation-promises, which these speak of, as making a mixture.  
2. As their expressions are untoward, so taking them at the best, their proof is weak, That the Covenant takes its denomination from the Promises; but the Promises are mixed, say these men. The most eminent Promises, which contain the marrow of all, give the denomination, and not such that are annexed as Appendants to them. The Promise of the land of Canaan, is an appendent to the great covenant made of God with Abraham, as Chamier with good warrant from the text, Gen. 17. 7, 8. calls it, lib. de baptis. cap. sec. The Covenant being made of God, to be the God of Abraham and his seed, which might have been made good wheresoever they had inhabited or sojourned, the promise of Canaan is over and above added to it. The reason given in by one for his dislike of Chamiers expression, calling it an Appendix to the covenant, is little to purpose, Psal. 105. 10, 11. The gift of the land of Canaan is called a Covenant, saith he, and therefore is not an appendent to it. By the same reason Circumcision must be the Covenant, and not a Seal appendent to it; seeing Circumcision is called a Covenant, Gen. 17. 10. they are not ignorant of these Scripture-metonymies.  
3. As the proof is weak, to make the Covenant not a pure Gospel-covenant, but mixed; so, they are not constant to themselves, pointing that out, which makes pure Gospel, Gen. 17. 5. Gen. 15. 5. Gen. 12. 3. Gen. 18. 18. illustrated by some New Testament-Scriptures, Rom. 4. 17, 18. Gal. 3. 8, 9, 16. Acts 3. 25. one observes, it is to be noted, that those Promises, which were Evangelical, according to the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost, do point at the privileges of Abraham's house in the outward face of the words, and thereupon raises a doubt, whether any covenant made with Abraham be simply Evangelical? And so he finds out Evangelical-Promises in the inwards of that covenant, which is non-Evangelical in the outward face; So Bellarmine, with whom he so much (to speak in his own language) symbolizeth, finds out spiritual Evangelical Promises, in that which he concludes to be of another nature; denying that the Promise made to Abraham in the letter, was any Promise of forgiveness of sins, but of special protection and government, and earthly happiness; yet confesseth that in a mystical sense they were spiritual Promises, 
〈…〉 quodam sensu fuisse e●iam 〈…〉 promissiones & remissionis peec●●m ac vita ●ternae & ad nos pertinere.  both of pardon of sin, and life eternal, and that they belong to us, Bellar. de Sacr. Bapt. lib. 1. cap. 4. whereupon Chamier observes, That which is promised mystically, God in covenant doth promise, but heaven is here promised mystically; therefore in this covenant here is a Promise of heaven; so the inward, and outward face, will be all Evangelical.  
Lastly, they yet know not how to bring any thing home (were all granted) to serve their interest, they seem to contend that the Evangelical Promises are vested in the persons of true Believers. The other which are civil, or domestic, serving to make up the mixture, were privileges descendable, and traducible to posterity, and upon this account, circumcision of the natural seed of Abraham came in for confirmation and seal of that which alone was civil, domestical, and non-Evangelical; and being not considered, as a leading Sacrament of the whole Church, as Baptism is now, but only of the Jewish Church, as such, proper to Abraham and his posterity, and much differing from Baptism, it is no argument that we in Gospel-times transmit any such privilege to posterity, 
Circumcision was a Seal of spiritual mercies of the same that Baptism sealeth.  or that our seed before actual faith, have any title to the covenant. This seems to be their meaning, to which we have many things to say.  
First, that Orthodox Divines, both ancient and modern have made circumcision to be of the same signification and use as Baptism, and till Anabaptists closed, they had no adversaries but Papists, who to advance their ●pus operatum in the Sacraments of the New Testament, will have them, as far to exceed the Old, as heaven doth earth, and the substance doth the shadow; This is observed by Chamier Panstrat. Cathol. Tom. 4. lib. 2. cap. 19 sect. 58. having reckoned up several testimonies to this purpose, he adds, 
a Plurima sunt ejusdem testimonia exquibus constat persuasum olim fuisse Christianis, non fuisse admodum diversan circumcisionis rationem & Baptismi. Cur body mutatum▪ & quidem in Papistarum gratiam & ●●idem ad arbitrium Jesunarum.  There are very many like testimonies, by which it appears, that Christians were heretofore persuaded that there was no so great difference between circumcision and baptism; and why, saith he, is it now changed? Truly in favour of the Papists, and according to the pleasure of the Jesuits.  
Secondly, if circumcision have respect to those Promises that were no Gospel mercies, but civil, domestical, restrained to Jews, and not appertaining to Christians; How could it be a distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion? it might have made a civil distinction, and the want of it have been an evidence against other Nations, that they had been none of the multiplied seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and that their interest had not been in Canaan. But how it could have concluded them to have been without Christ, strangers from the covenant of Promise, having no hope, and without God in the world, as the Apostle determines upon their uncircumcision, Eph. 2. 11, 12. cannot be imagined.  
Thirdly, How is it that we hear so much in Scripture of circumcision of the hear Jer. 4. 4. Rom. 2. 28. Deut. 10. 16. Deut. 30. 6. Ezek. 44. 9 and the circumcised to have this character, that they worship God in Spirit and in Truth; if circumcision have not relation to Promises that are spiritual? When complaint is made of uncircumcision in heart, is it not (as it is ordinarily understood) that their ●●ndes were carnal, and not taken up with spiritual things or is it that they were not fixed on their civil and domestic interests? when they are said to be uncircumcised, as jer. 6. 10. is it not upon that account that jeremy there gives, that they could not hear the Word of the Lord, that they had no delight in it, that it was a reproach to them; or is it because they could not suck in Promises of mere civil, home, and self-interests? So it must need be if circumcision be such a Seal, when they emproved it for the use to which it was instituted, they kept the right use of it, and were not worthy of reproof concerning it.  
Fourthly, what Sacraments had the Jews of any Gospel-relation, if this respected alone their civil interests? There might be more spoken to that of the Passeover, to carry it to peculiar National mercies, than to this of circumcision. See Exod. 13. 14, 15. And it shall be when thy sin asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the 〈◊〉 of B●ndage. And it came to pass when Pharao● would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt; both the first borne of man, and the firstborn of beasts; therefore I sacrifice unto the Lord all that openeth the Matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children, I redeem. I am sure far less can be said to carry it to that which is spiritual, and of common concernment both to Jews and Christians.  
Fifthly, how is it that the Apostle giving a definition of circumcision, refers it to nothing national, civil, or domestic; but only to that which is purely spiritual, Speaking of Abraham, he saith; He received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised? The righteousness of faith, is a Promise purely Evangelical, Romans 3. 22. Romans 3. 30. Romans 10. 3. Philippians 3. 8. and this Circumcision sealed, the selfsame thing that our Sacraments seal; So that as their extraordinary Sacraments are expressly affirmed to be the same with ours, by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10. 3 They eat all the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink, so are their appointed established Sacraments, Circumcision, and the Passeover. Will they with Bellarmine, lib. 1. cap. 17. de Sacramentis in genere, deny, that Circumcision was an universal seal of faith, and affirm that it was only an individual seal of the individual faith of Abraham, that so all may fall to the ground which is spoken from that Text of the use of Circumcision to the Jews, all that is there spoken, having reference only to Abraham in person; I answer, 1. This Popish shift is flat against the Apostle; He brings it as an argument for proof of the way, of our Justification to be by faith alone, which were a mere inconsequence, if proper to him, and not belonging to others. 2. It is flat against Moses, who refers this of circumcision to the covenant there mentioned, Genesis 17. 7. But the covenant is not with Abraham alone, but his seed also together with him, as is there plain. 3. It carries several absurdities with it. (1.) By this means God's covenant with Abraham in person, and his covenant with Christians in Gospel-times is indeed the same; but his covenant with all believers in the Old Testament and with believers in the New Testament are essentially differing. Abraham, and New-Testament believers, are under one covenant; Old Testament-beleevers are under a covenant essentially differing. (2.) Then Zachary, Luke 1. 72. interpreting the covenant made with Abraham of salvation by Christ should have limited it to Abraham, and not extended it to the Fathers; But we see all are there, under one and the same mercy; our father Abraham; and all that followed him, even all that came out of Egypt, and were for Canaan, are called Fathers, 1 Corinth. 10. 1. All our Fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all these had the same mercy in promise with Abraham. To perform the mercy (saith Zachary) promised to our Fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the Oath which he swore to our father Abraham. (3.) Then Abraham himself in person, and Christians in the days of the Gospel are interessed in Christ, and all other believers in the Law were without Christ; but the contrary is plain. Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ greater than the treasures of Egypt, Heb. 11. 26. (4.) Then Abraham and Christians have from God the Kingdom of heaven and salvation; but the rest of the Jews have nothing better than the land of Canaan. They have no more than the covenant reaches unto, and the seal of the covenant did confirm; But the covenant reaches only temporal Promises, as the land of Canaan, in their opinion. These evasions Bellarmine is put to, and Anabaptists are glad to follow, both of them willing to say any thing rather than confess a truth.  
But they say, Object. This was a seal to Abraham, of the righteousness of faith, that he might be the Father of all them that believe, etc. But only Abraham is such a father. 
Sol.  Answ. This priority of receiving the Faith, and the sign and seal, is proper to Abraham; each one could not be first, but father and child, both received it, and both had the righteousness of Faith sealed in it. If Bellarmine please so well, I shall refer to Bellarmine's opposites, Chamier de Sacramentis in genere, lib. 2. cap. 9 Ames. Tom. 3. more especially Whittaker praelectiones de Sacramentis page 22 23. H●c desperationis, etc. So that which way soever they take truth fastens upon them, and the friends of truth fly in their face; and all to make it appear that a pure Gospel was preached to Abraham, and that the first covenant was not mixed, but truly Evangelical.   

CHAP. XXXV.  
The Covenant of Grace in Gospel-times admits Christians, in a state of unregeneration, and is not limited in the bounds of it to the Elect regenerate.  
THe two former supposed differences did lay the first covenant too low, not vouchsafing it the honour of a Gospel-covenant, or at the best, a mixed Gospel; Two others follow, which will hold us longer, that put too great a limit to the second covenant, 
A third supposed difference between the Old and New Covenant.  in respect of the latitude and extent of it. A third difference therefore assigned by some, is, that the first covenant took in all the seed of Abraham, by Isaac and Jacob, as many as professed themselves to be of the Faith, and that were willing to join in the worship of the God of Abraham. The New Covenant, they affirm, admits no more than Elect Regenerate persons. The Gospel strips us of all relative Covenant holiness, of all holiness that is not real, and intrinsical, and God owns none, as his Covenant-people, but Elect regenerate persons. In the first place we shall take what is yielded, or at least not gainsaid, and after proceed to the examination of what is affirmed.  
In Old Testament-times the covenant was made with Israel in the uttermost latitude and extent, 
All of Israel were in Covenant in Old Testament-times.  with all that bore the name of Israel, as we may see, Deut. 29. at large held forth. There is a covenant entered, and the words of it expressed, 1. With Israel, verse 1. 2. With all Israel, verse 2. 3. With them to whom God had not given an heart to perceive, eyes to see, and ears to hear, ver. 4. viz. with unregenerate persons. 4. It is made with Captains of Tribes, Elders, Officers, little Ones, Wives, Strangers, Hewers of wood, Drawers of water, vers. 10, 11. 5. With them that were present, and with them that were absent, verse 14, 15. All this clearly shows in how great a latitude this covenant is entered; No Israelite of any Sex, Age, Rank, nor any that joined themselves to that body are exempted▪ Which also farther appears in those innumerable places of Scripture, where God owns that people generally, promiscuously as his people, professing himself to be their God, and he is the God of none, but a covenant-people, of his own covenant-people, others are without God, Eph. 2. 12. He was the God of all that came out of Egypt, Exod. 20. 2. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of Bondage; Of all that whole family, Amos 3. 1. Hear this word that the Lord hath spoken against thee, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I have brought up from the land of Egypt. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord, Deut. 6. 4. Yea, Isreal at the very worst is thus owned as Gods in covenant; Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto thee, O Israel, if thou wilt hearken unto me: but my people would not hearken to my voice, Israel would have none of me, Psal. 8 8, 11. The Ox knows his Owner, the Ass his Master's crib, but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider, Isa. 1. 3. Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge, Isa. 5. 13. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, Hos. 4. 6. And when they entered into the Heathen, whither they went, they profaned my holy Name; when they said unto them, These are the people of the Lord, Ezek. 36. 20. This is brought as a motive to withhold Israel from sin; Ye are the children of the Lord your God, ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead, for thou art an holy people to the Lord thy God, Deut. 14. 1, 2. This is pleaded as an aggravation of sin; You have I known of all the Nations of the earth, and therefore you will I punish for all your iniquities, Amos 3. 2. This is brought as a motive to prevail with God under misery for mercy; Behold we beseech thee, we are all thy people; Isa. 64. 9 Yea, this covenant takes with God for national mercies: The whole of the Nation than is in covenant. Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember, and will remember the land, Levit. 26. 42. The Apostles authority puts it out of question, Reckoning up the privileges of Israel according to the flesh, nine in number, Rom. 9 4. This is one, The covenants, Israel then after the flesh was in covenant; All Israel were the covenant-people of God. There were many not Elect, not Regenerate; but there was not a man not in covenant, not owned of God as visibly his; Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God.— And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his people, Deut. 26. 17, 18. This was the state of the Church of old. But now, as is affirmed, it is far otherwise. God is not so large in his privileges, nor so ample in his munificence, none have honour to be in covenant in Gospel-times, but real believers, men truly sanctified and regenerate. 
Some Divines seem to put too great a restraint upon the Covenant in New Testament. ●im. ●.  And here it cannot be denied, but there are many expressions, ordinarily found in many Orthodox Writers, and like passages frequently heard in Sermons from godly Ministers, seemingly implying, if not asserting it, and restraining the covenant only to the elect and regenerate. As when they give Marks and signs of men's being in covenant with God, this must needs imply that some professing Christians are in covenant with God, and some without, which is yet farther evidenced, when they conclude, that in case a man be in covenant with God, than happiness and salvation follows; But when these men fully explain themselves, they yield up again to us, that which seemingly they had taken from us, and ordinarily do distinguish of an outward, and inward covenant, acknowledging the outward covenant to be made with every member of the Church and the Parents, with that hear and professedly accept the promises, and their children, But the inward covenant as they say, belongs to them only, that receive the benefits of it, and are upright in it. An eminent Divine putting the Question, and returning answer, How a man may know himself to be in covenant with God; presently foresees an Objection against any such Quaere. As Saul and all the people of Israel were in covenant with God, so all professing Christians are covenanters likewise; and hereby all distinguishing notes of Professors, some in covenant, and some without must needs fall to the ground, one member then of the distinction, having no being for solution of the doubt, he lays down a distinction. 
Distinctions holding forth the meaning of these Divines in these expressions.  There is (saith he) a twofold covenant. 1. A single Covenant which God makes with his children when they are baptised, which is this; if ye will believe, repent, and walk in my ways, ye shall be saved, now if they break this condition, God is freed. 2. A double covenant to perform both parts, which is this, if you will repent and believe, ye shall be saved, and I will give you an heart, and you shall repent, believe, and be saved: So Preston on Attributes, part 2. page 85. 86. These distinctions, plainly yield that there is a covenant between God and man, in this latitude, of which we speak, and which here is expressed, and that all professed Christians so called, are in an outward and single covenant, which puts them into a capacity of Sacraments, and their children, which is a covenant properly so called, and which Scripture holds out for the covenant of God with his people. These Divines yielding so much, and their meaning being so Orthodox, there is no reason of controversy with them, or contention about words; Yet I should choose rather to express myself in Pareus his words against Stapleton the Jesuit, on 1 Cor. 7. 14. objecting against this doctrine, 
Esse in foedere dicitur dupliciter, vel quoad jus foederis, vel quoad foederis beneficia. Est in foedere, vel qui obtinet beneficia foederis, quae sunt remissio peccatorum, adoptio, regeneratio, salus, vel qui tantum habet jus, vel symbolum foederis externum, ut socius foederis, non alienus censeatur.  for it is a doctrine which Antipaedobaptists, and Independents have borrowed from Jesuits, and we have them all in this, as in many other things our Adversaries, To be in covenant, saith he, is taken two ways, either according to tiole to the covenant, or to the benefits of the covenant. He is said to be in covenant, that either obtains the benefits of the covenant, which are remission of sins, adoption, etc. Or else that hath only the title, and outward badge of the covenant, so that he is repute to have interest in it, and is not an alien from it. The right of covenant belongs to all that externally make profession. These engage themselves upon God's terms. The benefit of the covenant, remission of sins, justification, adoption, etc. belongs only to the Elect regenerate. Or farther we may distinguish of the covenant of grace, and the grace following the covenant, The covenant of grace is in the latitude before mentioned, the grace following the covenant in that restriction that some contend for, or else we may distinguish of entering covenant, and steadfastness and faithfulness in the covenant; All enter that are visible professors, only the elect and faithful are steady in it. This distinction is evidently grounded on Psal. 78. 34. They remembered that God was their rock, the high God their Redeemer, nevertheless their heart was not right in them, neither were they steadfast in his covenant. All covenant-enterers, are not covenant-keepers. To take off this restriction, and for overthrow of this imaginary difference, it were enough to require of these Asserters of this covenant-restriction, and limit, where God hath put any such restraint, for affirmanti incumbit probatio, and to require some reason, why men in nature, in Old Testament-times, should be honoured with that near relation to God, as to be of the Commonwealth of this people, enjoying not barely civil and domestic Privileges, but saving Ordinances, and under the Gospel, must stand shut out of all such visible relations, why unregenerate men in order to regeneration, may not come under the discipline of God under the Gospel, as well as under Old Testament-dispensations? Why poor sinners that confess with their mouth with the Eunuch, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Acts 8. 37. may not be indulged those proviledges (now Christ is come in the flesh to save sinners) whereby they may be brought to be believe with the heart that they may be saved? To those that would make such a distance between the covenants, as to throw out of the covenant of God, and visible communion, all that are unregenerate, we may speak in Christ's words, From the beginning it was not so, and either we must see some good ground, that in this there is by the will of God, this great change, or else we shall believe, as it was then, so it now. But I shall deal more liberally, and make it appear, that the Gospel doth not only not quit us of it, but establishes it; doth not only not abolish it (as it doth the Types of the Law) but holds it forth, and gives testimony of the continuance of it.   

CHAP. XXXVII.  
New Testament-Scriptures asserting the latitude of the covenant of Grace in Gospel-times.  
LEt that Text Matth. 28. 19 in the first place be weighed Go, 
New Testament-Scriptures holding out the Covenant of Grace in its full and just latitude.  teach all Nations, etc. which our adversaries in this cause willingly consent to have translated, Disciple all Nations, and therefore there needs no words nor stir to be made about it, and that a Disciple of Christ is in covenant with God, is as freely confessed, he takes God in Christ to be his God, he lays claim to salvation by him; 
Matth. 28. 19  this ground being laid, in which I think I have not an adversary, I draw from hence a twofold Argument.  
First, that covenant between God and man, which is committed to the Ministry of man to work, to judge of being wrought, and to put to a Seal for confirmation of it, is a covenant only visibly entered, and doth not require any inward real change, or work upon the soul to the being of it. This Proposition is clear, man can judge no farther than of that which is outward and visible, Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart. If none but a regenerate elect person be in covenant, than none but God knows who are in covenant. Then we may apply that of the Apostle spoken of the Seal of Election, The Lord knoweth them that are his, 2 Tim. 2. 19 unto every one that as a Church-member, is to be received into visible fellowship; A Church-member, and an elect person, according to this tenant are termini convertibiles; and the seal of the Spirit, and the seal of the Sacrament are in equal latitude; To baptise an unregenerate person is to put a seal to a blank, as high an abuse of that sacred Ordinance, as the circumcision of the Sichemites, Gen. 34. 24. That this covenant is such, appears in that Text, It is committed to man to work, and to judge of it being wrought, to put a seal for ratification and confirmation of it. The Apostles were to make Disciples, to bring men into covenant with God, and being discipled, to baptise them, sealing them, as Gods in covenant; So John 4. 1, 2. When the Lord know that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptised more disciples than John, though Jesus baptised not, but his Disciples. Here John made Disciples, and baptised them being made; The Disciples of jesus made Disciples, and baptised them being made; An outward work then to make profession of the faith, is sufficient to make one a Disciple, and to bring him within the verge of the covenant.  
Secondly, That which a whole Nation, in God's ordinary way of administration is in a capacity to attain, and enter into, is a covenant only professed, visibly entered upon, and doth not require any inward change, or work upon the soul to the being of it; this is plain, It cannot be expected in God's ordinary way, that a Nation should be brought forth at once, all really holy and sanctified, Such a field hath not been seen without tares, Such a floor without chaff, Such a draw-net without any fish that is bad; Such a Feast and no one without a wedding garment; But whole Nations are in a capacity, in God's ordinary way of working, to enter into this covenant, as is plain in the Text; The whole of the Nation, is, in their commission, where they come, and in many Nations it hath had happy success, Whole Nations without exceptions (unless strangers so journing) have been brought within covenant. One would fain fasten another interpretation on those words, 
The literal grammatical sense of the words vindicated.  and make the commission to sound, not according to the letter of the words, nor yet according to the success by grace attained, but to his liking, and therefore is put to it to change the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then [all Nations] must either be put by apposition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or with the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so instead of disciple all Nations, it will be, make disciples in all Nations. This he thinks is very tolerable, because to disciple, and to make disciples is all one. But though they may be one in themselves, yet it makes a main difference in the phrase, and with the addition of his preposition, inverts the whole meaning of the words, as to the thing in controversy, which is such a violence offered to the Text, as is not to be endured in him, that is about to draw a Logical argument for his advantage against an adversary. And as it is against the letter of the Text, so it is plainly against our Saviour's scope, 
Confirmed by the relation that this more enlarged Commission hath to that which was restrained to Israel only.  and end in giving this commission. This enlargement unto all Nations in this place was in opposition to the restriction, Matth. 10. 5. as by the adversary is confessed. Now in that Nation, to which there they were limited, the whole of the Nation was in covenant, all the land was the land of Immanuel, Esay 8. 8. and consequently so it was to be in other Nations, by virtue of this happy enlargement, or else the opposition is utterly taken away, the meaning of the words clouded, and the Apostles at a loss for the understanding of them; Having before spent their pains in a Nation, all Disciples, and now having a commission for the discipling of all Nations, 
By Old Testament-prophecies.  how shall they understand the words, unless the whole of the Nation, where they come are to be discipled? And hereto accord the prophecies of Scripture, for the calling of the Nations of the Gentiles, God shall enlarge Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Sem, Gen. 9 27. Sem was wholly in covenant, not by pieces and parcels, but universally in covenant; Japhet is to come in succession into covenant in like latitude, Psalm 2. 8. Ask of me, and I will give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. It is not some among the Nations of the Heathen that are to be the inheritance ●f Christ, but the Heathen, To which agrees, Rev. 11. 15. The Kingdoms of the earth, shall become the Kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Christ; Immanuel of old had one, now he shall have more Kingdoms, and they become his, no other way, than by discipling; God's Ministers are his men of war, for subduing and captivating them, 2 Cor. 10. 4, 5. and Kingdoms are promised them, not some only in Kingdoms. Alexander would not sit down with such a conquest, neither will Christ Jesus. If to possess some in a Kingdom, be to possess a Kingdom, than Antichrist of long hath had this Kingdom; All Kings shall bow down before him, all Nations shall serve him, Psal. 72. 11. All Nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, and shall glorify thy Name, Psal. 86. 9 Thou shalt call a Nation which thou knowest not, and Nations that knew not thee, shall run unto thee, Esay 55. 5. There God calls the Nation, and the Nation doth answer Gods call. In that day Israel shall he a third with Egypt, and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land, whom the Lord of Hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance. There, Egypt and Assyria are in equipage with Israel, all three sister-Churches, Israel without any pre-eminence; Either Israel than was not a Nation of Disciples, a Nation wholly within covenant, or else these are to be National Churches; the whole of the Nation to be discipled and brought into covenant. Passing by other Scriptures in silence, one tells me, that he marvels that I am not ashamed to produce, Psalm 72. 11. Psalm 86. 9 to prove that the whole of the Nation, even infants must be included, Matth. 28. 19 As if (saith he) it were foretold that the whole Nation, even Infants should come before God and worship. But it is strange, if he be ignorant, that prophecies in the Odd Testament; of the glory of New Testament-times, are in Old Testament-phrases by way of allusion to the worship of those times, set forth to us. It was the practice of the people of the Jews, for their males of growth and strength to appear before the Lord, and neither females nor Infants, as Ainsworth on Exod. 23. 17. observes, yet they appeared in the name of females and children, and their females and children, were in covenant, together with them, Deut. 29. 11. so that, as the rest of the prophecies, to which he hath nothing to say, so, these two prophecies (against which he excepts) speak fully for the discipling of Nations in New Testament-times. 
By the happy success that in many Nation hath followed upon it.  The success of these Prophecies hath happily answered in many Nations, which may well serve, as a clear Comment both of these Prophecies, and the commission granted by the Lord Jesus, though by the working of the man of Sin, and other Heretics, the glory hath been much dazzled, yet, in most of the Nations of Europe, it hath been happily effected. Let any man find equal Reasons for the variation of the words, as I have done for keeping to the letter of the Text, than I shall hearken to him, in the mean time all indifferent men may well challenge their reason that heed him.  
A second Text holding out the covenant in its ancient latitude, 
2. Mat. 22. 14.  we have from our Saviour Christ, 
Mat. 20. 16  Matth. 20. 16. and 22. 14. Many are called, but few chosen. The close of two several Parables: The one of the labourers hired into the Vineyard, where some claimed a more large pay upon merit: The other, of the Parable of the Wedding-feast, where one intruded without a Wedding garment; whence our Saviour infers, Many are called, are of the number of guests at the wedding feast, are of the labourers in the Vineyard, but few are chosen; from whence I thus argue; If there be a call from God in the times of the New Testament in a far greater latitude than the grace of Election, that, of many called, few only are elected; then the covenant in New Testament-times, is not to be restrained to the elect and regenerate, but contains all that professedly accept the terms of the covenant, and visibly appear a people of God. This is evident, seeing the call is, into covenant, all at the Feast were called ones, all the hired labourers were covenant-servants. To conceive men to be called of God, and not to be in covenant with God, is a full contradiction. The call hath its terminus à quo, and its terminus ad quem; a state which upon call they leave; and a new state on which they enter. They are upon this call in a nearer relation to God, than the rest of the world, otherwise they were the same as ever, and not called at all, they are not in so near a relation, as men borne of the Spirit, so they were elected. They have a call by the Word, and ministerial outward Ordinances, to which they yield a professed subjection. They have not attained the inward working of the Spirit to a real Sanctification. Now for the Assumption, that there is a call in New Testament-times in this latitude, in a far greater latitude than the grace of Election, our Saviour evidently shows in the Text quoted; There are those at the feast that are not accepted; There are those that are taken into the Vineyard, that at the evening of the day do displease, there are those therefore that are called into covenant with God, and yet are rejected of God, a full, and a clear Text for covenant-holiness.  
This is farther evident in those Parables of our Saviour Christ, of the field with Wheat and Tares, 
3. Those several Parables.  Matth. 13. 24, 25. of the draw-net with fishes good and bad, 
Mat. 13. 24, 25  Matth. 13. 47. of the floor with chaff and Wheat, 
Mat. 13. 47.  Matth. 3. 12. of the great house, where there are not only vessels of gold and silver, 
Mat. 3. 12.  but also of wood, 
2 Tim. 2. 20.  and earth, and stone; some to honour, and some to dishonour, 2 Tim. 2. 20. In which parables by the floor, the field (expressly compared to the Kingdom of Heaven, and the great house) the Church is understood, which stands in covenant-relation to God, and contains those that are in covenant with God. A man in the Kingdom of Heaven is a man in covenant with God, unless he stood in a covenant-relation, he could have no standing there; and the comparison were very strangely drawn, if this Kingdom thus set out, had all that were good, none bad in it. But of this more, when I shall speak to some corollaries that follow from this Assertion.  
Another Scripture, in which the covenant, in the ancient latitude is held out, is Rom. 11. throughout a great part of the chapter. There is (as all know) a large discourse of the Apostasy of the Jews, and the call of the Gentiles, of the rejection and breaking off of the one; and the taking in, and engraffing of the other, which I shall presently have a further occasion to open, when I shall speak to another pretended difference between the covenant, as it stood then, and as it stands now. In the mean time this is clear, into the same Church-state, and covenant-latitude from which the Jews fell, Gentiles were taken in, and do still continue. This cannot be denied, we being graffed in their stead, come in upon like terms as they left. They fell from a visible Church state, and that latitude of covenant which did receive regenerate and unregenerate, justified and unjustified. That covenant-latitude then still remains in the Churches of the Gentiles in Gospel-times. Nothing here that I can see can with any colour be objected, unless any will say, that the invisible Church is there spoken to, and not the visible, that the Jews fell from the invisible body, and that the Gentiles in their call are generally taken in, into the same fellowship. Which (as I think) few will affirm; so I shall have presently occasion to examine. If any shall further say, that they have this title, in Foro Ecclesiae, and not in Foro Dei; as to men they have so far right, that Ministers may not refuse them, or in their administrations deny them admittance; but in the sight of God, who knows their unregenerate & unjustified condition, they have no title at all, I shall refer them to the whole tenor of that chapter, where they shall see, this engraffing of theirs ascribed to the power of God, that it is done by the election of God, and mentioned as his gift, and choice mercy to that people. All of which speak the mind of God in it, and his approbation of it.  
This is farther clear in that Text of the Apostle, Heb. 10 29. Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye, 
4. Heb. 10. 29  shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace? Where we see those that are sanctified with the blood of the covenant, do tread under foot the Son of God, and count his blood an unholy thing, have an esteem of it, as that which is common, and never devoted at all to God. These must needs be granted to be wicked, ye cannot be denied to be in covenant, being sanctified with the blood of the Covenant. 
A threefold interpretation of the Text.  There is indeed a threefold interpretation of this Text; One of the Arminians, and those of that party, enemies to perseverance in Grace, and they understand by sanctification in this place, an internal change and renovation of the soul, from whence by Apostasy such persons fall. They that will embrace this tenant, may indeed say, that in the state of sanctification, they were in covenant, but falling from sanctification, they fall from covenant. But this is not affirmed by those with whom I have to deal, and therefore I shall not launch out into this controversy. Two other interpretations are given by those that are adversaries to this way, and make it their work to vindicate this text from these men's glosses; The first refers sanctification, not to those delinquents, that tread under foot the Son of God, and do despite unto the Spirit of grace, but unto Christ himself: Christ was sanctified (they say) with this blood. This indeed clearly takes this Text out of their hands, that would from thence infer the Apostasy of sanctified, that is, regenerate persons. And if this hold, it as little serves our purpose, Here is Christ in covenant, but no reprobate or wicked person in covenant. But this reference of the words and the interpretation which is grounded on it, hath (I suppose) come into the thoughts of few Interpreters, and it seems to be very much strained, the scope of the place being for aggravation of their sin, that set themselves against the Son of God and the holy Spirit. The common interpretation (which is obvious, and clearly held out in the Text) fully vindicates it from any favour showed to the doctrine of Apostasy of the Saints, and fully confirms the point in hand. There is a sanctification by separation for God, and dedication to him, as there is by inhesion and infusion. Master Dixon on the words having so fully spoke my thoughts, I had rather express myself in his words, than my own, putting the Question, How the reprobate can be said to be sanctified by the blood of the covenant? answers; There is a sanctification to the purifying of the flesh, and a sanctification to the purifying of the conscience from dead works, to serve the living God, Heb 9 13, 14. The sanctification external to the purifying of the flesh consisteth in the man's separation from the world, and dedication unto God's service, by calling and Covenant, common to all the members of the visible Church, and it is forcible thus far, as to bring a man into credit and estimation as a Saint before men, and unto the common privileges of the Church, whereupon, as men, so God also speaketh unto him, and of him as one of his people, and dealeth with him in his external dispensation as with one of his own people. In this sense all the Congregation of Israel, and every one of them is called holy, yea Core also and his followers, Num. 16. 3. The sanctification internal by renovation consisteth in a man's separation from the state of nature, to the state of grace, from his old conditions to be a new creature indeed; by this latter sort a reprobate cannot be called sanctified, but by the former he may be called sanctified, and that by virtue of the blood of the covenant, albeit he should not get any farther good thereby; for as the blood of Christ hath virtue to cleanse the conscience, and ●●nue the soul which cometh unto it truly and spiritually, so it must have force to do that which is less, that is, purify the flesh, and external condition of the man who cometh unto it, outwardly only as the types did under the Law, whereupon an hypocrite in the Christian Church, must be accounted one of the congregation of the Saints, as well as an hypocrite under the Law was so called, because Christ's blood cannot be inferior to the Types, which were of this force to sanctify men to the purifying of the flesh: Or we may say more shortly, There is a sanctification by consecration, when any thing is devoted or dedicated unto God, and a sanctification by inhabitation of the holy Spirit, 2 Cor. 6. 17. 18. Of the former sort the Censeres of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, are called holy, and the reason is given, Because they offered them before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed, Num. 16. 38. And in this sedse all the members of the visible Church, even such as afterwards do prove Apostates are sanctified, because they offered, and offer themselves unto the Lord. But the inhabitation of the holy Spirit, is proper only to the elect, and Gods children. To the same purpose Paraeus on the words, 
* Erat sanctificatio apostatarum non interna sed externa professione fidei et participatione Sacramentorum externa consistens. Erant sanctificati, hoc est, à Judais & Paganus professione segregati & pro veris Christianis habiti.  The sanctification of Apostates was not internal, (saith he) but external, consisting in the profession of Faith and participation of the Sacraments. They were sanctified, that is, separate from the Jews and Pagans in profession, and accounted for true Christians. In the same sense as men are ordinarily called Saints, as after we shall hear, so, those that are turned Apostates, were sanctified by the blood of the covenant, and therefore were men in covenant.  
Neither can all the noise that hath been made about that Text, 1 Pet. 2. 9 adversaries take it off, but that it speaks fully to hold up a covenant in this latitude, 
5. 1 Pet. 2. 9  and from thence I thus argue: If those phrases, a chosen generation, a royal Priesthood, an holy Nation, a peculiar people, be applied to Christians; as to Jews, in an equal latitude, to one as to other, than it must needs follow that there is a covenant in Gospel-times in like latitude, as in the time of the Law, including all that accept the terms of the covenant, and visibly appear as the people of God, and is not restrained only to the Elect regenerate. The consequence is evident, seeing the terms plainly imply a covenant. Here is a counant-people or no where. But these terms, a chosen Generation, a royal Priesthood, an holy Nation, a peculiar People, are applied to Christians, as well as to Jews, to one, in as great a latitude, as to the other. That which God speaks to Israel in the wilderness, that Peter speaks to the Church to which he writes, All Israelites in Moses days, all Christians professing in Peter's time, had those titles, when only those that kept covenant, were at any time worthy of them, and had the comforts of them. Here 'tis objected that this Text is meant of the Church, as it is invisible; and so it follows not, that it is spoken by the Apostle in that latitude, as it was by Moses to the Israelites, but in as great a difference as the Church visible, stands from the Church, as it is invisible; but I would wish that it might be taken into more serious consideration.  
First, 
Arguments carrying this Text to the Church as visible.  whether the first Verse of this second Chapter, be meant only of invisible members? Whether the Apostle persuades Regenerate men, and only Regenerate men, to lay aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and evil speakings?  
Secondly, whether the third verse be to be thus limited, whether the Apostle makes doubt in that manner, whether invisible members had tasted that the Lord is gracious? and yet the words in both those verses must needs be understood of the same men, and under the same notion as these, ver. 9 The Apostle brings his speech to no full period till ver. 11. Those that must lay aside all malice, guile, etc. and those of whom he makes question, whether they had tasted that the Lord were gracious; are this chosen Generation, this royal Priesthood.  
Thirdly, let us more seriously consider the Apostles farther enlargement of this honour of these Christians, Which in times past were not a people of God; words borrowed from Hos. 1. 10. Hos 2. 23 and spoken of the call of the ten revolted Tribes, and in Deut. 32. 21. of the call of the Gentiles into a visible Church-state and profession, and so applied by the Apostle, Rom. 9 24, 25, 26. Whence I argue, The call of the ten revolted Tribes, and of the Gentiles into a visible Churchway, is not to be meant of the Church, as it is invisible only. This one hath already taken into consideration, and answered. Howsoever it be in the places in which the allusion is, yet it is certain that here it is meant of such a calling as is from darkness to marvellous light. Taking it, it seems, for granted, that there is no marvellous light in visible Churches, that in the land of Zebulon and Nepthali, where they saw a great light, there were, only invisible members, Mat. 4. 15, 16.  
Fourthly, as honourable titles as these are frequently given in Scripture, as shall be shown to visible professors, why should then these be limited to invisible Members?  
Fifthly, this Text by adversaries is made to be parallel with those Texts, Gal. 6. 10. 1 Tim. 3. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 20. And those Texts I have demonstrated to be meant of visible Churches. To which nothing is replied. Arguments to evince it, to be meant of the Church, as it is invisible, come to be considered.  
(1.) I argue (saith one) from the terms, chosen Generation, royal Priesthood, Objections answered. and holy Nation, a peculiar people. This is by Christ's death, which can be understood of no other than Elect and true Believers Tit. 2. 14.  
Answ. 1. Such a way of arguing would not pass with him in his Adversary. As [peculiar people] is taken in one place of Scripture, so it must be taken in all places; but in one place it is taken for the Elect regenerate. If this would hold, much labour might be spared in finding out the various acception of words in Scripture.  
2. These terms and others equipollent to these, are given to the Israelites, Deut. 14. 1, 2. Deut. 9 6. Deut. 32. 9 not as a Church invisible, but as visible Members. Their qualifications are often as low as their appellations by reason of their relation to God, raise them high. And setting apart Christ's death, I would know how the Israelites came to this honour.  
3. The gift of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers were the gift of Christ, and the purchase of his death. These are for constitution of visible Churches, and visible members, enjoy these privileges in common with regenerate persons, to which more is already spoken.  
(2.) An Objection is raised from that which is said of them, They are called of God by his power, and virtue into his marvellous light; and verse 10. Which now had obtained mercy, which they had not before, which cannot be affirmed of any but true Believers and Elect persons.  
Answ. Men brought into a visible Church-state, are brought into a marvellous light. The seven golden Candlesticks, Rev. 1. 20. had a marvellous light in their lamps, and yet in some of those there were only a few names that had not defiled their garments; And this light is a mercy, the fruition of it is a great mercy, Psalm 147. 19, 20. Yea, it is applied by the Prophet, Hos. 2. 23. whence the Apostle gathers it unto the mercy enjoyed in a visible Church-communion, which is not denied by the adversary.  
(3.) It is said, that those persons did believe contra-distinguished to them that were disobedient, and stumbled at the word; but such are only the Elect. Ergo.  
Answ. So did all they that made shipwreck of the faith, 1 Tim. 1. 19 So did Simon Magus, Acts 8. 13. So did the hearers compared to the rocky ground, Luke 8. 13. And whereas it is said, these Believers are contra-distinguished to them that were disobedient and stumbled at the Word, it fully makes against this interpretation. Those disobedient ones are, those that disallow Christ, as we see verse 7. that reject Christ upon tender, that persist in Judaisme or Gentilism. All others, not professed Jews nor Gentiles, are in that place Believers, and in all other Scriptures respective to visible prerogative, all which are visible Church-members.  
(4.) They are said to be built, as living stones, etc. which can agree to none, but Elect persons, and true Believers.  
Answ. That is left out, in the Quotation of this Text, which would wholly spoil the argument, and carry it on the other hand; namely those words, To whom coming as unto a living stone. The Apostle shows them the way, and points out the condition called for, which being done, they are then built as living stones. And this implies that it was so, with some, but not with others. Here is that which was done by some and neglected by others, and their happiness upon discharge of their duty declared. I am told by one, that he hardly believes, that any approved Writer joins with me in this Interpretation; But though I were alone in it, yet I might learn of him to adventure, not barely on the interpretation of one single-Scripture-Text, but on a conclusion in Theology, against all Protestant Writers, and herein I should have the advantage, in that few comparatively (I think) have started this question, much less have they seriously handled it, minding more what those titles engage us to be (in which there is an agreement of all parties) than to whom they are given, when some of my opposites, dare affront the whole body of Protestant Writers, in that, in which ex professo, they have to deal against Papists. Estius indeed upon examination of the thing in question, appears to be of a contrary mind, and censures those that set out this holiness by Religion, doctrine, Sacraments, which Authors by him thus censured, may be (for aught I know) as approved as himself, and they, as we see, limit it not to the Church invisible, I doubt not, but that holiness, which is intrinsecal, is here aimed at, yet all those have these titles, that do make profession of the way of it, and are of the number of those that engage themselves to it. Gerrard also on the words, puts it to the question, and determines the same way, but tells us of others, that understand it of common and general election, His name (I suppose) is waved in that his Arguments are borrowed, and have been answered. But on the other hand Master Ball (who if authorities must carry it, will sway with me as much as either) treating on those words, Hos. 2. 19, 20. I will betrothe thee unto me for ever, etc. saith, The external betrothing, by outward covenant, so as God betrothes himself to all professing the true faith, may be broken, for though God offer them mercy if they will believe, yet he gives not not faith to them, and quotes for proof, Rom. 9 24, 25. 1 Pet. 2. 8, 9 And Zanchius de perseverantia sanctorum cap. 1. Tit. de Sanctis, hath these words, Hear now what I understand by the name of [Saints] This name [Saint] when it is spoken of men, is, 1, Generally taken, for all those that have consecrated themselves to the true God, and given their name to Christ, and do profess him and his Religion, whether it be done before God truly, and sincerely, or only before men, so the people of Israel, although they were not all truly holy, yet they are all called holy, so Paul calls all those Saints, who had given their names to Christ; so Peter, 1 Pet. 2 calls all those Christians to whom he writes a holy Nation, and a royal Priesthood. And Laurentius, 1 Pet. 1. 1. page 6. distinguishing of a threefold election. 1. To any function, civil or ecclesiastical. 2. To the external communion of divine worship, or the outward Church or people of God. 3. To salvation and eternal life, brings for proof of the second acceptation, Deut. 7. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9 both which Texts, with him there, are parallel; and taken in the same sense that I understand them. Ravanellus in verbum [election] quotes divers Texts of Scripture, in which election is taken for the adoption of any Nation, and puts this of 1 Pet. 2. 9 in the last place, adding these words, And this election is general as hath been said, nor are all that are made partakers of it, necessarily saved, Rom. 9 6. but respective to this general election, he is said to be chosen of God, who is called to the participation of his free covenant, or a people whom God adopts to himself for a people. So also in verbum [Sanctus,] which he says is taken three ways. 1. By separation or segregation. 2. By imputation. 3. By inchoation of holiness in this life. He there gives many instances of the first acception, of holiness by separation, distinct from the two other, and 1 Pet 2. 9 for one. So Salmero, as I find him quoted to my hand, understands it of election, distinct from that which is to eternal life; and calls it an election to faith, and all know that they mean no more than their Catholic faith, which (according to them) doth not necessarily entitle to eternal life, A Lapide, with whom my adversaries in these controversies, frequently join, is also wholly on my part, in his Comment on these words, so that it needed not to have been said, that no approved author joins with me, Let the Reader judge as the strength of reasons given will persuade.   

CHAP. XXXVIII.  
Arguments evincing the Covenant of Grace in Gospel-times in that latitude as before is asserted.  
THe first Argument shall be borrowed from those titles, which undoubtedly and undisputably imply a covenant, 
1. Titles given to men in covenant, and in Scripture applied to unregenerate men, prove it.  and yet in Scripture, are still attributed to all that professedly accept the terms of the covenant, and professedly appear as the people of God. Those titles before mentioned by Peter from Moses, are confessed to be such that argue a people in covenant, and therefore adversaries are so shy to confess them to belong to visible Professors; But titles as high as these, and as undeniably implying a covenant, are given to visible Professors; those then (even according to them) are on this account in covenant with God. And these are all of those titles wherewith the people of God are honoured. In New Testament-Scriptures, which are especially four, Believers, Saints, Disciples, Christians. He that is a Believer, a Saint, a Disciple, a Christian; he is a man in covenant with God. But all visible Professors that accept the terms of the covenant are Believers, Saints, Disciples, Christians; so they are still styled in New Testament-Scriptures, Believers from the Faith that they profess, Saints from the Holiness to which they stand engaged, or from the holy God to whose service they are separated, Disciples from the Doctrine which they profess to learn, and Christians from him whose they are, whom they serve, and from whom they expect salvation. I know some have enured themselves to that language, that those that are thus dignified, are necessarily concluded by them to be Elect, Regenerate persons; It is grown, I know the Dialect of the times, but not of the Scriptures.  
To begin with Believers. 
Unregenerate persons, as to the name and outward privileges, are Believers.  He is in Scripture a Believer, that is, a visible Professor, that puts himself into the number of those that expect salvation by Christ Jesus, So it is through the History of the Acts, where account is given of the Converts made by the Apostles Ministry, Acts 4. 4. Many of them which heard the Word believed, and the number of the men was about five thousand. They that are thus numbered by the poll, are visible Professors, that outwardly embraced the Doctrine of Faith; This might be seen and the names of such taken. They are not all Elect, regenerate Christians, such could not be visibly known: The generality of men and women in Samaria believed, Acts 8. 12. But that they were Elect & Regenerate in that universality cannot be conceived; Simon Magus is an example to the contrary, of whom the Text says, that he did believe, vers. 13. and yet his heart not right in the sight of God, vers. 21. He was with those Israelites, Psalm 78. 34. in covenant; yet his heart was not steadfast in Covenant. A great number of the Grecians believed, upon the preaching of those that were scattered, upon the persecution raised about Stephen, Acts 11. 21. yet Barnabas (whom the Church of Jerusalem sent to them) well enough knew, that there was no certainty, little hopes that all of these were Regenerate persons; therefore he exhorts them, that with purpose of heart they would cleave to the Lord. He was afraid that the work might be overly and superficial, of which the Church in every age hath sad experience; he desires and endeavour that they may be rooted and established. Only those hearers which are compared to the good ground, are Regenerate persons, But those compared to bad ground, believe, Luke 8. 13. Regenerate men, who alone are invisible Church-Members, have their hearts more right with God, than to love the praise of men, more than the praise of God; but many believers are thus censured, as we see, John 12. 42, 43. Regenerate persons make no shipwreck of Faith; They are borne of incorruptible seed, the seed of God abideth in them; Yet there are believers that thus suffer shipwreck, 1 Tim. 1. 19 Myriad of thousand of Jews believe, Acts 21. 20. yet not all Regenerate. The Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. satisfies a case of conscience put to him by the Corinthians, that if any brother hath a wife that believeth not; if she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. If the believing brother, here be only a Regenerate man, than the unbelieving wife is an unregenerate woman; So the question will be, whether a Regenerate, sanctified man, joined in marriage to a Professor of the true faith, not of those hopes for the truth of sanctification may dwell with her? A case that never yet was disputed or doubted: The unbeliever is a worshipper of idols, one that sacrifices to devils, and not to God. The Believer is a Professor of the Faith, one in name a Christian and not a Heathen.  
Saint is taken in the same latitude as Believer, and is the most common appellation in the New Testament, 
Unregenerate persons, as to the name and outward privileges are Saints.  for all that are separate for God, and dedicated to him. The distinguishing name for professing Christians, as the title of People of God, Circumcision, was for the people of Israel; some do not hear of the word Saint, but presently they understand a Saint in glory, and will not endure that any man should be a Saint upon earth; Others will have none Saints, but those that are really such, and shall be for heaven. They will have no denomination of a Saint, from a holy profession: But if we look into the Scriptures, and may be suffered to speak in that language, we shall find, Saint for the most part, taken for men upon the earth. The psalmist professedly names Saints upon earth, Psal. 16. 3. And those Saints not often taken for other, than a Saint by profession. He is a Saint that makes a Christian profession. We read of Collections for the Saints, 1 Cor. 16. 1. Administration to the Saints, Heb. 6. 10. which can reach no higher than visible Professors, and can by no means be limited to Elect, Regenerate ones. When Paul shut up many of the Saints in prison, and did much evil against them, Acts 26. 10. he knew no other way of distiction; then an outward profession, and so he explains himself, those of that way, Act. 9 2. We read of Churches of the Saints, 1 Cor. 14. 33. and they were taken in, to be Church-members assoon as they made profession; that is assoon as they ceased to be Jews or Pagans, and took them to the way of Christianity. As we see in those three thousand, Acts 2. The Samaritans, The Eunuch, Simon Magus, assoon as they were taken off from Heathenism, Judaisme for Christianity, they had that name of Saints. The Epistles wrote to particular visible Churches, are inscribed to Saints, among which, what some are, read both the Epistles to the Corinthians; yea, what almost all are in some Churches, read the Epistle to the Church of Sardis. Amesius judged by some to be of the opposite party) hath these words; It is most probable, that there is no particular Church, in which the profession of the true faith flourisheth, but in the same we may find some truly Believers, Medul. lib. 1. cap. 32. sect. 8. The Apostle tells us of the Faith once delivered to the Saints. Judas 3. the Doctrine of Faith, as is agreed on all hands is there understood; All that profess that Doctrine are Saints: no other Comment can be put upon it, than upon the Apostles words, Rom. 3. 1. To the Jews were committed the Oracles of God; Saint then is a name of distinction, to set out those that take the way, not of Jews, or Heathens, but the way of Christians and Saints are men in covenant.  
For the term Disciple, 
Unregenerate persons, as to the name and outward privileges, are Disciples.  enough hath been spoken before. This argues an interest in the covenant, as well as the former of Saints, and Believers, and whole Nations are in capacity to be Disciples, Matth. 28. 19 that is, to be put into a way of salvation, as sometimes the Nation of the Jews was, in the fruition of saving Ordinances; And the Kingdoms of the earth, being made the Kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ's, by a visible profession are Discipled. Judas is called a Disciple, Matth. 10. 1, 4. as well as Simon Magus is called a Believer. Saul breathed out threatenings against the Disciples of the Lord, Acts 9 1. In case you will know who the holy Ghost there means, see verse 2. all that Saul could find of that way. He made it not his work to inquire after their Regeneration, or inward work of Sanctification; we may well think he understood as little of that as Nicodemus, It was enough to him that they made such a profession. Complaint is made, Acts 15. 10. that those that urged the necessity of circumcision, put a yoke on the necks of the Disciples, which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear; and they urged it upon all in visible profession, and not upon regenerate ones alone. Let that one Text speak for all, in what latitude the word Disciple is taken, and in how large comprehension it is used, John 6. 66. From that time many of his Disciples went back, and walked no more with him.  
For the last of these terms, 
Unregenerate persons, as to the name and outward privileges are Christians.  Christians, it stands in the same latitude as the other, where we first hear of it, we find it the same with Disciples, Acts 11. 26. The Disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. And in what acception through all ages it hath past, is also manifest. All of these imply an interest in the covenant, and these are given to unregenerate persons.  
Here that of our Saviour is objected, Object. Luke 14. 27, 33. If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters; yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my Disciple. These qualifications are signs of Regeneration, and these only that are thus qualified, 
Sol.  are Disciples of Christ; Regenerate men then only have that honour of Disciples. I answer, They only do the duty of Disciples, they only are worthy of that title as Christ explains himself, Mat. 10. 37. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; Yet others have the name, as we have heard, and the outward privileges, in order to bring them to the duty of true Disciples. There are Disciples as to the fruition of visible privileges, and those are they that make visible professions. There are Disciples for glory and life, and those only are Regenerate ones, John 3. 3. Except a man be borne again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. Ordinances are granted in a greater latitude than Regeneration. All that enjoy the privileges of Ordinances are Disciples, and therefore it is no honour proper to Regenerate persons. 
The absurdities that follow upon the restriction of the Covenant to the Elect Regenerate do evince it.   
Secondly, as these titles argue a covenant-interest, when the parties are yet short of Regeneration; so the manifold absurdities that will follow upon this restraint of the covenant, alone to Regenerate, plainly evince that it is to be taken in a larger extent, and that it takes in unregenerate Professors.  
1. This restriction of the covenant, to out shut all non-Regenerate, makes an utter confusion between the covenant itself, and the conditions of it; or (if that expression do not please) the covenant itself; and the duties required in it, between our entrance into covenant, and our observation of it, or walking up in faithfulness to it. All know that a bargain for a sum of money, and the payment of that sum, the covenant with a servant for labour, and the labour according to this covenant, are different things. Faithful men that make a bargain, keep it, enter covenant, and stand to it; But the making and keeping, the entering and observing are not the same, many enter and transgress, covenant for much, and perform nothing; So it is in the covenants of men, and so Scripture speaks of those covenants which God enters with man. There are those that enter covenant, and keep covenant, Psal. 44. 17, 18. All this is come upon us, yet we have not forgotten thee, neither have we dealt falsely in thy covenant; our heart is not turned back, neither have our steps declined from thy way. These have mercy promised; All to which God enegages himself, is theirs, Psalm 103. 17, 18. The meecy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting, upon them that fear him; and his righteousness unto children's children, to such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them. There are those that break covenant, Psal. 78. 10, 37. They kept not the covenant of God, and refused to walk in his Law. Their heart was not right with him, neither were they steadfast in his covenant. And these are threatened with a curse, Jer. 34. 18, 19, 20. And I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the words of the covenant, which they had made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof. The Princes of Judah, and the Princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs and the Priests, and all the people of the land, which passed between the parts of the calf: I will even give them into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of them that seek their life; and their dead bodies shall be for meat unto the fowls of the heaven, and to the beasts of the earth. The Lord brings a sword that avenges the quarrel of his covenant, Levit. 26. 25. When the heaviest of judgements is mentioned, and a large list enumerated, as Esay 24. Behold the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof. And it shall be as with the People, so with the Priest; as with the Servant, so with his Master; as with the Maid, so with her Mistress; as with the Buyer, so with the Seller; as with the Lender, so with the Borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury; to him the land shall be utterly empited, and utterly spoiled, for the Lord hath spoken this word. The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish, the earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate; therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burnt, and few men left; the new wine mourneth, the vine languisheth, all the merry-hearted do sigh. The mirth of Tabrets ceaseth, the noise of them that rejoice endeth, the joy of the Harp ceaseth; They shall not drink wine with a song, strong drink shall be bitter to them that drink it. The city of confusion is broken down, every house is shut up, that no man may come in. There is a crying for wine in the streets, all joy is darkened, the mirth of the land is gone: In the City is left desolation, and the Gate is smitten with destruction. The reason of all this is given in the close of verse 5. Because they have transgressed the Laws, changed the Ordinances, broken the everlasting Covenant. Now according to this opinion, Regeneration is our entrance into covenant, and Regeneration is our keeping of covenant; before regeneration we make no covenant, after Regeneration we break no covenant, there is no such thing as covenant-breaking. All this makes an utter confusion in the covenant.  
2. Then there is no such thing as an hypocrite in the world, as in reference towards God; no such thing as an hypocrite in the Church as in reference to Religion, and ways of godliness. An hypocrite is one that personates the man that he is not, with Jeroboams wife, feigns himself to be another person, 1 Kings 14. 6. He that acts Tarquin or Lucretia in the Tragedy, is not Tarquin or Lucretia, that acts a King is many times a peasant. Now an hypocrite respective to Religion, and in Scripture use of the phrase, is one that pretends for God, and is not Gods; pretends to be wholly his, and is some others; of these God frequently complains, These in the Scriptures are menaced with heavy judgements. Now according to this opinion, that only Regenerate men are in covenant, there is no such thing as an hypocrite, No such sin as hypocrisy; Where the Gospel is preached, God makes tender of himself in covenant; and in case none but Regenerate enter Covenant, then only they take upon them the persons of people in relation to him, only they strike hands with him, and these, as they profess, so in sincerity and reality they are; as they covenant with him, so in the uprightness of their hearts they walk before him, and so all of Israel, are Israel. There cannot be found a man in Israel that is not a Nathaniel; Men out of covenant, are without, and aliens to the Commonwealth of Israel, Ephes. 2. 12. And if they be in covenant, then according to this opinion, they are men sincere, and upright-hearted in it. But you will say, They pretend to the covenant, and are not in covenant, and so are hypocrites. Object. To this I say. (1.) It is plain against the Scriptures, that makes hypocrites false in the covenant, men whose hearts were not steadfast in it, as Psalm 78. 8, 10 a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not steadfast with God. They kept not the covenant of God, and refused to walk in his Law. More fully, verse 36, 37. They did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues, for their hearts were not right with him, neither were they steadfast in his covenant. Therefore they pretend not barely to a covenant, but the covenant which they enter, is their pretence for God, and their breach of covenant argues them guilty of hypocrisy before the lord (2) According to these such pretend to the stage, but are never admitted on it. They pretend to act the part of a Servant of God, but never act in it; so we may say, they pretend to hypocrisy, but never are in the honour to be in any capacity of it.  
3. If the covenant be with this limit, only to Regenerate persons, than no Minister in any Church, no Church-Officer, nor any other Church-member, in case you will make it to be their work, may baptise any person. That Disciples are to be baptised, is out of question with all that acknowledge such a standing Ordinance as Baptism; It being in the Apostles commission, to disciple Nations, and baptise them. These are brought into the bond of the covenant, as Ezek. 20. 37. But those only, passing for Disciples, and men in covenant that are Regenerate, they can by no eye of any Minister, Church-Officer, or member be discerned. This is that work that cometh not with observation, or outward show, that men should say, so here, or so there, Luke 17. 20, 21. Christ might indeed have baptised in his own person at pleasure, seeing he knew what was in man, John 2. 2. He could have distinguished a Believer from an unbeliever, a Saint from an unsanctified man, a Christian from him that is no Christian, a Disciple from one that is no Disciple, taking these titles in the sense of these persons. So can no other man. It is the Prerogative Royal of God to search the heart; If Paul could have discerned false Brethren by a spirit of infallibility, he had never been in that danger, 2 Cor. 11. 26. But Christ baptised none, but left all to his Disciples, John 4. 2. And they being thus tied up, to baptise none, till they be discipled; of which according to this Tenent they could be no competent Judges, it must needs follow that none at all must be baptised. If any say, those are to be baptised, that in the judgement of charity we judge to be Disciples, on whom we have grounds of hope that this work is wrought, as I know it is said by many, I shall give heed to them when they can show that Christ hath said it, that he hath made known that the inward work, is alone the true ground, on which this privilege is granted, and charity is our rule in judging of it; But I find Christ giving charge to Disciple Nations, and to baptise them; But I find him not giving commission, that when in the judgement of charity, men have cause to conceive them to be Disciples, then to baptise them; We find the Apostles and others in the Primitive-times, making that haste to baptise upon profession, that they stayed not for observation of those signs that might in a well-grounded charity persuade that they were Regenerate persons. And those that fix it here, too ordinarily, make interests the chief ground to carry their charity to a more favourable construction; charity (according to the Proverb) beginning at home, they that are most like to make a party with them, or drive on an interest their way, will be judged persons meet for Baptism; Of this in a short time we have large experience. As for those that gather up Churches, and initiate them by Baptism, the way of the Apostles, I confess, in case that they would make good that they have to deal with Heathens, and therefore a way of more colour than theirs, that set up new Churches, and retain the old Baptism, we see what manner of Saints are received among them▪ such that civil persons (respective to sobriety, chastity, or upright dealing with men) cannot without stain of their reputation, make their companions. And congregations of Saints have just cause to say, that they have lost none of their gold, but much of their filth and dross by such Saint-separation; That I speak the truth, and lie not, I need not to appeal to my conscience bearing witness, (which alone is satisfaction to myself) but to thousands of witnesses which may give satisfaction to others.   

CHAP. XXXIX.  
Objections against this latitude of the Covenant answered.  
IT is here objected, that in Old Testament-times, God speaks to all in visible profession, in that way of compellation as his people, as appears in those places that already have been quoted; but in New Testament-times, we find not that title in such generality, only the Regenerate, those that yield ready and loyal subjection to God, are honoured with the name of the people of God, they therefore only are in Covenant. The title is restrained peculiarly to them, and so also the mercy. To this much may be said.  
First, if this were granted, that this way of compellation, or speech of God to man, is not found in all the New Testament, in this latitude, as to take in men of Christian Profession, not yet regenerate, yet there is little gained, seeing as we have found, there are terms equivalent. Believers are the people of God, so are Saints, Disciples, and Christians. But those that are yet unregenerate have these titles, as we have heard at large, and therefore it argues the Covenant to be as large, as when that term was so frequent.  
Secondly, it is not often, that that phrase is found in New Testament-Scriptures, with such restriction, only to regenerate persons, Tit. 2. 14. is the most pregnant place, where it is said, that Jesus Christ gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. But if it be granted, that it is sometimes taken for a people separate by grace out of the state of nature, it will not follow that it is never taken for a people separate for God by Profession; I know that Text, Revelation 21. 3. will be urged, I heard a great voice out of Heaven, saying, Behold, the Tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. But this will hardly serve for their purpose, There is no small dispute whether this be to be fulfilled on Earth, or in Heaven; if in Heaven, as learned Interpreters contend, than it is nothing to our purpose; if on Earth, than it sets out a singular glory in the Church through Ordinances in purity; nothing that offends being suffered, yet such a one in which yet there is a mixture of close hypocrites: As for those that interpret it of Christ's personal reign upon earth, when he in person shall manage all, and work nothing by his Agents, I leave them to enjoy their own opinion, how they shall be qualified on earth that do attend him. But if we may make conjecture by a considerable party of those that publish it, and receive it, we shall have strong cause of doubt, that all will not be found regenerate.  
Thirdly, I say, the expression mentioned of my people, or people of God, is used more frequently in the New Testament in the Old Testament-latitude, than with restriction to the Elect Regenerate. That in 2 Cor. 6. 16. with me is plain; I will dwell with them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people, quoted out of an Old Testament-Scripture, Levit. 26. 16. and there it is a National Promise, and here, to be understood of God's visible abode in Ordinances, as may be made out from the context, being tendered to those that were overbusy to meddle with idols, from which he dissuades with this Argument, that they were the Temple of the Lord, separate of God for his worship and service, and the Promise is no more than is made good to visible Churches; Christ walks in the midst of the seven golden Candlesticks, Revel. 2. 1. and some of them (witness that of Sardis) had not all their Members Regenerate persons. That of the Apostle, Rom. 9 25. I will call them my people, which were not my people, and her beloved, which was not beloved, is to be understood no otherwise; That of the Prophet of the call of the ten Tribes, from Hosea 1. 10. Hos. 2. 23. is there applied to the call of the Gentiles into a Church-state and condition. Neither is that of force against it, that is objected from verse 23. where the Apostle saith, That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory. God sets up visible Ordinances, and calls to a Church-state as is there prophesied, that he may there work to himself a people of invisible relation, that thereby he may make them vessels of mercy, having afore prepared them unto glory; So likewise, Rev. 18. 4. Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. All Professors of faith, and worshippers of the true God, are there included in that exhortation to quit Babylon; so all Ministers of Christ are to urge and press it; Men therefore of visible Profession, have this title in compellation from GOD of my people.  
It is yet objected, Jeremiah 31. 31, 32, 33. Behold the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the Covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my Covenant they broke, although I was an husband to them, saith the Lord. But this shall be my Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days saith the Lord, I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Here is a third purpose or interest for which this Text is produced to serve. The first was to assert an unconditionate Covenant in the days of the Gospel, (which we examined chapter 25.) when the Gospel expressly holds out Covenant-conditions, more expressly than the Covenant of Works, which is confessed to be conditional. The second to overthrow a public Ministry, and all private mutual exhortation (which we spoke to chapter 26) when the New Testament doth establish both. And to set up this Prophecy in a third particular, against all New Testament-light; none must be of the called of God into Covenant, for fruition of Church-priviledges, but those that are regenerate: Men in Old Testament-Covenant, broke Covenant as is there expressed; Men in the New Covenant shall keep covenant, and these are only the Elect and Regenerate. To this I might have many things to say.  
No such sense must be put upon this one single Text, as to restrain the covenant only to those that are steadfast in it, and carefully observe it when other New-Testament-Scriptures clearly and unanimously hold it out in that latitude to comprehend those that are transgressors of it, no more than it must be brought (though there be like colour for both) to overthrow Gospel-Ordinances private and public exhortations, when in the New Testament there is a clear and full establishment of them. There are those that are in the faith, so far as to enter Covenant, that make shipwreck of the faith, 1 Tim 1. 19 Disciples of Christ, that go back and walk no more with him▪ Joh. 6. Men sanctified by the blood of the Covenant, that tread under foot the blood of the Son of God, and do despite to the Spirit of grace, Heb. 10. 29. There are that escape the pollution of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and are again entangled and overcome. Those that have known the way of righteousness, that turn from the holy Commandment. To whom it happens according to the true Proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire, 2 Pet. 2 22. It is far easier to return answer to this Scripture held out by way of Prophecy what shall be, than to give answer to all these Scriptures, and far more than these, setting out what is in New Testament-times.  
2. That we may interpret, and not commit Scriptures, find out the sense of all, and not create differences in any; we may observe that though it be granted, that those that have the Law written in their hearts, and put into their inward parts, do enter covenant, and not break it; yet it is not said, none shall enter covenant and transgress it. There may still be an outward covenant, according to Interpreters, that may be broken, as well as an inward covenant that shall be observed. If it be said, that these are two distinct covenants, one succeeding the other; one abolished when the other takes place, according to that of the Apostle, Heb. 8. 13. In that he saith, a New Covenant, he hath made the first Old; now that which decayeth and waxeth Old, is ready to vanish away; than it will follow (this being the characteristical difference) that, as none in New Testament-times enter covenant, but they keep covenant; so none in Old Testament-times were in covenant, but they did transgress it; at least that the covenant that then was, was wholly transgresseable; and the covenant that now is, is not in any possibility to be transgressed. But the contrary is evident, there were those that kept covenant in Old Testament-times, Psal. 44. 17. All this is come upon us, yet have we not forgotton thee, neither have we dealt falsely in the covenant, Psal. 103. 17. And also there are those that break covenant in New Testament-times, 1 Tim. 5. 12. Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. The Law was written in men's hearts, and put into their inward parts in the days of the Old Testament, and some were (as it is called) in an inward Covenant, Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed; to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live, Psal. 37. 31. The Law of his God is in his heart, none of his steps shall slide, Psal. 119. 11. Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee. Incline your ear, and come unto me, hear, and your soul shall live, and I will make an everlasting Covenant with you, even the sure mercies of D●●id, Isa. 55. 3. And so by consequence it fairly holds, notwithstanding this Text that there is (as hath been proved) an outward covenant in the days of the Gospel. The oldness to be abolished is only in circumstances, wherewith one and the same covenant that now is, was then clothed.  
3. The covenant then spoken to by Jeremy in the place quoted, is not a covenant properly so called, or at least, as Master Baxter observes, not the whole of the covenant. So there must be two distinct covenants, one in being when the Prophet wrote, and another to have its being in the time of which he prophesied; one covenant made with the Jews, and another covenant distinct from it made with Christians, and so of necessity there must be two distinct Gospels. If that spoken of by Jeremy be a covenant properly so called, holding out the whole nature of the Gospel-covenant, and that New distinct from the former, than the old covenant must needs in the whole nature of it be a distinct covenant likewise. In what sense Jeremy is to be understood according to the genuine meaning of the Text, I have endeavoured to clear▪ as in my answer, page 105. 106, 107. So also chap. 26. of this Treatise, and whether I have answered the objection, which some divine that I cannot, without enervating the Argument, for effectual grace and perseverance in it, I must appeal to the impartial Reader. I am sure none can build effectual grace, and perseverance on that Text (making it a distinct Covenant from the first) without the overthrow of effectual grace and perseverance in Old Testament-times.   

CHAP. XL.  
Professed believers, are under a Covenant of Grace, and not a Covenant of Works.  
IT necessarily follows, 
First Corollary  by way of Corollary, from that which hath been delivered, that no professed believer, that is a member of the Church visible, is under a Covenant of Works, but eo nomine, that he, professedly, gives his name to Christ, he is under a Covenant of grace. That a man cannot be under two Covenants, respective to the same thing, I suppose, is agreed upon, on all hands. A man that holds by one title, if he accept a second, makes void the first; whether his former title were better, or worse; whether it tends to his prejudice, or benefit, thus to make change of it; As it is with covenants among men, so it is in the Covenant between God and man. If the New Covenant make void the Old, where both Old and New are substantially the same; and the difference only circumstantial, as the Apostle showeth that it does Heb. 8. 13. much more then, in those covenants, which are essentially differing, as are the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of grace. Some, that would limit the Covenant, only to the regenerate, and men of justifying faith, as to the just latitude of it, make use of this Maxim, that the same man cannot be under two Covenants; which is, indeed, a right way of arguing; from principles granted on both parts. Now they assume, that all unregenerate, and persons not justified, are under a Covenant of Works. This, they take for granted, when it rests to be proved; and so conclude that these are under no Covenant of Grace, but a Covenant of Works. I assume, on the other hand, that so many of them as are Christians, though, not Regenerati, but, Regenerandi, as Pareus speaks, are under a Covenant of Grace, and therefore, they are not under a Covenant of Works. Here to avoid mistakes some things are to be premised, 1. That many of them have not any explicit knowledge of either Covenant, either that, under which originally they were, or that, under which, through grace, they are. They are the people of God (and therefore under a saving Covenant with God though not emproved for salvation) that perish for lack of knowledge, Hos. 4. 6. all that bear the name of believers in primitive times, were not got up in knowledge to the first principles. 2. As to their present qualification and condition, they are in no better an estate, than if the obligation of the Covenant of Works, were still upon them. A man, dealing falsely in the Covenant of grace, is in as sad a condition, as he that is under that hopeless, and destructive Covenant of Works, yea, his condition admits of many sad aggravations, in that treachery is above rebellion, and perfidiousness exceeds bare disobedience. They were a people in Covenant, that God owned as his, to whom he said, Ezek. 16. 48. As I live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she, nor her daughters as thou hast done, thou, and thy daughters. Blessedness, is no where in Scripture said to be on the head of all those that are in covenant, unless it be meant comparatively, or respectively only, but, on such as keep his covenant, and remember his commandments to do them, Psal. 103. 18. And, if all that were in covenant, did keep covenant, there would not be so much complaint as there is in Scripture, of breach of covenant, nor could men be under that charge, that their hearts are not steadfast in covenant. 3. They are yet in a more desirable estate, and in fairer way towards happiness, than those, that are as the Apostle speaks, strangers from the covenant of promise, Eph. 2. 12. As the Jews were a people nigh to the Lord, Psal. 148. 14. So they are, Eph. 2. 13. Salvation is of these, though they be not as yet, by a thorough work of grace in a saving state. There are of these that shall be saved, Acts 2. 47. and so there is not, for aught that Scripture speaks among those that are without covenant, such are, in Scripture-language, without God, without hope, Eph. 2. 12. under the wrath and indignation of God, Jerem. 10. 25. Psal. 79. 6. When the Apostle therefore, had spoken much against the Jew outwardly, and the circumcision of the flesh. (that is, men circumcised in flesh and not in heart) Rom. 2. upon the question put, yet concludes, that these Jews have; This circumcision hath much profit, every way much advantage, and the advantage is, as he expresses it, especially, the Oracles of God, which are the covenant-draughts, and if they were utterly out of covenant, I would desire any to show, where the advantage lies. That they are in covenant with God and in a covenant of grace appears therefore.  
1. In that they have the Oracles of God. To them, that is, to the Jew outwardly, these Oracles were committed, as the Apostle tells us, Rom. 3. 1. They were committed to them as their inheritance, Deut. 33. 4. They were possessed of them, in order to everlasting life, John 5. 39 And these Oracles, being Covenant-tables, Covenant-draughts, the professed believer, that by favour from God, stands possessed of them, is in Covenant with God.  
2. They have the seals of the covenant. Covenant, and right to the seal, where seals are appointed, cannot be severed as shall be shown. They are in covenant, as Abraham was, and, they have the seals of the covenant, as Abraham and his seed had, Those were circumcised, and these are baptised; and, that it may appear, that they had not this honour barely from man, without approbation from God (as some seem to hint, in their distinction of Forum Dei, and Forum Ecclesiae, as though the Church received them, when in the sight of God they had no right to be received) we find, 1. That the Spirit of God, in the Scripture, still calls them, in way of honour, by the name of circumcision, and men may, but God will not thus give, an equivocal or nickname to them. As they were circumcised in the flesh, so it was the mind of God, that they should bear in their flesh, this sign and seal of the Covenant. 2. Upon it, they had many and great privileges, yea, all Church privileges, followed upon this leading privilege, though otherwise, strangers to the Commonweal of Israel, now they were looked upon as of Israel.  
3. Answering unto, and in sincerity making good, that unto which they do actually engage, the whole blessing of the Covenant is theirs. They that undertake the terms, on which covenant-salvation according to the Gospel is had, are actually vested in a a saving covenant; but they undertake the terms, on which covenant-salvation according to the Gospel is had, they are therefore in a saving covenant.  
4. In case unbelief and impenitence in them, be not only Law-transgressions, but also Gospel-sins, and breaches of a Gospel-covenant, than these professed believers are under a Gospel-covenant. This is evident; They sin not against the Gospel that are not under the Gospel, they break not covenant that were never in covenant, but their unbelief and impenitence are above Law-transgressions, they are Gospel-sins, and breaches of covenant, as I think, need not to be proved, and therefore it is plain that they are in covenant.  
Upon this account, I confess, I have often marvelled why many eminent and godly Divines do earnestly persuade their people to whom they speak, to enter covenant with God, giving directions what way they are to take to come into covenant with him; telling them that it is of great concernment to them to know under what covenant they are, whether under a covenant of Works, or a covenant of grace; when the same men expressly say that we all entered covenant in baptism; and that unbelief and impenitence at least, if not every sin, is a breach of our baptism, vow and covenant. Might not any think that these did persuade to be baptised? and that they tell their people that it is of great concernment, to know what covenant it is that baptism seals, whether it seals the covenant of Works, or the covenant of Grace. If we enter in covenant in our baptism, as they truly say, that we did, as to the Jus in re, then how comes it to pass that any that are baptised are out of it, and being already actually in it, how are they persuaded to enter into it. These persuasions therefore, and motives to enter covenant, I think should be to press men on to keep covenant, and so the directions which they lay down are indeed of divine and excellent use. And when they say it so much concerns men to know what covenant they are under, I conceive it should rather be to let them know of how great concernment it is to them to see that they have their interest in the mercies of the covenant through grace answering to the terms of it, and requisites in it, and so the entering of covenant, which is done, as these say, in baptism, and keeping of covenaut, or obtaining the mercies of the covenant, would not be confounded but distinguished. Their labours would likewise be of excellent use which otherwise scarce suit either with their own words or the Scriptures. It may be objected, that in case they are from under the covenant of Works, and under the covenant of Grace, than they are exempted from the curse, and acquitted from the condemnation which is annexed to that covenant, which cannot be affirmed of any mere Professor of Christianity in unbelief and impenitence, and enough is spoken in this Treatise itself against it. To this I answer, 1. The curse may follow upon the transgression of the Law, as a Law, without consideration of any covenant at all, whether of Works or Grace, and it is not interest in Covenant, but interest in Christ, (which these, supposedly such, have not) that frees from condemnation. 2. What if it be yielded that they bear no more than the penalty annexed to the breach of the Covenant of grace. If the Gospel be consulted that is sufficiently sad and heavy. If they be put to bear that, nothing more needs to be added to the burden, and indeed with submission to better judgements, not resolvedly determining any thing, it is my thoughts, that professed Christians in unbelief and impenitence, suffer not upon account of the penalty annexed to the breach of the covenant of Works, but upon account of the penalty annexed to the breach of the covenant of Grace; and let not any here object that the transgression of the Law shall not then be laid to their charge, for the Gospel binds us to the obedience of the Law, though not in exact perfection, yet in sincerity and truth. And this, I suppose, receives strength from that of the Apostle, 2 Thes. 1, 7, 8. The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty Angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, which character thereof [not knowing God] Interpreters (saith Dr. Slater upon the words) generally take to be a description of the Gentiles, who though they know God by his Works, yet they know him not by his Word, and to this he subscribes. The other character of [not obeying the Gospel of Jesus Christ] is, as he saith, a circumscription of Christians, according to Interpreters; Gospel-disobedience is then their guilt, and upon account of this they suffer. Had they believed and yielded sincere obedience which they professed, and to which they engaged themselves, they had not perished, and the want of this appears to be their destruction.   

CHAP. XLI.  
Interest in a Church-state is of equal latitude with the Covenant.  
THen it follows by way of necessary corollary, 
2. Corollary.  that Church-membership, interest in a Church-state, is of equal latitude; not only the elect and regenerate, but all in covenant (as before spoken to) have their right, stand entitled to Church-priviledges. And here lest I should be mistaken, let me explain myself, that my meaning is not, ipso facto, because in covenant with God, and called by his name, to entitle them to the Church invisible, and so to suppose them lively members, living in grace, by influence of the Spirit from Christ; This would clearly enough contradict, that which before I have spoken, and were indeed a contradiction in the adject, I mean it of a visible Church-state, and interest in visible privileges. If any quarrel at the distinction, as some have done on either hand, endeavouring to take off both members. The Church of Rome not admitting any Church invisible, and others not brooking any Church, but such as consists of invisible members, as may appear in their definitions of a particular Church, putting in those clauses, that belong only to the Church invisible: I shall refer them to Doctor John Reynolds, in his second Thesis, fully bottoming it on that Text, Mat. 22. 14. Many are called, but few chosen, which yet, must be confessed with judicious Master Hudson, that it is not a division into two distinct Churches, or species of Churches, but a distribution of the subject by the adjuncts, viz. à duplici modo communionis, externo, & interno, Vindication, page 4. One, and the same Church, hath members of a visible, and invisible notion, a more full explanation may there be seen. This being premised, I affirm, that interest in Church-membership, in a visible Church-state, is theirs, and may be claimed by all those that have interest in the covenant before named, an external interest, or, an interest in the external covenant, as usually it hath been called This is a sure rule, 
Ubi foedus, ibi ecclesia.  Where the Covenant is, there the Church is; and in what latitude soever men are taken into covenant, they are received into the Church. Laws tendered by a Prince, and received by a people (whether they be tendered immediately by himself, or by his Heralds or Ambassadors) make up the relation of King and people: A marriage-covenant tendered by a man (as by Abraham's servant in the name of Isaac to Rebecca, Gen. 24.) and accepted by a Virgin, makes up the relation of husband and wife: covenant-draughts between man and man for service, (as an apprentice his indentures) make up the relation of Master and servant, now the Gospel-covenant is all of these, between God and a people; where God tenders it, and a people receive it, there God hath his Spouse, his Subjects, his Servants. These are his people, and all of these are Church-members. The Word preached and received hath ever been assigned by Orthodox Divines, as the characteristical note of a Church of God; a Church stands and falls with it; where it is professedly received, there is a Church-interest. Let one man apart receive it, as was the case of the Eunuch, he forthwith becomes a Church-member, and is to have (as we see he had) his present matriculation, and to be admitted by baptism a member (not of this or that Congregation, but) of the Church universal visible: and upon this account wheresoever he comes, is a Saint, a Disciple, a Christian, a Believer, and so to be received and acknowledged; This is abundantly confirmed in those parables of our Saviour Christ, of the floor, where there is both chaff and wheat, Mat. 3. 12. of the field, where there is both wheat and tares; of 〈◊〉 draughtnet, where are fishes good and bad, Mat. 13. 24, 47. As also in that of the Apostle, 2 Tim. 2. 20. In a great house there are not only vessels of gold, and of silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some to honour, and some to dishonour. The Church is this floor, this field, this draughtnet, this great house, in which there is chaff, tares, fish unfit for use, and vessels of dishonour, to which may be added, the parables of the wedding feast, in which there is a mixture, of, some without a wedding garment. Mat. 22. of the sheepfold with kids and goats. These parables are brought by Bellarmine for proof, that the Church doth not consist only of the elect, lib 3. de Eccl. Mil. cap. 7 to which 
a Debuit Bellarminus probare in Ecclesia Ca●holica quae est corpus Ch●isti, esse tam malos quam bonos, tam reprobos, quam electos. Hoc ut probaret affert hanc parabolam de area inqua & triticum & palea est. At per aream hoc in loco non Catholica, sed particularis quae que ecclesia intelligitur, in qua nos fatemur tam malos quam bonos esse, & plerunque plures malos quam bonos.  Whitaker Controv secundâ, quaest. primà cap 7. answers by distinction. Bellarmine (saith he) ought to prove, that in the Catholic Church (which is the body of Christ) there are both good and bad, reprobate as well as elect, and for proof of this (saith he) he brings the parable of the floor, in which there is wheat and chaff; but by the floor in this place is not meant (saith he) the Catholic Church, but each particular Church, in which (we confess) there are bad as well as good, and for the most part more bad than good. And though he makes some exceptions against some of the Parables, yet he applies the same answer to others. Concerning that of the draw-net he saith, The sense of the parable is manifest 
b Sensus parabolae manifestus est sic in Ecclesia evenire solere cum Evangelium praedicatur, ut cum verriculum in mare projicitur ad pisces capiendos. Primò non omnes pisces qui sunt in mori capiuntur. Secundò non omnes boni sunt qui capiuntur, sed multi inutiles. Tertiò, non separantur mali pisces à bonis donec verriculum ad terram extractum fuerit. Sic in Ecclesia cum Evangelium praedicatur, non omnes homines accedunt, non omnes qui accedunt sunt boni, non separantur boni à malis ante finem mundi.  It happens in the Church when the Gospel is preached, as in the sea, when the draughtnet is cast to take fish. 1. All the fishes that are in the sea are not enclosed in the net. 2. All are not good that are enclosed, but some are unfit for use. 3. The bad fish are not separate from the good, till the net be drawn to land: so when the Gospel is preached, all men do not come in, all are not good that come, and the good and bad are not separate till the end of the world. And Doctor Reynolds maintaining that position, That the holy Catholic Church, which we believe is the whole company of Gods elect and chosen, saith, The wicked must needs be a part of the Church, if the name of Church did signify the visible Church, as we call it, consisting of the good and bad. Amesius who (as we heard) judges it very probable that there is no visible Church where the Word is truly preached, in which there are not some that are godly, and therefore is far from concluding the godliness of all; 
Falsum esse internas virtutes requiri à nobis▪ ut aliquis sit in ecclesia quoad visibilem ejus statum.  saith, in his Bellar. Enervatus, lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 1. It is false, that inward graces are required of us, to a man's being in the Church as to the visible state of it: see Apollonius Syllog. pag. 8. Professores Leyden disput. 40. pag. 3. If any man judge it to be absurd, that Christ should have wicked men (who are limbs of Satan) to be of his mystical body, carnal wicked men to be members of such a gracious and glorious head. Christ is the head of his Church, say they; if such be Church-members, than Christ is their head; I shall refer them to a full and satisfying answer to Master Hudsons' Vindication, page 6, 7, 8. And for those that deny any being of a Church universal visible as Master Blackwood in his Storm, page 65. who saith, the objector, is overtaken in a gross absurdity, to think there is some universal Church visible begun in Abraham, into which upon the rejection of the Jews, the believers among the Gentiles, and their seed are to be received; for besides the invisible Church, the body of Christ mystical, there are only particular Churches under the Gospel. I would learn of them, into what particular Church the Eunuch was received, and by baptism actually and solemnly admitted, or whether he was still no Church-member, but an alien and stranger to the Commonwealth of Israel, not added to the Church. To what particular Congregation, the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists joined themselves by covenant; and to save farther labour, leave them to Master Hudsons' Vindication of the essence and unity of the Church Catholic visible, which will receive a satisfactory answer when the Sun hath no more being in the Heavens.   

CHAP. XLII.  
A man in Covenant with God, and received into the universal Church visible, needs no more to give him access to, and interest in, particular visible Churches.  
2ly. IT farther follows that a man by virtue of covenant, 
2. Coral.  being thus enrighted to membership, in the Church universal visible, and baptised into this body, there needs no farther covenant to give him access to, and interest in, particular visible Churches. What the Apostle gives in charge to the Church at Rome, concerning those that are weak in the faith, that they must receive them, giving this reason, for God hath received them, Rom. 14. 1, 3. we may apply to those that make profession of the faith, being able to make application of his reason, God takes them into communion, unto visible fellowship, we are not then to reject them. Is the necessary qualification of a member of the visible Church universal one thing, and the necessary of a member of this or that particular congregation another? and may one be fit to be a member of the universal visible Church, and yet not qualified to be a member of a particular congregation, saith Master Wood, Append. p. 169, 170. If I should enlarge this to heathens brought to a profession of the faith, and argue their right to baptism, upon profession, and by baptism their right to Church-fellowship in any visible Church-society. I should find the Scriptures abundantly to favour it. Of so many thousands, myriads of thousands of converts. Acts 21. 20. which were added to the Church, and received by baptism, (baptised the same day for a great part, sometimes as appears the very hour of their conversion) there is not one, that we read, refused, but all received; yea, not a scruple raised, save of one only, as I remember, which was Saul, when he offered himself into Church-fellowship, and that not upon this account that we are now upon, but good Ananias fearing that he came, not to join with them, but to seize upon them, knowing that at that time, he had authority from the chief Priests, to bind all that call on Christ's name, Acts 9 14. If the competentes, as they were styled in the primitive times, (viz. men that offered themselves for Church-fellowship) had then entered at so straight a door, as now in some places they are put to pass, where a glib tongue is in a far fairer way to take, than an upright heart, we should have heard of no small bustle about it; When we find murmurings of Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration, Acts 6. 1. we should sure have heard of it, had they been neglected in Church-fellowship and communion; But when no such thing can be found in the practice of the Church, after the Holy Ghost was given, which is called by way of eminence the Kingdom of Christ, or the Kingdom of Heaven; yet they think they find exceptions taken, and some refused by the forerunner of Christ, John Baptist. One laying down this Proposition, 
a Competentes non sunt admittendi in ecclesiam, quia competunt sine ulteriore satisfactione.  That men seeking admission into the Church, are not to be received without farther satisfaction, gives instance, in no other but John Baptist, and saith, The Baptist did not admit all that sought it, unto baptism, and proves it from no Text▪ either of Matthew or Luke, which give us the narrative, but by the authority of Pareus; 
b Phariseos baptismum petentes ad baptismum indignos nonadmisit, inquit Paraeus.  The Pharisees (saith he) did seek baptism, but John did not admit them, being unworthy; to whom he adds 
c Baptismum petierunt, inquit Aretius, at baptizatos fuisse nullo modo videtur judicare.  Aretius, who says, They sought baptism, but he seems to think (saith our Author,) that they were not by any means baptised. But how eminent soever their authorities are, their reasons are very weak. The Baptist reproved them, called them to repentance, and therefore did not baptise them; when the text seems to speak the contrary. For, as soon as his reproof with his exhortation is ended, there follows, I indeed baptise you with water, verse 11. And it seems by Saint Luke, that those Pharisees and Lawyers that were not baptised of John, were not refused, but did refuse, Luke 7. 30. But the Lawyers and Pharisees rejected the Council of God against themselves, being not baptised of him. When the same learned Author cannot instance any precedent, or produce any Scripture-Ordinance for it, he endeavours by arguments drawn from the form of a particular Church, the way of reformation of Churches, the relation of inferiority and superiority among those that are free, and such like reasons to evince it; To which (but that I will not here make it my business) an easy answer might be given, it is more than strange, that when the Apostles had by Commission from Christ planted Churches, and were to leave them to be propagated in future Ages, and knowing a covenant to be essential to the constitution, as now by some is asserted; would yet wholly be silent in it, especially when no such thing was known in Old Testament-Scriptures, that we might gather it by analogy, and through all Ages, till this last Age, had lain hid and never discovered, and leave us, by our reason to discover it, In which we are in danger to set our threshold by God's threshold, of which he so sadly complains, Ezek. 43. 8. or rather justle out his threshold with ours, denying baptism to be any door for admission, at which the primitive Saints entered▪ and setting up a covenant, of which Scripture speaks nothing; 
Positions concerning particular visible Churches, where nothing is wanting to the being of a Church, yet much more may be required for the well ordering and regulating of it.  and Master John Goodwin was sometimes as confident as confidence could make him, that it had no ground in the holy Scriptures. But to leave heathens, haply called by Gospel Ordinances, to speak a word or two to our own case, who are a discipled Nation, a Kingdom subjugated to the yoke of Christ Jesus, enjoying saving Ordinances, and therefore have a Church of Christ fixed among us. Here we might lay down divers positions for the regulating of our judgements.  
First, where nothing is wanting to the being of a Church, God having a people owning him in covenant, yet much more may be required for the well ordering and regulating of it; where a people accept of a King, and receive his Laws, there he hath a Kingdom, and is a Monarch, yet much more is required for the ordering of such a Monarchy, for the public weal and safety; so it is, where there is a Church of God, accepting the Laws of heaven, there the Lord Christ reigns as a Monarch, yet farther care must be used for the right regulating of it according to his Will, and the Laws tendered by him, and received by them.  
Secondly, 
A people in a vicinity or neighbourhood ought to associate according to their best convenience, for participation of Ordinances.  a people in a vicinity, or neighbourhood, dwelling together, aught to associate themselves and join with those of that neighbourhood, according to their best convenience, for the participation of Ordinances. As it is against all dictates of reason, that a people scattered at a great distance should combine themselves in a Churchway, for Ordinances, in which God rules, so it is as clear against the Scriptures. You read of a Church of God, at Ephesus, at Corinth, at Philippi, at Thessalonica, at Laodicea, But you read not of any one Church made up of members, residing at all those places, or in any places at like distance. That cohabitation or dwelling together, makes not up a Church congregational, will be easily granted; Infidels, Turks, Pagans may cohabit, they may make an idol-church, but not a Church of God, but co-habitation or dwelling together, is one ingredient; Saints cohabiting, that is, in New Testament-language, men separate for God, not Jew's, nor Infidels, but Christians, and joining in Ordinances, as in duty they ought, are a congregational Church. A Pastor ought to watch over his people, and a people ought to attend to their Pastor, which how it can be, when the Pastor makes his residence at Ephesus, the people, some at Ephesus, some at Corinth, some at Philippi, and so scattered, it cannot be imagined. We find seven several Epistles, written from heaven to seven several Churches, all which had their abode at the place, whence the Church bore its name; these are Scripture-Churches. Now, if any one Church be made up of Christians, some inhabiting at one of those places, some at another, a third at a third place, scarce three of one Town, no more than of one mind; here is not Scripture-order, which is of God, but an Apocryphal confusion; Exceptions may be taken at the over-large extent and disordered situation of divers Parochial Congregations, which calls for Reformation, coming too near the inconvenience before mentioned, but Parochial Assemblies, not the name, but the thing; viz. a people inhabiting at convenient distance, and joining together under Officers, according to Scripture, is the way that comes up, both to the light of reason, and the Precedents of primitive times. Our dissenting Brethren will have the limit of a particular Church, to be within that number of persons, that may congregate in one place for Ordinances, if this be yielded (as it must be for Churches merely Congregational,) than it will easily be proved, that Parish-congregations, that is, congregations of men dwelling in a vicinity, are of divine institution; Saints that made up a Church were still Saints in cohabitation, such convenient numbers as are fit to make up a Church, did not live divided in place, and scattered, some here, some there, but were, as in faith, so in habitation joined together.  
Thirdly, 
Professing Christians upon tender of themselves ought to be esteemed members in the places where they inhabit.  all professing Christians in such cohabitation (especially the civil power authorising) are to be esteemed and judged members, and not to be refused, when they offer themselves as members; where there is a holiness of separation for God, and a professed engagement to real holiness, there is no Scripture-warrant for repulse; Those that offer themselves to learn, are taken into the School, and not those only that have made a good progress in knowledge, and fit for the uppermost form. Me thinks this should be a Proposition agreed upon between us, and our dissenting brethren, seeing reverend Master Cotton laying down certain Propositions consented to on both sides, in his Treatise of the holiness of Church-members, page 1. saith, That such, as are borne of Christian Parents, and baptised in their Infancy into the fellowship of the Church, are initiated members of the same Church, though destitute of spiritual grace, until they justly deprive themselves of the privilege of that fellowship. For even of such is the Kingdom of God, as Mar. 10. 14. This was the case as we conceive of those that have gone from us into those parts of America, Here they were, in infancy baptised, here they have joined in Communion at the Lords Table. If they say, they were not baptised here into such Church-fellowship, than they must say that here is no Church of God amongst us (which as we abhor to speak, or think of them, so we must not yield concerning ourselves) and farther conclude their baptism here a mere nullity, and no more than an application of a little common water. They whose baptism is valid, are baptised into one body, 1 Cor. 12. 13. and therefore in a baptised estate, cannot be out of fellowship with that body. The late Confession of Faith agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines, not excepted against in that particular by our brethren that I know, define baptism to be a Sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the admission of the party baptised into the visible Church, but, etc. Admission into Church-membership they then lay down as a thing never doubted, which reverend Master Cotton seems to affirm likewise, and I know no Orthodox Writer that questions, Assoon as any were discipled through the Acts of the Apostles, according to Christ's commission, Mat. 28. 19 they were thus received. I have often marvelled what men mean, when they speak of admission of members into Churches, when the parties of whom they speak have already equal right with themselves to membership, Have they any other, or better right than title to the covenant, and admission by the seal of baptism? if they have, let them produce it, and then submit it to Scripture-trial. I know none other that will abide the teste; If they confess baptism to be an admission, than their title is as good, that were thus before admitted, as theirs that give them admission. Their plea in both is one, viz. birth of Christian parents, and baptism. For those that they pass by, either forbearing to give them admittance desiring, or that through scruple cannot join themselves, not seeing warrant for such a way, varying from the way of all the Churches of the Saints heretofore, what do they judge of them? Do they look upon them as men without, and unworthy of their Communion? Then they leave them without hope, without God in the world, Eph. 2. 12. yea, they put them into an incapacity, according to God's ordinary way of salvation. Acts 2. 47. All were not saved, that were added, nor saved in the judgement of charity; that is a comment, as strange as new, but all were added, and none refused that would enter themselves into salvation-way, which they might do out of affection of novelty, at that time possessed with amazement by reason of the miracles, under great present convictions, through Peter's powerful Scripture-applications, and upon twenty other accounts which might be but fits, flashings, or present workings, yet all that were to be saved were added. All the maids that were brought to Ahashuerus and offered for purification, Esther 2. 3, 4. Were not made Queens, but none was made Queen that was not thus offered and purified. If it be said, they are within, as many passages from several hands would seem to imply, as well concerning such that are refused, as those that do refuse, the modesty of many is such, that they are loath to unchurch all but themselves, than they are heirs of the same promise with themselves, and all the essentials of a Church of God are with those that in this way of Communion are none of theirs, and consequently their covenant or separate way, is not of necessity to Church-constitution, whether it be at all according to Scripture-pattern, rests farther to be enquired and debated.  
Fourthly, 
Reformation of abuses in Churches is much rather the work of Christians in Churches, than separation from Churches.  men by Providence seated among those that are thus in Covenant by a visible Profession, and joining in Ordinances, as before, must, much rather make it their business to reform and redress abuses, that are found in the respective Societies on which they are cast, than by any means withdraw and separate from them. We find frequent advice in Scripture of considering one another, provoking to love and to good works, Hebrews 10. 24. of exhortation one of another, Heb. 3. 13. of comforting of themselves together, edifying one another, 1 Thes 5. 11. of warning them that are unruly, and comforting th' feeble-minded, supporting the weak, 1 Thes. 5. 14. of converting sinners from the error of their ways, Jam 5. 20. which argues a well-ordered zeal for God, and hatred of sin, bowels of compassion towards a brother, we find their praise that have followed this council, 1 Thes. 5. 11. we read of separation from ways of sin, and fleshly defilements, 2 Cor. 6. 17. James 1. 27. but we read not of any separation from Church-communion, and fellowship in Ordinances thus given in charge, nor in this way approved, nor any precedents to go before us in it, but we read of an heavy brand laid upon it, Judas 19 These be they who separated themselves, sensual, not having the Spirit; yet, seeing things may be so carried in societies that be a● the Name of Christ, and Christian Professors brought to those straits, that there is no abiding for such as would keep their garments unspotted, it will be of use here, to deliver certain rules for our help and guidance.  
1. A Church in covenant with God, 
A Church is pure where the pollutions and taints are not soul.  as before, and keeping up communion in Ordinances, is to be accounted pure, where the pollutions or taints are not great, nor many, it is to be accounted a right believing Church, notwithstanding some few lesser Errors. We account a cornfield clean where some few tares and weeds are found, a body healthful that is not without grudge, Christ from heaven gives commendations to those Churches which yet he taxes, Rev. 2. 3. for failings. There is that light in which Errors may be seen and shunned, and rules for discerning things that differ. If custom, education, conceit of Teachers, or the like so dazzle the judgement, that the error is swallowed; howsoever that be a detriment, a blemish, as the Apostle shows of the wood, hay and stubble, built upon the foundation, 1 Cor. 3. 12. yet it prejudices not salvation. There is power of truth remaining, to form and frame Christ in the heart, to direct the soul in a sanctified way to salvation.  
2. Where the Word is received and professed, 
Foully polluted and defaced, it is a Church, re●ains a being though polluted and erroneous.  though polluted and defaced with additions and false glosses, there is a Church, though polluted and erroneous; Where the essential parts of a man are in being, there is a man, though sick and diseased; where corn is sown▪ and comes up, there is a cornfield, though overrun with tares and weeds. The Churches of Galatia have the name of Churches, though miserably defiled; we deny not the Church of Rome the being of a Church, having the Scriptures and several fundamental truths from thence, as the Church in Christ's time from the hand of the Scribes and Pharisees, though the worst deserving the name of a Church of any people with whom the Word is continued; No Church, some have avouched, But do her the most right, and the being of a Church granted, she is a hurch certainly miserably defaced, monstrously polluted: I will not rake in her sores, it were easy to name many and loathsome ones. I will only point at the causes. Where food is scarce, and that polluted and unclean, there must needs be bodies diseased, and distempered; but so it fares with the Church of Rome, when the Word should dwell in us in all plenteousness, Col. 3. 16. they will have theirs dieted, the Word kept in an unknown language, as under lock and key, that the children cannot come near it. That on which they feed, is not the sincere milk, which only nourishes to growth, 1 Pet. 2. 2. But they have their unwritten word, to stand in equipage with the Scriptures, men's Traditions made doctrines; how many doctrines do we there find, by necessary consequence undermining those fundamental truths that are there professed? where food is in no more plenty, and no better, it is no wonder to see diseases follow.  
3. That which especially denominates a Church pure or impure, 
Purity or impurity in doctrine, especially gives Church's denomination.  sound or tainted; is the doctrine which they drink in, the principles by which they are carried. Where these are right, this is an high praise; where these are tainted, this is the greatest blemish. That which advances a Nation above all other Nations, so that no Nation is so great as they, that brings them nigh unto God, is that which is their greatest honour, and the pollution the greatest blemish, where all is right in doctrine, it can hardly be conceived, but that there are at least a few names, that defile not their garments, though the more the greater glory. This was the case of Sardis, and therefore hath the honour to be one of the golden Candlesticks where Christ kept residence.  
4. Doctrines, 
Errors in doctrine, are either in the foundati●u or superstruction.  which are as the covenant-draughts between God and a people, have their taints or crazes in the foundation, or in the superstruction; A breach in the foundation is the buildings speedy ruin, while that stands, somewhat of a building remains, when that falls, all falls, and therefore Jerusalem's enemies that thirsted after her total ruin, say, Raze it, raze it, even to the foundation thereof, Psal. 137. 7. These foundation-breaches in buildings may be either crazes threatening danger, but repairable, taken betimes may be holpen, though a failing there is soon helpless, or else, it is a ruin or rottenness that is irremediable, irreparable. Truths doubted, disputed, questioned, I call a craze in the foundation wonderfully dangerous, not always damnable; the case of the Galatians, of whom the Apostle stood in fear, and was jealous over them, through a godly jealousy, even of their revolt from Christianity to Judaisme, from Christ to Moses, from the Gospel to the Law: These, he calls Churches, the members brethren, though in a way to be no Churches, entertaining those doctrines, that cut off from Christ, Gal. 5. 2. Here, all those that are builders in Christ's work, that are pillars, or any part of his house, must be zealous, as we see Saint Paul was, in this Epistle quoted; who will see the foundation of the house where he lives so undermined, as every day to threaten ruin? much less may we suffer the foundation in Christ's house to be thus used. This faith once delivered to the Saints is the common salvation, for this we must earnestly contend, Judas 3. for this we must strive together, Phil. 1. 27. Truths denied, abjured, and resolved against (as it was with Hymeneus and Philetus, and the Apostle saw the Churches in Galatia in danger) is a ruin, and rottenness, that is irremediable, and irreparable. Besides breaches in fundamentals, there are breaches in superstructions, and these either more near to the foundation, or at a greater distance. The nearer the foundation, the more danger; a breach is more sufferable near the top, than at the bottom of a tower, or castle. There are errors of more affinity with those that overthrow bottom-truths, and there are those that are not so nigh, and therefore not so dangerous; Such crept into the Latin Church before Antichrist was raised to his height and strength in his delusions, and Antichrist still holds them of all sorts and sizes; Either of both of these, may●e Negative, or Positive. Negative, are such where the doctrine of faith is not laid, Positive, where it is mislaid; where edifying doctrines are not preached, and where they are mis-preacht, both tend to the Church's danger; a house never complete or built up entire, but defective in several parts, little differs from that which is ruinous: The Apostle, who is worthily styled a wise Master-builder, 1 Cor. 3. 10. makes known the whole counsel of God, Acts 20. 27. and builds not up defective Churches.  
5. All errors being against Christ, 
Errors have their estimate accordingly as they rise up against Christ and obscure his glory.  who is the foundation to bear up, and carry on the whole work, accordingly as they dash upon Christ, and obscure his glory, whether more, or less, the estimate of the danger is to be taken. These are either such that render Christ in an uncapacity to be our Mediator and Saviour, or such that are inconsistent, in whole or in part with his Mediatorship; of the former kind are those that are against his person. 1. Those that impugn the Godhead of Christ, such, that though they give him the glory, to be above Angels, yet will make him no more than a creature; a God in title and place, as are Magistrates, not in nature or power; An opinion that involves the Apostolic Church, and all Churches in succession in idolatry, giving the honour of God, the worship due to God, unto him who by nature is no God; A doctrine that will make Christ an impotent, and not an omnipotent head, too weak for his work, to govern the world, and bring under his enemies. 2. Those that deny his manhood, as having not taken our flesh, and so, no suitable head, but a fantastic or seeming body. Those that are against his Mediatorship; are, either such that obscure, or some way eclipse it, as every error doth that is any way considerable, or such that raze, if not utterly overthrow it, in some of the necessary parts of it, his Kingdom, Priesthood, or Prophetical Office. These are overthrown, either directly, in terms of full opposition, or else by consequence, and this such, that is either immediate and evident, the truth being confessed, these cannot be denied, or else the consequence more remote, and not so easily discerned. 
Separation in some cases necessary.  These things being premised, we must bring it home to our purpose. 1. Where fundamental truths are not only questioned, doubted and disputed, but abjured and denied, errors directly or by immedate clear consequence introduced so, that the truth cannot be known, but the error must be seen, and this declared by public confession, and generally held, Christians are to be gone, here are not sufficient edifying truths, nor yet antidotes to preserve from danger, when they would have healed Babylon, and she would not be healed, than it is time to forsake. If any man come unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed, 2 John 10. saith John, much less then, may we hold such communion with them It is said of Mice, that when the house, through ruins is falling, they will be gone, shall nature teach them to provide for their safety, and shall nothing teach Christians to see to their own salvation? When Jerusalem was to be destroyed according to Christ's prediction, and not one stone to be left upon another; a voice is said to be heard crying, Get out to Pella. Foundation-breaches seen, and suffered, are, as this voice to be gone, such a Jerusalem's walls are falling▪ There is a flight too soon, when care might keep up the buildings, when with the poor man we may save and deliver the City, Eccles. 9 15. They that preached Christ in those Churches of Galatia, and preached down Circumcision, and other points of Judaisme, pleased the Apostle better, than they that without such endeavour should desert it; so those that had preached the resurrection in Corinth, had better pleased then those that had left the place for their sakes that denied it. A Church may not only degenerate, but apostatise; may not only languish, but lose her vital spirits, may not only displease her Bridegroom, but suffer a divorce; perhaps keep the title of a wife, and indeed be a strumpet, and want all evidence of relation to the Bridegroom. 2. In the case of pollutions of a more inferior alloy, a Christian may be necessitated to leave. 1. When the food of life, knowledge in the word or means to compass it, cannot be had. In such a case it must be sought, They must resolve with the Lepers, 2 King. 7. 3. not to sit still and die. When the Priests and Levites left their suburbs and pessessions, under Jeroboams government being cast out of their employment, and the lowest of the people, men of self-consecration, set up in their stead after them out of all the tribes of Israel, such as set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the Lord God of their fathers, 2. Ch●●n. 11. 16. Being without a teaching Priest, they were (as the Prophet tells Asa, 2 Chron. 15. 3.) without the Law, and without God, and there was no staying there. 2. When a man by compulsion is necessitated to give approbation to such pollutions, in any such way that speaks his compliance, whether it be by the civil power, through unsufferable fines, ●ulcts, imprisonments unavoidable, or peril of life, Or by the Ecclesiastical power in excommunications, when men are driven out, or necessitated for soul-subsistence to go out, there is full liberty and warranty to leave, But when Ordinances in a saving way, may be enjoyed, with liberty and safety, no Laws being enacted for their so heavy persecution, or through indulgence or connivance not put into execution, there the Churches good calls for good men's stay, not their secession or separation There was not a little leaven in the Church's doctrine, in Christ's time, error was advanced into Moses chair, yet Christ himself, with many other that waited for redemption in Jerusalem, held communion as Church-members. All was not right in every Church of the Saints to whom Christ wrote, Revel. 2. 3. and to whom Paul sent Epistles, yet as they retained still the honour of Churches, and the happiness of Christ's presence, so we hear nothing of separation enjoined, or practised. The condition of Believers in the Synagogue of Rome was otherwise, The key of knowledge is there taken away, the people not allowed to read it, in private, or to hear it in public, but kept reserved in an unknown language, neither could they without capital danger keep themselves from compliances in their sin, so that reform Churches did not in any unwarrantable way of Schism leave, but rather were left, They forsook not the Church, but the botches and corruptions in it, though we were never forbidden to partake of their truths, yet we are forbidden to partake of their sins, lest we partake of their plagues, Rev. 18. 4. and therefore to depart and be gone, when their truths could not be enjoyed, but their guilt through sin contracted, and it is only their sin that we relinquish. It is their Schism, in that or any other Church, that obtrude these Heterogeneal things, and not theirs that do refuse them.  
6. Corruptions in conversation scarce admit of separation, 
Corruption in conversation hardly admit of separation.  provided that doctrine be such, in which men may have communion for edification; If we look upon the people of Israel through the revolution of all times, after they were a visible body come out from Abraham's loins, we may find high titles given them of singular glory by reason of privileges, which they enjoyed by their call into Church-fellowship, children of God, holy people, God's peculiar ones, his portion, his heritage. The apple of his eye, Deut. 14. 1, 2. and 32. 9 Zach 2. 8. and abundant the like Eulogies in sundry other texts of Scripture, A people near unto God, Psal. 148. 14. the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law; and the service, and the promises did appertain to them, Rom. 9 4. Therefore Prophets and righteous persons, kept their residence among them, held communion with them, and saw no ground of separation from them, the words of eternal life being with them, as Christ testifies in his speech to the Samaritan woman, John 4. 22. when in the mean time their qualifications were as low, as their titles high, their conversation no way answering their calling, but branded to be stiffnecked, of an iron sinew, adulterous, a sinful Nation, a people foolish and unwise, as Sodom and Gomorrah to the Lord, Deut 9 6. Isa. 48. 4. Ezek. 16 32. Isa. 1. 4. Deut. 32. 6. Isa. 1. 10. It is a great contradiction with some men, to name men at all Saints, believers, professors, when their lives evidence an unsuitableness to such a glory, yet we know the Churches to whom Epistles are directed in Scriptures, are so honoured as we may see in their frontispieces, and among them the choicest, and most upright-hearted, had converse and communion, when yet they did wrong, defraud, contended and disputed for Idol pollutions and defilements, profaned the Lord's Table, were fornicators, unclean, lascivious, lukewarm, having only a name to live, when they were dead, 1 Cor. 3. 3. 1 Cor. 6. 7. 1 Cor. 8. 10. 1 Cor. 11. 20. 2 Cor. 12. 20. Rev. 3. 16. Rev. 3. 1. So that Calvin on 1 Cor. 1. 2. puts a question how Paul could give the name of a Church to them. If we would know what the Prophets and Apostles held concerning lawfulness of communion in such Churches, we may inquire what was their practice, They did not leave them, but made it their business, by all ways in their power to reclaim them, to work a change and conversion among them. The advice that was sometimes given to a maid, 
Aut de fatuis virgivibus es aut de or●dentibus si de ●atuis Con●regatio tibi necessaria est, si de prudentibus tu congregationi Corruption in discipline hardly admits of separation.  that for religions sake would retire herself to a solitary life: if she were bad, she needed the City to better her; if good, the City needed her: may be given to these persons, either they stand in need of the Church, or the necessities of the Church call for their help and assistance.  
7. The same that I have said of corruption in conversation, I may affirm of neglects in discipline. Reverend Master Cotton judges, that the many notorious scandalous Persons, that were found in the Church of Israel, did argue the neglect of Church-discipline, in the toleration of such public scandals in the Church. Holiness of Church-members, pag. 21. And yet none of the Prophets or men of God, who could not be ignorant of the Church's duty, and their sin in such neglects, ever made attempt of setting up purer select Churches nor made separation from that which was in this sort (as is said) faulty. All was not right in exercise of discipline, in the Churches planted by the Apostles some are censured as foully faulty. The Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 5 2. The Church of Smyrna, Rev 2 14. The Church of Thyatira, Rev. 2. 20. Neither could the church of Sardis be free, seeing that the greatest part, as it appears, were openly bad there being but few that had not defiled their garments, Rev. 3. 4. and yet nothing is heard by way of advice for any to make separation, nor reproof for their holding up communion▪ nor any one instance of a separatist given. Those that for many years together, during the Reign of the three last Princes, denied to come up to a full conformity to this Church, had a low opinion of the discipline then exercised, of which they have left behind them large evidences, yet how tender were they of the Church's honour to keep Christians in Communion? How zealous were they against separation? As may appear in the labours of Master Parker, though distasted by him that prefaced before his work of Ecclesiastical Policy, Master Paget, Master Ball, Master Brightman laid us low enough, when he did not only parallel us with lukewarm Laodicea, but made that Church the type, and us the antitype, Our state, as we stood at that time by reason of our discipline, (according to him) being rather aimed at by Jesus Christ in his Epistle, than the Laodicean State in Asia, then existent; yet how zealous is he against separation from these Assemblies? Having largely set out a double and singular honour in that Church, (as he styles it) viz Christ's entrance into those that open to him, and his sweet residence and abode being entered with them, he breaks out into these words. 
a Scelestus igitur & blasphemus eorum error est, qui sic ab hac ecclesia desiciunt, quasi Christus hinc pro●sus exularet nec ulla spes salutis manentibus esse posset. Cogitent hîc Christum convivantem cum suis. An pu●bit eos illic discu●●bere, ubi vident Christum non pudere An illo sanctores & mundiores er●●t? Sed quare se non co●vincunt suo ipsorum usu● Non possunt i●ficiari quin p●iùt in Christum crediderint qu●m fecerunt nobis divortium? unde haec illi fides? Anon expraedicatione in nostra ecclesia? Nu●quid autem praedicare quis potest nisi mittatur? Rom. 10. 13 Quid ●●go verbum propter labem ●liquam externae vocationis tam pervesè r●●puunt cujus vim divinam in ●or●ibus senti 〈◊〉? Quamobrem redite ad unitatem ecclesiae quae vos genuit & aluis; si fugiatis hunc Christum, quì cum electis in nostris coetibus coenat, ac eos vicissim excipit, profecto nusquam invenietis.  Therefore their error is wicked and blasphemous, who so forsake the Church, as if Christ were altogether banished thence, & no hope of salvation left for those that do remain. Let them think upon Christ, as feasting here with his. Will they be ashamed to sit down where they see Christ is not ashamed? Will they be more holy and pure than he? wherefore do they not convince themselves in their own practice? they cannot deny but they believed in ●hrist, before they made a divorce from us? whence ●ad they this faith; came it not by the preaching in our Church? and can any one preach unless he be sent? Rom. 10▪ 13. Wherefore then do they so perversely nause 〈◊〉 the word upon any pretence of blot in an external calling, when they are sensible of its divine power in their hearts? Wherefore return to the unity of the Church, which hath begotten and hath nourished you; if you fly from Christ 〈◊〉 feasts with his elect in our Congregation, entertaining them mutually, truly you will find him no where. How doth Reverend Master Cotton in his preface to Master Hildersams' work upon the fourth of John (whom without honour I cannot mention) set forth his renown for this work of opposing separation? of which he still appears to be tender though he seem page 13. of his Treatise of holiness of Church-members to be over indulgent to it, Speaking in excuse of those that withdraw from communion in public Ordinances of Christ, when Church-Officers receive in, for members of the Church, those that are most scandalous and wicked, and not such Saints as Paul writeth to at Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Colosse, and defending them against Mr. Rutherford, he saith, But if private members be persuaded in conscience from the word of God, that themselves have due right and interest as well in the admission of members as in excommunication of offenders or in election of officers, how shall they keep themselves from partaking in the sins of their Officers, if they suffer them to go on in such a manifest breach of rule without due proceeding against them for their reformation? and after some caution given he concludes, It is essential to Community to have power to admit unto communion, and to withdraw from communion. To which I say. 1. We have not a full account, of the Saints in those Churches, respective to scandals, it seems by divers passages, that many in Colosse, were none of the soundest in faith, as appears by the Apostles reproof, chap. 2 20. I am sure, that if any Church, have such as were to be found in Corinth, for ignorance, Idolatry, faction, oppression, adultery, lasciviousness, profanation of the Lords Table, they will be judged sufficiently scandalous. 2. If such a persuasion in conscience, would warrant a separation, it would be worth enquiry to know what separation is not warrantable? The error that Mr. Brightman brands, as wicked and blasphemous, is here abundantly justified; church-guide (at least in some places) were then, so far at least, guilty in their admissions. 3. What warranty is there, for any man's withdrawing himself, from public Communion in the Ordinances of Jesus Christ, when he may with freedom enjoy that glorious privilege, upon that account that he cannot enjoy the whole of those privileges, or actual exercise of them, in which he takes himself to have any interest. Sure I am Ministers of Christ, in many reformed Churches in the world, have judged themselves to be overmuch cooped up, in several particulars, when yet they judged the very thought of separation in this case, to be the greatest p●aculum. 4 This right or interest in every particular member to vote in this way for admission or ejection, may well be questioned; If there had been this freedom in primitive times claimed, and exercise, there had not been so much, in so short a space dispatched, as was done in Jerusalem and Samaria, Acts 2. Acts 8. If all must vote, in business of so high concernment, as in proceeding against officers, and to give definitive sentence concerning their proceedings, either many a meet member will be kept without, or else many an incompetent judge, must be taken in, many a poor soul weak in the faith is fit for the Lords Table, who is not yet fit to judge of the abilities of his Pastor. All, that I know, that is produced with any colour, is that direction of Paul to the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. When ye are gathered together with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. But if it be considered, that Corinth had more than one Congregation (as several Dissenting brethren have yielded, and as to other Churches may easily be proved) then, it must follow, that this meeting was only of officers, and not of all Members. And how this power is essential to a community, I cannot conceive. The English Nation have judged themselves a community, and yet there is many a freeborn Subject, that never had a thought of interessing himself by way of vote; to naturalise strangers, or to make them free Denizens, nor yet to expulse them in case of intrusion. The ●orporations of England are communities, yet every Member hath not his interest, for vote to receive into their body. When the chief Captain bought his Freedom in Rome, Acts 22 28 I scarce think, every Freeman of that society was consulted in it, neither did Paul when he heard of it, enter his exception, because his interest was infringed. The several companies in London, are so many several communities; yet every one of the members of those Companies, doth not claim an interest, in receiving in, men, as free of their respective mysteries; an opinion of such a Liberty, will soon bring Church Members under an heavy yoke, taking themselves to be so far interessed in every public act of their Officers, that they may not without open opposition (which is seldom borne) or actual separation, keep themselves from guilt in their aberrations.  
Fifthly, 
To gather Churches out of Churches to make up one Congregation out of many is unwarrantable.  to gather Churches out of Churches; to make up one congregation of Members appertaining to, and locally seated in many, is most anti-Scriptural. It were easy to bring abundant arguments against this practice. The disorderly confusion, which of necessity it doth occasion; The weakening of the work of God in the place where providence hath seated them, and conferred many mercies upon them: The robbing of Pastors of their flock, spiritual Parents of their children, who, they confess are of use to fit men, for such a new congregated way, that is, to beget them by the Gospel to Christ Jesus; but unfit to instruct or build them: The animosity of Spirit that is wrought in these separating one's, judging them whom they leave as no Ministers of Christ, nor their congregations any Churches of Christ withdrawing from thence, where Christ is pleased to keep residence. But letting these pass, I shall only urge this, that it is without all Scripture-president, or example, to gather up one Church (as these pretend) out of the cream and quintessence of many Churches. There was much amiss, in several of the Churches, of Asia; Philadelphia it appears was the soundest, yet Saints they left not, but held communion with the several Churches, where by providence they were placed, and did not pick up one out of all, as a Church in eminence of purity and glory; neither there or elsewhere hath there been found any such practice. Object. I know but one instance of this kind, that is pretended, that is John Baptist, who while the Church of the Jews stood a Church of God, gathered a Church out of them, as is objected, and did embody them. To this I might have much to answer.  
1. John Baptist set up no new Church, 
Sol.  distinct from the Church of the Jews; Christ and his Apostles submitting to that which John did introduce, yet still held communion with the Church of the Jews; They were not Members at once of two distinct Churches; of the new, because more refined, and of the old tainted and corrupted.  
2. If John Baptist according to duty, set up a new gathered Church in a Church of Christ; then all the Prophets from Samuel to John the Baptist, fell short of duty. If they follow John in what he did, we follow all the Prophets and Apostles in what they did, All the Prophets till John, did prophesy in the same Church of Christ and not any of them did set up new Churches.  
3. The old Churchway of administration among the Jews was then to fall, that present administration to be taken down by God's appointment, and a new one to be set up according to his prescript.  
4. John set up a new Sacrament, in a new way which after his days was the alone Churchway. If any can show (as our seekers look after) that Jesus Christ, shall now put an end to this way, and that, they have a Commission, for a new Sacrament of initiation, than they speak somewhat, for setting up new Churches, in like manner.   

CHAP. XLIII.  
A dogmatical Faith entitles to Baptism.  
3. IT farther follows by way of consectary, 
3. Corollary.  that a dogmatic Faith (ordinarily called by the name of Faith historical, such that assents to Gospel-truths, though not affecting the heart to a full choice of Christ, and therefore was short of Faith which is justifying and saving) gives title to baptism. The Covenant is the ground on which baptism is bottomed, otherwise Church-Membership would evince no title either in Infants, or in men of years to Baptism; But the Covenant (as we have proved) is entered with men of Faith; not saving, and therefore to them Baptism is to be administered. How the consequent can be denied by those that grant the Antecedent; Baptism denied in foro Dei, to men short of saving faith, when they are in covenant, I cannot imagine; yet some that have confessed their interest in the covenant, 
Arguments evincing the title of men professing faith to Baptism.  now deny their title to Baptism; and affirm, If men be once taught that it is a faith, that is short of justifying and saving Faith, which admitteth men to Baptism; it will make foul work in the Church.  
(1.) All that hath been said for the latitude of the covenant, may fitly be applied in opposition to this tenant, for the like latitude of Baptism.  
(2) All the absurdities following the restraint of the covenant to the Elect, to men of Faith saving and justifying, follow upon this restraint of interest in Baptism.  
(3.) To make the visible seal of Baptism which is the privilege of the Church visible, to be of equal latitude with the seal of the Spirit which is peculiar to invisible members, is a Paradox.  
4. The great condition to which Baptism engages, is not a prerequisite in baptism. This is plain, to man is bound to make good his covenant conditions before his engagements to conditions; no servant is tied to do his work, to gain admission into service; no soldier to fight in order to get himself listed under command. But Faith, that is justifying, is the condition to which baptism engages, and no condition necessarily required to vest him in it.  
5. That Faith upon which Simon Magus in Primitive times was baptised, is that which admitteth to baptism; Simon himself believed, and was baptised, Act. 8. 13. But Simons faith fell short of saving and justifying.  
(6.) In case only justifying faith give admission to baptism, than none is able to baptise; seeing this by none is discerned; and to leave it to our charity, affirming that we may admit upon presumption of a title when God denies, I have spoken somewhat, chap. 38. and I refer to Master Hudson in his Vindication, whom learned Master Baxter so highly commends to show the unreasonableness of it. Here it is objected.  
First, Objections answered. When Christ saith, make me Disciples of all Nations, baptising them; he means sincere Disciples, though we cannot ever know them to be sincere. Object.  
I answer. Answ. In case I make this first objection brought against me, my seventh and last argument for me; it will fully discover the weakness of it, and thus I form it. All that are Disciples unto Christ, and made disciples for Christ, are to be baptised; but some are made Disciples to Christ, that are short of faith saving and justifying, as hath been proved at large. This Discipleship that Christ there mentions, is such, of which whole Nations are in capacity, as is plain in the Commission, to which this Nation (with others) hath happily attained according to the manifold prophecies before cited; of these the whole universal visible Church consists as is irrefragably proved by Mr. Hudson in his Treatise of that subject, and his Vindication; and most amply spoken to by Mr. Baxter in his plain Scripture-proof of Infants Church-membership and baptism, page 279, 280. Sir, if you were my father, I would tell you that when you say [Christ makes no one City, Country, Tribe his Disciples] you speak most malignantly and wickedly against the Kingdom and dignity of my Lord Jesus. Hath he not commanded to disciple Nations? Hath not the Father promised to give him the Heathen or Nations for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession? Psalm 2. And that Nations shall serve him? And that the Kingdoms of the world shall be become the Kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ? and do you not see it fulfilled before your eyes? Are not Bew●ly, Keder Ministers, etc. and England (till of late) as full Christ's disciples, and so Church-members, as the Jews were in covenant with God, and so Church-members? We are not all sincere: True no more were they for with many of them God was not well pleased, but shut out all that Nation of covenanters from his rest, save Caleb and Joshuah. We may have Pagans and infidels lurk amongst us unknown; but they had many amongst them known. In the mean time we as generally profess Christianity, as they did to serve the true God. And are you sure there is never a City or Town that are all sincere? I think you be not; or at least is there never a godly family as abraham's was? you cannot be ignorant that the term [Disciples] in Scripture is given to more to the sincerely-godly. And if whole Nations; yea, the whole Universal visible Church (consisting of discipled Nations) were all believers, it were a happiness, than election would be as large as Vocation; when Christ saith, many are called, but few chosen.  
Secondly, Object. When he saith he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; here faith goes before baptism, and that not a common, but a saving faith: for here is but one faith spoken of, and that is before baptism.  
1. This is the weakest of all arguments, to reason for a precedency of one before another, Answ. from the order in which they are placed in Scripture. So we may say, John baptised before he preached the baptism of Repentance; for his baptising is put before his preaching of baptism, Mark 1. 4. and that those that he baptised did confess their sins after their baptism, seeing it is mentioned after that it is said, that they were baptised, Mat. 3. 6. and both of these with a far greater probability of reason, seeing in both there is a narrative of the thing by the Evangelists, and in the place in hand there is neither commission given for the work of baptising, nor yet any narrative of the work, but only doctrine given in charge which they were to deliver, which least of all speaks the order in which the duties specified must necessarily be practised. All that can be collected, is that we must in Gods ordinary way of conferring salvation, have both Faith and baptism; though there be not the like absolute necessity of baptism as of Faith; baptism being necessary, necessitate precepti; Jesus Christ having instituted it, and commanded it; but Faith is necessary both necessitate medii, and praecepti; seeing Christ not only commanded it, but salvation at no hand can be obtained (by men in capacity of it) without it; And therefore it hath been well observed that in the words following, the like stress is not laid on Baptism as on Faith; not he that is not baptised, but he that believeth not, shall be damned.  
2. Let Peter where he speaks of salvation by baptism, interpret these words; Baptism doth now also (saith he) save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 3. 21. and then explains himself; Not the pntting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God. This answer or restipulation, unto the outward administration of baptism, is that which follows upon baptism; but justifying Faith is that restipulation (at least a principal branch of it), and therefore there is no necessity that it go before, but a necessity that it must follow after baptism. It is true that in men of years, justifying faith sometimes goes before baptism, as in Abraham it went before Circumcision, but it is not of necessity required to interest us in a right, neither of baptism, nor circumcision.  
Thirdly, Object. That faith to which the promise of Remission and Justication is made, it must also be sealed to (or that faith which is the condition of the Promise, is the condition in foro Dei of the title to the seal;) But it is only solid true faith, which is the condition of the promise (of Remission; Therefore it is that only that gives right in foro Dei to the seal.  
Here is an Argument first proposed, Answ. secondly in a parenthesis paraphrased, for the proposition I say faith is not sealed to, but remission of sins or salvation upon condition of faith. A professor of Faith that goes no farther, may engage himself to a lively working faith, and upon those terms God engages for, and puts his seal for Remission and Salvation. For the parenthesis, That faith which is the condition of the Promise, is the condition in foro Dei of the title to the seal, I judge the contrary to be undeniable. That faith which is the condition of the Promise, is not the condition in foro Dei of title to the seal. An acknowledgement of the necessity of such faith with engagement to it, is sufficient for a title to the seal, and the performance of the condition of like necessity to attain the thing sealed. To promise service and fidelity in war is enough to get listed, as to do service is of necessity to be rewarded.  
Fourthly, as for the Argument ad hominem framed against those who make initial or common faith sufficient to entitle to Baptism, and yet affix remission of sins to all Baptism, even so received without any performance of farther engagement; I leave to them to defend who maintain such doctrine, and to speak to the absurdities that follow upon it.  
Fifthly, that of Philip to the Eunuch seems to carry most colour. The Eunuch must believe with all his heart before he be baptised, and I have known it troublesome that are fully convinced that a dogmatical faith gives title to Baptism, satisfying themselves with this answer, That howsoever Philip called for such a faith which leads to salvation, yet did not express himself so far that no Faith short of this gives title to baptism.  
It may be answered that a dogmatical faith is true faith, suo genere, as well as that which justifies; therefore I know not why men should give it the term of false faith, seeing Scripture calls it faith, and such as those believers, and the heart in such a Faith (as to an entire assent) is required. If we look into the Eunuches answer on which Philip did rest satisfied, and proceeded upon it to baptism, it will take away all scruple; his answer is, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. There is no more in that then a common faith, this is believed by men not justified; yet this faith entitles to baptism, and upon this confession of faith, the Eunuch is baptised.   

CHAP. XLIV.  
Impenitence and unbelief in professed Christians, is breach of Covenant.  
4. IT yet follows by way of consectary, 
4. Corolary.  that men in impenitence and unbelief, that lie in sin, and live in neglect of the sacrifice of the blood of Christ, live in a continual breach of covenant. They engage by covenant to believe in Christ, and forsake their sin; when yet they lie in unbelief & impenitence, are convinced that they are Fornicators, Idolaters, Adulterers, Effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thiefs, covetous, drunkards, revellers, and extortioners, These do not only transgress the Law (which on the severest penalty forbids these ways) but break covenant with God, and so are shut out of the Kingdom of Heaven; the reward upon covenant, to those whose hearts are upright. For howsoever, I fully assent to learned Master Baxter, that all weaknesses are not covenant-breaches, and therefore with him, judge it to be their mistake, who in their confessions acknowledge that we break covenant all that we do; yet those men in the list mentioned, having given their names to God, and entered covenant with him, walking in these forbidden ways, are found covenant-breakers; and therefore the Psalmist deservedly says to them, Psalm 50 16, 17. What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth; seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee? that is to claim any mercy or favour by virtue of Gods grant in covenant, as appears in the context▪ Engaging to him, and thus flying off from him, they desert the mercies which they might receive from him. As a wife by adultery, so they by sin forsake the covenant by which they stand betrothed, and by consequence it must needs follow, that Christ died for breach of the covenant of Grace, as well as for breach of the covenant of Works; unless we will say that all men by name Christian, and found in any of these sins, are in a lost and unrecoverable condition; joining with them that have said, that there is no grace or pardon for those that fall into sin after baptism. That he died not for their sins that live and die in final impenitence and unbelief, may be easily granted, and that rises to no more than that he died not for those, that finally and unrecoverably break covenant with him. It is granted by a learned adversary that final unbelief and impenitence, are violations of this covenant, but no other impenitence or unbelief; but that which is final, and for this, as is affirmed Christ never died; To this I say, If unbelief and impenitence be not breaches or violations of covenant properly so called, then final unbelief and impenitence is no breach or violation of covenant properly so called. This is clear, Final perseverance in unbelief and impenitence is no more, than a continuance of the same posture or state of Soul God ward, in which they before stood, in impenitence or unbelief; As Perseverance in faith and repentance, is the continuance of faith and repentance. If then final unbelief and impenitence be a breach of the covenant of grace, than all unbelief and impenitence, denominating a man, an unbelieving and impenitent person, is a breach of covenant likewise.   

CHAP. XLV.  
The question stated concerning the Birth-Priviledge of the issue of Believers.  
A Fourth difference supposed to be (and assigned by some) between the first and second covenant is, 
The fourth supposed difference between the Old and New covenant.  That the first Covenant was in that latitude to comprise, not alone unregenerate men professing the worship of the true God, but the whole of the seed of those that made such profession. But the second covenant is entered personally, and so vested in them that make actually profession of it, that it is terminated in them, and none of their seed are taken in with them. Here I cannot be so clear in my method as in the former, some have so mudded the way, that it is not easy to proceed in any fair and clear order; As to the latter branch (concerning the New Covenant) their opinion is fully and clearly enough held out. All believers according to them are in covenant, and only those that actually believe; They entitle themselves, but cannot interest their seed in any title to it. But as to the first Covenant some make it to consist merely of carnal promises, and Circumcision they answerably make a carnal badge, and so their opinion is clear, that the first descends to posterity, but not the second. The seed is included in the first carnal covenant, but excluded from the second. But one undertaking a full Comment upon those words of the Covenant, Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed, distinguishes of the seed of Abraham, and saith it is many ways so called, and by his distinction instead of clearing much darkens the thing in question.  
1. Christ is called the seed of Abraham by excellency, 
Distinction of the seed of Abraham examined.  Gal. 3. 16.  
2. All the Elect, Rom. 9 7. all Believers, Rom. 4. 11, 12, 16, 17, 18. are called the seed of Abraham, that is, the spiritual seed.  
3. There was a natural seed of Abraham to whom the inheritance did accrue, this was Isaac, Gen 21. 12.  
4. A natural seed, whether lawful, as the sons of Keturah, or base, as Ishmael to whom the inheritance belonged not, Gen. 15. 5. Here by the way he much mistakes himself.  
(1.) In casting Ishmael out of Covenant, in that manner that all the time of his Circumcision he had not any title to it; as afterwards he more fully explains himself, to that end that he might make (were it possible) the Covenant and the Seal distinct of themselves, without any relation one to the other, Conceiving some to be sealed, that were never in Covenant; and some to be in Covenant that were never sealed. But Ishmael was in covenant, as was Esau also at his Circumcision, and his circumcision (were there no more arguments) doth witness it, Gen. 17. 11. Ye shall Circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the Covenant between me and you. Circumcision was bottomed on the Command, we grant, had there been no institution, no man might have presumed to have signed it with such a Seal, but the Command had relation to the Covenant; Men in Covenant were the adequate subject of Circumcision, and are of Baptism; Gen. 17. 9, 10. God said to Abraham, Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my Covenant which you shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee, every man-child among you shall be circumcised. He was indeed after cast out, with his seed, as was Esau; not by a Church-censure, as Master Cotton affirms, Holiness of Church-Members, Church-censures, fall not so heavy as to reach all posterity; but by divine prerogative as the Apostle, Rom. 9 abundantly declares. His casting out sufficiently argues that he was once in, and when he received the token of the covenant, he was in covenant.  
(2.) He does ill, in laying upon Ishmael the brand of bastardy, as though he were a son of whoredoms to faithful Abraham; Concubines in Scripture have the name of wives, and their seed was ever accounted legitimate; neither will this serve his purpose at all to argue Ishmael out of Covenant. It was the case of Dan and Nepthali, Gad and Asher, (out of whose loins a considerable part of God's Covenant-people did issue) as well as Ishmaels'. And could he fasten that ignominy on Abraham, and Ishmael, to make it an illegitimate issue; yet this would not cast Ishmael out of covenant. It was the case of Pharez, Zarah, Jephthah, and yet they were all in Covenant with God. 2. He makes applicat on of this distinction, and saith, Of the three former kinds of Abraham's seed the promise recited is meant, but in a different manner thus: That God promiseth he will be a God to Christ, imparting in him blessings to all the Nations of the earth, to the spiritual seed of Abraham in Evangelical benefits to the natural seed inheriting in domestic and political benefits. So that it evidently appears, that he casts out all the natural seed of Abraham, (legitimate or base, as he calls them, inheriting or not inheriting) from any title to that Covenant, save in domestic and political benefits. Here I shall undertake a Position in full opposition, that that Covenant in those words expressed; I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee and to they seed after thee, Gen. 17. 7. in their fullest latitude, as they are there spoken, in the largest comprehension (which according to Scripture they can be taken) are entered with all the natural seed of Abraham, by Isaac and Jacob. But before I come to the confirmation of it (which is a matter of ease, if any) give me leave, (as well for the help of the Reader, as satisfaction of the Adversary,) to premise some things to avoid all misunderstandings being necessitated to it by the foul miscarriage of some in their stating of this question.  
First, 
Positions premised for a right understanding of the question.  we take not in all the natural seed of Abraham, as the Position plainly expresseth, but the seed by promise which I understand not of the Elect, or Regenerate seed; but of that seed which God by miracle (according to promise) gave to Abraham by Sarah, 
All the natural seed of Abraham is not in Covenant, but only the seed by promise.  when she was past years of childbearing. The natural posterity (which was the birth by Promise) we only understand; And so the Apostle explains it, Rom. 9 7, 8. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the Promise are counted for the seed: Where [children of God] is taken in the same latitude as [Adoption] ver. 4 comprising all the visible body of the Jews, as it is also taken, Deut. 14. 1. Only those that are borne by Promise are included, and all the sons of Ishmael and Keturah, (though their parents were once in Covenant) are by God's special command shut out▪ Neither are all these included; for as God cast off Ishmael and his seed, so he also cast out Esau, and his posterity, Therefore the Apostle having brought the former distinction of seeds, rests not there, but adds, verse 10, 11, 12, 13. And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our Father Isaac; for the children being not yet borne, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to Election might stand; not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger, as it is written; Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. And therefore the denomination of the seed, is, in Jacob, surnamed Israel; Therefore when the head, or if you will, the root of the covenant, is mentioned in Scripture, it is not barely Abraham, but Abraham and Isaac, to exclude all Abraham's seed of any other line; not barely Abraham and Isaac, but Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The natural seed of Jacob, than (not according to ours, but Gods own limits) is included in that covenant, in the full latitude and extent of it.  
Secondly, 
The Covenant w●s entered of God with Abraham as accepting the terms of it for himself and his natural issue.  we do not say that this covenant was entered with Abraham as a natural Father, nor his seed comprehended as natural children, we well know that quâ tale is omne, than all natnral parents were in Covenant, in that they had natural children, and all natural children were in Covenant, because they were the natural issue of their parents. Abraham's Father was a natural father, and Abraham was his natural son, yet neither of them, upon that account were in covenant, we say it was entered with Abraham, accepting the terms of it from God, for himself, and his natural issue, all his natural issue, not by God himself excluded were in covenant, He that made the covenant (according to his good pleasure) might put limits to it; Abraham may be considered, 1. As a man, the Son of Terah, of the race of Adam. 2. As accepting of Gods call, and receiving his tender for him and his. 3. As a faithful and an upright man, regenerate and steadfast in covenant. It is not as man that God enters covenant in this latitude, for Abraham himself was not thus in covenant, If he had been in covenant, as a man, than no man had been out of covenant: Neither is it as an upright man before God, and keeping covenant, for those of his posterity, whose hearts were not steadfast, were in covenant, and did hand it over to their seed, But as a professor of the Faith accepting the covenant, taking God for his God, in contradistinction to false gods, he accepted it for himself and for his seed, his natural posterity. And all that profess the faith hold in the like tenure, are in covenant, and have the covenant; not vested in their own persons only, but enlarged to posterity.  
Thirdly, 
The Covenant entitles to spiritual mercies, and life eternal upon God's terms and condition.  we entitle the seed of Abraham, as before, to spiritual mercies, and so the seed of all that hold in the tenure of Abraham to saving grace and life eternal; not by an absolute conveyance, infallibly to inherit, we know, though Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant only shall be saved, Rom. 9 27. but upon God's terms, and conditions in the Gospel held out of God to his people. Salvation is made over by virtue of covenant, to all thus in covenant, in that sense, as Christ speaks, John 4. 22. Salvation is of the Jews. In that sense as Christ useth it of Zacheus family; This day is salvation come this house, Luke 19 9 In that sense as the Apostle to the Hebrews speaks of it, where he sets out the danger of neglecting so great salvation, Heb. 2. 3. In that sense (as I conceive) the Apostle speaks of it, where he saith, that upon the call of the Jews, All Israel shall be saved, Rom. 11. 26 They shall enjoy those privileges, in which salvation upon God's terms may be obtained, and this is all that can by any means be squeezed out of their words, that say, the covenant of Grace was made of God, with Abraham and his natural seed, or with believers and their seed. It is even irksome to read the large business that is made, to find out our meaning about the covenant of God made with Abraham and his seed; and we must per force confess that we mean it of a covenant, infallibly, absolutely, to confer grace, and consequently salvation. To be so in Covenant, as that a man cannot fall from it. To this end, words of mine are produced, that I never uttered, and several arguments produced, against this supposed tenant and authorities multiplied out of Protestant Writers, Beza, Twisse, Wallaeus, The Annotations on the Bible, Ames, Paraeus, Downham. I am content that all these Worthies shall still stand up in their honour, and that this shadow should fall with shame, as well as I am that Bellarmine, Stapleton, a Lapide, Becanus, Estius should fall with it, whose arguments in this controversy one after other have been brought against me. To draw all up towards a conclusion, All that is necessarily included in God's entrance of covenant with a people, engaging to be their God, and taking them for his people; is here by this grand Charter of Heaven made over to Abraham and his natural issue by Isaac and Jacob. All their posterity are branches of this root by nature simply considered, and they are holy branches by virtue of this covenant, which necessarily implies privilege of Ordinances, the fruition of God's Oracles, which are his covenant-draughts; without which no people are in Covenant, but all are strangers: And this privilege of Ordinances implies also all Privileges, leading to, and accompanying salvation, and salvation itself upon God's terms, in his word revealed: and so before the disputation, the Reader hath my supposition.   

CHAP. XLVI.  
Arguments concluding the natural issue of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to be taken into Covenant.  
MY first Argument is taken from the addition annexed to this covenant in the words immediately following. 
The natural issue of Abraham possessed the land of Canaan  The Lord having made a covenant in full words with Abraham and his seed, he adds, and I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God. That seed of Abraham that had possession of the land of Canaan, through the gift, and by virtue of the promise of God, is the seed here taken into covenant, to have the Lord for their God. This is so plain, that nothing can be plainer to any that read the words. But the natural seed of Abraham, all the seed of Jacob in their several Tribes, (according as God set them their bounds) inherited the land of Canaan, which is called the land of their inheritance, and not only the spiritual seed Regenerate. Look into the History of of Scripture, who those were that inherited Canaan, and you may see who were in this covenant; The natural seed were there, and not only the spiritual, Even those of Abraham's posterity that died, not having obtained the promises, Heb. 11. 13. that only so journed in Canaan, and were never possessed of it, had title to it. It was theirs in reversion, though they never came into actual possession.  
My next Argument is drawn from the Seal that is annexed in the words immediately following this additional promise, 
Had the seal of Circumcision.  ver. 9, 10, 11. And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, a●d thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my Covenant which you shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; every man-child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you. They that had the sign and seal of the covenant, that had it by divine appointment, were a people in Covenant. This is so plain, that nothing can be more plain; God doth not enter covenant with one, and give the sign and seal to another: but all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob, had the seal, viz. all the males, all those that were in a capacity of it, it was not limited to the spiritual seed. There had been no place for that distinction of Circumcision in the flesh, and Circumcision of the heart; if none must be circumcised in flesh, but those that are circumcised in heart.  
My third Argument is drawn from the Comment that God himself makes of this covenant, 
Were owned of God as his people.  in the whole Series of Scripture-history, holding it out every where in this way of tenure, to Abraham and his natural issue, as before; Where God himself speaks to the whole body of Israel when they were newly come up out of the land of Egypt, he says, I am the Lord your God, Exod. 20 2. Deut. 5. 6. God owned all of that whole people as his, all of them being Abraham's natural issue, yet all of them were not spiritual▪ and while they were in Egypt, God speaks of them all in community as his; Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness, Exod. 5. 1. We see the titles that he gives them, Children of the Lord your God, an holy People, a peculiar People above all Nations, Deut. 14. 1, 2. That speech of the Lord to Israel, Amos 3. 1, 2. is very full to our purpose: Hear ye the Word of the Lord that he hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. Every one that descended from Jacob, the whole of the family that came out of Egypt, were a select people to God in covenant; He was according to the terms of that Covenant, their God. There is not a place, where God calls them by the name of his people (which are almost endless;) but there we have this confirmed, that that people were the Lords by virtue of this grant made to Abraham and his seed.  
In the fourth place, 
Pleaded their interest in the Covenant for obtaining of mercy.  I argue from the practice of the people of God, making this Covenant of God entered with Abraham and his seed, a plea to obtain mercy from God for all Israel, the worst of Israel, in their lowest state and condition, Deut. 9 26, 27. O Lord God, destroy not thy people and thine in heritance, which thou hast redeemed through thy greatness, which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand. Remember thy servants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, look not unto the stubbornness of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin. If this Divinity had been then known, Moses might have been sent away with this answer; That he spoke for dogs, and not for children; not for Israel, but for aliens and strangers to the Commonwealth of Israel. But as this and the like requests of the people of God were made in faith, so they prevailed with God; Moses there urges, They are thy people, and thine inheritance, verse 29. as doth the Church, Isa. 64. 9 Be not wroth very sore, O Lord, neither remember iniquity for ever; behold, see, we beseech thee, we are all thy people; and Moses petition takes as the History shows, Exod. 32. 14. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people; yea, when God vouchsafes mercy to his people thus in covenant, Levit. 26. 42. it is upon this account of the Covenant; Then will I remember my Covenant with Jacob, and also my Covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember, and I will remember the land, Leu. 26. 42. And appearing for the deliverance of Israel out of their hard and pressing bondage; he saith to Moses, I am the God of thy Father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, Exod. 3. 6. and that to stay up his faith in confidence of deliverance.  
To this here in this place delivered one replies, Object. The Covenant (saith he) with Abraham and his seed I find, Gen. 17. 7. and the urging of this covenant I deny not, Exod. 32. 13. Deut. 9 27. Leu. 26. 42. Exod. 3. 6. And though I say not that it contained only the promise of Canaan, but grant it contained the Promise of Redemption by Christ, Luke 1. 17. yet I like not Chamiers saying, to call the Promise of Canaan an appendent to the covenant, sith the Holy Ghost me thinks speaks otherwise, Psalm 105. 8, 9 10, 11.  
I shall say no more, 
Sol.  but leave it to the Reader, whether this be any answer, only for his censure of Chamiers calling the promise of the land of Canaan an appendent to this covenant; the thing is so clear in the narrative of it, Gen. 17. that nothing can be more evident. The Covenant is full, vers. 7. To be a God to Abraham and to his seed, and this he might have been had he pleased, in the land of Vr of the Caldees, or in any land whatsoever where abraham's seed had been planted: But when the covenant is thus made, there is added; And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. As for that of the Psalmist, where he thinks the holy Ghost speaks otherwise; the force of this Argument must needs be this. That which is any where called a Covenant, that is not an appendent to a covenant; but the giving of the land of Canaan to the seed of Abraham, is there called by the name of a Covenant. He will not, I think, say, that Circumcision is the Covenant between God and his people, he will not deny, but it is a sign and seal annexed to the covenant; and yet, Gen. 17. 10. it is called a Covenant, This is my Covenant which she shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee, every man-child among you shall be circumcised. Metonimies of the adjunct are well enough known, and the common use of them in Scripture; but that it is his wisdom for his advantage to conceal it.  
My fifth and last argument is drawn from those several Texts in the New Testament, 
New Testament Scriptures concluding Abraham's natural seed to be in Covenant.  which interpret this Covenant thus entered with Abraham, in that latitude; as extending to his natural issue, and not with limit to his spiritual seed; and that not barely in domestic or civil, but in spiritual promises; so that this one hath many in the bowels of it.  
First, 
Rome 9 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  Rom. 9 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. verses. The Apostle aggravating in the highest and saddest way, that great heaviness, and continual sorrow of heart, that he had for Israel; (not respective to civil or domestic, but higher concernments,) even for the whole body of Israel; his brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh, as he expresseth himself, v. 3. For amplification of the real grounds of his trouble, that such a people should be cast off; he reckons up their privileges, the privileges of all that according to the flesh were Israelites; Privileges formerly enjoyed, but now lost, nine in number: Who are Israelites, to whom appertains the Adoption, and the Glory, and the Covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the Promises? Whose are the Fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen. Here sure is enough to conclude them of the seed thus in covenant, to be of God's adopted seed under the Promises.  
Secondly, 
Rom. 11. Throughout.  Rom. 11. Throughout the whole body of the chapter, the Apostle speaks of the casting off of God's people. Those that are cast off from being a people of God, were once his people; those that are put out of covenant, were a people in Covenant; but the natural issue of Abraham (called natural branches, verse 21. being by right of birth of that Olive) are there broken off, cast off; therefore the natural issue was the seed in covenant.  
Thirdly, 
Mat. 8. 11, 12  Mat. 8. 11, 12. Upon occasion of the Faith of the Centurion, which Christ so magnifies, and prefers before the faith of any in Israel; he prophecies of the call of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews, I say unto you, that many shall come from the East, and West, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the Kingdom of heaven: But the children of the Kingdom shall be cast out into utter darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Nations from all quarters of the world, every point of the Heavens shall embrace the Faith, and be received visible members of the Kingdom of God; when the children of the Kingdom that are now in it, and enjoy it, shall be cast out of it; children of the Kingdom that are to be cast out, are in the Kingdom only upon an interest of birth, for the fruition of the privileges of Ordinances, and not upon any spiritual title, infallibly giving interest in Salvation: But the children of the Kingdom were upon our Saviour's sentence to be cast out, therefore they were in the Kingdom only on an interest of Birth.  
Fourthly, 
Gal. 2. 15  Gal 2. 15. In that chapter among other things we have a narrative from the Apostle, of his dealing by way of reproof with Peter at Antioch. In which we may observe.  
(1.) The occasion given by Peter, vers. 12. Before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself.  
(2.) The issue which followed upon this carriage of his, And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.  
(3.) Arguments brought for conviction of Peter of this error, which are two. The first in the 14. verse. If thou being a Jew livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compelest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Thus the Argument runs; It is unreasonable to draw others into a practice that thou thyself purposely forbearest; But thou thyself keepest not the Jewish Rites and Ordinances, and therefore it is an unreasonable and blame-worthy practice, by thy example to compel others to their observation; yea, thou being a Jew, takest thyself to have freedom unreasonably, than dost thou draw on others, who were never under any such obligation. The second Argument is in the 15. and 16. verses, We who are Jew's by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles; knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law; for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified, which is thus enforced. In that way wherein we who are Jews, with all our birth-priviledges cannot attain to righteousness, we may not teach the Gentiles to attain to it. But we who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, cannot this way attain to righteousness. We know that a man is justified by faith; we are compelled to quit the Law, and to cleave to Faith without works, for justification. These words which come up to our present purpose, contain. (1.) The privilege of Peter, Paul, Barnabas with the rest of the Jews. (2.) The character of the Gentiles in opposition to the Jews▪ As to the full purpose for which these words are brought by the Apostle, they have for the sense of them their dependence on the words that follow; but so far as they contain the privilege of the Jews, in opposition to, and above the Gentiles, (to which we are to speak) so far they are full of themselves; showing, First, Positively, what himself and Peter were, Jews by nature. Secondly, Negatively, what they were not, sinners of the Gentiles. Where [nature] is taken, not in the proper, but vulgar acceptation, for birth or descent from Ancestors, as usually in our common phrase of speech we say, men are naturally Dutch, French, Spanish, Irish, when they are such borne and bred; This Scripture therefore Camero citys for one, in which the Apostle speaks after the vulgar manner. We have a Scripture parallel with this. Rom. 11. 24. where [nature] and [natural] is only by birth and off spring, Peter, Paul, Barnabas were all naturally Jew's, borne of Jewish Parents, and bred up in the way and Religion of the Jews; such only Christ chose for Apostles, being himself a Minister of the Circumcision. Peter therefore being one of the twelve must necessarily be such, Paul was such▪ as we know from his own mouth, a Jew, and of the Tribe of Benjamine Barnabas was such, of the Tribe of Levi. And being such they enjoyed a privilege which the Gentiles wanted, they were by birth and offspring of a Nation that is holy. No Nation was so great as they, who had God so nigh unto them, who had statutes and judgements so righteous. The Jew had every way prerogatives and advantages, but chiefly the Oracles of God. God had not dealt so with every Nation; when other Nations were without God, they had God nigh unto them; when others were unclean, they were holy. This great privilege of Birth, Gentiles wanted, and so were by offspring sinners; as Birth renders all, so they remain unholy and unclean, among the unholy and unclean without any such title to the Covenant of God, that thereby they might obtain any other denomination; they are dogs, while the people in Covenant are children. And by this means the seeming opposition which is between this text and that of the Apostle, Ephes. 2. 3. is easily reconciled. Here the Apostle makes an opposition nature, between Jews and Gentiles; Jews by nature had privilege above Gentiles. There he makes Jew's and Gentiles in nature equal? We (saith he) were by nature children of wrath as well as others, as well as Heathens, that have no Birrh privilege [Nature] in that Text is not the same as nature in this [Nature] there is taken for the qualification of nature, which is equally defiled in Jews and Gentiles, which is there evidenced in the conversation of the Jews, being (before conversion by grace) the very same with the Gentiles. Among whom also we all had our conversation in times passed in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as others. [Nature] here is taken for a Birth-priviledge, and so the Jews (though in themselves sinners) are reputed an holy people a people by covenant holy to the Lord. Nature simple considered, is stained, and renders Jew's and Gentiles equally sinners and obnoxious to God's wrath; of which, Justification by faith is an acknowledgement, as the Apostle here shows, verse 17. But birth of Jewish Ancestors, of the stock of Israel puts them into a select condition, into the number of a people holy to the Lord. Neither is this any contradiction; common things dedicated for holy service and use, are holy: A people by nature sinners dedicated to the Lord, are for holy service and use, for the service of the Lord, when others are for service of idols. Therefore jerusalem a City, none of the holiest for any transcendent manners of the inhabitants thereof, is yet called by the Evangelist, the holy City, by reason of the Temple and worship there, that were holy.  
That which is a privilege of nature or birth, belongs to the natural issue, that cannot be denied: But to be incovenant with God as a people holy and exceeding others that are without as sinners, is a privilege of nature or birth; therefore this privilege belongs to the natural issue. This Argument, as it is clear of itself, so it hath this advantage, that for interpretation of the word [Nature] it hath approbation from professed adversaries; one saith, I grant his sense of the word Nature, and that the Apostle there speaks of himself and other Jews, as in reputation more holy than the Gentiles, because of their interest in Circumcision, and observance of Moses Law; And this grant involves him not in a few contradictions. 1. That this was a Birth-priviledge as he here acknowledges, being the Jews privilege by birth of nature, and therefore belonged to the natural seed; when 〈◊〉 elsewhere he saith, they inherit only domestic and civil benefits. 2. This interest in Circumcision, and observance of Moses Law, was a privilege of Ordinances, and he is wont to deny, that birth entitles any to such privileges. 3. This is spiritual mercy which the Jews here had in Circumcision, and Moses Law. Circumcision by his confession seals Gospei-mercies, the same that Baptism sealeth. And Moses in the Law wrote of Christ John 1 45. John 5. 46. and yet he denies the natural seed any Promise of spiritual mercies. Any one of these arguments severally, much more all jointly make good this Position, that all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob are in that great Charter (vouchsafed of God) taken into covenant, so as to be the people of God, and to enjoy all privileges of his people, in order (upon God's terms) to everlasting salvation.   

CHAP. XLVII.  
ROME 9 6, 7, 8. Vindicated.  
THough I hear of none that have much to say to all these Scriptures, as indeed little, rather nothing can be said; they hold forth with so clear a light a covenant in that latitude, and with those prerogatives, as you have heard; yet one hath a Text of Scripture, not to clear any one, but to silence and overthrow them all, and that is the words of the Apostle, Rom. 9 6, 7, 8. where the Apostle (having sufficiently hinted to them the rejection of a great part of the Jews, in his profession of that great heaviness and sorrow of heart in their behalf, and that he could wish that himself were accursed from Christ for them) undertakes to answer an objection. If Israel be cast off then the Word of God will be of none effect, his promise will fail; But the promise of God made with his people cannot fail, therefore Israel in such a considerable number is not cast off. In which place (saith One) this very Text, that now is the apple of our contention, was brought into question. This Argument thus held out in behalf of the Anabaptists is borrowed from Stapleton the Jesuit, at least Stapleton hath gone before him in it, and he hath learned to a hair to follow him. 
a Dicit Calvinus totam Abrahae progeniem esse sauctam, quia foedus vitae Deus cum illo pepigerat his viz. verbis: Ero Deus tibi & semini tuo, id est, ut Calvinus vult omnibus ab Abrahamo oriundis, omnibus ex secundum carnem nat●●, sicut nun●, dirutâ mace iâ omnibus Christianerum parentum liberis ab illis secundùm carnem natis. Addit, Deum omnes filios suos vocare, qui ex Israele sunt progeniti, Atqui Apostolu● dissertissimè contrarium dicit, non omnes qui ex Israele, two sunt Israelitae; neque qui semen sunt Abrahae omnes filii, sed in Is●ac vocabitur tibi semen, id est, non qui filii carnis, by sunt filii Dei sed qui filii sunt promissionis, astimaxtur in semine Filii autem promissionis sunt filii secundùm Spiritum sive ex Abraham & Isaac carn●liter oriundi, sive non.  Stapleton in his antidote, undertaking to make good that Calvin contradicts the Apost. (which he puts into his Marg.) saith, Calvin says, that the whole progeny of Abraham is holy, because God entered the covenant of life with him in these words; I will be a God to thee and thy seed, that is according to Calvin, to all that shall descend from him, to all that according to the flesh are borne to him, as also now (the partition-wall being taken away) to all the children of Christians, which according to the flesh shall be born to them; And Calvin addeth (saith he) that God calls all of the offspring of Israel his children; But (saith he) the Apostle speaks the contrary expressly. They are not all Israel that are of Israel, neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called; that is, they that are the children of the flesh, those are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. But (saith he) the children of the promise are children born after the Spirit, whether they descended from Abraham and Isaac, or no, with much more to this purpose. We have drunk up the Protestants poison, and their great care is, to preserve their party by the Jesuits antidote; They are wholly beholding to them for the receipt; what probatum est they can write upon it, must be examined. And that they may not deny, but in the examination of this triumphing Argument, they have square dealing, I shall give you the Authors words at length. I deny not (saith he) but there was some other promise included in that objection, to wit, some promise made to Israel, or the house of Israel, probably that, Jerem. 31. 33, 36, 37. For so the words, verse 6. They are not all Israel which are of Israel, do intimate. But without question the promise made to Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. was one which was included in that objection; Beza, Twisse, Ames, and others answering Arminius, call it the Covenant of God with Abraham, which was that, Gen. 17. 7. and the very phrase of Abraham's seed (in Isaac shall thy seed be called, verse 7. The children of the promise are counted for the seed, verse 8. Sarah shall have a son, as verse 9) do evidently show, that the promise (objected to prove, that if the Jews were rejected from being God's people, than God failed in making good his word) was that promise to Abraham; I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed; whereto I may add that the answerers of Arminius, and the cited Remonstrants, to wit, Baine, and Ames, do say it was the word of promise, not of the Law as Arminius conceived; for the word of promise saith Ames, Animadv in Remonstran. Script. Synod. de praedest. Cap. 8. Sect. 4. is distinguished and opposed to the words of the Law, Gal. 3. 17, 18. Now the word of the promise there is to Abraham and his seed, verse 16. and this is there called by him verbum foederis, the word of the Covenant; now let us consider how the Apostle answers it. He denies that God's Word made to Abraham did fall, though the Jews were rejected; because that promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed; as it comprehended saving grace, was never meant by God of all Abraham posterity, or of any barely as they were descended from Abraham by natural generation; but of the Elect, whether descended by natural generation from Abraham or not. And this is apparent, both from the words, vers. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called, vers. 8. It is expounded thus; that is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Whence it is apparent, that the same are not always the seed by calling, which are the seed of Abraham by natural generation; and that the children of the flesh are not the same with the children of the promise, and that the Apostle conceived this the right may of answering those that objected the falling of God's word; upon the rejection of the Jews, by restraining the promise of being God to Abraham's seed, only to the Elect, whether of Abraham's natural posterity or not; with so little respect to any birth-right-priviledge, that he not only rejected Ishmael, and took Isaac, but also loved Jacob, and hated Esau; by prophecy declaring his mind, The elder shall serve the younger, and in this, the Apostle acquits God from unrighteousness, in that he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens; notwithstanding his promise made to Abraham and Israel, or any Birth-priviledge they could claim. Yielding that this Text in that place is brought into question by the Apostle: Before I come to the Apostles words themselves, I have divers Queres to put.  
1. How Baine and Ames come to the name of Remonstrants? I had thought they had been on the party that are called Contra-Remonstrants?  
2. Where it appears that Arminius conceived that the covenant there spoken to, was the word of the Law, and not of Promise; I am sure in his Analysis on this Chapter to the Romans he speaks in another manner, even in our authors own Dialect, as though the one's Comment had been spit out of the mouth of the other. 
b Filii carnis Apostolo hoc loco sunt qui per o era legis justitiam & salutem consectantur. Filii verò promissionis sunt illi qui fide in Christum justitiam & salutem quarunt.  The sons of the flesh, with the Apostle, (saith he) are those that by the works of the Law, follow after righteousness and salvation. The sins of the promise are those that seek after righteousness and salvation by faith in Christ, and he thus frames the principal Syllogism of the Apostle, for confutation of the Jews arguing from the rejection of the Jews, Gods failing in his promise. 
c Si verbum Dei solos filios comprehendit, exclusis filiis carnis, ●um s●quitur verbum Dei non ex idere, etiamsi filii carnis reji●iantur imò exidere si admitterentur isti qui ●●●●riptione ipsa conditionis foederis ex●lu●luntur, t●ue●bum Dei ●los filios promissionis comprehendit, exclusis filiis. carnis. Ergo verbum Dei non excidit, etiam filii carnis r●jiciantur.  If the word of God comprehend only the sons of the promise, shutting out the sons of the flesh; than it follows that the word of God doth not fail though the sons of the flesh be rejected: But the word of God comprehends only the sons of promise, shutting out the sons of the flesh: Therefore the word of God doth not fail, though the sons of the flesh be rejected. Armin. Anal. Cap. 9 ad Ro. p. 781. Let any now judge whether he can interpret this of the Law and not of the promise.  
3. When he affirms that to be borne after the flesh is all one with the Apostle, with legal justiciaries, as he doth (which is Arminius his Interpretation) how then can he by that distinction of children of the flesh, and children of the promise, shut out the natural seed of Abraham? are the natural seed of Abraham, and legal justiciaries one and the same?  
4. If the Apostle exclude all the natural seed of Abraham from this Covenant of God (as Stapleton argues, and from him the Anabaptists) and takes in only his spiritual seed, how can he be reconciled to himself? in the words immediately before this objection, he speaks of the Jews (as his kinsmen according to the flesh, which were the natural seed of Abraham) and saith, To them pertain the Adoption, the Glory, and the Covenants, etc. How then can his distinction be interpreted to throw them out of Covenant, when in express terms he had affirmed that they were in covenant? How can he deny that these are children, vers. 7. when he had affirmed that to them pertaineth the Adoption, vers. 4. Which may be confirmed by abundant other Texts of Scripture; Ye are the children of the Lord your God, Deut. 14. 1. Out of Egypt have I called my Son, Hosea. 11. 1. It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it unto Dogs, Matth. 15. 26. where all that were not Gentiles, all to whom Christ was sent, are called children; Ye are the children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with your Fathers, Acts 3. 20. Doth the Covenant appertain to them, and they styled the children of the Covenant, and yet are they out of Covenant? Are they children to whom the Adoption pertains, and yet no children? When they have given any fair answer to these Quere's, especially the two last: we shall conceive some probability of truth in their Gloss on the Apostles words; in the mean time we cannot but look upon it in full opposition and contradiction to that which the Apostle expressly delivers. For the Text of the Apostle, it will be besides my purpose to make any full Comment upon it; it will be sufficient to take it out of their hands, and vindicate it from that which they would assert from it, and to let the Reader know the Apostles scope in that place, which is not to make a full Comment on those words, Gen. 17. 7. but only to free it from an objection which the unbelieving Jews might raise from it. God hath made a Covenant with them, to be their God, and the God of their seed. If he now cast them off as the Apostle doth affirm, the Covenant than is broke, and the word of God is of none effect. The Apostle denies that this follows, and shows that the term [Israel,] or [children of Abraham.] admits of distinction, and produces a Scripture, vers. 7. where one distinction is implied, viz. Gen. 21. 12. In Isaac shall thy seed be called, and so a numerous company by Ishmael is excluded (who were Abraham's seed after the flesh) and only the sons of promise by Isaac are accounted the seed, vers. 8. that come from Isaac, borne by miracle. And verse 10, 11, 12, 13. seconds it with others concerning the children of Isaac, Esau and Jacob. As then there was a distinction of seed; so also now, one member he had laid down before, viz. Israelites according to the flesh vested in all those privileges there reckoned up, ver. 4, 5. These they pleaded, and the Apostle yields them; And these men (according to the discovery of these times) deny them. The second member he after falls upon, the eternally beloved and chosen of God, and largely amplifies. In these Abraham's seed may continue, though the other be cast off; to whom yet God hath continued (in successive generations) a God in covenant, and continued to them the privileges of being his people, though now he was upon the rejection of them: And that it may appear that I go not alone, I shall give an Exposition of this Text from a more able Pen, above the suspicion of an Arminian, which is here charged, namely Gomarus, who (having in his Analysis on that Chapter, spoken to the Jews objection, and the Apostles answer) makes this inference; 
a Unde perspicua est Apostoli sententia quâ negatur excidere seu irritum reddi Sermonem de foedere cum Abrahamo & semine ill us, deque benedictione & salute per promissum Messiam, Gal 3. 7 vamvis Judaeorum maxima pars a Christo & benedictione exclusa sit Anathema, Idque probat distinctione Israelitarum & seminis Abrahami; ●áque ratione ostendit promissionem Dei ratione efficaciae illius esse indefinitam ac sensu particularem, non autem universalem, ac proptere● universalim perperam indè constitui; ●am quamvis Israelitae plerique pereant promissionem tamen Dei minimà reddi irritam inde constat, quia in elect is est efficax, Now enim omnes, ut v. 6. ait, qui sunt ex Israele patre prognati secundùm carnem, sunt veri illi Israelitae; ad quos foederis gratiae Dei non solum oblatio cum conditione officii praestandi; sed etiam collatio & hareditas coelestis reipsâ pertineat. ut ver. 7. exponitur clariùs, & Rom. 2. 28. & 19 Neque quia semen Abraham● sunt, ideo omnes sunt filii seu haeredes benedictionis illius & ●jusdem gratiae gloriaeque participes, Rom. 4. 12. Gal. 4. 28. Quamvis enim hac videantur & inter se & cum superioribus puguare quibus d●cuit Apost●los Judae●● incredulos esse Is●aelita● & Abrahamit●s, non solum origine carnis, sed etiam ratione foederum & promissionum acceptarum; nulla est dissentio. Etsi enim ad omnes Israelta● & patres & Adoptio & foederaac promissiones pertineant; non prop●e rea tamen sunt omnes verè filii & haeredes salutis. Illa enim quae objectantur. Judaeis infidelibus ab Apostolo tribuuntur, quidem ratione vocationis externae (quia salus iis sub conditione obedientia annunciats & oblata est, & oblatio illius Circumcisione obsig●ata; unde omnes Israelitae filii foederis dicuntu● communiter, Actor. 3. 25.) Sed non ratione vocationis, internae & efficacis secundùm propositum electionit, qua salus non solùm exterius cum conditione fidei vivae annunciata & oblata est verbo ac signota Sacramentis, sed etiam interiùs efficaciter donata conditione seu fide confertura Spiritu sancto. Hoc enim solùm genuinis filiis & verè electis Israelitis convenit non autem promis●uè omnibus.  From whence (saith he) the Apostles conclusion (in which he denies that God's word concerning the Covenant with Abraham and his seed, and the blessing and salvation by the promised Messiah, Gal. 3. 17. did fall, or become void) is manifest, though the greatest part of the Jews be shut out from Christ, and accursed. And this he proves by distinguishing Israelites and the seed of Abraham; and thereby shows that the promise of God, respective to the efficacy of it, is indefinite, and therefore particular, not universal, and so an universal promise cannot rightly from thence be concluded: for though the Israelites for a great part perish, yet that the promise of God is not thereby made void appears, in that it hath its efficacy in the Elect; for as he saith, verse 6. All which are of Israel (borne according to the flesh) are not true Israelites, to whom not only the tender of the Covenant of Grace, with condition of duty to be performed; but the heavenly possession and inheritance only belongs, as in ver. 7. and Rome 2. 28, 29. is more fully shown; Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they therefore all children, or heirs of that blessing, and partakers of the same grace and glory, as Rom. 4. 12. Gal. 4. 28. For though these things seem contradictory to themselves, and to that also which was delivered before, where the Apostle affirms that the unbelieving Jews are Abrahamites, and Israelites; not only by reason of their birth after the flesh, but also by reason of acceptance of the Covenants, and promises, yet there is no contradiction; For though the Fathers, and Adoption, and Covenants, and Promises belong to all the Israelites, yet all are not therefore true children, and heirs of salvation. For these things which are objected, viz. The Jews great privileges, are attributed by the Apostle to the unbelieving Jews, by virtue of their outward call, because salvation is revealed and offered to them under condition of obedience, and that offer sealed with Circumcision, from whence all Israelites are promiscuously called children of the covenant, as Acts 3. 25.) and not by reason of their inward call according to the purpose of Election effectual, because salvation is not only outwardly under condition of a lively faith revealed and offered in the word, and sealed in the Sacrament; but also inwardly and efficaciously, (the condition, that is, faith being given them) is conferred by the Holy Ghost. For this belongs not indifferently to all, but only to the genuine Sons and true elect Israelites. Thus far Gomarus, in which we have these three things. 1. This objection wholly s●lved. 2. The Apostle reconciled to himself. And, 3. The Doctrine of covenant-holiness from the Apostle fully established, which when they have well considered, with that which was spoke before, (having the whole current of Scripture against them) they will have little list to make this one Scripture their asylum.  
It is farther said, Object. that when the Pharisees and Sadduces came to John's Baptism, and were about to plead this Birth-priviledge; John beats them off it, and takes that plea out of their mouths: Think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father, Matth. 3. 9 that plea could not stand when the men were carnal.  
I answer, 
Sol.  First, when those that were no better than these, make the same plea, John 8. 33. We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any; Christ yields it, vers. 37. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; he allows them all that upon this account they can claim. And for Pharisees he doth not barely yield them to be Church-Members, but also Church-Teachers, Matth. 23. 2. 2. I say John Baptist doth not deny what Christ yields, but lets them know, that this plea, will not serve to avoid wrath, while they live in impenitence; They may perish notwithstanding this plea, and yet God's Covenant with Abraham hold; being able of stones to raise up children unto Abraham, to make good what in Covenant he had said. He no where says that they are not entitled to privileges of Ordinances, and thereby interessed in the prerogatives of Gods visible people. What Paul, Rom. 9 4, 5. so largely yields them, John Baptist in that place doth not deny them, which also now they had in visible possession. All sorts of men, fare better by privilege of birth in civil things, Prov. 19 14. House and riches are the inheritance of fathers. The Jews fared better respective to Religious things, Rom. 3. 1. What advantage then hath the Jew, or what profit is there of Circumcision? Much every way▪ Privilege of Ordinances in the Church of God, is a Birth-inheritance.   

CHAP. XLVIII.  
The Covenant in New Testament-times takes in parents with their children.  
BUt in case all this be yielded in Old Testament-times, that the Covenant entered was in this latitude, that the whole of Abraham's seed were taken with him into Covenant, and that then it ran in a race by carnal descent, yet it is otherwise at least in New Testament-times. No child fares now the better respective to any visible Church-interest, for the Faith or Religion of their Ancestors. And here is a fourth difference between the first and second, the Old and New Covenant according to some. The first Covenant was entered in that latitude, to take in Children with their parents, Posterity with their Ancestors, according to the Charter so long infisted upon: But in New Testament-times, the Covenant reaches no farther than the person that actually enters; He covenants for himself, his seed have no more or farther interest than the seed of Heathens and Pagans. When I first published my Birth-priviledge, I here expected opposition, and did look▪ that some would appear to put this limit to the Covenant in New Testament-times▪ but for the state of the Church under the first covenant I thought I should not have found an opposite, and therefore was less mindful of the confirmation of it, which I hope is now done to the Readers full satisfaction. As to those that plead such a change of things in New Testament-times, we might interrogate them in sundry particulars.  
First, 
Quere's premised.  when God by free Charter, did once vouchsafe such a grant to his people, how it can be made appear that it was ever reversed; or any such limit put to it, when the Church of God hath held it in see from Abraham to this present hour, they may well look that they should produce some plain word from God (revoking his grant) that challenge them for usurpation. It is true that God's Sovereignty is such that he may contract his grace at pleasure; As he may wholly strike a people out of covenant, so he may put what terms he pleases to it; but such that affirm it should make it appear, in which hitherto they have been silent. They that will eject us out of so long a possession, had need to make their plea firm for our eviction.  
Secondly, we might demand the reasons why the Covenant should run in so narrow a limit now, being vouchsafed in so great a latitude then▪ being once made of God as with men of years, so with little ones, Deut. 29. Why should little ones be now excluded, and only men of growth admitted? when it is granted on all hands that God continues a people to himself, how comes it to pass that he admits them on such new terms? That his favours are now thus shortened, that as a lease for term of life, differs from a fee-simple for inheritance, so the Covenant in New Testament-times differs from the Covenant vouchsafed of God to our fathers? Where the absurdity lies that Baptism should be administered to those that do not actually believe, when yet Circumcision was administered to infants in as great an incapacity.  
Thirdly, we might demand how they can avoid that great scandal that must needs by this means be given to the believing Jews, (who waved the old way of the administration of the covenant, and embraced the new) to have their infants upon this new admission struck out of Covenant, A man that should be seized on an inheritance for ever, will hardly be brought to quit that tenure and accept with limit for term of life, God was their God, and the God of their seed, Gen. 17. 7. They did bring forth children to God, Ezek. 16. 20. Now they bring forth children without God. They have a seed, but no holy seed; a world replenished, but not a Church or people to God continued; The savage Indians in a married condition have this privilege▪ that their issue are not bastards, and this is all that can be claimed by Christians.  
Fourthly, we might demand if so great a change were made and held in the Apostolic Primitive times, how it comes to pass that there was such silence, no man moving a question about it? The pomp of worship and observation of places formerly in use, was laid aside in Gospel-times, but this we hear of, and the reason of it, John▪ 4. 22. The initiating Sacrament of Circumcision had a period put to it, of this we hear, and many complaints about it? Psalteries, Harps, Organs, Cymbals, and such instruments of music, in use in the time of the Law, were laid aside in Gospel-times, and not known in the western Churches till after Thomas Aquinas his days; As this was done, so it was not passed in silence, but spoken of, (as elsewhere I have shown, and given reasons of it) by Justin Martyr, [or at least one that bears his name,] chrysostom, Isidore, Thomas Aquinas. When none of these changes can pass, but observation is made, it is more than strange that so great a change as this in the terms of the Covenant, between God and his people, can be so carried on without any observation at all, or one word once moved about it, or spoken in it? See Master baxter's Treatise of Infants Church-membership, proving that Infants were sometimes Church-members, page 26, 27. that there is no repeal of this grant vouchsafed of God, p. 27, 28. Waiting for some fair answer to the former demands, I shall proceed to those texts of Scripture, where the Covenant in New Testament-times is held out in this latitude to believers and their seed, comprising their parents in the same privilege of Covenant and participation of promise.  
First, 
Acts 2. 38, 39 vindicated.  let us look into those words of Peter, delivered in his first Sermon after the receiving of the holy Ghost, (the first place in which the Covenant of promise, and Baptism the Seal of the Covenant are mentioned) to the Jews, with whom the Apostles as yet held communion being not actually rejected out of a visible Church-state; Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, 
The text ●nalized.  Acts 2. 38, 39 In which words we may observe. 1. An Exhortation, as, to repentance for the guilt of the blood of Christ; (of which they stood convinced) so, also unto Baptism. 2. A Motive stirring them up to embrace baptism in the name of Christ, drawn from the benefit which they shall reap, Ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost. 3. A farther encouragement to the acceptation of Baptism drawn from their Covenant-priviledge, which is here set out in its full latitude and extent (as Calvin rightly upon the words observeth) 1. ●o the Jews, For the promise is unto you. 2. To their children, and to your children. 3. To the Gentiles upon call, and to you that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, Where an effectual call cannot be meant (which the Apostle calls a call according to purpose) proper only to the elect, It is a call unto such a Church-state, as the whole Nation of the Jews did then enjoy, as the firstborn in the family; A call that puts them into a like Church-state, and condition with the Jews. From whence this argument may be drawn. Those to whom the Covenant of promise appertains have a right to Baptism; But the covenant of promise appertains to men in a Church-state and condition, and to their children. The major cannot be denied by any that will not make themselves the Apostles opposites. The minor proposition is now to be considered, That the covenant of promise to men in a Church-state and condition is in that latitude as to comprise their children. For which the words of the Apostle are full and clear, To you is the promise made, and to your children, on which Calvin rightly comments. Peter observes (saith he) a due order, when he assigns the first place of honour to the Jews, That it takes in children, it depends on the words of the promise, Gen. 17. 7. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. Where God joins children with their parents in the privilege of adoption, in the inheritance of privileges belonging to all Church-members.  
But this clear text wants not wits that study to cloud it; Objections answered. Some except against the word [children,] and will have them to be the same as the sons and daughters mentioned, v. 17. of that chapter, from Joel, chap. 2. 28. and consequently the promise to be meant of the Spirit of prophecy, and to appertain to none but those of age and capacity for prophecy. To this I answer, 1. The extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost in this visible way cannot be the promise here by Saint Peter mentioned, seeing it is enlarged to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord shall call. But all these have not the holy Ghost in that way extraordinary, nor any promise of it; Baptism with the holy Ghost and with fire, is a baptism proper to those primitive Saints, wherewith they were told that they should be baptised not many days after▪ 2 Howsoever the promise be interpreted so, as to belong to all that are believers, and call on the name of the Lord, as there follows, yet that promise is on condition of their baptism; The means are to be used in reference to the end, Baptism is the means, receiving of the holy Ghost (there specified) is the end; And the Apostle confirming them in the promise of the end, doth likewise encourage them to the use of the means, in Baptism to expect the gift of the Spirit, and so (according to this interpretation) that place is an encouragement to baptism. The promise is the fittest encouragement to the Sign and Seal of the promise. Baptism is the Sign and Seal to which they are here encouraged, and in that latitude as they had formerly known the command of Circumcision. 3. Neither are the children here mentioned the same with sons and daughters spoken of by the Prophet, nor limited to such sons and daughters as are of growth, and capable of the gift of prophecy. 1. The Apostle urgeth the promise in the way, as in the Scripture it is delivered, which is to men and their posterity, to them and theirs. So God promises to be a God in covenant to his and their seed, and this the Apostle holds out, to draw them on to the Seal of the covenant to accept Baptism on the same terms that Abraham did circumcision. 2. It is without reason to believe that the Apostle should instance in one piece of the distribution of the Prophet there, and to leave out the rest; to put in alone sons and daughters, when we have in the Text young men, old men, servants and handmaids. 3. Children here are mentioned under a promise to the parents, to you and your children is the promise made, but not so in Joel, nor in the quotation of the Apostle. That Scripture hath only an enumeration of the several sorts and conditions of people in any Nation, on all which the spirit is promised, without any reference made to the parents of those sons and daughters, more than to the masters of those servants and handmaids; not the sons and daughters of their flesh, but the sons and daughters of the Nation. A Language usual in our ordinary expressions speaking of men of any sort or condition, as your Lawyers, your Merchants, etc. so here, your sons, your daughters, your old men, your young men, &c▪ Others say, That the promise made, is the sending of Jesus Christ, and blessing by him as is expounded, Acts 3. 25, 26. Act 13. 32. Ro. 15. 39 I answer; it is true, that Jesus Christ is the most eminent mercy promised, and may be called the promise virtualiter, being the ground of all promises, and therefore some interpreters have mentioned the gift of Christ on this occasion. But it is plain that God's Covenant, and this gift are to be distinguished; Christ is promised in priority to the Jew, before the Gentile; The Jew then is taken into Covenant before this gift of Christ can be of them expected: It is therefore the Covenant itself (entered with parent and child, root and branch) that is here meant (as Calvin in the words before observes) from which the giving of Christ in the flesh follows. And therefore Diodati fully pitches upon the true sense of it, Seeing as you are Abraham's children, you are within the Covenant, you ought to acknowledge Christ to be the head and fountain of the Covenant The Covenant, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, is here meant, which from Abraham had been the Jews privilege, Rom. 9  
It is farther said, that the limitation, as many as the Lord our God shall call, shows that the promise belongs to them, not simply as Jews, but as called of God; which is more expressly affirmed, Acts 3. 26. To you first God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. I wonder how it came into any man's head to call this amplification, a limitation, it plainly enough speaks their boldness in dealing with the Scriptures; Had the Apostle said, To you is the promise made, and to your seed, in case God shall give you a call, he had spoke to their purpose; but saying, To you, and to as many as the Lord your God shall call; it plainly shows that he does not limit, but amplify the mercy, extending it not barely to the Jews (who in present by reason of fruition of Ordinances were a people near to the Lord, Psal. 148. 14.) but also to the Gentiles, who Ephes. 2. 17. we affare off. 2. In that he saith, this promise belongs to them not simply as Jews, but as called, is a full contradiction: A Jew uncalled (at this time before the Kingdom was taken from them) is as much as a Convert unconverted, or a Gentile disciple undiscipled: In case they think to come off by limiting it to an effectual call, the Scriptures by themselves quoted, doth evidently contradict it, Christ came to give them, that effectual calling, and not only to those that were thus called. It is yet said, Peter doth exhort to repentance, and Baptism together, and in the first place persuades to repentance, then to Baptism, which shows repentance to be in order before baptism. To which I answer, that these who had crucified Christ as a blasphemer, a seditious person, an impostor must needs repent before they would accept Baptism in his name, or hope for remission of sin by him, I had been lost labour for the Apostle, to have pressed those, that had crucified Christ, and retained their former opinion of him, to become disciples to him, and to look to be saved by him, To persuade them to look for remission of sins in his blood, who took themselves to be without sin in shedding of it; Yet notwithstanding this guilt (of which the Apostle would have them to repent) he shows that they and their seed are under the promise of God, and puts them into a way, in acceptation of Christ in the Gospel-tender, in his present way of administration, to be continued his people still in covenant, and that (as is plainly enough signified) that they might enjoy it in their former latitude, to them and to their children. The promise (of which they were not yet dispossessed, but stood as a people of God in visible Covenant, and their children) is here brought as a motive to encourage them to hold correspondency with God (as his covenant-people) embracing the way which their long expected, and desired Messiah had now instituted & appointed. But this promise was to them and their children. Here is yet another evasion, The text speaks not expressly of Infants, but of children indefinitely; And if infants be not children, we will be content that they be cast out of covenant, and will hold no more plea for their Church-membership nor Baptism. God in the Covenant with Abraham did not expressly mention infants, but seed, yet infants were his seed, and, as his seed, by God's command to be circumcised, And all our infants are our children, and consequently to be baptised, Acts 20. 7. is an express Text with some of this party (without any help of consequence) to prove that women received the Lords Supper, Because it is said that disciples came together to break bread, as though woman, and disciple, were synonyma? But here the promise being made to children, infants must neither be comprised in the letter, nor yet by any favour of consequence included.  
It is further objected, that the text speaks not of the children of the Gentiles at all (of whom we are) but of the children of the Jews, and therefore if that promise be extended to infants, which doth not appear, the promise is to be expounded so, as to note something peculiar to the Jews infants. If the Gospel held out any such transcending privileges appertaining to the seed of the Jews above the Gentiles, they may do well to produce a Text for it, otherwise we shall take it for granted from Saint Paul, that there is none at all, that in Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew, Circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. And when the Apostle adds, To those that are afar off, even as many as the Lord shall call, he plainly means the Gentiles, as appears, comparing Ephes. 2. 13. and though I take not the boldness to add to the words, as some stand charged, yet it is clear, that he same is understood there in reference to the children of the Gentiles, that is expressed before to the children of the Jews. If any shall grant an inheritance to Titius and his heirs for ever, and to Caius, every one will understand that the heirs of Caius are meant as well as the heirs of Titius, especially if it can be proved out of the Grant itself, that the privileges conveyed to Caius, are as ample, as that to Titius. We can prove the privileges granted to the Gentiles in the Gospel to be equal to those granted to the Jews; when the Jews children than are under the promise with their parents, the children of believing Gentiles cannot be excluded.   

CHAP. XLIX.  
Rom. 11. 16. Vindicated.  

SECT. I.  
The Series of the Apostles dispute opened, and several Arguments deduced.  
THe next Scripture for proof of the Covenant in New Testament-times takes in children with the parents, 
The Series of the Apostles dispute.  is Rom. 11. 16. For if the first fruits be holy, the lump is also holy, and if the root be holy, so are the branches; which Scripture, that it may be aright understood, we must look into the whole Series of the Apostles dispute in that place, Having before largely discoursed of the rejection of the Jews, out of a present Church-state and fellowship with the call of the Gentiles, and their present Adoption, now somewhat to allay the seeming harshness of that doctrine of his against the Jews, and to take down the insultings of the Gentiles over that people, in this chapter he speaks to both. 1. To the Jews by way of mitigation, limiting this doctrine of their rejection with a double caution. 1. That it was not total. 2. That it was not final. That it was not total, he first asserts, secondly proves; asserts, ver. 1. I say then, hath God cast away his people? God forbid. Proves by a threefold argument. 1. By instance in himself, verse 1. For I am also an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the Tribe of Benjamin, and he doth not dispute for his own rejection. 2. By instance in the elect of God, verse 2. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. 3. From a parallel Scripture, out of 1 King. 18. which parallel he first lays down, verse 2, 3, 4▪ W●t ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias, how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying Lord they have killed thy Prophets, and digged down thy Altars, And I am left alone, and they seek my life? But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal. And afterward applies, verse 5. Even so then at this present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And so falls into a digression concerning grace and works, verse 6. to the 11. 2. He speaks to the Gentiles, and to take down their insultation over the Jews, he shows that this rejection of theirs is not final. And this, as the former, is 1. Asserted, verse 11. I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? (viz. irrecoverably fall) God forbid. 2. Proved by giving account of a twofold end of this rejection of the Jews. 1. The call of the Gentile, verse 12. But rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 2. A more glorious return of the Jews, in emulation of the Gentiles, verse 12. Now if th● fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fullness? Hereupon he falls upon a large discourse of his zeal toward them, and their re-ingraffing, vers. 13. 14, 15. adding the words of the Text, If the first fruits be holy, the lump also is holy, and if the root be holy, so are the branches. This Para●us makes a farther Argument, for proof that the Jews shall again be called; Gomarus makes it an encouragement to the Apostle to endeavour their call, howsoever here is a double similitude, One drawn from the Ceremonial Law, If the first fruits be holy, the lump is also holy. The other from Nature, If the root be holy, so are the branches. The first is only mentioned, the second is largely commented upon. In both we see, 1. A supposition 2. An affirmation. The supposition is, of the holiness of the first fruits, the holiness of the root. The affirmation is, the whole lump is holy, the branches are holy. This last is grounded on a principle in nature universally true. As is the root, so is the branch, they are both of one and the same nature; As is the one, so is the other. Which he applies to the state of the Church of God; first to the Church of the Jews, and that 1. In their ancient estate, when they were a people of God, in Covenant-relation, holy, so styled of him frequently in Scripture. 2. In their present state, for a great part broken off, and so made no people▪ 3. In their future condition when they should be called of God, and as it were risen from the dead. Secondly, he applies it also to the Gentiles. 1. In their ancient estate, as no people. 2. In their present estate, made a people of God, in the place of the Jews. 3. In their possible estate, and condition, to be rejected and cast off▪ On which we may ground several undeniable Positions, some concerning the subject, [root and branch] some concerning the predicate [holy]. 
Positions premised for the right understanding. 1. Of the root and branch.   
First, concerning the subject root and branch, in this place (as by way of Metaphor) set out the estate of parent and child, ancestor and issue. 2. The whole body of the Church is compared to a tree, to an Olive tree. 3. The root of this tree (viz. the first supreme universal root) is Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Not Abraham alone, so Ishmaelites would be of the body. Nor Abraham with Isaac alone, so the Edomites from Esau would have been taken in▪ But the Apostle in this chapter (from Old Testament-authority) excludes both of them, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are therefore jointly the root. 4. The branches of this tree are of two sorts. ●ome natural, issuing from the root by descent; others ingraffed put in by way of insition. The ●ewes were natural branches, descending from the loins of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Gentiles are branches by insition put into the stock, the natural branches being broken off. 5. The fatness of this tree is the glory of Ordinances, of which the whole Church partakes, or as some say, Christ is the fatness, but that is only as he is tendered in Ordinances, for he walks in the midst of the Golden Candlesticks. In which sense only we may yield that Christ is that fatness.  
Secondly, 
2. Of the holiness here mentioned.  concerning the predicate, Holy. There is one and the same holiness goes through the whole tree, all the branches natural and engrafted through the whole Church, and all the children of it Jews and Gentiles; The whole of this holiness is from one Original root, and therefore one and the same. 2. This holiness is such as is communicable from parent to child, and necessarily communicated, as a root communicates sap to the branches. This is so plain, that if it be denied, all the Apostles dispute falls. 3. It is no holiness of inhesion, but relation, not qualitative, but federal. The holiness of the Jews who were a holy Nation was such; The holiness of the Gentiles can be no other. Holiness of inhesion is not communicable, but only holiness of relation. In holiness of inhesion the proposition holds not▪ as, is the father, so, is the child, who knows not that holy fathers have unholy children? regenerate parents have issue unregenerate.  
These things considered, it is evident, that, as the father is in regard of Church-state, covenant-holiness, so is the child, both in the Church of the Jews and Gentiles: The father being without, the child is without; the father being within, the child is within, eo nomine, because a branch of such a root, a child of such a father, which is a full confirmation of the point in hand, that the child is in Covenant with the father, and the person that actually enters Covenant, is not solely vested in it. One stands upon the contrary part, and puts it to this issue for trial, Whether this engraffing be into the visible Church by profession of Faith, or into the invisible by Election and Faith; and concludes, that it is meant of the Church invisible; which if he can make good, I shall confess all Arguments drawn from hence (as to this point) are lost; I would (to avoid impertinent cavils, and quarrels) each Text were brought to such issue. I shall in the first place bring arguments to evince that the breaking off, and engraffing, is respective to the Church, as visible, and then proceed to answer arguments from a late hand against it.  
1. That engraffing which is into Abraham, 
Arguments evincing the engraffing to be into the Church only as visible, and the breaking oft to be from the Church as visible.  Isa●● and Jacob as a root is not an invisible graffing by saving Faith and Election▪ This is plain, we live not by power received from Abraham, Abraham cannot say he bears us up, in saving graces, and that without sap from him, we can do nothing, But the engraffing is into Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as a root. This argument as is said by one, were of force if Abraham were made a root by communication, and for prevention he is put to it to tell us of a root communicating nothing, but an exemplary root, or an exemplary cause of believing only; what an exemplary noncommunicating root is or means, let the Reader Consider.  
Secondly, that engraffing which caused disputation and contention in some, emulation in others upon the sight and report of it, was not by saving faith only into the invisible body, but open, visible, and apparent into the visible body; But this engraffing of the Gentiles into the Church of God, caused disputation and contention in some, Acts 11. 2, 3. emulation in others, Deut. 32▪ 21. Rome 10. 19 Rom. 11. 14. this therefore was into the Church visible.  
Thirdly, That privilege which is not restrained to some few invisible Churches, but is the privilege of all that are contained in it, and members of it, is not an invisible work upon the heart to a saving change, but only an interest in visible privileges. This is evident, the invisible work is not in all, Matth. 2●. 14. But this, here mentioned is the privilege of the whole body, as is clear in the Text, and adversaries are constrained to acknowledge; Therefore the engraffing is only into the visible body. That privilege wherein the Jews while they were a people of God did transcend the Gentiles when they were no people, is the privilege which these Gentiles have by their engraffing, this is plain, verse 17▪ But it is the privilege of Ordinances in being visibly related thus to God wherein Jews did then exceed Gentiles, as hath been largely shown.  
Fourthly, that Faith from which the Jews actually fell▪ and the Gentiles stood in danger to fall from, is not a saving justifying Faith, entituling to invisible privileges, but a Faith of profession only giving a visible title. This is plain, unless we will maintain Bertius his Hymenem desertur, and assert the Apostasy of the Saints. But this Faith whereby the Gentiles are ingraffed, is a Faith from which the Jews fell, and from which they were in danger to fall, v. 20.  
Fifthly, that reconciliation or engraffing, which is opposite to casting out of a visible Church-state, is an engraffing into the Church visible; But this reconciliation or engraffing is opposite to the casting out of a Church state: This is plain, Matth. 21. 43. It is a casting out of them that bore not fruit, and not a casting off invisible branches.  
Sixthly, If the state of the Jews continued from the Apostles time to this day, be an exclusion from a visible Church-state, so that they are no people of God in name, than a visible Church-state is that which they lost and the Gentiles gained; This is plain. The state in which they stand being rejected, is their state of rejection; But their condition since that time, is an exclusion out of a visible Church state. This needs no proof: Therefore a visible Church state is that which the Jews lost, and these gained. I wish that these arguments to which many more might be added, may be taken into consideration, and for a close of all, seeing it is peremptorily asserted that it is manifestly false, that the Christian Gentiles were graffed into the same visible Church with the Jews, for than they should have been Circumcised contrary to the determination, Acts 15. and that God hath quite taken away the visible Church of the Jews, or to that purpose. This Error begetting many others, I wish that it may be a little better thought upon, whether it be the language of the Scriptures. I have learned, that as we and they, have one and the same God; one and the same Faith; that is, the doctrine of Faith, one and the same Covenant, eat of one and the same spiritual meat, and drink of the same spiritual drink, one and the same expected heaven; so, we are one and the same Church Let us to that end further observe the manifold Metaphors by which the Church, ours, and theirs, is set forth, all of them holding forth this Oneness.  
First, That of a Tent which is the habitation of sojourners, Gen. 9 27. God shall enlarge Japhet, and he shall dwell in the Tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. Shems' Tents must be possessed by Japhet, and not others built for their habitation, The Tents of Shem, that is, his posterity by Abraham (which Japhet, that is, the Gentiles by a special blessing did possess) is the Church visible, as needs no proof; Shems Tents, and Japhets Tents are one, and the same, Japhet comes to Shems, not Shem to Japhets.  
Secondly, That of a Sheep-fold, John 10. 16. Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd, The Sheep that in present were in the fold, viz. Jews, and those not yet taken in, viz. Gentiles, all make up one and the same fold; which though some may limit to the Church invisible, because Christ gives notes of those that are indeed his sheep. but that is no argument at all; Christ speaks to those that were disciples only according to profession, and gives notes, of disciples indeed; and it is against all reason that Christ should in discourse point out the invisible Church with the demonstrative This, and that to those that were malignant enough in the Church visible, namely the Pharisees, as appears in the close of the former Chapter▪ And the mention of thiefs creeping into it, hirelings employed in it doth contradict it. The visible Church of the Jews and Gen tiles, in which Christ hath true sheep for whom he dies, and others that thieves and hirelings do deceive, makes up one sheepfold.  
Thirdly, By a natural body, 1 Cor. 12. 13. Man's body most aptly to this purpose, that one new man, Eph. 2. 15. is the visibly body compact of both Jew and Gentile.  
Fourthly, to add no more, that of a Kingdom, Mat. 8. 11. Many shall come from the East and West, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven. The same Kingdom that Jews leave, Gentiles enter, Matth. 21. 41, 43. The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a Nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. That can be no more than the presence of God in Gospel-Ordinances, which is without fruit among Jews (all invisible Members bring forth fruit) and upon that accout is given to the Gentiles; Neither is it of force that which is said against it, Then we must be circumcised. As though we may not be in the same Kingdom, and yet under a new way of Administration, Lawgivers on earth, are sometimes pleased to change their Laws; and so doth the Lawgiver of Heaven; or if he will limit his instance to Circumcision, taking in no other Laws, the same house may have a new door or porch; let our opposites then know that they are in the same visible Kingdom, as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their posterity after the flesh in Israel were, and I wish that they may take heed of making divisions in it or separations from it.    

CHAP. L.  
Arguments from a late hand for engraffing into the Church invisible, and breaking off from it, answered.  

Argument. 1.  
FIrst, That engraffing which is God's act by his sole power, is into the invisible Church by Election and giving Faith. For graffing into the visible Church, is admission into visible Membership, which if it be by an outward Ordinance, is the easy act of the Administrator; if by profession of Faith, the easy act of the Professor. But the engraffing meant, ●om. 11. is Gods act from his sole power, as is proved from verse 23. where the reason is rendered why the Jews should be again graffed in, is because God is able to graft them in again, Ergo the graffing here is into the visible Church.  
Answ. This engraffing is by a power of God, working the heart to a professed subjection to the way of God in Ordinances tendered, and assent of heart unto all that is there promised; that power that brought Japhet into the tents of Shem, Gen. 9▪ 27. That hand of the Lord that was with those that preached the word, Act. 11. 21. so that a great number believed and turned to to the Lord, must bring the Jews back into their former Church-condition. How easy soever you take this work to be, to bring a people who are strangers to God into a Church-state; yet our Brethren in New England have not found it a-work so easy to bring the Natives there into a Church-condition; nor is it so easy a business to bring in the Jews to this posture of a visible Church-state. Have so many prayers been▪ laid out for this work, and it is yet not done? when it is a matter of such ●ase with man, and no need of the power of God for the doing of it.  
We understand a discipling of Gentile-Nations, and acknowledge it a work, above the power of man, and confess it solely to be in the hand of God. We do not speak of the bare admission of men that stand entitled, but the working of them to such a title, and if an outward profession ●e in the power of man's will, yet to bring men, or Nations to such a profession, cordially to embrace the Gospel; so far as to assent to the truth of it▪ i● above man, and a work of no such ●ase.   

Argument. 2.  
Secondly, That engraffing which is called reconciliation, opposite to casting away, that is by Election and giving Faith▪ for 〈…〉 acts can reconcile; But the engraffing here is called reconciliation▪ opposite to casting away, verse 15. as may appear in that, verse 16. is a reason of the clause about the reception of the Jews, vers. 15. and the 17. verse▪ is an admonition from the suspicion, verse▪ 15. that the Jews were cast away, which is called breaking off, v. 17. Now if breaking off▪ verse▪ 17. ●e the same with casting away, verse▪ 15. then engraffing is the same with reconciliation; Ergo engraffing is by Election and giving of Faith.  
Answ. Reconciliation is either gradual, or total, Either to take in, or hold a people in visible communion, or else to receive them with an everlasting delight in them. The former of these Moses obtained for the people of Israel, when the Lord upon the sin of the golden Calf, said; Let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, Exod 32. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. This being premised, if any were at fault for a full answer, he might easily find it in the objection itself. Reconciliation is opposite to casting away. The Jews then by reconciliation are brought into that state, out of which they were once cast; But they were not cast out of the Church invisible; not out of Election and justification, but out of a visible Church-state and fellowship. Breaking off, is rightly said to be the same as casting away, and reconciliation the same, as engraffing. Their reconciliation, or engraffing is, then, into that condition, from which they were broken out of which they were cast: Now they were cast out of the Church visible, not out of the Church invisible, Their reconciliation brings them into the same Church state, which is a reconciliation gradual, not total.  
It is here said, When any shall show either a Scripture, wherein by reconciliation to God, is meant bare vouchsafing a visible Church-state; and by casting away, and breaking off, a l●sse of visible privileges, or any approved Writer in the Churches of the Protestants so expounding it, I shall begin to suspect that I am mistaken, but till then, I shall remain confident I am in the right, and shall wonder that any that love● not to wrangle, but fears to pervert the Scripture and the truth of God, should dare so to interpret it. Here I may have many things to say.  
1. When this Author pleases he can heap up phrases which are only once used in a select sense in Scripture, and that to uphold this interpretation of holy and unclean, 2 Cor. 7. 14. when the context clearly evinces the contrary.  
2. When he pleases, he dare undertake the defence of an opinion held unanimously by all Papists, and as unanimously opposed by Protestants, as in that of covenant-holiness.  
3. Gomarus, Tom. 1. p. 111. observes, that World is taken in that sense in Rom. 11. 12, 15. as in no other Scripture.  
4. If reconciliation in no other place be so used, yet little is gained; seeing as we have seen, there are parallel phrases that hold out the same thing to us.  
5. I shall gratify him with an Author, an approved Writer in the Protestant Church, that so interprets this text in hand, that by reconciliation to God is meant no more than vouchsafing a visible Church-state. It is Ravanellus who having in his laborious work, Thesaurus Scripturae distinguished of a 
* Reconciliatio est duplex 1. Hominis cum Deo. 2. Hominis cum proximo. Reconciliatio hominis cum Deo, quâ amicit●a, quae in prima creatione hominis cum▪ Deo Creatore intercesserat, & propter hominis off●nsam in Deum soluta fuerit adeò ut inimicitiae secutae essent, redintegratur per mediat●rem. De qua quidem reconciliatione notanda veniunt▪ 1. Nomen. Reconciliatio hominis cum Deo sumitur vel propriè in significatione praedicta; vel minus propriè, ut Rom. 11. 1. (Prov. 15. errors typographi) ubi per reconciliationem m●ndi cum Deo intelligitur Gentium ad fi●em Christi conversio, seu ipsar●●● v●catio ad participationem gratiae Dei, quae etiam salu● Gentium, ver. 11. & opulentia mundi, ver. 12. dicitur.  twofold reconciliation. 1. Of man with God. 2. Of man with his neighbour. And defining reconciliation according to our Authors sense of it, he goes on and saith; Where we are to consider. First, the name which (saith he) is taken either properly in the sense already spoken to, or less properly, Rom. 11. 15. Where by reconciliation of the world to God, is understood the conversion of the Gentiles to the faith of Christ, or they are call to the participation of the favour of God, which also is called the salvation of the Gentiles, verse 11. and the riches of the world, verse 12. Here he may see [Faith] taken for a bare dogmatical Faith reaching a visible Church-state and not justifying; [Reconciliation to God] taken for the grace and favour of Church-priviledges, And the [salvation of the Gentiles] and [riches of the world] interpreted to signify the same thing. These phrases are Synonimons, and they signify a reconciliation not properly so called; but such a one that is opposed to the Reconciliation for which he contends. And for the other phrase, that by casting away, and breaking off, is meant a loss of visible privileges, let him consult the last Annotations to those words, verse 22. Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off, which they interpret, as an unfruitful branch, adding this caution, as though they had foreseen this Gloss, But here it is to be noted, that this passage ought to be understood of the outward incorporation into the Church by profession, whereof many hypocrites do partake, and not of the inward and efficacious engraffing into the mystical body of Christ by a lively Faith, and the communion of the Spirit according to the election of God, which is ever accompanied with perseverance. Doctor Featly in his Pelagius redivivus hath these words which being so pertinent, I shall transcribe, Second parallel, p. 38. To the place alleged, Rom. 11. 19, 20. We Answer (saith he)▪  
First, that it is not meant of particular Believers, and their danger of falling away from justifying Faith; but of the people of the Gentiles in general, and their danger of being cut off from the true Olive into which they were ingraffed, that is, from the outward profession of Faith, and communion of the Catholic Church into which they were admitted upon the rejection of the Jews. The Gentiles therefore ought not to be highminded against the Jews, but fear; lest God who spared not the natural branches, should not spare them but cut them off also as he did the natural branches, if they should grow proud, and presumptuously secure. Now there is no question but that a visible Church, which at this time professeth the truth, and is a Member of the Catholic Church, may fall away from the outward and public profession of faith, and cease to be a part of the Catholic visible Church, as the most famous and sometimes flourishing Church in Greece, and Asia, planted by the Apostles themselves; (now overrun with Mahometanisme, Idolatry, and Heresy) prove by their lamentable Apostasy, deplorable, if not desperate estate. But Bertius, and the Appealer should have their eyes upon the mark, and point in question, which is not in the doctrine of Faith, but of the habit of faith; not the fide quam credimus, but de fide quâ credimus, not of the public profession of a Church, but of a particular affiance of every true believer in Christ. A Member of the visible Church may be cut off, but no Member of the invisible, for Christ cannot have damn●ta membra, any Members who shall not be saved, as the approver of the Appealers' book, rightly gathereth out of Saint Austin in his reply to Fisher. A Church or Kingdom generally may depart from the Christian Faith, or renounce the pure profession thereof in public, and yet no true Believer either totally or finally lose his Faith; but either secretly in that state or Kingdom, or elsewhere openly he may retain both Faith itself and the profession thereof. So Peter Martyr Loc. Com. pag. 491. speaking to those words, Be not highminded, but fear. Neither (saith he) is there here speech concerning particular men, but of the whole company and body of believers, deservedly therefore the Apostle doth warn them, Be not high minded, but fear. For as the Church of the Jews hath ceased to be, and also Africa, Gr●cia, and Asia▪ have lost many Churches; so it is to be feared, lest the same may now happen to Churches which seem to stand, let them not therefore lift up themselves. 〈◊〉 ●n the words, Thou standest by faith, saith, He speaks of the generality of Jews and Gentiles, and upon these words; Be not highminded, but fear, saith, He speaks to the Gentiles in general, from many of whom (as is to be bewailed) the Kingdom of God is taken away, as at first from the Jews, as Persians, Arabians, Syrians, Egyptians, Asians, and many others; so that this Author hath lost not only this Argument, but this whole Text; For if Reconciliation, World, Riches, be thus understood, and cutting off in like manner▪ then he sees this Chapter in the whole against him, and in no part for him. And if any Writer against Arminians understand by the World, Rom. 11. 15. only the Elect, (unless they mean an Election into a Church-state) they do but give advantage to them; there is not meant universally, the whole world, that is too large, not yet they, that shall be eternally saved out of the world, that is too strict; but the men whom God persuades of Japhet to dwell in the Tents of Shem, all Nations dispersed through the world, at the last Annotations on verse 12.   

Argument 3.  
Thirdly, The engraffing must be meant of that act whereby the branch stands in the tree, as a branch; this will none deny, it being the very terminus of engraffing, as heat, the terminus of calefaction, but that is by giving Faith, Ergo. The minor is proved from verse 20. where it is said, By unbelief they were broken off; but thou standest by faith; whence I argue, That act whereby the branch stands in the tree as a branch, must be the giving that means whereby the branch thus stands: But that is Faith, v. 20. Ergo the act of engraffing is by giving Faith.  
Answ. Here I shall willingly grant the conclusion, and do affirm that it is by Faith, that grown persons, whether Jews or Gentiles do stand in a visible Church-fellowship; such a faith upon which all called ones, (among which few are Elect) are admitted. Such a faith that gave Simon Magus title, that Hymeneus had, of which he made shipwreck, 1 Tim. 1. 19 Doctor Featley in the words above mentioned, showing Bertius and the Appealer their fallacy; shows this objector his. The Apostle speaks of the Doctrine of Faith, this objector of the habit. The Apostle speaks de fide quam credimus, this objector speaks de fide qua credimus. The Apostle speaks of the public profession of a Church, He of a particular affiance of every Believer in Christ. He adds, This conceit I conceived, and still think is so far from the Apostles expressions, that there seems to be no show of such a sense in the words; giving in his reason, For there is not a word of taking into the Olive, but by Faith, verse 19, 20. There is indeed here no show of reason unless it can be affirmed, that there is no faith, but the Faith of the Elect, and that which is justifying; therefore if it please the Author, I shall enter the lists with him in these three Positions.  
1. That Faith is taken in more acceptions than one in Scripture; All Faith doth not entitle to the Church invisible, and therefore there is scarce show of sense in his reason, disputing from the Genus to the Species affirmatiuè, or from the Analogum to the Analogatum.  
2. That the Faith here spoken to, is (as Doctor Featly asserts) the doctrine of Faith, not the habit; Faith of Profession, and not a particular affiance; fides quam, and not fides qua credimus, and so the fallacy is clear; and it will no more follow that the engraffing is into the Church invisible, because it is by faith; than it will follow that because bruits have souls that therefore they have reasonable souls.  
3. That there is no such thing in all Scripture as engraffing into the Church invisible by Faith; All engraffing is into the body visible, and therefore by a faith of profession. (1.) All engraffing is into that subject, which immediately receives what is ingraffed, as the stock receives the scion; but it is Christ, and not the Church invisible that receives the Elect Believer; Christ dwells in us by Faith, so we in Christ, Ephes. 3. 17. (2.) All engraffing is into that which gives sap and juice to the ingraffed, as the stock from the root to the scion; Now Christ gives sap to the Elect believing, not the Church, and therefore it is not into the Church, but into Christ. (3.) If saving faith engraff the branch into the Church invisible, than the Church invisible is the proper object of such Faith; but the Church is no such object of Faith but Christ. (4.) That supposed engraffing into the invisible Church, is either known to the body invisible, or unwitting; if know, than it is no invisible. They have no light to discern an invisible work; if unknown, then there could not be such a dispute about the new▪ engraffing of Gentiles, nor complaint of breaking off of the Jews, all being done by an invisible translation, and so the subject of the question is taken away. To dispute whether engraffing into the Church, be into the Church-visible, or invisible; is to dispute whether the Mount of Olives be a Mountain of Earth, or Aire. I shall assoon find a Mountain of Air in Geography, as this engraffing into the invisible Church in Divinity: And here I tie not any up to the word (which I conceive in reference to any Ecclesiastical or Spiritual station, is not elsewhere used in Scripture) but to the thing. All that access to the Church from Gentile Nations, which is so large fore-prophesied in the Old Testament, and Historically related in the Acts of the Apostles, was an engraffing into the Church visible, and this engraffing here mentioned. The visible Church did immediately receive these new branches, and so the whole body of Jews and Gentiles professedly believing, Ephes. 2. 15. became one new man. The visible Church communicates sap and juice (which is the fatness of the Olive) in Ordinances. This is known by the Church visible, they were sensible of, and full of praises, for the new addition to this number.   

Argument. 4.  
Fourthly, That engraffing is meant, verse 17. whereby the wild Olive is co-partaker of the root and fatness of the Olive-tree, as is asserted there. But such is only Election and giving of Faith. Ergo. The minor I prove by considering who the root is, and what the fatness of the Olive-tree is. 1. Negatively the root is not, every believing parent.  
Answ. I suppose I may answer for myself, that I never said that every believing parent is the root; I willingly yield that every believing parent is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the root, but I affirm that every believing parent is a root, I cannot reach this mystery, that Abraham can be a root of all the branches in Israel, reaching down to the Apostles times, no intermediate roots intervening, no more than Adam can be a natural root of mankind to this time, without intermediate fathers of our flesh, deriving us from him, as Jacob with Rachel and Leah was a root from whom Israel sprang as branches of an Olive; so Judah and Tamar, Boaz, and Ruth were roots likewise: They built up the house of Israel, Ruth. 4. 11, 12. The house of Israel was this Olive-tree, these several Metaphors expressing the same thing, the building of the house, and bringing out the branches are one and the same. All builders are roots; these are builders therefore roots; Abraham may be called the builder laying the first foundation, so the root from whence every branch was derived; yet every particular Believer that had issue, a builder, a root. Those Israelites that had no holiness of inhesion, but only of relation that were members of the Church visible, not invisible, were fathers by way of communication of this holiness, 1 Cor. 10. 1. All our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. It is as necessary to have intermediate fathers between us and Abraham, as to have intermediate mothers between us and Eue. Eve may as well be the mother of all living, and no other mother between us and her, as Abraham can be the father of the Faithful, and no intermediate father to derive from him, and communicate to us. But his proof is very well worth the hearing, that every believing parent is not the root. For then all the branches should be natural; the child of every believing Parent is a natural branch from his father. But here Apostle makes the Gentiles branches, and a wild Olive graffed in besides nature, and the Jews only natural branches growing from the root, verse 21, 24. The Apostle makes them wild only at their first engraffing, and so was all Terahs' race wild likewise, till that change of Faith wrought in Abraham's call, and the covenant of God entered with him; We now are natural as they were, and cannot be called wild, but in our first Original. Positively, (he says) the root is no other than Abraham, that Abraham only is a holy root, or at most Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If this have any face of Argument, it runs thus. If Abraham be the root, and not every believing Parent, than the engraffing is by Election, and Faith that justifies. The truth is, the sequel is undeniable on the contrary; If Abraham be the root, than the engraffing is not into the invisible Church, (which he strangely calls by Election) but only into the visible. This Master Blakwood saw, and fain would have maintained that Christ is the root; for engraffing into Christ, and not into Abraham, makes a member of the Church invisible. If the engraffing be by a saving Faith only, to derive saving Graces personally inherent, as a fruit of Election from Abraham, than it must needs be that we are Elect in Abraham. Abraham may say, Without me ye can do nothing, and he that believeth in me, out of his belly shall flow forth rivers of living water; and we may say, The life that we live in the flesh we live by faith in the son of Terah. This must necessarily follow, if Abraham be the root, not only respective to a conditional Covenant, but to the grace under condition covenanted; It had been more safe for our Author with Master Blackwood (though in contradiction to himself) to have made Christ the root; when these consequences must follow; To which he answers,  
If I made Abraham a root as communicating Faith by infusion; or impetration mediatory as Christ, this would follow; But I make Abraham a root, as he is called the father of all them that believe, Rom. 4. 11. Not by begetting Faith in them, but as an exemplary cause of believing as I gather from the expression, verse 12. That he is a father to them that walk in the steps of our father Abraham, which he had yet being uncircumcised, A root not by communication, but example, an engraffing, not to have any thing communicated from the root, but to imitate it, is such a Catacresis as may well make all Rhetoric ashamed of it; and if the Sun ever saw a more notable piece of nonsense, I am to seek what sense is. A root is too low in the earth, to have its examples followed, and scions suck in juice, but know not how to imitate. And what kind of root soever any can make it; the root mentioned by the Apostle in that Chapter, is a root by communication, verse. 17. If some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild Olive-tree wert graffed amongst them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the Olive-tree. The root here communicates fatness to the branches, and the branches receive from the root. It is then a communicative root, and doth communicate that which makes the branch one with it. Abraham is indeed called a father, as well as he is called a root, but these two are not full Synonima's, though in the main they agree, both Metaphors aptly setting forth, what the branches, as from a root, the children, as from a father, receive, namely their title to the Covenant from him; and therefore, as to Abraham, so, to all Israel appertained the Covenants and the Adoption, Rom. 9 4, 5. And so to all those that are become children and branches with them. The title father is yet extended to a greater latitude, as he doth impart to his issue, (as before) so he is a pattern and example, as even natural parents are likewise, according as Rom. 4. 12. it is set forth.   

Argument 5.  
Fifthly, From verse 25. If the breaking off the Jews be by blinding; then the engraffing is by giving Faith, but the former is true, ver. 25. Ergo the latter.  
Answ. Here as in the third Argument, I grant the conclusion, and return the same answer. Jewish blindness keeps them out of a Church-state, and so from all Faith in the Covenant; and when the veil shall be taken away, they shall be reinvested in a Church-state and Covenant-condition. For proof there is added, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blinding or hardening is, verse 7. opposed to that state which the Election obtained, by which, ver. 8. they had a spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, ears that they should not hear, verse 10. Whereby their eyes were darkened that they might not see, from which Anti-Arminians gather absolute reprobation, Ames animad. in Remon. Script. Synod. Art. 1. Cap. 16. Hoc ipsum ad reprobationem spectare Apostolus Paulus clarè ostendit, Rom. 11. 17. Now according to the rule of opposites, Oppositorum opposita sunt attributa; If the blinding be the effect of reprobation, and the breaking off be by blinding, than the engraffing is by enlightening, and that enlightening is according to Election, and so is all one with giving of Faith.  
The proposition being; If the blinding be the effect of reprobation, and the breaking off is by blinding, than the engraffing is by enlightening, and that according to Election, than the assumption can be no other, but that blindness is the effect of reprobation, and the breaking off is by blinding. No one of the Contra-Remonstrants worthy the name of an adversary of Arminians, hath taught this doctrine: It that which their adversaries indeed charge upon them, but that which they unanimously do disclaim. I have heard that reprobation is the antecedent of sin, but never that it was the cause; and that sin is a consequent of it, but never an effect. Reprobation is the Act of God, and in case it be the cause of blindness, than God is the cause of blindness; so that the Contra-remonstrants have got a sweet Advocate to cast that upon them, that none of their adversaries (though they have turned every stone to do it) could never prove by them. And the other member, that casting away way is by blinding, is little better. The Apostle speaks in another manner; Blindness was their guilt, and casting off was their just sentence; Because of unbelief they were broken off, verse 20. upon this account God God did not spare them, as it follows in the next verse. The work, and the wages, the guilt, and the punishment are not one: Unbelief and breaking off, are the work and the wages, the guilt and the punishment: Breaking off then, as not blinding. The Apostle lays all at man's door, makes his blindness the moving cause, according to that of the Prophet; Thy destruction is of thyself, and God only the severe, but just Judge. Our Author lays all upon God, God's reprobation causes blindness, and their breaking off is by blinding; here is no hand but Gods, in their destruction. And now the blasphemy of the consequence being denied, so that blindness is no effect of reprobation, breaking off being not by blinding; what becomes of the rule of opposites here produced? Election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation, do not per omnia quadrare, otherwise as Election leads to salvation without any merit of works, so Reprobation should lead to destruction without any merit of sin, which Contra-remonstrants unanimously deny, though we find it here affirmed. It is further said, that from verse 8. 10. of this Chapter. Anti-Arminians gather absolute Reprobation, and then explaining what this absolute Reprobation is, in the words spoken to. But though much be spoke of the irrespective decree both between us and Arminians, and also among ourselves: yet I would fain learn what one Anti-Arminian ever made Reprobation absolute in this sense; Amesius is quoted, but the word [absolute] is not found in him; And Gomarus, a man for the irrespective decree as much as any (and upon that account entered his dissent in the Synod of Dort, where respective to reprobation that was denied, and Sublapsarian opinion established) yet he peremptorily denies any reprobation absolute in this sense; 
a Neque Deus quenquam ad exitium absolutè ac nudè fine subordinatis mediis, sed ad exitium justum hoc est, per & propter peccata judicio justo inferendum destinavit.  Neither doth God (saith he) absolutely and barely destinate any man to destruction, without subordinate means; but he destinates him to just destruction, that is by, and for, sin justly to be executed. Analysis Epist. ad Rom. cap. 9 p. 60. Neither will he have this decree to effect the sin; that is a just Medium of destruction. In the same page he saith; 
b Deus non decrevi● peccata efficere, sed permittere, seu non impedire, & regere ad gloriam suam. Nec ●nim quicquid Deus decrevit illud etiam efficit, sed quae decrevit effice●e, eorum est Author, ut omnia bona quae fiunt: quae autem decrevit non impedire increaturis mala seu peccata, ea non efficit; quia efficere non decrevit, sed permittit & regit tantùm & justè tandem punit convenienter decreto.  God doth not decree to effect sin, but to suffer; or not to hinder, and to govern for his glory; Neither doth God effect all that he doth decree, but those things which he decreed to effect, of those he is the Author, us all the good that is done: But the evil which he decreed not to hinder in his creature, that he doth not effect, because he did not decree to effect them; but only permits, and governs them; and at last justly, according to his decree, punishes them. And Doctor Prideaux, Lect. 1. de absoluto decreto. 
c Non paucos dissolvit nodos, distinctio illa necessaria inter effectum & consequens quam minùs intelligentes aliqui, vel insuper ●abeutes ad incitas frequenter ab adversariis adiguntur. Induratio aquae (ut instem cum Augustino) consequens est, non effectus: Ruina Demûs alicujus ex se labilis necessari● sequitur defectum fulturae quam supeditare potuit Dominus si libuerit, sed nec vult, nec tenetur. Ha●d aliter reprobationem sequitur peccatum, non ut causam efficientem, sed deficientem, non quâ removetur quod adest▪ sed non admovetur quod sustentaret.  That necessary distinction between the effect and consequent (viz. of reprobation) lo●ses not a few knots; which many understanding, or not duly heeding, are brought into fraits by their adversaries. The condensation of water (that I may use Augustine's instance) is a consequent of the absence of the Sun, not an effect. The ruin of a house, of itself tending to decay, necessarily follows upon the want of repair, which the Master might do in case he pleased, but, will not, neither is he bound. Sin no otherwise follows upon reprobation; not as a cause efficient, but deficient, not whereby any thing is removed that is present, but that is not supplied which is wanting. And Master Ball in his larger Catechism, p. 57 Sin is the effect of man's free will, and condemnation is an effect of justice inflicted upon man for sin and disobedience; But the decree of God which is good, is the cause of neither. The signs of Reprobation may appear in those that are thus dischurched, according to that which is quoted out of Ames, but not as an effect of it. The severity which God showeth in not sparing, but breaking off these natural Branches, is explicitly no more than that which Jesus Christ did threaten against them, Mat. 21. 43. That the Kingdom of Heaven should be taken from them, and given to a Nation bringing forth the fruits thereof; the same which he threatens against Ephesus, Rev. 2. 5. in taking away their Candlestick, which is the effect of their own sin, and not of God's decree.   

Argument. 1.  
Sixthly, If re-ingraffing of the Jews produceth salvation, is by turning them from iniquity, taking away their sins according to God's Covenant, than it is into the invisible Church by giving faith: But the former is true, v. 25. Ergo the latter.  
Answ. This Argument well husbanded, might have made three. To the first ● say, that privileges enjoyed in a Church-state, in Scripture-phrase are the salvation, John 4. 22. Seeing Church-members are partakers of saving Ordinances, And the fruition of Ordinances under Gospel-dispensations is a great salvation, Heb. 2. 3. And so that Text, Rom. 11. 26. all Israel shall be saved, must be understood, as the last Annotation speaks. The body of this people in general shall be brought again into a way of salvation, and re-istablisht into the Church of the whole Israel of God, consisting of Jew's and Gentiles. And so Diodate; That is, the body in general shall be put again into a way of salvation, and reestablished into the Communion of the Church. And such men brought into a Church-state are turned from iniquity partially, from their former way of iniquity, their contradicting and blaspheming; having escaped the pollution of the world, 2 Pet. 2. 16. of the world that remains out of the Church of God. Their sin is pardoned quoad hoc, and when Moses prayed for the pardon of the sin of Israel, Exod. 32. and God pro●miseth it, 2 Chron. 7. 14. it is so to be understood of a National dardon.   

Argument 7.  
Seventhly, If the re-ingraffing be by virtue of God's Election and love, his gifts of calling, than it is into the invisible Church by Election, and giving Faith: But the former is true, v. 28, 29. Ergo the latter.  
Answ. His Election, love, and gifts of calling did at the first put them into a visible Church-state and condition, Deut. 7. 7, 8. The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you because you were more in number then any people: for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the Oath which he had sworn unto your Fathers, etc. And the same love, election and gifts of calling, now they are broken off, doth re-ingraffte them; If this Argument hold, it was an invisible Church that was brought out of the land of Egypt.  
Here our Author says with much confidence that he questions not, but all Anti-Arminians that understand the controversy, will disclaim Master Geree in this answer, and acknowledge that the election, love, gifts, and calling meant, Rom. 11. 28, 29. are by faith into salvation. But he is much deceived, Those before mentioned understood somewhate, and Diodate in his Annotations hath these words, God never recals his grace, which by absolute decree he will communicate to some person or Nation, to call them to him, and to have right to his Covenant; Now the election of this people hath been such above all others in the world, who being once called, have and may fall totally and irreparably, which this people cannot, without repentance, that is to say, irrevocable, of which God never reputes. 
a Tenendum est non de privata cujusque electione nunc tractari, sed de communi adoptione totius gentis quae in externa specie collapsa videri potui, ad tempus.  Calvin on the words saith, This is to be held, that private Election is not here handled, but the common adoption of the Nation, which in outward appearance seemed for the time to be lost, but not cut off from the root. And presently after, 
b Contendit Paulus firmum & immutabile stare Dei consilium, quo semel sibi illos in gentem peculiarem eligere dignatus est.  The Apostle argues that the counsel of God, whereby he once chose to himself that Nation in peculiar, remaineth firm. And Paraeus in dubio decimo nono on this chapter understands it of the 
c Argumentum Apostoli ad probandam constantiam dilectionis Dei erga suam gentem.  constancy of the love of God towards his own Nation. And most fully in dubio vicesimo, where urging Stapletons' objection 
d 
Videtur ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 donorum & vocationis Dei, non sequi illa quam nos statumus gratiae, & salutis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. Quia fatcute Calvino & martyr dictum Apostoli, non de singulari cujusque electione, sed de totius gentis Judaicae communi adoptione accipiendum sit. Atqui hac communis adoptio & vocatio gentis fuit mutabilis, quoniam gens Judaica donis & vocatione ill● excidit.  
Ad corruptelas Stapletoni facilè respondetur.  
1. Non negatur, de communi gentis Judaicae, ●oc est, foederali dignitate propri● loqui, & hanc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Deo pronun●iare Apostolum, sed negatur hinc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 singulorum non confici, Imò a minori ad majus firmissimè concluditur. Si enim de gratia communi & quidem aliena, Apostolus rectè pronunciat esse Deo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quanto magis de gratia propria fideles idem statuere debent.  , That it seems from this irrevocablenesse of the gifts and calling of God, the assurance of grace and salvation cannot follow. 1. Because, as Stapleton objects, and Calvin and Martyr confess, the speech of the Apostle is not to be understood of the election of each particular person, but of the common adoption of the whole Nation, and this common grace of adoption of the whole Nation was mutual, for they fell from this gift. To which Paraeus says, Stapleton's corrupt gloss, is easily answered. 1. Saith he, It is not denied, that the Apostle spoke this of the Common, that is, the federal dignity of the Nation of the Jews, and that the irrevocablenesse in God, is to be understood; yet it is denied (saith he) that from hence the assurance of particular persons is not concluded, yea from the less to the greater it is firmly concluded. For if the Apostle from common grace do rightly conclude this irrevocablenesse in God, much more may it be determined from that grace which is proper. Ravanellus in verbum Electio, understands Election in v. 28. of common Election, as he do also in 1. Pet. 2. 9 Amesius▪ is urged as an adversary yet appears otherwise. The Remonstrants giving two answers to this Scripture. The second is the selfsame in 〈◊〉 with stapleton's. To which Amesius replies Coron. page 233, 234. 
f Sic illis jam solenne est, partem unam veritatis assumere, câque abuti ad alteram vel evertendam, vel dimovendam.  This is their custom, to take one part of a truth, and to abuse it for the overthrow or removal of another; So that it appears according to him, that they spoke truth in the denial of this to be meant of the unchangeable decree of eternal Election; but they abuse this truth in about to avoid the argument drawn from it, for perseverance. As Jesuits and Arminians do object it, so their adversaries freely confess it. I have indeed sometimes in my thoughts doubted, how fitly this Text was brought against Arminians for proof of perseverance and estament of assurance, yet satisfied myself according to what hath been said; but (since I had any understanding) never questioned but it was here applied (according to the mind of these Authors) to the National privilege of the Jews, the full scope of these Chapters being to dispute the rejection of Israel after the flesh, their former dignity, and consequently their future recovery unto the state from whence they were fallen, in which the Gentile-Nations by discipling do succeed: let us go no farther for determination of the question, than the preceding verse, As concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your sakes, but as touching the Election they are beloved for the Father's sake. Here is to be enquired. 1. Who were enemies concerning the Gospel. 2. Who the Fathers are, for whose sake they are beloved. 3. What this election is, and then we shall soon see who are beloved for the Father's sake. For the first, It is not the spiritual seed that were as concerning the Gospel enemies, that is the highest of contradictions; but, as Diodate says, the Jews who at present time were alienate from God by reason of rebellion against the Gospel, which only can unite souls to him. Enemies against the Gospel, are enemies against God, which cannot be understood of spiritual Israel. The fathers for whose sake they are beloved, are the ancient fathers, from whom after the flesh they did proceed, especially Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prepter patres, for the fathers; Then Election must needs be (as Paraeus upon the words, Diodate and Ravanellus in verbum Electio observe) understood of an external grace of the Covenant whereby God chose this Nation to himself, according to that of Moses, Deut. 7. 6. For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself above all people that are upon the face of the earth; unless we are elect in Abraham to salvation, and not in Christ. And Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are our Mediators reconciliation; and when the Apostle saith, We are accepted in the beloved, Ephes. 1. 6. it is to be understood of acceptation in Abraham; and we are to conclude our prayers not in and through Christ, but Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; we are not for their sakes beloved to salvation. 
g Per electionem intelligit Apostolus primo externam foederis gratiam, qui Deus hanc ge●tem sibi delegerit; deinde ipsam aeternae dilectionis gratiam, quam in ●ac gente quasi deposuerat Deus. N●m adoptando eos in foedus testatum fecit se ex ea gente plurimos habere, & semper habiturum esse electos ad s●lutem.  Paraeus indeed makes the grace of eternal Election to be secondarily here understood, which God (saith he) deposited in that Nation, for adopting them into Covenant; he makes it evident (saith he) that he hath many of that Nation, and ever shall have that are Elect unto salvation. But this is not the Election here mentioned, but only an adjunct of it; and now of itself it will follow that these beloved for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the children of their flesh, 
h Quia Deus patres dilexit, etiam ad filios dilectionem suam extendit: si enim inter homines amicitiae parentum merito transeunt ad liberos, Qui ni Devi idem facer●t?  Because (saith Paraeus) God loved the Fathers, the love extends itself to the children; for if among men friendship with parents be divolved to Children, why should it not be so with God likewise? I desire that it may be considered for whom Moses interceded, when he prayed, Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thy own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. Exod. 32. 13. Was it not the whole body of Israel? And for whom is it that God promises to remember his Covenant with Jacob, and also his Covenant with Isaac, and also his Covenant with Abraham, Levit. 26. 42. Was it not the whole Nation under suffering, as there is expressed, I will remember the land? Either then Paul and Moses err, together with the list of Authors here mentioned, or else, the love, election, calling, in this place is, into a Church state and condition.   

Argument. 8.  
Eighthly, If the engraffing both of Jews and Gentiles be the fruit of God's mercy, the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief, than the engraffing is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith: But the former is true, verse 30, 31, 32. Ergo the latter. Answ. The privilege of a Church-state, which the Jews once had; and again shall have, is a mercy, as may be seen, Hosea 1. 6, 9  
Our Author adds, What shall I say more? It is so plain from the whole scope, and tenor of the Apostles words, that the engraffing there spoken of is, into the invisible Church by election and giving faith, that from the first of the chapter, to verse 13. there is scarce a verse but speaks of rejecting, foreknowing, election, grace, hardening, giving a Spirit of slumber, darkening the eyes, stumbling, falling, or some equipollent term to these; and the Apostle doth plainly signify his intention in all that discourse, to be the showing the mystery of God's counsel in electing, reprobating, blinding, converting, one while the Jews, another while the Gentiles; so that I cannot but admire that Mr. Marshal should interpret the engraffing of bare admission into visible Church-membership.  
Answ. 1. I would willingly learn what engraffing by Election is, I take Election to be an immanent act in God, which is terminated in himself, and not on the creature; such expressions do not suit with so high pretendings to scholastical learning▪ as every where may be seen in this Author.  
2. I would have this Argument made up by taking in the assumption which can be no other than this. But the Jews in their fall from Church-fellowship cannot be said to be rejected, hardened, given to a spirit of slumber, or that their eyes are darkened, or that they have stumbled; neither Election or Grace should have any hand in their Church-fellowship. This must be the reasoning, if there be any show of reason in this heap of words, and then all may well admire, while he is in his admiration of others. I say no more, but that he is very weak both in Divinity and Logic, that cannot presently upon the first sight discover the weakness, and return a satisfying answer to this flourish of words.   

Argument 9  
Parallel places, as is said, must be understood of implanting into the invisible Church, as Ephes. 3. 6. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 14, 26, 28, 29.  
Answ. Master Hudson, page 132. hath not only affirmed, but proved that the Text, 1 Cor. 12. 13. is meant of the Church as visible, to whom I refer the Reader. He places his greatest confidence in the first as he professes, and thus enlarges upon it. Now sure the Gentiles were made fellow-heires of the same body, and co-partakers of the promise of God in the Gospel, not by an outward Ordinance, but by giving of faith according to Election; Ergo the engraffing, Rom. 11. 17. parallel to it is not by an outward Ordinance, but by giving Faith according to Election. To this I only say. O that this were truth: Then as the Apostle saith of Israel at their restauration, all Israel shall be saved, Rom. 11. 26. so we may say, all England in statu quo shall be saved in the sense that he would understand salvation. Whether we be by descent Britain's, Saxons, or Normans, we are gentiles and consequently by his Divinity partakers of the Gospel, by Fatih according to Election, But it is too clear that this Text is meant of Gospel-glory, in Ordinances dispensed by the Apostles Ministry, And as to the Jews appertained the glory and the promises, Rom. 9 4, 5. So now the glory and promises belong to the Gentiles; And as many Jews as fell not off, still enjoy this this glory with the Gentiles and so both make one new man, Eph. 2. 15. The visible state of the Jews was a distinct body from the Gentiles, Now upon this glorious call they are one new man, or new body. For the Texts, Gal. 3. 14, 26, 28, 29. when any shall tell me how they are paralle, than I shall give my answer, There is an in graffing into Christ mentioned; but none into the Church, and so the parallels are without force, as are the Arguments. Two things lie upon him to do, and neither is done. 1. To prove that these Scriptures speak of a Church invisible. That they are parallel with this Scripture. He is wont to reason with his full strength against the force of all Arguments, à Pari and yet this argument must carry force from the parity of Scriptures, which he only says, and not at all proves to be parallel, nor yet shows so much as in a word, wherein their parity consists; he well knows that by this means their disparity might appear. There is a tenth Argument drawn from Authorities produced, but to so little purpose that I will not trouble the Readers patience in the recital of it.    

CHAP. LI.  
1 Cor. 7. 14. Vindicated.  
THe next Scripture in which this extent of the Covenant is evidenced, is 1 Cor. 7. 14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy. In order to a right understanding of these words, the whole scope of the Apostl is to be taken into consideration, which appears to be this.  
The Corinthians converted by the Apostles Ministry, 
The Series of the Apostles dispute opened.  consulted him by letters in several cases of conscience; one concerning Marriage, a second concerning things offered to Idols, a third concerning spiritual gifts, a fourth concerning collection for the Saints. That of Marriage is first spoken to, and consists of divers heads, and are all satisfied in this Chapter.  
One, among the rest concerns Marriage-estate, between a Believer an an Infidel, a Professor of the true Faith and a Worshipper of Idols; whether such society may be continued, or must be separated. That this was their Quaere, appears by the Apostles resolution, 
The Corinthians Quaere.  He gives in his answer in the affirmative, both in the case of a believing husband joined to an unbelieving wife, and a believing wife joined to an unbelieving husband, let him not put her away, let her not leave him, only excepting the case of wilful desertion, when for religions sake the unbelieving party leaves; Unbelief breaks not the Marriage-bond, renders it not a nullity, (Religion being not of the substance of Marriage,) It might make null all Covenants, as well as this Covenant, the Law of God seeing that condemns Marriage-Covenants with unbelievers, condemns all other Covenants with them, Deut. 7. 23. Having determined the point in an universal proposition, or that which is equivalent with it, A Believer and an unbeliever joined in Wedlock-bond, are not to be separated, He meets with their scruples, and answers their objections against it; That they had their scruples, must be confessed, otherwise they had never sent the case to the Apostle, And those scruples which reason itself will suggest, that have a fair colour in Scripture for them, 
The Corinthians scruples.  and are met with, and satisfied by the Apostle in this his answer; we must take to be their scruples and grounds of their fears, Unless we had the Corinthians letter, we have no other way of cognizance of them. And these are two.  
I shall mention the second in the first place, seeing I am to dwell upon the first, and that is their jealousy of themselves, of their own standing and perseverance in the Christian Faith. This in reason they might well fear, who so active to seduce and draw away as a yoke-fellow? and this hath fair colour of Scripture for it, Deut. 7. 4. They will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods. Examples are not wanting, Nehem. 13. 26. Did not Solomon King of Israel sin by these things? yet among many Nations was there no King like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him King over all Israel, nevertheless, even him did outlandish women cause to sin. To this the Apostle answers, and opposes the hopes of conversion of the unbelieving party; How knowest thou O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? As there is fear of seducing, so there is hope of conversion.  
The other is the condition of their issue, lest they should not be reckoned with the Saints, but of the fellowship of unclean Gentiles. Reason is strong for this; they well knew that as it is with the Parent, so it is with the Child; for Church-state and condition, being a privilege communicable, and derived by descent from Parent to Child. If the Parent were without, and of the Gentiles, the Child was ever such, and in case the parents, were of the people of God, their children were reckoned so in like manner. Now Parents being divided, the one holy, the other unclean, they feared that the issue would follow the worse part, a stain would lie upon them, they would be accounted unclean with the unbelieving parent this hath a fair colour of Scripture likewise, and in a like case it had been so determined, Ezra 10. 3. Now therefore let us make a Covenant with our God, to put away all the wives, and such as are borne of them. The Apostle takes off these fears of theirs, and tells them that the unbelieving party doth not (as they fear) defile the issue, but is sanctified, as to issue, by the Believer, so that their children are holy, and to be reckoned with the believing Parent, who is a Saint, not unclean, & not reckoned with the unbelieving parent, who is a Gentile, and so takes off their scruples respective both to themselves and their issue, and quiets their fears. So that several positions might be here laid down for a right understanding of the words.  
1. By [Believer] in this place is meant, 
Explicatory Positions.  a man or woman professing the true Faith, and bearing the name Christian.  
2. By [Unbeliever] is meant, an Infidel▪ an unconverted Gentile, living in Idolatry, sacrificing to Devils, and not to God, of such the question is put, and not of regenerate and unregenerate, such a scruple was never heard, whether or no such might continue marriage society.  
3. To be [sanctified] here, is not to be made holy, which is the case of the Regenerate; or to be set apart for God, which is the case of the visible Saint and Christian; but together with their yoke-fellow to be an holy root to produce an holy seed.  
4. By [Holy] is meant, federal holiness, to be reputed and received among the people of God, who are holy, no other holiness is transmittible from parents to children.  
5. By [Unclean] is meant, a sinner of the Gentiles, an alien and stranger from the Commonwealth of Israel.  
6. [Else] implies a certainty, that upon this account of sanctification of the Parent (from whom the ground of fear arose) the children are holy, a like certainty that were it not that they were thus sanctified, they were unclean.  
Much stir is made about this doubt of the Coronthians, 
The ground or rise of the Corinthians scruples.  from whence it might arise. In my apprehension, says One, it is likely that the doubt arose from the Epistle he wrote before to them mentioned, 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. not to keep company with Fornicators, or Idolaters, which might occasion the question, whether they were then to continue with their unbelieving yoke-fellow. To this conjecture I answer.  
1. That many will not grant that the Apostle wrote any Epistle to the Corinthians before this; but as this carries the title of the first, so there was none before it; and this they do, to make it good that no Scripture given by divine inspiration is lost; which would impeach (as they fear) both the providence of God, and the faithfulness of the Church to whom the Oracles of God were concredited. But let it be grauted that he wrote another Epistle, which he here mentions; yet the tenth verse where the stress lies seems to be his present farther explanation of his words there, and no part of the contents of that Epistle formerly written, and so there is no room left for this conjecture. But put the case, that the ninth and tenth verses do both express the Contents of that Epistle, yet why do they take both the ends, and leave out the middle? Making their converse to be with Husbands, or Wives, Fornicators or Idolaters, and not as well with Covetous, or Extortioners? It is answered, the middle terms [Covetous and Extortioners] are left out, because I conceived it superfluous for me to put them in. Their only scruple I mentioned, was their conversing with the Idolatrous, or unbelieving yoke-fellow, because the Apostle only resolves that doubt, 1 Cor. 7. 12. 13, 14. about which the dispute I held was, Whether or no they scrupled, conversing with Covetous and Extortioners, I could not tell; because the Apostle is silent about that doubt. If their scruple was concerning conversing with their Idolatrous yoke-fellows, upon occasion of those words, not to keep them company, they must needs scruple their conversing with Covetous and Extortioners, Husbands or Wives upon the same account, and the Apostle being silent in his answer, it is clear they were silent in their letter, and moving no scruple, they had no scruple; when it is impossible for them to scruple one upon those words, and not scruple all. When the Apostle names four evils respective to civil sociable converse, it is a wild fancy to imagine that they should startle at one (respective to their marriage-society) and question no more. I farther add: If this conjecture hold, the Apostle thus writes to the Corinthians, If any brother hath a wife that is an Idolater, Fornicator, a Drunkard or Extortioner, let him not put▪ her away, and to this I am answered, Wise men do not always see the consequent of that principle which they are possessed with. And how comes it I wonder into any man's thoughts, that the Corinthians had wit to see the consequence from his warning given of one sort of sinners, and of never a one of the other named with them? It is further said, If they had the occasion of the doubt from 1 Cor. 5. 9 doth it follow that the Apostle must either know, that to have been the occasion, or resolve their doubt with reference to it? and if he did, yet there was no necessity he should resolve it in like manner concerning Fornicators, as Idolaters. If the Apostle did not know it, how comes it now to be known, did he want their Sagacity? If he did know it, there must be a like necessity of resolving the doubt in reference to this, as any other at which they scrupled. And if they doubted of all; why is there a necessity of clearing one, and not all, the Apostle doubtless took in every part, and piece of their scruple. It is likely (saith one) the Apostle took in every part and piece of that which is propounded to him as the Corinthians scruple indeed; but there was no necessity he should take in every part of that which Master Blake may imagine, would have been their scruple if my conjecture hold. But there was a necessity to take in all that had the same evident ground of scruple, and which every ratinal man will not only with me imagine; but certainly conclude (Hoc supposito) must be their scruple, Had the Apostle taken in every part of their scruple, the question about divorce so much agitated, would have been determined. It is wonder B. Howson, Bunney, and others that say Moses permission to put away wives, was in case of Adultery only, could not have hit upon this Text which would have salved all, to this is answered.  
If the Apostle had taken in every part of the Corinthians imagined scruple, and resolved as I would have it; Yet, this doth not here determine the controversy so much agitated, whether the innocent party might marry after a lawful Divorce.  
The full truth is here now spoken, such a resolution had indeed destroyed the the thing supposed, and there could have been no lawful Divorce; and when the Apostle had determined against all Divorce, and had given charge, as concerning the unbelieving wife, so concerning the wife of Fornication, If any man have such a wife, let him not put her away, why should there be any dispute about it, either respective to Divorce, or Marriage after it. But as to this enough is spoken.  
Having examined that which others by their conjecture would make the ground of their scruple; I must speak to that which we make the occasion of it before suggested, viz. that case of those Israelites, Ezra 9 10. ch. who upon their return from their captivity had married strange wives, and were ordered not to live with them, but to put them away with their children, and here to prevent tedious impertinencies, and to make this piece as brief as possible, let me premise this as an undoubted truth; That these Corinthians had their scruples concerning their issue upon their marriage in their disparity. That which the Apostle satisfies in his Answer, that the Corinthians scrupled in their letter. This no man can deny, for he writes to give satisfaction, (as is plain, verse 1.) to their letter-scruples: But we see in the Text that he as satisfies scruples concerning themselves, so also concerning their issue▪ 2. Let the Reader know, that I do not peremptorily determine, that the determination of the case of the Israelites, for their separation from their wives, and putting away their children with them, did occasion this scruple in the thoughts of these Corinthians thus joined, with unbelieving yoke-fellows, But I say, it is more than probable, that it did either occasion, or mightily strengthen it, When they are men known in the Scriptures, 1 Cor. 10. 15. and did question their own marriage upon the account of the unbelief of their yoke-fellow, and finding a case thus determined, both against mother and child for separation, how can we imagine but they hit upon it, and were affected with it? 3. I do not say that the Israelites case and the Corinthians were wholly the same, as it stood with Israel then, and with the Corinthians now: I know it was not, for then either Ezra had, been too harsh in ordering a separation; or Paul too indulgent in determining the lawfulness of the continuance of their marriage-society, and so I may say of their children; But I say their cases were so like, and so seemingly parallel, that it might well occasion the Corinthians (thus in conscience concerned) to judge them the same. Their cases somewhat did differ, but the Corinthians had need of the Apostles help to see the difference. The cases were the very same in themselves, but different in regard of divers administrations, under which they respectively lived. He that would make their case the same, (saith One) must not vary it in one particular: All Casuists and Lawyers determine a Case to be varied when one material circumstance is varied. The Jews being under the Law of Moses, and professing it; the Corinthians, Christians not so, and yet that doubt as if occasioned by that fact, must arise from the doubted force of the Law of God. This hits right upon the difference between them, which yet argues them to be still in themselves the same, had not times differenced them; whereas he says, the Jews were under Moses Law professing it, but the Corinthian-Christians not so. I hope he will not deny they were under the Moral Law, the Apostle even in this Epistle pressing it upon them, 1 Cor. 9 9 1 Cor. 14. 34. and it was not so easy for them to determine that the Command, Deut. 7. was judicial, purely respecting their relation to those Nations, and so their case by this means better than those Israelites, and being not able to determine, their scruple remained, and they sought to the Apostle for satisfaction in it.  
Having enquired into these Corinthians scruples we are to look further into the meaning of the words, 
Two heterodoxical interpretations of the words, holy, unclean.  and here we might reckon up variety of interpretations of this Text in Ancient and Modern Writers, most of which are generally exploded, as to the words holy and unclean, and therefore I think not fit to trouble the Reader at all with them. Two there are which now appear especially in competition with this here delivered, which I shall hold forth in this place, that the Reader may judge of either. 
The first interpretation setting up parent and child too high, examined  The first sets up parent and child, root and branch too high; The second lays the issue too low. The first is, that the believer here mentioned is an elect regenerate man, not only a Professor of the faith, but a man endowed with the grace of faith, not only of the Church visible, but of the Church invisible likewise; That the holiness here mentioned is a real holiness, that is, an holiness of regeneration, and the issue of one or both regenerate persons is also such, regenerate. The issue of the unregenerate is (as they say) unregenerate likewise, An interpretation as far from the Apostles mind as that which is farthest, and the doctrine fetched from it as untrue as that which is untruest. The Believer here is the man that is not an Infidel, one that is taken off from Gentisme to the profession of Christianity. Paulinus (whom Hierome so much admired) interprets it (as Hierom relates his words, Ep. 153. of a baptised person. The Corinthians never questioned the marriage between one party, in whom the power of godliness appears, and another professingly of the same faith, though not in that sincerity, There was never such a scruple made, but the marriage between a professor of Christian religion, and a Pagan; Neither is the issue of a regenerate man, because his issue, regenerate; Habits, neither infused, nor acquired, are thus communicated from parent to child; Neither will it help to say that this proposition is not universal, but indefinite, which holds ad plurimum, but not always; The Apostles proposition universally holds, now are they holy, not in the opinion of charity, but certainty, where neither are holy, the issue, not only ad plurimum, but certainly is unclean, not as to the judgement of our fears, but for his present state, so infallibly. That assertion to help this out, that God draws regeneration through the loins of the Elect, at least for the most part (few elect ones but their children are regenerate) is such a paradox that I suppose very few will receive; And thence to infer the lawfulness of the Baptism of all of such birth, because some are regenerate (and as then surmise the most, even in the womb, and from the birth) is a bottom that will not bear it; One without any name hath published a Treatise of Baptism, and in it impugns with all his strength Infant-baptisme. He takes notice of this, and like positions of this nature, as our ground of it, and then endeavours the battery of it It hath passed some years without any answer, that I know. I could wish that those that maintain it on these grounds, would take upon them a refutation. His reasons to me (the doctrine so grounded) are above answer. I have often said, if I be brought to these men's premises, I shall then conclude with the Antipaedobaptists. It so much more concerns those, in that the Author (as I hear) was one of their society, and they see how frequently their members that are principled against covenant-holiness, and borne in hand that the Gospel strips us of it, do betake themselves from them into these men's tenants.  
The second interpretation lays the issue too low, 
The second interpretation laying parent and child too low.  and will have the holiness mentioned, to have no respect to their spiritual or Church-state, but only their legitimation; They are not bastards but legitimate, This Text (saith One) doth not speak of federal holiness, but of holiness, that I may so call it matrimonial, so that the sense is, your children are holy, that is, legitimate; adding whether any in the ages before the age last passed expounded it of federal holiness, as they call it, I am not yet certain, His arguments against our interpretation of covenant-holiness and uncleanness, we shall examine, being attended as he says, with many absurdities; in the mean space let me tell him, that his interpretation, understanding the Apostle as he doth, (The unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, etc. that is, his society with her is lawful, not adulterous, else your children were unclean, that is, bastards, illegitimate, but now they are holy, that is, of a birth legitimate, not spurious) renders the reasoning here in this place. 1. Childish. 2. Incongruous. 3. Untrue.  
1. Weak and childish, 
1. Weak and childish.  to tell the Corinthians if their marriage-society were adulterous, than their children were bastards, if their marriage were nul, children were illegitimate. This is too low a way of reasoning und unworthy of the Apostle such that every child well knew before the Apostle told them. In that great contest about the marriage of Henry the eighth, with the relict of his brother Arthur, (in which the judgement of so many Universities was desired) if one had argued, that in case this marriage be a nullity, than the Princess is not legitimate: But the Princess is legitimate; Ergo the marriage is no nullity) he would have been looked upon as a strange disputant.  
2. Incongruous To bring phrases fully answering the Church-state and condition of either parents▪ 
2. Incongruous  believing, unbelieving, (which in the Scripture is holy and unclean) and yet to understand them of holiness, and uncleanness of another kind, of legitimation and bastardy, if they may be (as I think they never were) so called, is merely incongruous: That these words fully answer the Church-state of parents, and the Church-state and condition which the children derive from them, is plain in that parallel text, Gal. 2. 15. Jews by nature, that is, holy by birth from believing parents, not sinners of the Gentiles, not unclean by birth from unbelieving ancestors; So Master Cartwright on these words in his answer to the Rhemists. If you will know what this holiness of children newborn is, the Apostle telleth you, it is through the Covenant to be a Jew by nature, or birth: and if you will farther understand what this uncleanness of children is, the Apostle in the same place telleth you, it is not to be sinners by nature, as those which are born of the Heathen. I well know, and acquainted the Reader, p. 2. of my Birth-priviledge, that the Apostles scope, Gal. 2. 15. is another, viz. to prove that Jews and Gentiles have both one and the same justification, not by works of the Law, but by Faith, but falling upon the mention of the jew and Gentile, he gives them characters (as Master Cartwright well observes) fully parallel to that which is here delivered.  
3. The argument thus understood, 
3. Untrue.  is untrue; The stress is wholly laid on the believing party, as to the holiness of the issue twice over; The unbeliever is merely passive in it, when the child hath legitimation equally from both.  
Against the former interpretation, 
Arguments evincing the holiness in the Text not to be legitimation.  and for mine, which Chamier affirms to be Calvini, & omnium nostrorum, take these arguments. 1. That holiness which necessarily follows to the issue, from the sanctification of an unbelieving, by a believing yoke-fellow, is Covenant holiness, and not legitimation: But the holiness in this place of the Apostle necessarily follows to the issue, from the sanctification of an unbeliever by a believer; Ergo it is covenant-holiness, not legitimation. 2. That which is derived from the eminency of one parent above another, and not equally from both, is not legitimation: But this holiness is derived from the eminence of one parent (viz. the believing parent above the other;) Ergo it is not legitimation. 3. The result or fruit which follows from a believers faith is not legitimation: But the holiness in the Text is a result of the faith of the believing yoke-fellow; The minor is evident, seeing faith is twice hinted at in the believer. I know that there is one that denies, that the unbelieving husband, or wise is here said to be sanctified in the believing; It is (saith he) in the husband, not in the believing husband, in the wife, not in the believing wife, that is not in the Text. The marriage is between a believer and an unbeliever, the unbeliever is sanctified whether husband or wife by their yoke-fellow, but not as is said, by their believing yoke-fellow; the Reader that puts off his reason may matter such denials.  
To evince sense of bastardy and legitimation from those words of the Text, 
The sanctification spoken to, is not of parents in general, but of one parent believing, and another unbelieving in particular.  unclean and holy, the Apostles argument is put by one into this form, If the unbelieving husband were not sanctified by the wife, then were your children unclean; But they are not unclean, but holy; Ergo, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife. And this sequel (as is said) were not true, if this proposition were not true; All the children of those parents where one is not sanctified to the other, are unclean. The Proposition is, of an unbelieving husband and a wife, and yet the Proposition must be of all parents, that will prove it, as he that wi●● prove, If an Englishman be noble, he is honourable, must prove it by this universal or general, All Noble men are honourable, and not put in all Englishmen Noble, for than he antecedent and the conclusion would be all one, whereas the Proposition proving, must be larger than the Proposition proved, else we might conclude ex meris particularibus; To say if the unbelieving husband were not sanctified by the wife, your children were unclean is all one with this, All the children of the unbelieving husband not sanctified to the wife are unclean. This of itself is not such, that many words should need to be spent about it, But seeing that a learned hand, lays so much, and so great stress upon it; It may not be slightly passed over, and who sees not here a wild parallel well worthy of such a monstrous assertion, The proposition is, of two standing in full disparity, and an instance is given in a single person, where there is no disparity at all, and by two adjuncts which are Synonyma: I desire to know how this sequel may be proved, If a wife of an ignoble birth be not made Noble by her husband, her issue is ignoble; must it be proved by this Proposition, The issue of every wife not made noble by her husband, is ignoble? or will it serve, The issue of every ignoble wife not made noble by her husband is ignoble? If a poor man take a wife, and is not enriched by her, he still remains in a poor condition; shall this be made good by a proposition, That all men taking wives, and not enriched by them are in a poor condition; or will it serve that every poor man taking a wife, and not enriched by her, is in a poor condition? are these true, or are they false propositions. Yea, what is affirmed in his own instance, to prove that if an Englishman be noble, he is honourable, it is sufficient to prove it by this Proposition; All Englishmen noble, are honourable, will not hold. Let any one tell me how he will make good this Proposition: If a Dutchman be borne of a Duke, he is a Duke; if he be borne of an Earl he is an Earl, must it be; All men born of Dukes, are Dukes, of Earls, are Earls; This with us in England is false, but of all Dutch men thus borne it is truth; But the reason given must be looked into, The antecedent and the conclusion (saith he) would be all one, whereas the Proposition proving must be larger than the Proposition proved. But who knows not, that the Proposition proving is larger here than the proposition proved. A proposition expressly universal, is larger in a Logic argument, then either an indefinite or particular. The Proposition by him excepted against, in Logic consideration is as universal as that which is most universal; Every Englishman that is noble, is honourable, is an universal Proposition, as well as every man that is noble, is honourable; and I never learned that in the quantity of propositions, there is magis & minus. I am challenged for saying, The truth of the Apostles sequel depends on this proposition; All the children of an unbeliever are unclean, unless for generation he or she be sanctified by a believer; and adds, I deny it, in that the terms, [for generation by a Believer] are added by him, not in the Apostle, and so he changed the terms. I pray leave generation out, and see whether there can be any sense in it, unless it be understood; Their sanctification will confer no legitimation, without generation; If I say not believer, I must say husband or wife that is a believer.  
Another bottom on which the forenamed interpretation is grounded is, 
The Apostle brings not formal arguments to conclude the lawfulness of marriage-society, but removes scruples concerning their o●n state and their issue.  That the Apostle in this Text brings a formal argument to prove the marriage-society of these yoke-fellows to be lawful, which in the two former verses he had determined, and (as was confessed before) they scrupled, and it cannot be denied but the words at first sight, seem to carry some colour to understand them so far in this sense, as to make them formal, concluding reasons of his former determination, Having said, verse 12, 13. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman that hath an husband that believeth not, and he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him; then he adds, For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. But the way of inference will as well bear it; that the Apostle doth first determine the Controversy by revelation as an Apostle, and then takes off their scruples which occasioned their fears, both respective to their posterity and themselves; This way of interpretation is charged as making the Apostle immethodical, but what better method then to determine a point, and then answer reasons against it; The Apostle meeting with their fears in respect both of their posterity, and themselves, it must needs be that they signified them, and he removes them; The Apostles method (it is true) and manner of inference indifferently favours either interpretation; But the words themselves clearly evince, that they are a removal of scruples against their marriage-society, and not a formal concluding argument for it. Let us look first into verse 16. where [For] may lay as fair a claim to a formal reason as this in the fourteenth, and such that stand for this interpretation say, it is a formal reason, But I would fain learn how any one can make it up into a reason; He must thus draw it up, whom man in marriage-society may have hopes to save from idolatrous ways, with such a one he may continue marriage-society; But a believing husband in marriage-society may have hopes to save his unbelieving wife from idolatrous ways, Ergo. This proposition as to such a conclusion is. 1. Vain, for, though there were no such hopes, yet marriage-society is to be continued, Gentilism being not of the subsistence of marriage. 2. This Proposition is false as to this purpose; The incestuous Corinthian might have hopes to have had converted his father's wife, (if a Heathen) and yet such hopes would not conclude the lawfulness of their society together; Herod might have had like hopes to have converted his brother Philip's wife, and yet this was not objected against John Baptist, and had it been objected, it had been frivolous. We have many cases put about marriage, if such an argument would serve the turn, it would salve them all. And for verse 14. though I cannot say, but in case it were made up into a reason of the former conclusion, it would contain a truth, and so far might pass in the way of a reason, yet I have many material exceptions against it.  
1. From the thing itself, it would be a reason (though true, yet) silly, childish, vain, your married condition is lawful, else your children were bastards; what child in Corinth (as was hinted when I spoke of the Apostles words, as in themselves that knew the right hand from the left) but well understood it? There is not a boy that plays in the streets, but knows that children born out of wedlock are bastards. There is a Book published, putting it to the question, and disputing it, whether marriages between professors of the true religion and Infidels, and so of Papist, with Protestants, be not ab initio, null, and they to be separated in case any shall now come in with this argument for the negative, that they are not null, and to conclude their continuance; If such marriage be null; their children are bastards: But they are not bastards, Ergo the marriage is not null; the Author or any other might be brought to a smile, not to conviction. As Erasmus in his censure of those suppositious spurious Epistles that have passed with many for Paul's to Seneca, charges them with no false doctrine, but is bold to say, I see not what can be said more simply or senselessly, and that there is nothing in them worthy of Paul's spirit; So I may say of this suppositious spurious interpretation put upon this Text in Paul's Epistle. Erasmus is deservedly troubled that these Epistles should have their verbosous Comments, any may equally be troubled that such a reason should find defence from any hand in so many words.  
My next challenge is from the phrase in which it is delivered, altogether unsuitable to a reason of this doctrine, upon a threefold account. 1. The Apostle being only to tell them, that the legitimation of their issue proved the lawfulness of their marriage-society, he should attribute all (as to either sex) to the believer, when the child owes his legitimation equally to either parent, to the unbeliever as much as the believer. 2. That being to give reason of the lawfulness of marriage in such a special case, he should give his reason of equal concernment to all marriages, where both are unbelievers, both believers, as well as this between a believer and an unbeliever. 3. When he is to speak only of legitimation and bastardy, he should praise it in such uncouth language, and in words, fit it only, suitable to their parent, Ecclesiastical capacity, whether title to it, as in the believer, or want of it as in the unbeliever; now, on the other hand interpret the Apostles words (as his method will equally bear) accordingly as you have heard before, and no such inconveniency follows from the words either verse 14. or 16. And now our adversary may easily receive an answer to that odious inference, which he makes from our interpretation of covenant-holiness: According to this interpretation (saith he) the medium of the Apostle to prove the lawfulness of the living of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband, will as well prove the lawfulness of a believing fornicatrix with an unbelieving fornicator, as may appear (saith he) by a Syllogistical Analysis of the Apostles argument, the major whereof is this, That man and woman may live together, notwithstanding the unbelief of one party, whereof one is sanctified to the other for begetting an holy seed. This is manifestly the Apostles reason, he says after our interpretation. But he is manifestly mistaken; not to mention the liberty that he will scarce allow another to leave out husband and wife expressed in the text, and instead of it to put man and woman: The Apostle doth not conclude the lawfulness of their marriag-society by the federation of their issue, but shows that the supposed and feared non-federation doth not conclude the unlawfulness, and I dare yield that any man and woman may live together, notwithstanding any fear of the unholiness of their issue; where one is sanctified by the faith of another, to the begetting of a seed federally holy. And if he will apply this, which the Apostle speaks, of a man's living with his wife (ad faciendum populum) to the living with his whore, there is no danger to yield it; Pharez his issue had belonged to the Commonweal of Israel, if Tamar had been an Infidel, as for aught we know, and in all probability it was, with Jephtaes' mother. If Samson had issue by the Harlot of Gaza, Judges 16. 1. such issue had belonged to Israel, such issue male had right to Circumcision. To gratify him I shall put it under my hand, that if a man have no other reason from Scripture to leave his Harlot then the non-federation of his issue, he may still abide with her, and that he is not bound upon that sole account to desert her If any shall attempt to keep up these two main propositions by me examined, on which the whole fabric of a long discourse is built, for to make good the interpretation mentioned, and refute the arguments against it, I shall readily and willingly look into it, which for several years I have waited, till than I shall conclude that federal holiness and not legitimation is here intended.  
A mighty stir is here further made about instrumental sanctification, 
A vindication of instrumental sanctification.  and arguments heaped by Master Tombs against it, the most of them grounded upon those two Propositions (which he would have his Reader believe that I confess, when he cannot prove,) That all the children whereof one parent is not sanctified to the other are unclean; none of the children whereof the one is not sanctified to the other are clean, together with the other; That this is a concluding formal reason to prove the lawfulness of their abode together; upon this account it is affirmed that our interpretation fits not the case of persons disabled from procreation, it makes the Apostles argument to be from a future contingent, I appeal to any Logician and Grammarian whether a person may be said to be instrumentally sanctified for such an effect which he neither doth nor can produce? Whether a woman may be said to be sanctified quoad hoc, so far as to bring forth an holy seed, by virtue of the faith of her husband, who is by age or accidental impotency utterly disabled naturally from bearing any children, and hath no supernatural power enabling her thereto? whether she may be capable to bring forth an holy seed, who is not capable to bring forth any at all? bringing forth an holy seed cannot be without bringing forth a seed, and therefore the woman uncapable to bring forth a seed is uncapable to bring forth an holy seed. And I on the contrary appeal to any, yea, the meanest Christian whether persons that have children born in wedlock-bonds, in such disparity may not have their fears and scruples about them, notwithstanding other in the same condition of marriage are childless, or unable to bring forth children? Whether the seed which came of those marriages, Ezra 10. were not unclean, notwithstanding many so married had no children? many of the Priests had herein transgressed, and it was but some of them that had wives by whom they had children, Ezra 10. 44. And because this is the medium for proof of the Apostles determination, verse 13. that they might live together, it must needs be from a future contingent; but when this is no medium for proof of the Apostles determination, as hath been sufficiently shown it is not, this falls with the other.  
Two arguments against instrumental sanctification I shall take notice of, which seem to have some other bottom. 1. That the act of producing an holy seed is not from any special designation of God, and therefore cannot be meant of instrumental sanctification, seeing an instrument must be the instrument of the principal agent which can be no other than God; I am sure they bring forth children unto God, Ezek. 16. 20. and this they do not independently of themselves, so Christ would not have warned, Matth. 23. 10. Call no man father upon earth, for one is your Father whech is in heaven. All natural parents are instruments of God to produce a seed to people the world, according to that blessing of Gen. 1. 28. Gen. 9 1. Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth; All believing parents are instruments of God for an holy seed, it being of his free grace that the promise is to them and their seed.  
The second argument is that many a child of both unbelieving parents are federaly holy; and being answered that they are not so at their birth, if afterwards by grace they are changed, this is no fruit of their birth (of which the question is in this place) but the work of the Gospel through grace. It is replied, This is nothing to the purpose, sith the Proposition hath not those words in it, nor the Apostle; the Apostles reason supposeth it cannot be at any time; It seems then that the Apostles Proposition hath this in it, that their children so borne, are unclean by birth and for all eternity shall so remain never to be cleansed, or else this exception is less to purpose, who does not see that the Apostle speaks uncleanness or holiness as a product of their birth? without consideration of any thing which after by providence (through the omnipotence and free grace of God) might happen, as a mean woman given in marriage to a Senator or Peer, she is ennobled by her husband, otherwise her issue were plebeians, yet so as they are capable of honour by the Prince's munificence, or their own merit; It seems that Proposition of Christ's, That which is borne of the flesh, John 3. 6. will not hold, unless it must for ever continue flesh, and no omnipotence of God shall be able to make it otherwise. It is further said, and yet it may be certain that the child of two unbelievers may be federally holy at birth, whether it be understood of Election, inherent holiness, or outward holiness if God please to work, and declare it. To this I only say, let that proposition stand, till God by such a miracle confute, or contradict it, and whensoever he shall thus own such unclean infants as federally holy, I shall be silent.  
It is farther said, But the issue of them that are not lawfully enjoined as husband and wife, cannot be made legitimate by God, because it is contrary to the definition of legitimation, which is a state consequent upon birth by the lawful copulation of lawful husband and wife. So that the reply is brought to this, because God by his omnipotence can make our unclean ones holy, and to make their unclean ones holy, is without the verge of omnipotence; therefore his interpretation stands and ours must fall. If we should put case in their manner, that God should appear in approbation of a man's enjoying a woman out of marriage-society, than there were a legitimation of the issue, as he did the marriage of the brother's wife, Deut. 25. 5. otherwise against the moral Law, Levit. 18. 16. Or as some understand it, the Prophets taking a wife of whoredoms.   

CHAP. LII.  
Gal. 4. 29. Vindicated.  
THe next Scripture Text to make good the point in hand, is Gal. 4. 29. As than he that was borne after the flesh persecuted him that was borne after the Spirit, 
The Text Analysed.  even so it is now. For the clearing of which I have observed heretofore in the Apostles words there. First, the History. Secondly, the Mystery by way of Allegory. Thirdly, the parallel by the Apostle observed and applied to his own times.  
The History we find, verse 22, 23. It is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maide, the other by a freewoman, but he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh, but he of the freewoman was by promise.  
The Mystery by way of Allegory, verse 24, 25, 26. Which things are an Allegory, for these are the two Covenants, the one from the Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.  
The parallel in these words, But as then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so it is now. From whence this argument is drawn, 
The argument deduced from it.  If there yet remain in the bosom of the Church children borne after the flesh, as well as those that are borne of the Spirit, (so that the distinction of births, as applied to Abraham's seed, still hath place among Christians) then there is that privilege of birth-holinesse still remaining; The consequence is plain, Birth of the flesh in the Church gave a Church-interest, The Apostles kinsmen after the flesh, Rom. 9 3. were all Church-members. That there is is such a birth yet remaining, the Text quoted makes clear; Ishmael was in Abraham's family, and was by birth of his family, and did persecute in the family, and was by birth of his family, and did persecute in the family, as the Apostles shows out of scripture History, Men in the Church, borne in the Church, by birthright of the Church, do persecute, as upon experience he affirms, and so makes up the parallel. There birth of the flesh, is the highest honour they attain; when others have the same with an addition to it; this implies two things. 1. A birth of nature, a child by lineal descent of such a father. 2. Outward prerogatives that accompany such a birth.  
I know and have declared that this is not that which the Apostle here chiefly intends, or is about to hold out. But this I affirm, that he occasionally lays down, that which I here have delivered. And by this free concession of mine, any man in reason might have thought, that I had prevented that which is still charged upon that which from this Text I have inferred, or rather that which in this Text I have observed, one largely showing that these words in hand, are a compound proposition, which Logicians call a comparative proposition, in which are two parts, a Protasis, and an Apodosis, or rendering, wherein that which answers the fore part, first held out, is expressed, now that always notes some agreement, correspondence, parity or likeness, whether in quantity, quality, action, etc. But according to my Apodosis or reddition (as is said) there is no such answerableness, or likeness, as hath the show of a comparison of things equal or alike (as this is as the affirmative terms show) for who would conceive any better than nonsense, in such a speech as this, Even as Ishmael persecuted Isaac, so the children of Christian believers are visible members in the Christian Church. It were all one as to say even as Esau hated Jacob, so godly men are heirs of heaven, or have access to God. The absurdity of which with him is so gross, that the man is amazed that I do not see it, nor will confess it. Being above his strength to answer that sense; which I give of the words, he is pleased to take pains to make them up, by his gloss, into nonsense, that so no answer may need, But he well knows or might know, that I have not to deal with the whole of that Protasis, nor the whole of that Apodosis, and not at all with the persecution there mentioned, but only with the distinction there let fall, which is a distinction of births, both in Abraham's family, and in the Church, in Gospel-times, which the Apostle in his Application in those words [Then] and [Now,] plainly doth demonstrate. The truth which the Apostle supposes, and takes for granted, I have here to speak to, and not to that, which by way of allegory, he infers from it, or applies to it, and so the list of authors here brought in by my adversary; speaking of the persecution of Christians, by Jews and Papists, may all of them speak truth; but none of them all, any thing against me, who deduce no more from the words, but that a distinction of births is there laid down, or rather taken for granted, which is by the Apostle allegorised, but the allegory is not at all within that which I am upon. I met with like dealings, from the same hand; when I did compare, 1 Cor 7. 14. with Gal. 2. 15. to make good a title to covenant-holiness, by birth of nature, both with Jew and Gentile. I than heard those words of the poet, Cerni●us, an qui amant, ipsi sibi somnia fingunt? But the evidence of truth, with Master Cartwrights authority, making them as to the thing, full parallel (as to every eye they are) hath there wrought some silence, so I doubt not, but it will follow here. It is not the Apostles intention, Gal. 2. 15. to speak of the birth-priviledg of the Jews, nor yet the want of it in the Gentiles, yet there he mentions both, 
Gal. 4. 29.  neither is it his intention to treat of such a distinction of births, in the Church. Jewish or Christian, but the hostile disposition of one, so born; against another, yet in that place he plainly signifies such a distinction of births in either Church, both Jewish and Christian. Can any man deny that Abraham had two sons of such different births, as the Apostle from the history in Genesis shows, v. 22, 23. Ishmael is set out as a son of Abraham, and upon that account we know he had the honour of circumcision, Isaac had the same, but a degree of further honour with it, being born as Ishmael was not) by promise, And whatsoever Allegory the Apostle makes of it (which is not to my purpose to examine) yet in his reddition or application, he looks at the hi●story, not at the allegory, as the adverbs of time, Then, Now, (neither of which are allegorised) do demonstrate. And though Ishmael may be a type of a justiciary, seeking righteousness by works, and persecuting those that seek a righteousness by faith, whether typus, factus, or destinatus I will not inquire, yet, I think, it will never be proved; that Ishmael was such a one, in his own person, persecuting Isaac on that account; which must be proved, if the Apostle in his reddition do no look at the history, but the allegory as my adversary contends or else he speaks besides the purpose, [Then] looks at the history denoting time, as none can deny, and [Now] must not refer to the allegory without great absurdity. My interpretation (as is said) will not hold, in that according to it, there is no agreement, correspondency, or parity in the parts of the compound proposition, And I wonder; what agreement, correspondency or parity there is, or can be, in the parts of this compound proposition, according to the interpretation opposed against me, confounding history and allegory together. Thus it must be, as Ishmael no justiciary, then jeered Isaac, a sucking babe (as my adversary out of Hierome speaks) who was not in capacity to look after any righteousness, so it is now; justiciaries persecute those that do follow after righteousness by faith. If this gloss stand it should not be, so it is now, but rather, now it is otherwise. He that will come to a right understanding of the Text, must refer this 29. verse to 22, and 23. looking upon verse 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. (where the allegory is prosecuted) as a parenthisis, seeing the words in v. 29. cannot be referred to the allegory in those words, where there is no mention made of persecution but to the history in the former. I am told, that the Apostles distribution, cannot be, of a subject by its adjuncts, but, of a genus, into its species, because [birth] is neither substance, quantity, nor quality; but an action, or a passion, and actions though they be capable of various modifications, yet Logiscians' (as is said) do not call them subjects. But doubtless the person borne, is and may be called a subject, and stands in a capacity of adjuncts, and I look to the persons here distinguished, some with more inferior, and others with more noble adjuncts. When I cite may Master Baine (brought in against me as an adversary) saying, The children of the flesh here, are those only who in course of nature came from Abraham, I am told, it is true, that Mr. Bayne so interprets the term [children of the flesh, Rom. 9 8.] as I have cited him, which place he meant, but not the term [he that is borne after the flesh, Gal. 4. 29.] yea, p. 138. he saith, for though children of the flesh, in some other Scripture (meaning Gal. 4 29.) doth note out justiciaries, seeking salvation in the Law, yet here (Rom. 9 8.) the literal meaning is, to be taken, a child of the flesh, being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh. But how can Mr. Bayne possibly mean, Gal. 4 29. (as I am here told he doth) when he speaks of the children of the flesh, when those words are not to be found there, [but born after the flesh] and those terms [children of the flesh] and [born after the flesh]▪ are in this very place by my adversary distinguished. And though Master Bayne do not quote, Gal 4 29. in that place which I mentioned, yet Doctor Abbot in Thomsoni diatribam, p. 115. saith. Circumcisus est Ishmael, circumcisus & Isaac, solus autem Isaac, natus secundum spiritum, Ishmael tantummodo secundum carnem, non est autem justificatus, qui natus est tantum modo secundum carnem, Ishmael quanquam circumcisus, non est tamen justificatus, etc. Here he plainly makes the birth of the flesh, an honour giving circumcision, though an honour inferior to that of the birth of the spirit which justification accompanies, and he quotes Gal. 4. 29. as a proof of what he speaks, and I am much engaged to my Antagonist, for his quotation out of Hierome. Sicut ergo, tum; major frater Ishmael, lactentem adhuc & parvulum persequabatur Isaac, sibi circumcisionis prerogativum, sibi primogenita vendicans, ita & nunc, etc. Whence had he this prerogative of circumcision, but from this birth, that I speak of from Abraham, and there is, the like prerogative of birth; still continuing, or else there is no parity in the Apostles reddition. Here I shall take notice of a fourfold absurdity endeavoured to be fastened upon me.  
1. That I understand this to be said of Infants which then must be said to persecute, But I understand it not of Infants, but of those, which sometimes were Infants; and had their birth in infancy, from such and such parents.  
2. That I take [being born after the flesh] in the latter part to note a natural birth, but that is clean besides the Apostles meaning, who considers persons borne after the flesh, not as borne by humane members and seed, but as born by a fleshly covenant, otherwise it would import no allegory, contrary to the Apostles speech, ver. 24. which tells us these things are an allegory. If I should take it in one part of the proposition, in one sense, and in another part of the proposition, in another sense I should then quite spoil the agreement, which I am told must be in it, and then I might have been indeed argued against for an absurdity whereas it is said that the Apostle considers persons borne after the flesh, not as born by humane members and seed, but as borne by a fleshly Covenant, I say, that, that is false, as to the history, and I have showed by reasons that have yet no satisfying answer that the Apostle, v. 22, 23. lays down the history, which afterwards he allegorizes in five verses, and then makes application of the history, and not of the allegory, v. 29.  
3. That to be [born after the flesh] should import, birth of Abraham, as a believer, and so natural generation, of each child of a believer in that respect, ●ut then [to be borne after the flesh] would be common to Isaac with Ishmael, to him that is borne after the spirit, of the free woman by promise, with him that is borne after the flesh of the the bondwoman; for to be borne of Abraham, or a believer agrees also to Isaac, to him that is born after the Spirit, of the freewoman by promise; whereas to be borne after the flesh is taken in a sense from which Isaac and we, that is, Paul and other Christian believers are excluded. That is, that certain clear truth by way of necessary corollary would follow, which that great Doctor Abbot, in the place quoted takes for granted, speaking of both births, and applying his tantummodo twice over to Ishmaels' birth, he clearly signifies, that Ishmael had this honour, and that Isaac had it likewise, and that which is far more noble together with it.  
4. It is said, that I quite pervert the Apostles intent, in taking [to be born after the flesh] to impart an honour, whereas the Apostle mentions, birth after the flesh, as a debasement, takes it in the worse part, not as importing a descent from the father, but from the mother and that mother a bond woman, and therefore the children, servants, or bondslaves, by reason of their being borne after the flesh. And doth not the Apostle tell us, in the relation of the history, of their father as well as their mother? does he not speak of one common father, in these words, Abraham had two sons, as well as of two different mothers? and I dare not take the boldness to exclude either. I confess the Apostle mentions [birth after the flesh] as a debasement, in putting it in opposition to [birth of the Spirit,] yet I affirm, that he mentions it also, as an honour. As circumcision was a debasement in one respect, Eph. 2. 11, and an honour in another, Rom. 3. 1. Phil. 3. 5. It was an honour to have Circumcision in the flesh, they were thereby a people of God in Covenant, but it was a debasement, being put in opposition to circumcission in heart; and to the worshipping of God in Spirit and in Truth; it was an honour to be born of Abraham, after the flesh, and frequently mentioned in Scripture as an honour, but an abasement, when it is opposed to the birth of God by the Spirit. Much more might be animadverted, but this is enough (as I think) to the cause, and I purposely avoid all that concerns the person, I know not what more may be said, but I find nothing, as yet, said; but that which instead of evincing the contrary (being thoroughly examined) is a more full confirmation, that in New Testament-times, such a distinction of births, is in New Testament-times contained, clearly hinted and taken for granted here, and in other Scriptures fully expressed.   

CHAP. LIII.  
Matth. 19 14. Mark. 10. 14. Luk. 18. 16. Vindicated.  
THat Text in the Gospel (uttered by our Saviour Christ) and recorded by three Evangelists, comes now to be considered; Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the Kingdom of God. In the whole Narrative in Gospel-records we may see 

First, 
The whole narrative analysed.  The pious care of Parents, or others in their stead; to present Infants to Christ.  
Secondly, The harsh entertainment that they found from the Disciples of Christ.  
Thirdly, The good will of the Lord Christ towards them manifested. 

1. In his displeasure against those that forbade their coming.  
2. In his free admission of them.  
3. In gratifying their requests that brought them.  
4. In receiving them in his Arms.      
In the words that we have in hand, we see. 1. Their admission; or at least charge given for it; Suffer little children to come unto me. 2. The reason, for of such is the Kingdom of God. Here is wont to be enquired. 1. What moved these thus to present their children. 
Upon what account these infants were tendered to Christ.  This by the Evangelists is expressed; that Christ would put his hands upon them, and pray. Which as they requested, so he condescended to answer, He put his hands upon them, and blessed them. They looked upon Christ (as it seems) as a great Prophet highly in favour with God, and such were wont to bless in the name of God, and their blessing was highly prized. Hands were used to be imposed as in sacrifices, Exod. 29. 10. so on persons in blessing, Gen. 48 14. The reason that moved his Disciples to forbid their coming, can scarce be doubted. They saw men resorting to Christ; 
Why they were forbidden by the Disciples.  either moved by his Doctrine, or his Miracles, either to be instructed, or cured; neither of these could be in their thoughts that presented these little ones. They were uncapable of his teaching, being infants; and that they needed not his cure, being not diseased, and therefore they rebuked those that came to tender them. 
Positions rending to clear Christ admission of them.  Now to come to a clear understanding of the words, we shall lay first some positions concerning these Infant's admission, and afterwards come to the consideration of the reason.  
First, That these were Infants, or as Infants in an incapacity to learn aught from Christ, and so actually to embrace Christ, or enter Covenant themselves with him. Which does appear. 1. In that they are called little ones, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. They were brought, and came not on their own accord. 3. In that Christ took them up in his arms. 4. Had they been capable by age of instruction, with what colour could any have denied them? Why might not they come as well as those multitudes that flocked to him? 5. Why were not the children themselves spoke to, to forbear to come, rather than those that brought them, not to bring them? If they were capable of instruction, they were capable of rebuke. 6. Why is there no word of instruction spoken to them? The young man that came to Christ, was instructed by Christ in the same Chapter. So should these have been instructed as well as blest, had they been in a capacity for instruction.  
Secondly, As they were in an incapacity by reason of age to be taught, so they were not (as was said) diseased to have need of cure. This the Disciples well knew that this was usual with Christ to cure those that laboured under infirmities of all ages, and therefore would never have had it in their thoughts to have rebuked those that brought these, and the Evangelist would never have concealed this reason, and mentioned another. Such a thing as this I said was vented in a Manuscript, but I knew not that ever any print had maintained it. Now I am told that there is a book in Folio entitled Baby Baptism mere Babisme, that doth assert it. If any man will trouble himself with the book or reasons, he may enjoy his liberty. He says the touch mentioned was in order to healing, but I shall rather believe the Evangelist that refers it to blessing, Mark 10. 16.  
Thirdly, These were infants of such parents, that were in covenant with God, as appears, in that Christ who now was in the Coasts of Judea, was sent alone to them of Judea in covenant with God, Matth. 15. 24. And was a Minister of the circumcision, Rom. 15. And we see how facile he was to them, when his carriage was otherwise, and of another sort: when a Canaanitish woman comes for her child, Mat. 15. 26. This further appears by that which they requested for these infants. This seems to be yielded, They came (saith one) to Christ upon the conceit that he was a Prophet, and so they might bring children to him to be blessed; and further says, if this reason prove any thing, it is, that the children's parents were Jews, which is all that we contend for, the Jews as yet were in Covenant with God. To this is said, if it be meant of all the Jews, and of the covenant of grace in Christ, it is palpably false, contradictory to the Apostles determination, Rom. 9 7, 8. I am sure, Rome, 9 3, 4. Proves it to be above all contradiction true, and that Rom. 9 7, 8. hath nothing against it, I have largely showed, which is passed by in silence.  
Fourthly, These infants themselves were in covenant, and stood in relation to Christ, bearing his name, and being of his people; and were not as heathens in their present state without Christ; aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise. This is evident by their free admission by Christ, and the reason by him given, of such is the Kingdom of heaven. After some personal reflections which I am resolved to wave, I am told of the often complaint of the use of the word covenant, in so various senses, or rather sometimes none-sense by the Paedobaptists, and again of their nonsense or proper gibberish, which language I resolve to bear, being the least of many thousands that herein I suffer.  
Fifthly, They were admitted upon a common right equally belonging to all infants of covenanting parents, and not by virtue of any extraordinary privilege peculiar to them, and not common to others. This is plain. 1. By the general admission which he gives to infants on this occasion; suffer little children to come unto me, and extraordinarium non facit regulam communem; Here is a general rule, all have admission, and therefore there is nothing extraordinary it is objected, these present infants only were admitted, but though one say it, me thinks another should not be found to believe it, of such little ones is the Kingdom of heaven, therefore let these little ones come, and only these. 2. It was such a right that the Disciples of Christ ought to have understood, as plainly appears by Christ's sore displeasure conceived against them, for forbidding their admission to him, and that must be a known right and not secret; One indeed says, They were not admitted out of any known right common to others, but a peculiar privilege as being elected; for which Piscator is quoted, when as Piscator sylogistically concludes the contrary. His evasion of this argument is very well worthy of animadversion, The reason of Christ's anger was their hindering him in his design, not the knowledge they had of their present visible title, this is but a dream, afterwards he saith, the truth is, this thing was done to these infants, not by reason of any visible title they had, or to enter them into any outward Church privilege, but to accomplish by his blessing their interest in the invisible Kingdom of God by election. I would demand whether the Disciples did understand Christ's design, or whether they were bound to know it, or were their sin not to know it; whether they knew these infants to be elect, or whether they were bound to know their election? Neither of these having any ground (election being of the secrets of heaven, and Christ had not made known any such design) Christ who condemns anger without a cause as a breach of the sixth commandment, M●t. 5. 22. would not himself have been angry, where there could be no sin the alone just ground of anger. It is now confessed that the Disciples of Christ ought to have understood that they were to be admitted; but it was, either because they heeded not some particular intimation of his mind concerning those infants, or some general truth concerning Christ's office, and his readiness to do good to all sorts of persons, as there was opportunity offered, from which he ought not to be hindered by them, when Christ himself assigns an open known reason, of such little ones is the Kingdom of heaven, they that will may heed opposite conjectural reasons. It is confessed that elect infants might be baptised were they known; but in this case Christ may be as sore displeased at men's non-baptizing elect ones, as he was at his Disciples for forbidding the admission of these little ones. And let them take heed upon this account lest they suffer more from Christ's displeasure in not admitting elect infants to Baptism, than they can imagine that we shall suffer in the Baptism of those that are not elected. I am told that I have just cause to fear the displeasure of Christ for admitting to Baptism those that are neither known to be elect, nor believers, but infants of parents, who are manifestly children of the devil, covenant breakers. If they be covenant-breakers as is here confessed, than they are covenanters, for none out of covenant breaks covenant; and I here profess that I will baptise none of whom I have not all assurance that they are the children of God. As to that Adoption which is to the inheritance of privileges, as those were, Ezek. 16. 20.  
Sixthly, They are here admitted by our Saviour Christ to a Church-priviledge, proper to Church-members, the Israel of God; They are admitted to a blessing, Mar. 10. 16. Blessing is a Church-priviledge, Num. 6. 22 23, etc. to the end of the Chapter, The Lord spoke unto Moses saying, speak unto Aaron and his sons, saying, on this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, the Lord bless thee and keep thee, etc. And they shall put my Name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them. They are therefore admitted to a Church-priviledge; the Israel of God are under the blessing, little ones are ordered to receive this blessing, little ones therefore are of Israel. The Lord's portion is his people, Jacob is the lot of his inheritance, Deut. 32. 9 These are the blessed of the Lord upon this account, Jerem. 31. 23. As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah, and in the Cities thereof, when I shall bring again their captivity; The Lord bless thee O habitation of justice, and mountain of holiness. Children are within this number, they are the heritage of the Lord, Psalm. 127. 3. and consequently admitted by our Saviour Christ to this privilege of a blessing. The Author that charges nonsense and gibberish on Paedobaptists in general, there tells his Reader, that my arguing is as though my wits went on wool-gathering, because I was not mindful to put my argument into an explicit sylogistical form, but now it is done for his satisfaction; blessing is a privilege of the Israel of God, Numb. 6. 23. 27. Christ admits infants to a blessing. Therefore he admits them to a privilege of the Israel of God or Church-priviledge. It is objected that Christ admits only a few, but it is with a reason that gives admission to others of such is the Kingdom of heaven. A great triumph is made of a speech of mine, page 91. of my answer, where I say we do not think that this blessing was baptising, or that these desired, or that Christ intended their baptism; only we affirm that a medium hence may be taken▪ from whence we may infer the right of infants to baptism; They that are admitted to one Church-priviledg, may not be denied another, whereof they are equally capable; But infants are here admitted and order taken for their admission to one Church-priviledge, of which they are no otherwise capable than of Baptism; so that here is no direct precedent for baptism in particular, but for Church-priviledges of which infants are capable. None that are interessed in the Church of Christ which is his Kingdom may be denied an admission to it by Baptism. A ground it is, not immediate express, but by necessary consequence. Observation is made, Mark this speech, if [but] be adversative, than he grants that infants are capable of Church-priviledges; not of Baptism, which overthrows all his dispute. But that is left out which would fully explain my meaning, and wholly take off the force of his reply. This act of Christ is no direct precedent for Baptism in particular, but of Church-priviledges in general. If he can but assume and make good with our Socinian Antibaptists (who in the parts where I live, begin to triumph over Antipaedobaptists, beating them down with their own weapons) that Baptism is no Church-priviledge; then I shall confess, that he hath wrested this argument out of my hands, and that this text as to this argument falls, otherwise it is of force and an undeniable consequence. I am now told, that, if this act of Christ's be a direct precept (I intended precedent) of Church-priviledges in general, than it is of Baptism in particular, being a Church-priviledge, that which is said of the Genus, being true (as Logicians say) of the species, quicquid praedicatur de genere, praedicatur de specie. Whence it follows, he speaks inconsistencies. But he should have taken in all my words [immediate express] as well as [direct] and I think he that speaks of the Genus doth not immediately, directly, and expressly speak of the species. But if it be otherwise, and that herein I was mistaken, I am here content to retract it, and confess now, with help of this new light, that there is an express, immediate, direct precedent for infant-Baptisme.  
Concerning the reason given of admission of infants in that proposition of Christ's, Of such is the Kingdom of heaven: We have 1. The subject, of such. 2. The predicate or attribute, is the Kingdom of Heaven. The particle such cannot here have reference to their qualification: that those that were qualified as these, in humility, and meekness, had their interest; Sheep and Doves as well as infants, are thus qualified. They are not proud, nor revengeful. That which the Disciples took to be an impediment of force to hinder infants, and a just ground of rebuke of those that brought them, is that which Christ understands in this reproof of the Disciples, and admission of their infants; But it was their want of growth, their littleness, which the Disciples took to be a just impediment, and which occasioned their reproof: So that the particle [such] hath direct reference to the quantity (as I may say) not to the quality of these infants, to their infant-stature, or minority not to their meekness or humility. And so it is referred elsewhere expressly by our Saviour himself; Who so shall receive one such little child, Matth. 18. 5. the word is the same here, and there, it respects littleness therefore, and not meekness. The whole Text may be thus fitly parathrased; Trouble not our Master with such as these, say the Disciples, there is no use of their coming, they need not his cure, and they are not capable of his instruction, they have no infirmity to be healed, no capacity to be taught; It is fit for men of abler parts, not for infants to make their address to him, Let them come, saith our Saviour, and let not their infant-age exclude them, how little soever they are capable of the Kingdom of Heaven.  
For the predicate or attribute, the Kingdom of heaven: This as is said, is meant of the Kingdom of Glory; and on this hinge (as is further said) the answer to the whole Argument turns. The Author therefore assumes his affirmation, and saith; I determine the Kingdom of Heaven to be meant of the Kingdom of Glory, and gives his reasons. To encounter with this confident assault of his, I shall undertake these three particulars.  
1. To make it appear that the hinge of the whole hangs not here.  
2. That in his reasons given are nothing satisfactory, to evince that it must be meant of the Kingdom of Glory.  
3. That in case it were granted him, yet it doth not at all advantage the lea●e.  
First, That all hangs not on this, appears, in that our Saviour had said enough in his order for admission of these infants, on which we can build our conclusion. Those that are admitted to Church-priviledges, they are Church-members; But infants are admitted by our Saviour Christ to Church-priviledges, and therefore are Church-members. However Master Tombs can interpret the reason, yet he cannot deny Christ's order for their admission, nor deny that it was a Church-priviledge to which they are admitted. To illustrate it by a parallel. The Apostle says, 1 Cor. 11. 10. The woman ought to have power on her head, because of the Angels. The woman's duty is there clear, to be covered in token of subjection, though we do not agree what is meant by Angels; Whether Angels of Glory, or God's Ministers in the Congregations that are called Angels of Churches; our duty is as plain to give infant's admittance as Church-members, though the reason annexed remains controverted; Whether God's Kingdom on Earth, or the Kingdom in Glory be here meant by the Kingdom of Heaven.  
Secondly, For his Reasons (which though I should yield, the cause is already gained) there is not force in them.  
1. Saith he, The Kingdom of God must be understood, Mark 10. 14. as it is vers. 15. and Luke 18. 16. as vers. 17. and Matth. 19 14. as it is in both those; This is proved, because our Saviour from their estate, infers a likeness to them in others for the same estate, Apolog p. 150. This Argument what colour soever it carries, yet it is not conclusive. It may be taken more largely in Christ's argumentation, and in a more restrained sense in his words of Instruction or Application, as in a place much parallel I shall show, 1 Cor. 6. 1, 2. There we have the Apostles reproof, vers. 1. and his reason, vers. 2. as in the Evangelists we have Christ's assertion confirming his reproof, ver. 14. and his application, ver. 15. Now Saint, in the Apostles reproof is taken more largely, than it is taken in his reason. A visible Saint is meant in the first place, a real and glorified Saint in the second; visible Saints may judge in small matters, for real Saints in glory shall judge the world, shall judge Angels; and so it may be here, infants have their present title to the visible Kingdom; and men qualified as infants, shall only enter the Kingdom of Glory. His second reason, that Christ directs his speech to the Disciples already in the visible Church, and therefore speaks not of the Church visible, I know not how to make up into a reason; If I understood it, I would either yield or answer it. The third reason, that the speech, Mark 10. 15 Luke 18. 17. is like Mat. 18. 3, 4. but there it is meant of the Kingdom of Glory; Ergo, so here is answered already. If Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. be like Matth. 18 3, 4. yet Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. which we have in question; is unlike to Matth. 18. 3, 4.  
Thirdly, Were it granted him, that the Kingdom of Glory must be understood both in Christ's reason and application, yet he is nothing holpen. Infants have right to the Church visible militant, because they are in a capacity of entrance into the Church triumphant, Acts 2. 47. The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved; Not necessarily saved, but now (having entered Covenant with God) they were in a capacity, and therefore added as visible Church-members. Infants standing in this capacity, aught to have admission likewise. It is said, that if this proposition were granted, that they have right to the Church visible militant who shall be of the Church triumphant, yet this right cannot be claimed but by those who are elect, and therefore from these Scriptures so expounded, it cannot be proved that any other than elect infants are to be baptised.  
Answ. If election or nonelection must steer us in admission to Baptism this were to purpose interposed, but when there is nothing that can be objected against them as hindering their salvation it is sufficiently proved that it may not hinder their Baptism. That must not be pleaded against any as a bar to hinder their admission into the Church on earth that will not hinder their admission into the Church in heaven.   

CHAP. LIV.  
Reason's evincing the Birth-priviledge and covenant-holiness of the issue of Believers.  
HAving already so largely insisted upon by Scripture proofs, that children are in covenant with parents, and that privileges of Ordinances (which necessarily imply a covenant) do descend to posterity, I shall lay down certain grounds; some of them making way towards, 
Covenant-interest is of the nature of those things that descend from parent to child.  and others necessarily inferring of themselves the conclusion.  
First, This is of the nature of those things which descend from Parent to child, from Ancestors to Posterity, which is in their power to convey to their issue. There are those things indeed which are personally inherent in men, and proper to them, so that they cannot convey them to their issue; there is no deriving of them to others by succession. As, 1. Individual accidents of the body, wounds, scars, or comeliness of feature, these are so in the Parent, that they are not conveyed to their children. 2. Habits, or proper gifts; whether acquired by pains, or infused. The son of a learned man inherits not his father's gifts; The son of an Artificer is no such Artist; The son of a Prophet hath not by virtue of birth the gift of prophecy; nor is the son of a regenerate man endowed with saving grace for that reason.  
There are on the contrary those things that pass from Parent to child, which the Parent by nature or special privilege hath power to convey. As, 1. The essential or integral part of a Species, with the natural properties that do accompany it; so one brute beast brings forth another, one bird brings for another, and man brings forth one of mankind. 2. The privileges or burdens, which in Family or Nation are hereditary, they are conveyed from Parents to Posterity, from Ancestors to their issue; As is the Father, so is the child, as respecting these particulars. This none have questioned, and these things in hand being of the same nature, it is a fair propable ground of itself (if evidence to the contrary from Scripture be not clear) that they are thus still transmitted. 
Like privileges do descend in Kingdoms, Commonweals, Cities, etc.   
Secondly, It is so in Kingdoms, Commonwealths, Cities, in Corporations, Families; The son of a Noble man is Noble, of a Freeman, is Free, Acts 22. 28. As the son of a bondman (where by the Law of Nations they are bond men) is a bondman likewise, Exod. 21. 4. Now we know that in Scripture the Church of God is frequently styled by these names; By the most honourable of them, Mat. 8. 11, 12. Mat. 21. 43. Ephes. 2. 19 Hebrews 12. 22. Ephesians 3. 15. to let us understand, that as Cities, Kingdoms, Families, have their privileges; so the people of God in covenant have theirs likewise.  
But we are told, Object. You do very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like civil Corporations, as if persons were admitted to it by birth; whereas in this all is done by free Election of grace, and according to God's appointment; nor is God tied, or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church, to any such carnal respects as descent from men: Christianity is no man's birthright. 
Sol.   
Protestant Divines are taken up by the Jesuits in the self same way for this very thing. A Lapide on 1 Cor. 7. 14. saith; 
a Hinc Calvinus & Beza suum dogma de traduce justitia hauserunt, docéntque fidelium fi●ios propriè esse sanctos & sine Baptisme salvari quia hoc ipso quo fidelium sunt filii, censentur esse in Ecclesia nati juxta foedus divinum, Ero Deus tuus & seminis tui, Goe 17. 7. Quemadmodum jure civili censentur liberi qui ex altero parentè libero nascuntur; sed errand,  Hence Calvin and Beza have drawn their opinion of a birth-righteousnesse, and say, that the children of Believers are holy, and saved without Baptism; because on this account that they are Believers children, they are reputed to be born in the Church, within that Divine covenant; I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, Gen. 17. 7. As children in the civil Law are accounted free, whose parents are either of them free; but (saith he) they are deceived, and gives his reason; The Church is not a civil Commonwealth, but supernatural; and there is no man born a Christian, but spiritually new borne, and is made holy; not civilly, but really, by faith, hope and charity infused into the soul. So Stapleton on the same words in his Antidotum, (applying the Spiritual Antidote against calvin's Carnal Poison,) saith▪ 
b Foederis inter Deum & Abraham initi participes sint, sive Judaei ab eo carnaliter oriundi, sive Christianorum parentum liberi: carnalis generatio nihil facit.  That Jews carnally descended from Abraham or the children of Christians may be made partakers of the Covenant entered of God with Abraham: Birth according to the flesh does nothing. So also Bellarmine speaking of the covenant with Abraham, saith; 
c Ad nos descendit non per carnalem generationem parentum, sed per spiritualem regenerationem Christi.  It descends to us, not by carnal, but spiritual generation; So that these men have sucked the spiritual meaning from the Jesuits, and Master Marshal holds to the carnal imaginations of Protestant Reformers. They produce many Texts of Scripture, where this Birth-priviledge in their thoughts is evidently set forth, Jesuits contradict it, and upon this account it is a carnal imagination to conceive it.  
The Apostle knew not (saith one) that God had so by promise, Object. or other engagement bound himself; but he was free as he said to Moses after the promise made to Abraham, to have mercy on whom he would, Rom. 9 15.  
If this be meant of any engagement of God to confer saving graces, 
Sol.  or habitual qualifications on the natural seed of Believers, the words than carry reason with them. But neither he nor his great friends will learn, to distinguish between God's conditional covenant (contained in privileges of Ordinances) and habitual saving graces, otherwise they know from Moses, that God exercised this freedom in making choice of Israel above all Nations, and that the Apostle knew, and in the same Chapter lets us know, Rom. 9 4. that to them pertained the covenants, and that this was their prerogative for Birth-priviledge, Rom. 3. 1. We say the son of a Freeman is Free, the son of a Nobleman is Noble; we never said that the son of a Learned-man is Learned; we say that the son of a Christian is a Christian, as to interest in Ordinances; We never said that the son of a Regenerate man is Regenerate.  
It is further urged, Object. If this were true that the covenant of Grace is a birth-right-priviledge, than the children of Believers are children of Grace by nature; for that which is a birth-right-priviledge, is a privilege by nature. And if Christianity is hereditary, that as the child of a Nobleman is Noble, the child of a Freeman is Free, the child of a Turk is a Turk, of a Jew a Jew, the child of a Christian is a Christian, Than Christians are born Christians, and not made Christians, and how are they then children of wrath by nature; which whether it may not advantage the Pelagians, and deniers of Original sin; it concerns those that use such speeches to consider.  
To this I answer. 
Sol.  It concerns those that press these objections, to see how Chamier, Paraeus and other Protestant Writers answer them, when they are in their very words urged by Jesuits. If they can reconcile Galat. 2. 15. with Ephes. 2. 3. than they have an answer. The Apostle was by birth of the people of God in covenant, and yet by nature a child of wrath.  
It is further said, Object. To conceive that it is in God's Churches as in other Kingdoms, and after the Laws of Nations, is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors.  
It is well that they have learned an Artifice from these 
Sol.  superstition-hating Jesuits, to keep out the inlet of superstition among us: if there were no parallel held betwixt the Church of God and other Kingdoms, after the manner of the Law of Nations, but such that are Seminaries of superstition; they may do well to acquaint us how it comes to pass, that the Curch in Scripture hath the name of a City, Family, Kingdom? Similitudes ever carry some resemblance. If this were the alone ground, on which the Birth-priviledge of Christians were bottomed, they had said something; but being only an illustration of it, and nothing more, they are over lavish in their censure. Similitudes indeed may be overstretched beyond their reach, and if they had laid down rules to declare where the Similitude holds, and where it holds not (as I have done in the Birth-priviledge) and made it appear that it holds not in that for which I produce it, they had said somewhat to the purpose; Read Mal. 1. 6, 8, 14. and tell me whether there be any ground laid for dangerous superstitions. 
Birth-interest descends in all other Religions   
Thirdly, It is so in all other Religions, they keep up their privilege of interest in the worship of their Ancestors. The child of a Turk is a Turk, the child of a Pagan is a Pagan, the child of a Jew is a Jew: And it is the Apostles Argument in like case respective to Ecclesiastical communion, that because Sacramental communion rendered them one Ecclesiastical body with Christians; so communion in worship will make one body with those of other Religions, 1 Cor. 10. 17, 18, 19 See Paraeus on the words, and Cudworths True notion of the Lords Supper. There are common principles that are the same in all Religions, and we must believe them to hold, unless Scripture hold forth a difference. 
God owns childre● borne in the Church as his servants, and as his children.   
Fourthly, God owns children born in the Church as by birth his, his servants, Levit. 25. 39, 40, 41, 42. If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant, but as an hired servant, and as a sojourner he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of Jubilee. And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him; and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return; For they are my servants. Root and Branch, Parent and child are servants of God; As they were the servants of their Master; when they could do them actually no service, by reason of their relation to them; so they are the servants of God on the same account. And as he owns them as his servants, so also he owns them as by birth his children, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. Moreover, thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured; Is this of thy Whoredoms a small matter, That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them? If there were no Birth-priviledge, how had God this property in Infants? and this David pleads, Ps. 116. 16. O Lord, I am thy servant, truly I am thy servant, and the son of thy handmaid; because he was borne in God's house, and was a child of a servant of his; he pleads his interest.  
Fifthly, 
Parent and child respective to Church-interest, are not in an opposite condition.  If the child be not in covenant, the parent and child are heterogeneal, and respective to Church-relation in the most opposite condition: the Parent in the Kingdom of God by virtue of the faith that he professes: the child in the Kingdom of Satan by reason of his non-interest in the Promise, and want of title to Covenant-relation. But Scripture makes them still as one, Jew's children are Jews by nature, Gentiles children are sinners, that is, Gentiles by nature. The Root being holy, the Branches are holy; Parents not sanctified, children are unclean; but Parents being sanctified, they are holy.  
Sixthly, 
No precedent in Scripture, of a believing Parent bringing up a child for covenant and not in covenant.  If children be not taken into Covenant with their parents, than the most godly of Parents bring up children; not in covenant, but for a covenant; not in any present interest of relation to God, but at best in an hopeful expectation of it. They bring not forth children to God, but at best they have their desires to train them for such a future visible relation; But there is no such example in all Scripture of a parent in covenant, training up the seed of their bodies for a covenant. No one in all New Testament-Scripture, ever bred up a child in years to baptise him, no more than in Old Testament-Scriptures they bred their children to circumcise them; we read of many baptised in years, but we read of none borne of Christian parents, kept till years of discretion to be baptised.—  
Seventhly, 
Infant's out of covenant according to Scripture-grounds are without hope of salvation.  If children be not received into covenant with their parents, but stand without covenant, and in no right of Church-membership, than they are without any Scripture-ground of hope of salvation, than they are as all others that are out of covenant; without Christ, without God, without hope. And because some have risen up against this Argument with high clamours, though hitherto with feeble, or rather no reasons, I shall somewhat more enlarge myself in confirmation of it. That which the prime authors of, and chiefest sticklers for, the non-federation of infants freely confess, which the general consent of their adversaries (Protestant Writers) unanimously upon Scripture grounds conclude, that the present Patrons can maintain with nothing but clamours, and such reasons (improved to the highest) which will equally conclude the hopes of the greatest Drunkards, Idolaters, Adulterers, Heathens; that must be taken for an Argument of force, and a reason conclusive this cannot be denied; But so it is here, as I shall make good in several particulars.  
1. Those of the Church of Rome, 
Jesuits our leading adversaries confess it.  that have stood up against Infant's covenant-holiness, do confess that all infants going out of the world as they came into the world, in that estate perish, and so have provided a chamber in hell, which they call by the name of Limbus Infantum, and now since their Limbus Patrum by Christ's death is made empty by the fetching out all that were there in expectation of him, and the number of infants thus dying increasing, it is said by some that these two are laid together: howsoever it falls out with these places about which we have no reason to busy ourselves, this position that infants thus dying without any covenant, or Church-interest, do perish, follows as directly from their principles as any conclusion from its premises.  
2. Protestant Divines who assert Infant-salvation, 
Protestant Divines cannot avoid it.  and believe no such division of hell into chambers, and have other thoughts of the condition of Infants, still bring this interest of theirs in the covenant of God as their ground, (not prying into the secrets of Election, nor urging prerogative above that which is written) the covenant of God, Gen. 17. 7. confirmed by the New Testament-Scriptures before mentioned. They very well know, that in case Papists can wrest this covenant-interest of infants from them, they conclude according to Scripture-ground their damnation: Luke tells us, there were daily added to the Church such as should be saved, namely to the Church visible, as the Text is clear, Acts 2. 47. Now if they stand not admitible into the Church, they stand without hope of salvation; see how the Apostle joins these together, Ephes. 2. 12. Without Christ, being aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenants of Promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. If any can conclude against the interest of any in the Commonwealth of Israel, that is, the Church of God, and the covenants of promise (which those do that will have them to be no Church-members, nor to be taken into covenant with Parents) they sadly doom them to be without Christ, without God, without Hope. Those that disclaim Zuinglius his opinion, that Hercules, Socrates, Aristides, Numa, and such like Heathens are now in heaven; would be desired to show how they cast those out, upon that account as Heathens, and take in infants as great strangers (according to them) to any Church-interest. Infants want not sin for condemnation; our first Original estate being a corrupt estate, and by nature children of wrath, and putting them out of covenant, they can find no Scripture-way to entitle them to Christ for redemption; They seem to conceive other hopes of the salvation of infants of Heathens, that upon the same ground they may be charitable to the infants of Christians, that with them are in the same posture with Heathens, when they speak of Hercules and other Heathens as before; yet speaking of the infants of Heathens, they say, It is bad to say, that God doth not save some of the infants of Indians pro bene placito, according to his good pleasure. For any warrant we can find in Scripture, it is as bad to say it of the parent as of the child. The Scriptures leave the whole of the Family, root and branch under the fury and wrath of God▪ Jeremiah 10. 25. Psal. 79. 6. 
Our present adversaries instead of reasons oppose only comers against it.   
3. The present Patrons of this non-federation of infants, can maintain their salvation with nothing but clamours, and such reasons improved to the highest, that equally conclude the salvation of the greatest drunkards, adulterers, idolaters, Heathens; I shall now purposely for peace sake pass by those high clamours and bitter invectives that we meet with on this occasion, and come to take notice of the reasons produced, to exempt infants from this doom of condemnation, and all that I can find is one and the same thing to fly for refuge to prerogative; This is my judgement (saith one) that God will have us to suspend our judgement of this matter, and Rest on the Apostles determination, Rom. 9 18. For satisfaction of which I need to add no more than what I have said, page 15. of my Answer, seeing it rests, & not one word yet replied to it. The Text of Scripture (which we have over and over) is, that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, telling his adversary, that it is bad to say that God doth not save pro bene placito, which no adversary of his will deny, But God is pleased in his Word to make known the way of the dispensation of his mercy, otherwise the vilest person against whom in our ministerial way, we denounce Gods judgements▪ may reply that his hope of salvation is as good as the best, for God saves ex bene placito, and hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and the best soul, in a case of disertion, will take off all his applications of comfort, with the close of that Scripture, And whom he will he hardeneth, Rom. 9 18. And so the Jews even in their rejection, (of which the Apostle speaks so largely,) being cut off by unbelief, might have pleaded their hope of salvation, as well as in a believing condition; we must therefore not look to the secret Will of God, of which no reason can be given, but his good pleasure; but into his revealed Will, where he is pleased to make known the dispensation of this will and good pleasure of his, and so we shall learn not to carry our hopes beyond his promise. To that Text of the Apostle, Eph● 〈◊〉. 12. In which all out of Covenant are concluded to be with 〈…〉, It is said, Though the Gentiles were without hope, Eph● 〈◊〉. 12. in respect of the body of them, yet now and then, God called some, as Rahab, out of the visible Church, and therefore we may not determine universally that out of the visible Church there is no salvation at all. But when Rahab was thus called she was no more a Gentile, as appears, Ephes. 2. 11. as the Ephesians had been, but in present were no Gentiles, so also it was with her, neither she, nor they, were saved out of the Church; but brought into the Church for salvation.   

CHAP. LV.  
A Corollary for Infant's Baptism. Infant-Baptism by Arguments asserted.  
THen it follows by way of necessary Corollary, that Infants have right to Baptism, children of baptised parents are entitled to that Ordinance.  
First, those that have been Church-members, and admitted with the initiating sign and seal, are yet to be admitted, unless order be given to the contrary; But Infants have been Church-members, and accordingly admitted by the initiating sign and seal, neither is there any order for the contrary; Therefore Infants are Church-membes, and still to be admitted.  
Secondly, Those that are under the Covenant-promises of God with the body of his people, have right to Baptism, Acts. 2. 39 But Infants are under the Covenant-promises of God with the body of his people; Infants therefore have right to Baptism.  
Thirdly, Saints, or holy persons have right to Baptism: Infants are Saints, they are holy persons, Rom. 11. 1●. ● Cor. 7. 14. Infant's therefore have right to Baptism.  
Fourthly, They that by birth according to the flesh, are in the bosom of the Church, have right to Baptism: But Infants by birth according to the flesh are in the bosom of the Church, Gal. 4. 29. Infant's therefore ought to be baptised.  
Fifthly, They that are admitted to Church-priviledges have right to Baptism, the leading privilege; But Infants are admitted to Church-priviledges, Mark 10. 14. Matth. 19 14. Luke 18. 16. Infant's therefore have right to Baptism.  
Sixtly, The children of the Kingdom, that with others make up the Kingdom of God, have right to Baptism; But Infants are the children of the Kingdom, that with others make up the Kingdom of God, Mark 10. 14. Matth. 19 14. Luke 18. 16. Infant's therefore have right to Baptism.  
Seventhly, The heritage of the Lord are to be admitted to Baptism: But Infants are the heritage of the Lord, Psal. 127. 3. therefore Infants are to be admitted to baptism.  
Eightly, Those that are to be saved, are to be added to the Church by baptism, Acts 2. 47. Infants are to be saved, and therefore are to be added to the Church by Baptism.  
In all of these Syllogisms the minor is at large confirmed in the discourse before going, the major in each shall presently be at large confirmed, and so the conclusion will be undeniable.  
Here it is objected with no small noise, that Infant-baptisme wants an institution, 
Objections against Infant's Baptism answered.  we find no command for it in all New Testament-Scripture, where our warrant alone is for New Testament-Ordinances. Neither have we any example in the New Testament of an Infant baptised; whatsoever than our Arguments are, this concludes it to be without warrant. To speak to these, and first to the institution.  
The institution spoken to in this objection, 
The Question stated whether there be any institution of Infant-Baptism.  either is an institution of the Ordinance of Baptism itself; or else an institution with limit to Infant-age; For Baptism itself they will not deny that we have warrant in the New Testament; John was sent to baptise in the Nation of the Jews, John 1. 33. and the Apostles have the● commission Matth. 28. 19 to baptise all Nations. For an institution with limit to Infant-age; we heard but even now there was no institution in the Old Testament for Infant-Circumcision. The institution Gen. 17. 10. is for males without limit in respect of growth: I am sure it cannot be affirmed that there is any institution of Baptism in the New Testament, with limit to any determinate age or growth. This objection if it have force in it, followed home, will overthrow all Baptism at any age, and every other New Testament-Ordinance whatsoever. Suppose a man of 20, 25, 30, 40, 50. years of age seeketh Baptism. According to this rule, he must bring a prescript for one of this age to be baptised, and the same also for the Lords Supper. But it is replied, Believers of any age may be baptised, believe, and the age is not regarded. This will be easily yielded, if they be not already baptised, but then the institution with limit to Infancy is waved; and upon the same account Church-Members in Covenant of any age, aught to be baptised, and so the institution is not in question about that there is an agreement. But whether Infants be in Covenant, or whether they be any Church-Members, is to be disputed, which already is satisfied.  
2. I say those words of our Saviour. Matth. 28. 19 Disciple all Nations, 
Infants are within the verge of the institution of Baptism.  baptising them, etc. do comprise Infants in them as well as men of years; Infants serving to make up a Nation as well as Parents. The Infants of Nineveh did make a considerable party of the City of Nineveh. The Infants of any Nation make up a part of the Nation, and the Nation where they came was to be discipled, and baptised. And that Infants are here comprehended, farther appears by this Argument.  
In the same sense and latitude as Nation was taken in respect of the Covenant of God, when the Covenant and Covenant-initiating Sacrament was restrained to that one only Nation, where the●r commission was first limited; In the same sense it is to be taken (unless the Text express the contrary) now the commission is enlarged. This cannot be denied of any that will have the Apostles to be able to know Christ's meaning, by his words in this enlarged commission: But Nation then (as is confessed) did comprehend all in the Nation in respect of the Covenant, and nothing is expressed in the Text to the contrary; therefore it is to be taken in that latitude to comprehend Infants. This Argument hath strength from that of the Apostle, Acts 3. ●5. Yea are the children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. As it was with the kindred of Abraham in respect of covenant-holiness; so it is with all kindreds of the earth, they jointly make one party in the Covenant But Infants of Abraham's kindred were in the Covenant, and of the Nation, in respect of Covenant-blessednesse.  
But it will be said, that an exception of Infants is implied, in that all of the Nation must be discipled before they be baptised: But Infants are not capable of being discipled; and so they are made uncapable of Baptism.  
I answer. 1. Here is implied that they are of capacity to be Disciples, in that Christ sends to disciple Nations, and they serve to make up the Nation.  
2. It is the way of Scripture-speaking of an universality of a people in a Land, expressly to except Infants in case they be to be excepted, as we see in the judgement that befell Israel in the wilderness, to the cutting off of those that came out of the Land of Egypt, Numb. 14. 38. And in the Covenant entered by the body of the Nation of all degrees and sexes at their return from Babylon, Nehem. 10. 28. and an exception could be no where more useful and necessary than there; to let us know that it is otherwise with Gentiles in this particular, than it was with the Jews, that the Nations where their commission thus enlarged, were herein differenced from the Nation to which their Ministry was first limited.  
3. Let that Text of the Prophet be well weighed, where speaking by the Spirit of Prophecy of the rejection of the Jews, and the glorious call of the Gentiles in their stead (in that ample way as it is there set out) he hath these words: Behold, I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people, and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders, Isa. 49. 22. If there were but such an hint as that, by way of Prophecy, to have left them behind, we should from some, have heard of it with a noise.  
4. In the Lord Christ's own Dialect, 
Infans are Disciples.  who is best able to express his own meaning, they are Disciples. To belong to Christ is to be a Disciple of Christ. This is plain from our Saviour's own mouth, comparing his words recorded in Matthew and in Mark, To give a cup of cold water to drink in the name of a Disciple, it is in the one, Matth. 10. 42. To give a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to me, it is in the other, Mark 9 41. To belong to Christ, to be a Disciple of Christ, and to bear the name of Christ is one and the same thing with our Saviour. Now that infants are of the number of those who as Disciples in Christ's account do belong to him, and bear his name, is yet farther plain by another Text of Saint Matthew, Matth. 18. 5. where Christ setting a little child in the midst of his hearers, saith, Whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. By all which it appears, that which is done to Infants, is done to Disciples, & hath a glorious reward as done to Disciples. Infant's therefore are Disciples of Christ, are of those that do belong unto him, and bear his name: Who then is not afraid to refuse them who will receive Christ? Who will not baptise them that is willing to baptise Disciples in the name of Christ?  
For that part of the objection, 
The invalidity of that objection, that we have no example of Infant-Baptisme examined.  that there is no example in New Testament-Scripture on infant-Baptisme. I answer.  
First, For an example of Baptism with limit to any one precise number of years, or days; we have but one that I know (if that) in Scripture, and that is of Christ, who was (as is computed) about the age of thirty, when he was baptised, if this be pressed and followed, all must at that alone be for Baptism, and no other of any age may be baptised.  
Secondly, There are many things of which we make no question, and yet we have no example of them: I have instanced in the trial of the suspected wife by the water of jealousy, that there is no example for it in all the Old Testament-Scripture; and for women's receiving of the Lord's Supper, there is not a particular institution, or any particular express precedent for it in the New Testament; They cannot give us any instance of any one trained up by believing Parents for Baptism, and assoon as he could give an account, baptised; not one child of a Believer brought up for covenant, and not in covenant. One goes about to give instance of particular precedents for women's receiving the Lords Supper. 2. And instead of a precedent urges, 1 Cor. 11. 28. as an express command in formal terms for women, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehending both Sexes. To this I have replied in my answer, pag. 52. We are then furnished with an express command in terms as formal, and with an example to boo●e of women's circumcision; and so the difference between circumcision and Baptism (so often laid in the dish of Paedobaptists) here falls to the ground; Ye on the Sabbath-day do circumcise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man, John 7. 22. if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man on the Sabbath-day receive circumcision, that the Law of Moses should not be broken, John 7. 23. Here is Moses his command, the Jews practice, with Christ's approbation, in the same comprehensive latitude in regard of both Sexes, as in Saint Paul for receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. And if arguments borrowed from Grammar use of words, be of that force; you see what they have proved, As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in one Sacrament, so it is to be taken in another: But in the Sacrament of circumcision it is limited to the male only, to which accords that Logic rule; Omne analogum stans per se, stat pro famosiori analogato. To this is replied that the subject matter of the command as well as the Grammar use of the word, proves females to be included, but then his express formal command is lost, they are not expressed, but included, and by consequence only, which will not be denied. He farther says, that 1 Cor. 10. 17. is an express command in formal terms of women's receiving the Lords Supper; we being many, are one bread, and one body, for we are partakers of one bread. I demand, whether the Apostle speaks in the person of Christians, or in the person of women? not of women sure, for he takes in himself, and he was a man, and then the formality of an express Example falls. He brings Acts 20. 7. that the Disciples on the first day of the week came together to break bread. Here is an example as express and formal, as the former. They cannot infallibly prove by help of consequence, much less expressly, that there was a woman there. At that night-meeting there might be none but men, as at the first institution. It can never be an express example till it be made to appear that none are Disciples but women.  
Thirdly, The examples that we have of a whole household, being baptised; if some had them in hand, would be sufficiently formal; but any thing will serve as an express proof, when they have a mind to affirm it, and nothing will serve to evince it by consequence, when they have a mind to deny it. But as Disciples are women, so families have children. There are Families without children, and there are Disciples there are not women. The commission is to disciple Nations, and baptise them. Providence hath happily ordered that Nations have been brought in, and their Infants received to Baptism. In the Primitive times households were baptised, without mention of exclusion of children, in after-ages households have come in with their children.  
Secondly, 
Infants want of faith and repentance, no impediments of their Baptism.  It is yet objected, Men must believe and be baptised, Mark 16. 16. Repent and be baptised, Acts 2. 39 Infant's can neither believe, nor repent, therefore they may not be baptised; and will it not as directly follow, that when they can neither believe nor repent, they must be damned; let them frame an answer to the one, and then they have answered both; That which will speak for them to receive them into heaven (notwithstanding those Scriptures that threaten condemnation to men in unbelief and impenitency,) will speak also, to receive them into the Church by Baptism. 
The want of those express words, Infants ought to be baptised is no impediment of their Baptism.   
Thirdly, Some say, Where is it said in so many words, infants must be baptised? Bring us those words, we abhor syllogisms and consequences. To deal with them with their own weapons; Where is it said that Infants must not be baptised, where are those words written? if they care not for our consequences, we shall not care for theirs. They have answered. Negatives cannot be proved. To this we answer. 1. Where is that said? we find it no where in Scripture, that Negatives cannot be proved. 2. Christ proved Negatives, That himself was not a Spirit; A Spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me have, Luke 24. 39 That God was not to be tempted, Mat. 4. 7. 3. if Negatives cannot be proved, than Negatives are not to be believed, ours is an Affirmative which they yield may be proved, theirs, is a Negative which they say cannot be proved, we then have the better of it, there is hope of proof on our side, theirs is desperate.  
To help the Reader in a word for the necessity of consequences: 
Necessity of Scripture consequence.  If those be fools that cannot gather consequences from Scripture, to settle their faith upon them, then much more those that deny them; But such are fools by our Saviour's own testimony, that cannot gather consequences from Scripture to settle their faith on them, Luke 24. 25, 26. O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken, ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to have entered into his glory? Those were fools and dullards that did not believe from the Scriptures of the Prophets, that Christ must suffer and enter unto glory. But those words are no where in express words written: It is alone by consequence from the Prophet's words that we know them. Somewhat I have spoken to those that reason in this sort, lest they should be wise in their own conceit, I will have no more to deal with them, lest I be thought to be like them.  
Fourthly, 
Antiquity is for Infant-Baptisme.  There is a great flourish made by some, as though Antiquity were against Infant-Baptisme, and famous flourishing Churches never received it: In which some have taken much pains, but never did men travel in a business to less purpose, as all may see that will take the pains to read what they have wrote, and bring it home to that which lies upon their hand to prove, which is, that Infant-Baptisme is not ancient, as is pretended, that there were some ages of the Church in which it was not in use. In all of which search of theirs and help that they have found from the greatest Antiquaries of the Socinian party, no friends to the Baptism of infants, they cannot find one Writer of any kind whatsoever, or wheresoever, from the day that John baptised in Jordan, and in Aenon near Salome to this very year, that hath said, and left on record, That there was no such custom as Infant-Baptism in his days; and when so many have expressly affirmed that the original, was from the Apostles, and that no beginning of it in the Church can be found, till some one appear in contradiction to assert the non-usage of it in his time, let any indifferent Reader judge to what purpose all serves that can be said. The primitive times had not musical instruments in their congregations, they had not Altars, Images, they erected not Temples to Saints, this we hear from Writers in their several Ages, and in case they had not infant-Baptism (when the Church of the Jews had infant-circumcision, and the ancient, made Baptism to succeed circumcision) and never any one mention their non-usage of it, or give any reason concerning it, is above a wonder, the prime argument to render this practice to be of lower standing, than is pretended, is the silence of some Authors of ancient, who times in their works (as is said) do not mention it, as Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Eusebius, if it had been known in their times, why do they not once mention it? To this, much might be said. 1. Every Writer doth not treat of all Subjects, nor deal in all Arguments, some have written in our age, and infant-Baptism is not found in all their Writings, shall after-ages infer upon their silence that infant-Baptisme was not used in our times? 2. If some Writers do not mention it, yet others in the same time, or near about, speak fully to it. 3. Master Marshal full proofs of it, in several of the Authors that are said to be silent in it, as Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanasius, and that in Epiphanius, that doth necessarily imply it. And those that mind farther satisfaction of his Objections, drawn from the Questions put to the baptised, and the delay of Baptism by some, they may find it in his Answer, and if he ingenuously confessed, that he craved the help of some learned Antiquaries, it speaks but little ingenuity in those that once and again upbraid him for it. I have put to the adversaries seven Queries concerning the practice of antiquity about Infant-Bapti●me, with some Observations also about it, in my Answer of his Letter, page 3. to the tenth, which I thought might give some satisfaction to all that which hath been spoke to this thing, but have received no answer; It is said by one that the determination mentioned by Cyprian, so far as he can find by search, is the springhead of infant-Baptisme, which upon challenge made, he thus explains. I did not deny that I found infant-Baptism practised before, but that the determination of that Council was the springhead that is the first determined rule or Canon, by force of which, it hath since continued in a stream, and this is true. It seems the River had run some hundreds of years before the springhead broke forth, but not in such a channel as a determinate rule or Canon, when it is well known that infant-Baptisme was not in that Council of 66 Bishops at all agitated, much less determined; It was not put to the Question, but taken for granted by all that were present. The dispute and the determination was upon that which Fidus questioned, which was the Baptism of infants before eight days old, and not infant-Baptisme; how could he mean that it hath since continued in a stream, by virtue of that determination or Canon, when he very well knows there was neither determination nor Canon upon it, nor yet any need of it? They determined that which in their meeting was put to the Vote, that an infant under eight days might be baptised. So that this Quaere, as all the rest, stands unsatisfied, and antiquity cleared for infant-Baptisme.  
It is yet farther said, 
Infant Baptism is not bestowed on unwritten tradition.  that many learned men in former and latter times, take infant-Baptisme only for an unwritten tradition; giving us a list of Popish Writers that have spoke to this purpose, a Cardinal in a Popish Council, Bennus, Bellarmine and Erasmus that had scarce stepped over the threshold from them: To which we answer, That it is no marvel, if these making it their business to parallel unwritten Traditions with Scriptures, some of them to prefer them before them, and knowing infant-Baptisme to be in honour in all Churches, do pin it upon unwritten Tradition, that so they may advance the honour of unwritten Tradition with it, yet even these cite Scriptures for it, and so mar their own market of Traditions, as those that procure them are forced to acknowledge. When Bellarmine would argue the Scriptures imperfection, and assert a necessity of unwritten Tradition, than he can affirm that infant-Baptisme, hath no other foundation, but when he will defend infant-Baptisme against those that matter not Tradition, he can find Scripture for confirmation: Foreseeing this Objection an Answer is brought out of Bennus, That some things may be proved out of Scripture, when the true sense of Scripture is evident; and infant-Baptisme is proved from John 3. 5. but the sense whereby to prove it is manifest by tradition, Becan. Manual. lib. 1. cap. 2. sect. 24. It is very well known that these Jesuits will say as much of any point of Faith, and leave the whole meaning of all Scripture to rest on the Church's interpretation, continued by tradition. As to the quotation of Protestant Authors, so many of them as have kept up the honour of Scripture, and made no defection from that way, it only speaks their boldness to affirm that any of them ever dishonoured infant-Baptisme in that way, as to settle it upon unwritten tradition, or to fix it on such a bottom. They very well know, that, as they defend the Scriptures full perfection, and make it their business to oppose all that would, have it eked out by any thing that is unwritten, so, they assert infant-Baptisme on Scripture-foundation. Can they think that they have to deal with such weak adversaries, that whiles against their party they contend with Scripture-Arguments, that infants ought to be baptised, they will yield up the cause on the other hand to Papists, and confess the insufficiency of Scriptures. But the homonymy or various acception of the word Tradition, 
The various acception of the word Tradition.  may deceive the unwary Reader; Sometimes tradition is taken in the proper sense, for that which is delivered, or handed over from one to another, in this sense, every point of faith is a tradition, and so is Baptism itself, as well as infant-Baptisme in which sense Paul takes it, 2 Thes. 2. 15. Stand fast, and hold the traditions, which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our Epistle. Sometimes tradition is taken for that which is delivered in word, without writing, as there is distinguished a tradition by word, and a tradition by Epistle; what Paul taught in his Epistles is a tradition, and what Paul delivered by word of mouth is a tradition, and both must be held. Here somewhat seemingly is spoken for unwritten traditions by the Apostle. For solution of which our Protestant Divines have taught us to 
(a) Distinguendum inter resquae traduntur in Ecclesia & rationem earum tradendarum.  distinguish between the doctrine itself that is delivered to us, and the way and manner of delivery. So Chamier de canone fidei, lib. 8. cap. 1. sect. 16. The former of those might admit of many subdivisions. The way of delivery is either by writing in the Scriptures, or by lively voice by God's Ministers, as Chamier farther observes, sect. 19 Here again we must distinguish between words and things, the words that are uttered and the doctrine that these words contain; all words are not written, all our words in Sermons are not written in the Scriptures, all Paul's words in his Sermons are not written in Scriptures, as appears by his distinction before delivered, by word or Epistle, but the doctrine itself that we deliver is contained there; Paul preached nothing but that which Moses and the Prophets said should come, Acts 26. 22. yet there were many words delivered by him, which Moses and the Prophets never spoke; 
b Quadam & sunt & dicuntur in Scriptures, quaedam vero sunt in Scripaturis tametsi non dicuntur. N●zianzen. lib 5. de Theol.  They yet teach us to distinguish between that which is expressly written in the Scriptures, and that which is by evident consequence thence deduced: Amesius defending the Scriptures perfection against Bellarmine, introducing unwritten traditions, saith, 
c Non quaeritur antotidem verbis omnia necessaria in Scriptures continentur, sed vel sententia expressa vel per necessariam consequentiam inde colligenda.  The Question is not whether in so many words all necessary truths are contained in the Scriptures, but whether they may be gathered from thence, in any express speech, or necessary consequence? Bellar. Enervat. cap. 6. thes. 1. Let Doctor Sclater in this be heard, who speaking to this point, saith, Thus inform yourselves, 1. Where generals are delivered, there are all particulars comprised in those generals intentionally delivered, because generals comprehend particulars. 2. Where principles and causes are delivered, there effects are also intended, as being virtually contained in their principles. 3. Where one equal is taught, all of like reason it taught, quia parium par ratio, and where there is par ratio, there is par lex: Where there is like reason, there is like law. So take contents of Scripture, no instance of any point of necessary, or but convenient faith and practice, can be given but what is delivered in the written Word. Doctor Sclater in 2 Thes. 2. 15. and when they have well weighed these things they will find small cause to believe that they have any advantage from these Authors. Field (it is said) says, The fourth kind of Tradition is the continued practice of such things as are neither contained in the Scripture expressly, nor the examples of such practice there delivered, though the grounds, reasons, and causes of the necessity of such practice be there contained, and the benefit or good that followeth it. Of this sort is the Baptism of infants, which is therefore named a tradition, because it is not expressly delivered in Scripture that the Apostles did baptise infants, nor any express precept there found that they should do so, yet is not this so received by bare and naked tradition, but that we find in Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it. If they will subscribe to that part, That the grounds, reasons, and causes of the necessity of infant-Baptisme are contained in Scriptures, than I will subscribe to the other, that those words, infants ought to be baptised are not the Scripture. Then Doctor Prideaux is brought in, who says, Paedobaptism rests on no other divine right than Episcopacy, but we are not told whether Doctor Prideaux goes about to bring down infant-Baptism to unwritten Tradition, or to bring up Episcopacy to divine right according to Scripture. And out of these Premises this conclusion is inferred, that the Ancients and learned afore Zuinglius did account infant-Baptisme to have been an unwritten tradition, having reason from Scripture not evident of itself, but to be received from the determination of the Church. Which for aught that I can discern is thus gathered, some Papists to set up unwritten traditions have, in contradiction to themselves, fastened infant-Baptisme upon it, of which only one lived before Zuinglius. Some Protestant Writers, every one of them living after Zuinglius speak not one word to the purpose: Ergo the learned before Zuinglius did account infant-Baptisme to be an unwritten tradition. Me thinks the Scripture-Arguments which may be found in Authors far above Zuinglius his standing, as in Aquinas 3. part. quaest. 68 art. 9 August. de Baptis. contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 24. with others, might with more strength conclude, that they rested on a written foundation, and were not satisfied with unwritten tradition.   

CHAP. LVI.  
The reality of connexion, between the Covenant and initial seal, asserted.  
THe several minor propositions, in the syllogisms before laid down, being proved at large, in the foregoing discourse. So that nothing more needs to be added, yet if there be no necessary connexion, between the covenant, and the seal, the major propositions, will yet be called into question. Though it be granted, that infants be Church-members, are in covenant, have the promises, are Saints, are in the bosom of the Church by birth-priviledge, are children of the Kingdom, etc. Yet it will be said (though most unreasonably) that they are not yet to be baptised, I shall therefore 1. Bring Scripture proofs for the real connexion between the covenant and the seal, clearing those Scriptures from exceptions taken against them. 2. I shall make it good with arguments or reasons. 3. I shall return answer to objections brought against that which is here asserted.  
That all in covenant, are to enjoy the initial seal of the covenant, let the words of God himself, in the institution of circumcision be considered, Gen. 17. 7, 9, 10, 11, 14. I will establish my covenant, between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee, in their generations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed after thee, Every manchild among you shall be circumcised, and ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And the uncircumcised manchild, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people. Here we see 1. A covenant entered. 2. A seal appointed, as the Apostle, Rom. 4. 11. calls it. 3. The necessary connexion between the seal and covenant declared. They are to be circumcised, because they are in covenant, Having interest in the covenant. They have together with it, interest in the initial seal, against this is objected.  
First, All the force of this proof hangs on the particle [therefore,] verse 9 and may be rendared; And thou, or, but thou, as well as, thou therefore, and is by others rendered. Tu autem, and Tu vero, which are neither of them illative terms. 1. We have no reason but that it may be an illative as well as a copulative, and being an illative particle, he hath no exception against the strength of it. 2. I deny, that all the force of the proof hangs on that particle; look farther on into verse 10. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; every man-child among you shall be circumcised, and take in with it Acts 7. 8. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision; And so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day, etc. and let them at more leisure find an answer to this argument. That which God himself calls by the name of a covenant, ought not to be separated from it: But God calls circumcision by the name of a covenant, Ergo they ought not to be separated. 2. Let them consider the relation in which the Apostle puts this Sacrament of circumcision to the covenant, Rom. 4. 11. An instituted appointed sign and seal, is not to be divided from that which it signifies and seals, circumcision was an instituted appointed sign and seal of the covenant; therefore it is not to be divided from it.  
Secondly, it is said, If it were granted, that [therefore] is the best reading; yet that the inference, verse 9 should be made from the Promise only, verse 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee, and not as well, if not rather from the Promise, verse 8. of giving to him and his seed the land of Canaan; I find no sufficient reason given. This reference engages the adversary, 1. In a contradiction to himself, who says elsewhere, the promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of circumcision. He also contends that it was a mixed covenant, made up of spiritual and temporal mercies, and then it must take in the spiritual as well as the temporal Promise. All that know the nature of covenants, and use of Seals, know that the Seal ratifies all that the covenant contains: But the covenant (according to him) contained not barely the promise of the land of Canaan; and therefore the reference, must carry it farther than the land of Canaan. 2. It engages him in a contradiction to the Apostle, who makes circumcision a sign and seal, not alone of the land of Canaan, but of the righteousness of faith.  
Thirdly, It is said, But if it were yielded, that the inference were made peculiarly from the Promise, verse 7. to be a God to Abraham and his seed; it must be proved that every Believers Infant child is Abraham's seed, afore it be proved that the Promise belongs to them. It must either be proved that they are Abraham's children▪ or have the privilege of the Children of Abraham, which from Genesis 9 27. Rom. 11. 17. is sufficiently proved, especially being confirmed by those Texts that carry the covenant in Gospel-times to the issue. And for his exception that the covenant was not made to every child of Abraham, though it were true, yet it would not serve his purpose, provided, that we in Gospel-times are under the same covenant as was Isaac, to whom the promises were made, If some of Abraham's children were left out, that concerns not us, so that we are taken in; yet the instance is very weak to prove it. As appears (saith he) verse 19 concerning Ishmael, and Heb. 11. 9 that Ishmael was himself in covenant, though not established in covenant, (as God there, and verse 21. promised concerning Isaac) not his seed never received, appears not alone by the sign and seal which he received, verse 23. which yet is sufficient (for God to seal to a blank is very strange; to sign a covenant to a man never in covenant) but also from Gal. 4. 30. What saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. A man cast out of covenant, was before casting out, in covenant; Ejection supposes admission, unless we will give way to our Author's dream of Ejection by non-admission. He was cast out after the time of the solemnity of his admission by circumcision, as may be seen, Gen, 22. For that of Heb. 11. 9 it is a mystery what he will make of it, unless he will conclude, that because Abraham sojourned in the land of Promise, that therefore none were in covenant that were not taken into that land; so Moses and Aaron will be found out of covenant.  
It is further said, As for a visible Church-seed of Abraham, that is neither his seed by nature, nor by saving faith, nor by excellency, in whom the Nations of the Earth should be blessed, to wit, Christ; I know none such in Scripture, therefore some men have fancied such a kind of Church-seed, as it is called. I know not how saving faith comes in, when a faith of profession will serve the turn; The whole of Abraham's seed had circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith, when many of their Parents had no more than a faith of profession.  
Fourthly, Were all these things yielded, yet the Proposition (as is said) would not be made good from hence. All these we see are made good against his exceptions. Let us now see the strength which is reserved for the last push, for overthrow of this Proposition. The inference is not concerning title or right of infants to the initial seal, as if the covenant or promise of itself did give that; but the inference is concerning Abraham's duty, that therefore he should be the more engaged to circumcise his posterity. This should rather have been left to us for the strengthening of our proposition, than have made use of it himself for refutation of it. It was Abraham's duty to give them according to Gods command the initial Seal: in this we are agreed: whether it will thence follow that they had right and title to it, or were without right, let the Reader determine.  
It is further said, He was engaged to circumcise only those that are males, and not afore eight days, and not only those that were from himself, but also, all in his house whose children soever they were, which apparently shows that the giving Circumcision was not commensurate to the persons interest in the Covenant, but was to be given to persons as well out of the Covenant as in; If of Abraham's house, and not to all that were in the Covenant; to wit Females, which doth clearly prove that right to the initial Seal, as it is called, of circumcision, did not belong to persons by virtue of the covenant, but by force of the command. If it could be proved that Abraham kept Idolaters in his house, professedly worshipping a false god, and gave circumcision to them in that faith and way of false worship; it would prove that a man might have the seal, and not be in covenant; but it would not prove that he might be in covenant, and be denied the Seal, and then infant-Baptisme might be of easier proof. Though they were not in covenant, though they were not holy, yet they might be baptised. But I will not yield so much; I do not believe that Abraham carried circumcision beyond the line of the covenant, and that he had those in his house which were aliens from God; seeing I find that Testimony of the Lord concerning him, Gen. 18. 19 For I know him, that he will command his children, and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgement; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. And that resolution of Joshua, That if others would serve the gods that their fathers served that were on the other side the flood, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land they dwell; yet he and his house would serve the Lord, Josh. 24. 14, 15. As it is a private man's duty to serve the Lord, and not Idols, so it is the Master of the Family's duty to see that the Lord and not Idols be worshipped in his house. As I do believe that if any of our adversaries had a professed Heathen in his Family, he would not keep him there, and not chatechize him, and that he would not during his profession of Heathenism baptise him: So, I believe concerning Abraham, He catechised all that he took in as Heathens, and did not circumcise them in their Heathenism. This some Paedobaptists (as is said) are forced to confess, when they grant the formal reason of the Jews being circumcised, was the command, and the covenant he makes only a motive. I wonder what need there is of an Argument to force such a confession. The reason I say, why Jews were circumcised, and Christians baptised, is the command; were there a thousand covenants, and no institution of a sign, or seal, such a sign or seal, there could have been no circumcision, nor no Baptism. The command is the ground, and the covenant is the directory to whom application si to be made. We say, all in covenant are entitled to the Seal for admission; but we pre-suppose an institution. They will have all Believers, and all Disciples baptised, which they cannot conclude upon their faith and knowledge barely, but upon the command to baptise Believers and Disciples; So that the command is with reference to the covenant, with reference to interest in the covenant. From these foregoing exceptions a conclusion is drawn, that all this doth fully show, that the proof of the connexion between, and the initial Seal without a particular command for it, is without any weight in it. And I conclude, that it fully shows that the proof of the connexion between the covenant and the initial Seal, (pre-supposing the institution of such a Seal, and a general command) is of that weight that all are mere frivolous trifles that are brought for exceptions against it.  
Another Scripture holding out the connexion between the covenant and initial seal is, Acts 2. 38, 39 Repent and be baptised every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, for the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are a far off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Here I must mind the Reader of that which I have already spoken on this text, concerning this text, Chap. On which words after a brief Analasis (which there may be seen) I have grounded this argument, They to whom the covenant of promise appertains, have right to Baptism. But the covenant of promise, belongs to men in a Church-state, and condition; together with their children, therefore, those that are in a Church-state, and condition, have right to Baptism together with their children. My business being then, to assert the just latitude of the covenant; without respect to Baptism or any other seal, I spoke only to the minor proposition, that the covenant extends itself not alone, to men professedly in a Church-state, but also to their children with them, and to that I think I have there spoke sufficient. Now I am put upon the proof of the major. That they, to whom the covenant of the promise appertains, have right to baptism. If this fail, it must be confessed, that the ground of infant-Baptisme, as to this Text, falls with it, seeing their right is not asserted, quâ infants, no more than the right of men of growth or men of years, quâ of growth, or in years, but as they stand in reference to God in coventnt, and this is clear in the Text. Be baptised, for the promise is to you, and to your children. Because they are vested in the promise, they have their right and interest in the seal. If this do not hold, the Apostles argument falls to evade this full and clear argument, one is bold to say, that in the expounding of these words there are almost as many mistakes as words, when words are only brought to convince us, of so many mistakes, though in a multiplication of exceptions.  
First, The Exposition is commonly carried as if the promise there meant, were the promise, Gen. 17. 7. To Abraham and his seed, and this expounded as if it were meant that God would be a God to every Believer, and to his seed, in respect at least of visible Church-Membership. When a promise is mentioned, and a seal, any man but he will presently understand that promise, which is ra●ified by such a seal. For discovery of their mistake that make any other reference of it, I shall refer the Reader to what I have said on these words. Chap 48. and to Master Cobbets Vindication, Part. 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 3.  
Secondly, it is said, They expound [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Acts 2. 39] as if it were a promise of a thing to come some outward privilege to be conferred on them and their children, whereas the chief thing meant in the speech i●, that as is expressly said by Paul, Acts 13. 32, 33. Yet no man is quoted for this Exposition of a thing to come, but on the contrary quotes Master Cobbet against it. It is meant of a present right for as yet they were not broken off from the Olive, not Gentiles graffed in, in the instead.  
Thirdly, It is said, It is taken as if [to you] were meant of those persons to whom he spoke, as then Believers, and under that formal consideration, and then reasons are brought against it. I do not interpret it of any present explicit Faith in Christ as the Messiah; though now this conviction, that so evidently appeared, did evidence them to be in an hopeful way, and with that Scribe not to be far from the Kingdom of God, and therefore he takes his opportunity, and presseth it on to come into the way of Believers in Christ Jesus.  
Fourthly It is said, [your children] is expounded of their Infant-childrens, yea, it is carried as if of them only To thi● is sufficient spoken, Chap, 48.  
As for that which follows; They would have the promise to be to their children as theirs, whether they be called or no; which can be verified only in their sense of their infants, sith they maintain that even the children of Believers are not in covenant; the promise is not to them, they are not visible Church-members when they come to years of discretion, except they be called in their own persons, and accept the call. Children as theirs, whether they be called or no, is a contradiction; Children are called in their Parents call, and we say, they are in covenant, the Promise is made to them; they are visible Church-members till they reject the covenant, and deny their Membership, this is a calumny.  
Fifthly, He says, Whereas it is urged, that when it is said the promise is to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, which is expounded of the Gentiles, it is not added to their children: To this in the same chapter sufficient is spoken.  
A sixth, is the same with the tenth, and thither I shall refer the Reader.  
Seventhly, It is said, And in like manner we hold the command, [Be babtized every one of you] in a covenant●sense (that is, a new devised nonsense, such as we have no Dictionary yet to interpret words by) be baptised you and your children. I am sure here is a nonsense devise to talk of Dictionaries, does Calepin or Scapula, Rider or Thomasius help us to compare covenant and seal, promises and Sacraments.  
Eighthly, It is said, Some would possess people with this conceit as if Peter's scope were to take away by ver. 39 an objection or scruple they would make. If we be baptised ourselves, our children shall be in worse case, in respect of the privilege our children had in the former dispensation of the covenant, when they had the seal of the covenant, if they be not to be baptised also; and that he answers them by assuring them that in this dispensation also their children were in covenant, and were to have the seal of the covenant. And then adds, There is not a word of any such scruple in the Text; nor i● i● likely that they were solicitous about such an imaginary poor privilege of their children. I am of the same mind that there was no such scruple in their heads. This unhappy conceit of casting the seed out of covenant was not then in being, though I think the reason given is little to purpose.  
Ninthly, He says, They all do most grossly abuse the meaning of the Apostle, in interpreting the inference of the Apostle, signified by the particle [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for, vers. 39] which they would have to be this, you have right and war●ant to be baptised; For the promise is to you and your children, as if the illative particle did infer a warrant, or right for them and theirs to be baptised; whereas the thing inferred is not any right, which in a legal way they might claim; but is a plain motive in a moral way urged to persuade them to be baptised. They do grossly abuse their own judgement in this way of refutation, as though the right in which they stood, could be no Topick, from which in a moral way the Apostle might persuade them to Baptism. When Shechaniah persuaded Ezra to the reformation of the marriage of strange wives in these words, Arise for the matter belongeth unto thee, Ezra 10. 4. Here was a motive in a moral way to call upon him to do it, and an Argument inferred, that it lay upon Ezra as a duty by command from God to set upon it. The reason added is worthy of observation: This is manifest from the form of words, ver. 38. which if they had expressed a right to Baptism by virtue of the promise, should have been in the indicative mood in such a form as this; you are to be baptised, you may be baptised, you have right to it, the Minister ought to do it; but the words are in the imparative mood, exhorting them and persuading them to it, They have quite forgotten, that the words holding out their right, are in the indicative mood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the promise is to you and your children. And here is a notable correction of the Apostle, he should have said, if this had been his meaning, you must be baptised; and he says, Arise, and be baptised.  
Lastly, It is said, In the paraphrases, which usually in their disputes, Paedobaptists make of Acts 2. 38, 39 they put not any thing to answer the term [repent] as if it stood for a cipher, but paraphrase it thus, Ye may be baptised, you and your children; for the Promise is to you, and your children. The sixth exception was against our interpretation of the word repent, ver. 38. as if it were as much as to say, Covenant for yourselves and your children; and here it is complained that it is left for a cipher. And the Author thinks he hath discovered the reason of this Omission. The putting the word repent first, and be baptised after, doth manifestly overthrow their paraphrase of a right to Baptism from the word of promise, and show that the particle, [For] doth not prove a right to Baptism, but press to a duty; and such a duty as i● to have repentance precedent, and that in every person that is to be baptised. I confess it presseth to a duty, and such a duty as is to have repentance precedent in them that at that time were his hearers, to interest themselves, and with themselves their children in this privilege; But right and duty do not shoulder out one the other, but very well stand together; encouraging to a duty which is a privilege as well as a duty, he fitly makes use of their interest as a motive. And they might see that the Apostle puts the promise in a greater latitude than he urgeth repentance; He speaks to his hearers, when he says repent; and he tells them, that the promise is to them and to their children with them: Whereas our Author presseth the precedency of the word, repent, to the command of being baptised, and elsewhere saith, P●●er doth exhort to Repentance and Baptism together, and in the first place persuades to Repentance, then to Baptism, which shows Repentance to be in order before Baptism; I answer, as I did before Chap. 48. that these who had crucified Christ as a blasphemer, as a seditious person; an impostor, must needs repent before they would accept Baptism in his name, or hope for remission of sin by him. It had been lost labour for the Apostle to have pressed those that had crucified Christ, and retained their former opinion of him, to become Disciples to him, and to look to be saved by him; to persuade them to look for remission of sins in his blood, who took themselves to be without sin in shedding of it, and yet notwithstanding this guilt (of which the Apostle would have them to repent) he shows that they and their seed are under the promise of God, and puts them into a way in acceptation of Christ in the Gospel-tender, in his present way of administration to be continued his people still in covenant, and that (as is plainly enough signified) that they might enjoy it in their former latitude, to them and to their children. So that Master Stephens his Interpretation so much slighted by an adversary, and repeated not in his words, but in his own paraphrase upon them, is indeed the Apostles meaning. The Apostle (saith he. pag. 14.) doth speak to these Jews who had crucified Christ; that if they would receive him as the particular Messiah, the same promise should still continue● to them and their children in the new dispensation: And on this doth he build the word of command, to baptise father and child; To this the word repent here refers as may be made plain.  
First, By taking into consideration the present state of this people, and that in several particulars.  
1. As yet they had the promises with them, and were children of the covenant, Acts 3. 25. Though the Apostle, Rom. 9 4. do distinguish between the covenants and the promises; yet to have the promises here, and to be children of the covenant, there seems to be one. If any can distinguish them, this people, had the honour of both of them; God had not yet cast them out of a Church-state and covenant-relation.  
2. They were in present danger to be cast off according to what Christ had foretold, Mat. 8. 12. Mat. 21. 43. Being so fast riveted to the ceremonial Law which now was dead, and presently grew deadly: God denying any presence (as hath been said) with them, now the substanee was come.  
3. These particular persons with whom Peter had to deal, were now well prepared for a free acceptation of a Gospel-way, under this administration, which Jesus Christ (having pulled down the Law of Ordinances) was to set up: Being amazed with the glory of the mircale which was wrought before their eyes, and convinced with the powerful application of the Prophets by Peter in that elegant Sermon, they fell upon enquiry what they should do.  
Secondly, By comparing other Texts of Scripture, which may serve as a Comment to the clearing of this; especially two Texts of two Evangelists, recording the words of Christ, and holding out the impenitent obstinacy of the Jews, standing out against every call to repentance, respective to their rigid pertinacious adhering to former dispensations, and opposition of that now tendered and offered to them. 1. That of our Saviour Christ, Mat. 21. 31, 32. Christ having held before them, ver. 28. 29, 30. the parable of a certain man, that had two sons, and came to the first, and said, son, go work to day in my Vine-yard; He answered and said, I will not; but afterward he repented, and went; And he came to the second, and said likewise; and he answered and said, I go Sir, and went not, and made appeal to them, ver. 31. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? and they answering, the first: Jesus saith unto them, (as it follows in that and the next verse) Verily I say unto you, that the Publicans and Harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you; For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the Publicans and the Harlots believed him. And ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe in him. The Publicans and Harlots answer to the first brother, who from a professed rebellion against the command of God, by John's preaching, were brought to repent, and accept of a Gospel-covenant, and enter into it by Baptism. The chief Priests and Elders of the people (that here opposed Christ preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom) answer to the second brother that said, he would go into the Vine-yard, and went not; These repent not, but hold fast, and pertinaciously adhere to the way of old received, when the Publicans accept and embrace the spiritual state of the Church by Christ set up. From this impenitence of these chief Priests and Elders with whom these joined in crucifying Christ; Peter dissuades, and exhorts to the repentance of the Publicans and Harlots. The second Scripture which may give light to this text, is much parallel to this, Luke 7. 29, 30. Christ having given a large testimony to John and his Ministry; holds out the different effect that it took: First, in the people and the Publicans, ver. 29. And all the people that heard him, and the Publicans justified God, being baptised with the Baptism of John. Secondly, in the Pharisees and Lawyers, ver. 30. But the pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptised. They persisted in their old way, in opposition to that way held forth by John, approved by Christ, and refused baptism, These with whom Peter had to deal, had gone with the Priests and Pharisees, kept full pace with them even to the guilt of the death of Christ, they were now in a good way to follow the steps of the Publicans and People, to embrace the counsel of God, and accept baptism, their impenitence had held them from entrance into a new covenant-way by baptism, Peter therefore exhorts to repent and be baptised.  
Thirdly, This appears by the Text itself, whereas they will have the illative particle For, to infer no warrant or right in them to be baptised, but only a motive in a moral way urged, as we have heard in the last exception. It is worth our enquiry to learn what good interpretation suitable to Peter's exhortation, they put here on those words, To you is the promise made, and to your children, excluding all consideration of right, in them and their children, Because Christ was promised to them and their children, therefore they must repent and be baptised. Not to insist upon that just exception of Master Gobbet, page 23. That the Apostle doth not say, the promise was to you as in reference to the time of making it to the fathers, with respect unto them, or in reference to Christ, who was not now to come, but already come, as the Apostle proveth from ver. 3. to 37. Nor is it the use of the Scripture when mentioning promises as fulfilled, to express it thus in the present tense, the promise is to you, or to such and such, but rather to annex some expression that way which evinceth the same, giving instance almost in twenty several texts, which utterly overthrows his exposition. Let them tell us why in this moral persuasive holding out a bare motive to persuade the parent only, the children (not concerned in the thing and in an utter incapacity) should be mentioned. And why the words should be carried in that way that interest in covenant and covenant-seales formerly ran, and no right at all to covenant or covenant-seales intended? This gloss puts too much violence upon the words. But carrying it on as a dissuasive from persistance in their former way of old covenant legal rites, and persuading to embrace the way appointed by him, whom God had made both Lord and Christ, it singularly answers, as, to their present condition, yet in covenant, though in eminent danger to be cast out of covenant, so, also to the words of the text, holding out a covenant-right in Scripture language according to the grand Charter of heaven. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed; so that I hope by this time, the intelligent Reader will easily perceive the frivolous shifts instead of a full refutation that's here brought to avoid Paedobaptists proofs of a word of command to Baptise infants from this Scripture.  
As these Scriptures plainly hold out the necessary connexion of the covenant and initial seal, so, the evidence of reason is clear for it. No man that stands enrighted or legally interested, in any privilege, or possession, may be denied that ceremony or seal which is appointed for confirmation. A copyhold being found the next immediate tenant, of a copy-hold-right must not be denied, but received according to the ceremony, or solemnity of the place, whensoever the King did grant, out letters-pattents, the Lord Keeper might not deny the seal, the Lords Commissioners, may not now deny it to any, that by a just grant have interest. This were to keep a child out of his father's house, a servant from his place of abode and residence; when Christ was so much displeased with his Disciples on like occasion, these may well expect to be under as high displeasure. Having thus made good the point, it remains that I take off some objections, and meet with some quarrels that are raised against it.  
If there be any necessary connexion between the covenant and the seal, it must be (saith one) either, by reason of some necessary connexion between the terms which is none, for it is but a common accident to a man that hath a promise or a covenant made to him, that he should have a special sign, it may adesse vel abesse à subjecto, it may be present or absent from the subject. Giving some instances of covenants without seals. Answ. 1. By way of concussion it will be easily granted, that a covenant may stand alone without a seal annexed? but where a seal is appointed for confirmation, (as there hath been in the Church ever since God took a people to himself out of Abraham's loins) there is a necessary connexion. This answer he foresees, and says: But you will say, All that are foederati should be signati, since the solemn covenant with Abraham; But neither is this certain, sith we find no such thing concerning Melchizedek and Lot, that lived in Abraham's time, nor concerning Job that it's conceived lived after his time. If we read nothing to confirm it, the Reader sees nothing to contradict it; There is added, But you will say, it is true of all the foederati in Abraham's family. But neither is that true, for male-childrens before the eighth day, and women though foederatae, yet were not to be signed. Is there no connexion between them, because he that receives into covenant and appoints the seal, hath prescribed a time when it shall be applied? A man that hath a grant from King or State, hath ipso facto right to the seal, and the right necessarily follows upon the grant, though he must stay till a sealing day before he possess it.  
For the exception of women, though foederatae, yet were not to be circumcised; I say, 1. Master Marshal hath sufficiently answered, that they were of the circumcision, and it was an exception against Samson by his parents that he would go to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines, Judg. 14. 3. Had he married in Israel, as he ought in obedience to God and his parents, he had married a wife of the circumcised, though that sex by nature is in an incapacity of that sign or seal. In divers places of England, the husband being admitted by verdict of a Jury into an estate, the wife is virtually admitted; his admission is her admission, so it was in circumcision. 2. They had doubtless actually received that sign of circumcision as in New Testament times they do Baptism, Acts 8. 12. Acts 16. 15. but that it was a sign whereof they were in an incapacity. It is farther added, If then I should farther grant the conclusion, That infants of believers were to be signati, yet you would not say they are to be partakers of the Lords Supper, because it is not appointed for them; So in like manner if it were granted you that infants of believers were to be signed, yet it follows not that they are to be baptised, unless you can prove that it is appointed to them; and the truth is, if it were granted that children were foederati, yet it were a high presumption in us to say therefore they must be signati, without God's declaration of his mind; and if it were granted they must be signati, it were in like manner a high presumption in us to say, therefore they must be baptised, without God's declaration of his mind concerning that Ordinance. To this a reply is made by another hand, that there is difference between a seal for initiation, and a seal for confirmation; a seal, wherein no more is of necessity, than to be passive; and that wherein we are to be active; yet to come more near to them, I am content to yield the conclusion, supposing that his argument is of force, Every Church-member hath true title to all Church-priviledges; But infants are Church-members, the Lords Supper is a Church-priviledge; and therefore infants have true title to it. But then I must distinguish jus ad rem, and jus in re, every infant hath right to it, yet by reason of infancy hath his actual interest suspended; Paul by birth had right to all the privilege of the City of Rome, being born free, Acts 22. 28. yet it does not follow that he was to give his vote, or appear in Assemblies as a free Citizen in the time of his minority; James the sixth was crowned in Scotland, and Henry the sixth in England, in the time of their minority, so that they were reckoned among the Kings of Nations; yet neither of them did in their own persons exercise regalia till years of discretion. As these infants of title were crowned, so infants that are Church-members are to be baptised, when yet an infant can no more partake, as a Christian ought, of the Lords Supper, than an infant King can wield the great things of his Kingdom. An infant-heir from the first instant of his father's death, and a posthumous child from the time of his birth, stands seized of his father's inheritance; The whole title is vested in him, how ample soever, and in no other, and he is received into it, and lives upon it, yet he is held from the managing of it till he can improve for his own and the public benefit; So that the taking into covenant is a sufficient declaration of God's mind, that the signs and seals in an orderly way should be granted to them, and all these appear to be cavils, and not answers.  
As, these exceptions are causelessly taken against the connexion between the covenant and eale; so, quarrels are raised, against some phrases in common use among Divines relating to this thing, as making the metaphor of a seal the Genus of a Sacrament, which (if an error) was the Apostles error, Rom. 4. 11. and many such like, with which it is needless to trouble the Reader.   

CHAP. LVII.  
The withholding infants of Christian parents from Baptism is the sin of Sacrilege.  
HEnce farther follows, that the Prohibition of infant-Baptisme or withholding them from that Ordinance that are the issue of Christians, is the sin of Sacrilege. This is plain from the premises, they are the Lords, His heritage, Psal. 127. 3. The Lords servants, Levit. 25. 42. holy ones, Rom. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Children of the covenant, Acts 3. 25. interessed in the privileges of the people of God, Mark 10. 14. Therefore they are to be given to God, Caesar will account it a robbery, if that which is his due be denied; God will account it a robbery, if that which is his be denied; 
Infant-baptism cannot be charged with will-worship.  Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are Gods, Matth. 22. 21. Adversaries fasten the brand of will-worship on the practice of it; But if Baptism be any worship according to the mind of Christ, than infant-Baptisme is out of all danger or possibility of will-worship. In case infants were not within he verge, yet their Baptism could be no will worship; we set not up of ourselves the Ordinance that we apply to them, but make application of the Ordinance that Christ hath instituted; In case they have no title, there is only a misapplication of worship instituted, and no devise of worship. To this is replied, and demand made whether infant-communion were not will-worship? whether baptising of Bells were not will-worship? yet these are but misapplications of an instituted ordinance to a wrong subject. I answer, none of these were will-worship, nor yet the Baptism of the Horse in Huntingdon-shire, but the horrid profanation of an instituted worship; Baptism is still Gods, but the application man's, and here the will is not carried to a devise of an ordinance, but alone to the application of it. Our adversaries making it a corruption of the Ordinance of Baptism, acquit it from will-worship: But in infant-Baptisme we neither devise an Ordinance, nor of our own heads make application of it: we know they belong to the family of Jesus Christ, we know Christ's order to admit them to the privilege that was proper to those of his family, and as faithful stewards we follow the will of our Master, not our own will, but the will of Christ Jesus. Could they wash their hands of Sacrilege, as we are able to clear our wills and wits from devise of a worship, it were better with them; The times were, when men looked upon things consecrate (as holy to the Lord) in a multiplying glass; we had holy places, holy Altars, in which some of our present opponents went too far to the grief of the godly, and farther than the times with their streams needed to have borne them, had he been merely pressed, and no volunteer in it. 
Extremes are dangerous.  I wish they would seriously consider, how ordinary it is with men to carry on their ways in extremes, and out of superstition to run upon Sacrilege. It is well known how apt the people of Israel were for idolatrous ways, and ready to embrace every superstition after the way of the Heathen, and in conformity to them; yet after the Babylonish captivity, they were quite taken off that course; What wickedness soever they were otherwise guilty of, yet it is observed that they kept themselves from Idols; That sin had so consumed them, that at last it had even wearied them: And then (as it appears from the Apostle) they run upon this extreme, 
The Jews leaving idolatry, run upon Sacrilege.  to which we are here speaking; Therefore when in other things they are charged with the same sin that (as men of knowledge) they condemned in others, Thou that preachest that another should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? And the Series of the words leading to a charge of Idolatry, the Apostle changes the phrase, and saith, Thou that abhorrest Idols, dost thou commit Sacrilege? Rom. 2. 22. This was now their sin in the other extreme, not on their own heads to put a supposition of holiness to the Lord on any thing for worship, but to convert to other uses that which was sanctified as holy. I know some understand these words in a Metaphor, that by Sacrilege is meant the robbing of God of his honour by sin against him; but that interpretation the next words contradict, in distinct words forbidding that Sacrilege, if they will so call it. Origen will turn it into an Allegory, and understand the spoiling of the sense of Scriptures, and stealing Christ out of the Scriptures; But the text is plain, that it is a reproof applied to their capacities, and in the letter convincing, as well as the former of stealing, and adultery, The plain sense, (saith Peter Martyr) is the meaning. May not I now say that these things are out examples, to the intent that we should not run with them in these extremes from an abhorrency of the one to the other, from an abhorrency of Idols to the guilt of Sacrilege, which according to the Schoolmen is rei sacrae viola●io, or rerum sacrarum furtum, a deteigning from God that which for an holy use is separate for him, 
Separation for God of persons or of inanimate or unreasonable creatures. Whether Sacrilege be any New Testament sin.  which separation is either of persons, or of inanimate, or irrational creatures. I know there are those that affirm that there is no such separation for God in Gospel times, and consequently there can be no such thing as this sin of Sacrilege in our times, for what is not, cannot be thus violated or detained. As to the separation of inanimate or unreasonable creatures it cannot be fully denied, nor yet must it fully be yielded, that no such things are now to be accounted as separate to the Lord, we must therefore distinguish. These may be said to be separate for God, 
Separation for God either by institution or approbation.  and consequently holy, two ways. 1. By divine institution and appointment, So the Temple and Utensils of the Temple were holy. 2. By divine approbation, when men let them apart for advancement of such an holy use as God approves. The former we confess was proper to the times of the Law, but the latter yet remains in Gospel-times, and upon this account Ravanellus justly makes the sin of Ananias and Sapphira, (in keeping back part of the price of their land that was set apart by them for the service of the Church) to be the sin of Sacrilege. The land before sale was his own, and the price after sale was his own, but now it was to serve (by their voluntary act) only to a purpose that was holy; The detaining of it is the violation of that which is holy. 
Places for worship and maintenance of those that attend upon worship separate by divine approbation.  And in this way, both the places of public worship, and the revenues for maintenance of those that attend upon this worship, are separate for God: It will be thought somewhat out of my way to speak to these things, yet having so fair an occasion, I shall take the liberty of a few words, concerning the places of worship, shall speak somewhat in the [negative,] and by way of concession; There is not any such holiness in them, as in the Tabernacle and Temple, This is disavowed by Christ, 
Positious concerning places.  John 4. 23. These had the pre-eminence above our places of meeting in four several particulars. 
Negative.   
1. They had their institution, and immediate injunction from God, Exod. 35. 10, 11. 1 Kings 5. 5. 1 Chron. 22. 9, 10.  
2. Their direction and prescription, Heb. 8. 5.  
3. Their promise, not alone respective to the worship, but the place, Exod. 29. 42, 43.  
4. Their sanction or penalty in regard of typical profanation, Num. 19 20. In all of these particulars we must give the Temple and Tabernacle the preeminence, besides that the Temple and Tabernacle were but one for all Israel, we have many. In the affirmative I shall lay down several positions.  
First, 
Positive.  there is equal warrant and reason for the building of our places of meeting, for the worship of God, as there was for the Synagogues of the Jews; Though we put no such holiness on these places to parallel them with the Temple, yet they have equal warrant, and are to have equal respect with the Synagogues which the Jews had in every City, Acts 15. 21. Not only in Judea, but where they were dispersed, Acts 13. 14, 15. There is no word in all the Scripture for the erecting of these Synagogues, no mention made of them but once, where a sad complaint is made of the burning of them, Psal. 74. 8. But the people of God being by God's command to be instructed in the Law, they built them places for conveniency of meeting, and in such places they met, The Law was there preached, Christ and his Apostles did preach there, our places of meeting then stand in equal honour with these Synagogues: Those that can say any thing for these Synagogues, which we cannot say for our public places of meeting, let them produce it.  
2. There is as much reason and equal warrant to call our places of meeting by the usual common Name of Churches, as to call theirs by the common name of Synagogues; Nothing can be said to condemn the use of the word Church for our place of meeting, but the like may be said to condemn, the use of the word Synagogue for their place of meeting. The Scriptures therefore calling theirs Synagogues, Luke 7. 5. Acts 18. 7. we may therefore fitly call ours Churches. That which is objected against the word Church, is, that Church signifies not a house of wood or stone, but a society or fellowship of men, professing faith in Jesus Christ; So also the word Synagogue signifies not a building, but such an assembly or society likewise; In the ordinary signification (saith Spanhemius) Synagogue signifies the assembly, not the place where they assemble, but in the New Testament it is sometimes put for the place of assembling, Luke 7. 5. Acts 18. 7. Synagogue, and Church, are one and the same, both signify the assembly met; As the one, so also the other may be applied by an usual figure to the place of meeting, and therefore where it is said, the Centurion loveth our Nation, and hath built us a Synagogue, Luke 7. 5. the last Annotations have it, a Church; So that they that would reform this language, which calls our places of meeting a Church, must reform the language of Scripture, which calls the like places by a name of the same signification.  
Thirdly, it is a pious work to erect these Churches, or public meeting places for advancement of the knowledge and worship of God, as may be evinced from that Narrative of the Centurion, Luke 7. and the transactions between Christ and him. 1. There are several evidences of piety in the man. 1. He is tenderly affected with his servants sickness. 2. He sends to Christ for cure, makes to him as Mary for Lazarus. 3. He evidences a mighty faith in Christ, believes that Christ's word without his presence will work for his servants recovery. 4. Makes this good by an argument from the less to the greater, I myself am a man under authority, and have men under me, if my word stands, who am an inferior person, how much more than thine? 5. The Lord Christ speaks by way of commendation and admiration of his faith, ver. 9 2. There are evidences of the warranty of his fact. 1. The Elders of the Jews take notice of it, and upon this account commend him to Christ to have his request gratified, Lord, he is worthy for whom thou shouldest do this: For he loveth our Nation, and hath built us a Synagogue. 2. This takes with Christ, Then Jesus went with them.  
Fourthly, being a pious work as we see to erect them (not only in the judgement of this Centurion, but of the Jews, yea and of Christ Jesus) it is then an evil, a sin to demolish and destroy them, this follows from the former; If piety let them up, sin pulls them down: If he be a good Townsman that builds a Market-house, a School, etc. then he is an ill-deserving one that does ruin it. If the Centurion have his praise for building a Synagogue, than it must be their reproach that deface them. Farther we have a sad complaint of such acts of Sacrilege done by adversaries, enemies, blasphemers, Psal. 74. 7, 8. They have cast fire into thy Sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling place of thy name to the ground: They have burnt up all the Synagogues of God in the Land. The burning of the Temple in the first place is complained of, the dwelling place of God's name. Then of the Synagogues which were scattered through the Land, all these were destroyed and consumed. This the godly lay to heart, as a sore evil, and complain of it heavily and sadly.  
Secondly, 
Ministry maintenance asserted.  As to the revenue for maintenance of those that attend upon this worship, I might speak, 1. To that which is conscientiously due, 
1. What conscientiously is due.  in which the mind of God is, that it be not detained, as might be made good, 1. By the Apostles authority. 2. By his Arguments and Reasons. 1. By his authority, Gal. 6. 6. Let him that is taught in the Word, communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Subsistence is of due to him that teacheth from them that are taught according to their abilities, and the proportion of their possessions. This is no alms or free gift, but a due debt. The Apostle gives it in charge, and takes off excuses and evasions in the words that follow; Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. And as the Apostle by his authority orders it, so he gives his reasons for it, which might be enlarged to a great length from 1 Cor. 9 He first argues from the practice of other Apostles, of all the Apostles except himself and Barnabas, ver. 5, 6. I only and Barnabas have we not power to forbear working? 2. He argues from a civil right and common equity in three particular instances, ver. 7. 1. In Soldiers, Who goeth a warfarre at any time at his own charges? 2. In Husbandmen, Who planteth a Vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof. 3. In Shepherds, Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? All these live of their labours, Ministers who undergo equal labours must live of theirs. Thirdly, he argues from the command of the Law, ver. 8, 9 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the Law the same also? For it is written in the Law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for Oxen? Where two observations are clear. 1. The Law of force is to Christians; and secondly, Ministers must live on their Ministerial pains. Fourthly, he reasons from communicative justice, ver. 11. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, it is a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? Whence three things are clear. 1. That the things of earth carry no proportion with the things of heaven. 2. By the Ministry of the Word the things of heaven are conferred. 3. When Ministers confer on their people the things of heaven, there is all equity that they should receive the things of earth. Fifthly, he argues from the provision made in the Law, ver. 13. Do ye not know, that they which minister about holy things, live of the things of the Temple? And they which wait at the Altar, are partakers with the Altar? If the Law judge it equal for the Levites, to live on the pains that they take about holy things, than it is equal that the Ministers of the Gospel live of their pains, But the Law made such provision for the Levites, not with an hungry, narrow proportion, but in a liberal and honourable way; See Doctor Reynolds on Psal. 110. pag. 478 Sixthly, he argues from Christ's institution in a parallel way, ver. 14. Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel; whence we see at large that it is the mind of Christ that this be not detained in case the Apostle (as he says, 1 Cor. 2. 16.) hath the mind of Christ.  
For that which is legally due either by order of the Sat, 
2. What is legally due.  or a voluntary gift of any person, to that end, it ought not to be alienated; There is equity in the thing (as we have heard at large) when authority shall put upon it their sanction, it is a farther confirmation; for a voluntary gift, in case Ananias may not revoke his own, none may alienate another's; If it be a man's Testament, no man disannulleth it, Gal. 3. 14. The poor must enjoy that which by free gift is settled upon them, so a Corporation, and so the Ministry in like manner. To destroy public places (of necessary and convenient use) for advancement of public worship, to alienate livelihood which is in order to it, is to devour that which is holy, reductively holy: not by God's particular institution, with limit to that thing or place, but by his Warranty and approbation.  
Separation of persons, for God is of another sort; they that are thus separate, God owns; not only as reductively, but relatively holy: This is either peculiarly, in some way of special calling, to do such work as is holy, of which there were several sorts in the time of the Law, Priests, Levites, Nazarites, Singers, Porters, which will not be denied, and in a parallel way Ministers of the Gospel as we have seen, 1 Cor. 9 14. Acts 13. 2. The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Saul and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have called them.  
Here an eminent adversary gives in his assent, and says, Pastors and Teachers, or Presbyters to teach, and govern the Church of God; I am assured are a divine institution, and a very merciful gift of Christ, Ephes. 4. 11, 12, 13. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Acts 14. 23. 1 Tim. 3. 1. Titus 2. 5. to whom people should yield obedience, Heb. 13. 7. and yield maintenance liberally, 1 Cor. 9 14. Gal. 6. 6. 1 Tim. 5. 17, 18. If any go about to extirpate them, let him be accursed as an enemy to Christ and his Church. This the evidence of truth forces him to confess, though presently he takes again all that from them, which he had under such an Anathema yielded them. He that gives to every Freeman of London, in case competently qualified, the whole power and authority of the Lord Major, to every free Subject of England, the whole power of the Lord Chief Justice, goes a destructive way for extirpation of those places, or functions. This I think all will grant, when each man may do their work, they shall soon have little honour in the naked title. Now our Author gives the work of preaching promiscuously to all. Notwithstanding what such and such have said, I still conceive (saith he) that not only for trial of expectants, but also upon other occasions, persons not ordained, may be permitted, yea desired to preach in the Pulpits. If all that such have said cannot withstand this conceit, me thinks his Anathema (but now pronounced) should affect him somewhat. Let him take heed lest he let them lose to run upon so heavy a curse that hangs over those of such principles. It were to be wished he would have answered their reasons in a better temper than he hath done other men's, or have given in somewhat of his own farther than his bare conceit. I confess, he speaks somewhat by way of caution. Nevertheless I am against the courses of many Soldiers, and others who against the denial of able Teachers, to whom the teaching of the people is committed, love to get into the Pulpits of the ablest men, to vent their peculiar conceits, and oftentimes their pernicious Errors, not regarding to preach to the ignorant the clear Truths of Faith, and a holy life in places where they have no Preacher, but to new Converts; to pervert them, and withdraw them from their able Teachers, and to disquiet them and their Congregations by frivolous exceptions. If they have but their liberty to become Pulpit-men, and may consecrate themselves without laying on of hands (which is confessed to be of divine institution) they will soon be their own carvers for the choice of Pulpits, They will be the judges of the ability or insufficiency of Ministers gifts where they quarter. All shall be clear truths that they vent; Break down the Apostles fence, that by appointment from Jesus Christ he hath set up, Let them be proved, and then do the office, and then a mound, Sedges and Bul-rushes will soon be trodden down. The God of order hath taken more care; The dispensation of the Sacraments is with these every man's work, as well as preaching the Word, which he notably proves against Master Baxter. Doth the Embassage of Christ, dispensing of his mysteries, beseeching in his stead, etc. consist (saith one) in breaking bread, delivering it; bidding, take, eat, & c? If it do, than a non-preaching Minister who doth these things, may yet be an Ambassador of Christ, and Steward of his mysteries; then the breaking bread, etc. is a converting Ordinance, as Mr. Pryn held, which Mr. Gillespy and Mr. Rutherford deny.  
If it be granted that this is the whole of a Ministers work, is it no part of it? are they to do nothing else, if they are to do this? If it be an edifying Ordinance (which neither Master Gillespy nor Master Rutherford will deny) it is a part of their function. For my part, (saith he) I think to be an Ambassador of Christ, and to beseech in his stead, 2 Cor. 5. 20. to be a Steward of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4. 1. are all one, as to preach the Gospel, and that the Assembly did misalledge the Text, 1 Cor. 4. 1. as they have done the other, to prove that neither Sacrament may be dispensed by any, but a Minister of the Word lawfully ordained, Confession of Faith, Chap. 27. Sect. 4. Perhaps when the Assembly voted that Text for this purpose, they had read that which our Author elsewhere delivers, speaking of admission to Baptism, he saith, A Minister in this case is to act as a Steward, who is to deal according to his Lords will, not his own mind. Is not Baptism then one of the mysteries of which they are Stewards? or perhaps they thought that the Sacraments are contained in the Gospel, and are verbum visibile, being teaching signs. A man that will oppose so quicksighted a Society, should have said some little at least to purpose; It is said, that Mysteries of God never signify Sacraments in Scripture, but the Gospel, Ephes. 6. 19 Rom. 16. 25. I never took those to be opposites, but have ever thought that Sacraments are included within the Gospel; we have ever taken them for signs and Seals, and if they do not teach Gospel-truths, and seal Gospel-promises, Ministers are not to dispense them, nor Christians to intermeddle with them: But Chamiers authority is here brought, in Scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usurpari pro ipso rei sacrae signo, profecto impostura est. And is not the Quotation of this from him a greater imposture, who ever took the bare sign to be the Sacrament? then the definition would fall that calls it a visible sign of an invisible grace. If marriage be not that great mystery, Ephes. 5. 32. but the union of Christ and his Church, then certainly the Sacraments (in which we have that communion and fellowship with Christ) 1 Cor. 10. 16.) are not excluded from the number of mysteries.  
As there is a separation for this public work, so there is also a separation more general, from Idols to God, upon which account Christians are called Saints. Men holy by dedication to the Lord, as the Temple of God which is holy, 1 Cor. 3. 17. Our adversaries some of them at least baptise, and by Baptism consecreate men to God, upon no other account than such a separation by a profession of Faith and holiness, as some of the most eminent of them express themselves. To deny Baptism to these in their own account, can be no other than Sacrilege. This profession gives them interest in God by way of visible communion; and therefore they must be given to God. Children are separated for God, and styled (as we have heard) holy; if they yield them this interest, they cannot deny them Baptism, and avoid this charge of Sacrilege, They are servants of God and of his holy Family, and they are to have admittance into the Family. In case they deny it, they must leave them without God, and so without Hope; so that of necessity one will follow, that either they rob God of them as belonging to him, or denying their interest in him, they doom them to destruction. If they have no interest in God, 
Quae sententia, tantum secum in vexit jam errorum & schismatum agmen, ut nihil de ullis superiorum temporum Hae reticis legatur tam insanum, quod non fuerit reductum proximo quadriennio subsque rursum sectatores invenerit, ut vel unum hoc pietatis studiosis radicem hanc suspectam meritò reddere debuerit, ex qua tam in fausta germina suppulularunt.  than they perish; If they have their interest, than they are Sacrilegiously withheld from him. Many have observed how God hath followed the sin of Sacrilege, above other sins with his judgements; but instances can be given of no piece of Sacrilege, so sadly followed by the hand of heaven, as this of detaining Infants from Baptism. They have heard not a few, and it may well move pity in all Readers to take notice of their answers. No consent of History, nor authority of men, of most eminent piety can work their belief of such a hand of God, giving up so many of their party to such abominations. I shall to that which they have heard from Master Marshal and Master Baxter add only one testimony of Martin Bucer in his Dedicatory Epistle before his Comment on the Evangelists, relating to the Doctrine of Antipaedo baptism, he saith, Which opinion hath brought such an heap of Errors, and Schisms, that there is nothing so abhorrent from reason, can be read of any of the Heretics of former times, which hath not been in four years' space revived, and sonud followers, that this alone may render that root suspected to all that follow after godliness, from whence such unhappy branches have sprouted, and out of which they have budded.   

CHAP. LVIII.  
The Children of all that are Christians in profession, are by virtue of Covenant-Interest, to be received into the Church by Baptism.  
THen it farther follows by way of necessary Corollary, that according to the Parents Interest in the Covenant, the child hath Interest in the Sacrament of Baptism; But all professing Parents separate from Idols, and professing the worship of the true God, though nothing more of a Christian be in them, in the latitude as hath been shown, are in covenant; the infants of all these then have interest in Baptism. The Major cannot be questioned by any that acknowledge a right in infants, derived from their Parents for Baptism, for it is interest in the covenant that gives the title to parent and infant: The Minor I have abundantly proved. The covenant must either be made to appear to run in a more narrow channel (which I suppose will hardly be done) that a man in Ignorance, or in Impenitency, as he does not keep covenant, so he never entered covenant, or else this must necessarily follow. To assert this by 
a Arguments evincing the right of Christians in this latitude.  Arguments.  
First, Their children whom God owns as his peculiar people, above others have right to Baptism. This cannot be denied; either these have a just claim, or else no children at all. But God owns all in visible profession, as his people, Isa. 1. 2. Isa. 5. 13. Hos. 4. 6. Jer. 2. 11, 13, 31, 32. Jer. 4. 22. Jer. 5. 51. therefore the children of visible professors have right to Baptism.  
Secondly, Their children, that are brought forth to God, by their parents, have right to Baptism; This is as plain: But visible professors bring forth children to God, Ezek. 16. 20. therefore their children have right to Baptism.  
Thirdly, Those children whose Parents are children of the Kingdom of God, have their title to Baptism; But those that are in sin, and in a way to be cast out for sin, are children of the Kingdom, Mat. 8. 12. Mat. 21. 43. Ergo the children of Parents in sin have right to Baptism.  
Fourthly, The children of those, who are themselves Disciples of Christ, aught to be baptised; But men in sin are Disciples of Christ, Joh. 6. 66. whole Nations, among whom are many wicked ones, are Disciples, Matth. 28. 19 The children then of those that are in sin, aught to be baptised.  
Fifthly, The children of those that are of the number of brethren in the faith of the Gospel, have right to Baptism: But men in sin are brethren in the faith of the Gospel, 1 Cor. 5. 11. If any that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, etc. This our dissenting brethren will not deny to be meant of Christians, therefore their children are to be baptised.  
Sixthly, Those children that are holy by reason of birth from one or both believing parents, are to be baptised: But the children of those that are in sin may be holy by reason of birth of one, or both believing parents, 1 Cor. 7. 14. To clear this place, which some weakly enough, have urged for the contrary▪ Let us inquire who the Apostle means by a Believer, and who he means by an unbeliever, and this will soon be decided; if we look to the case propounded by letter from the Corinthians, which he there resolves, and answers their scruples; That is confessed to be marriage between a Christian and a Heathen a professed Believer and an Infidel, a man removed from an Infidel, (to take upon him the name of Christ), is there a Believer, and many of these even in Corinth, were men in sin. They that will have the Believer there to set out only a justified and sanctified person, they must by unbeliever mean all unsanctified persons, and so the case propounded and satisfied, is, whether a regenerate person sanctified by the Spirit, married to one that gives not full, or at least hopeful evidences of sanctification, may continue a marriage-society? whether a man of Jobs integrity might have lived with such a wise to whom Job was joined? a thing that was never yet brought into question, either by Jew or Christian; and altogether unworthy of an Apostles determination. The thing is plain, 
Amplification of this position.  that as infants have right to Baptism, so all the infants of those parents that nomine tenus are Christians, have right to Baptism. See more, Treatise of the Sacraments, page 161.  
To amplify this in some particulars, and if it may be, to make it more clear to doubting Christians.  
First, A life in distrust of God, and rebellion against God, provoking him to the highest punishment of the parents doth not divest the child of the title to the covenant, and interest in the Sacrament of initiation into the number of Christians. For proof of this, look upon that act of Joshua, when the people were got out of the Wilderness, and were brought into the Land of Canaan, Josh. 5. 6, 7. The children of Israel walked forty years in the Wilderness, till all the people that were men of war that came out of Egypt were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the Lord; And the children which he raised up in their stead, them did Joshua circumcise, for they were uncircumcised, they had not circumcised them in the way; you see what the fathers were, yet the children Joshua ordered to be circumcised; Concerning their conversation, the parents were enemies, but as touching the election, the choice made of God, the issue is to be numbered among the beloved. Who had a worse father than Josiah, yet where was there a better son? A circumcised man, who in youth began to seek the God of his father David, 2 Chron. 34. 3.  
Secondly, Misbelief in a parent divests not the issue of this birth-priviledge; though the father err in the faith, yet the child is not to be shut out of the number of believers. We have in this particular the Apostle for a precedent, had misbelief in the parent denuded the child of this privilege. Saint Paul had not been a Jew by nature, but an Heretic, or Sectary by nature, being before conversion a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee; Scribe was a name of office, but Pharisee the name of a Sect, and therefore Christ warns to beware of the leaven, that is, of the Doctrine of the Pharisees, as of the Sadduces; Such was Paul's parentage, and yet by descent and offspring, he is of the people of the Jews. What we say of Pharisees, is as true of Sadduces; It is not to be doubted but they were circumcised persons, and entitled their children according to the Directory in Scripture for circumcision, as appears by their embodying of themselves with the people of the Jews, Matth. 22. 23. Acts 23. 6. The most strict of Pharisees took them into their society, which they had not done, had they not been men of the circumcision, we see the accusation charged on Peter on this occasion, Acts 11. 2, 3. A man transmits' not his errors, nor his vices no more than he doth his graces.  
Thirdly, ignorance of needful truths, in a parent doth not divest the child of this privilege. Those were the people of God (and therefore brought forth children to God) that did perish for lack of knowledge, Hosea 4. 6. that went into captivity for lack of knowledge, Isa. 5. A reverend brother, giving his reasons why he is among his brethren singular in this point, not baptising all born in his Parish; one main one is, the gross ignorance among them, and that (as he says) not in Cumberland, and those parts, but in Essex, such, that if he should print, his Reader would scarce believe it were possible to be true; To which I only say, I wish that our own experience in the places where we live, did give us occasion of suspicion, that any wrong is done them. Therefore to let the truth pass unquestioned, I would only wish him to consider, whether there might not have been found the like in Corinth, that Church of the Saints, 1 Cor. 15. 34. Some have not the knowledge of God, I speak this to your shame. Whether there he might not have found the like among the illuminated Hebrews, were not there those that were dull of hearing, that when for the time they ought to be teachers, they had need that one teach them again, which be the first principles of the Oracles of God, and were become such as had need of milk, and not of strong meat? yet these were of the Church, and therefore with them their children.  
Fourthly, illegitimation of birth, adulterous copulation in the parents, divesteth not such issue of this privilege, David had never in that manner sought in fasting and prayer his child's life, had he believed that he must not have been of the seed of the Jews, but of the uncircumcised Heathen; Pharez was of such a birth, yet who bore a greater name and glory in Israel than he, and his family? even where the illegitimation of his birth is noted, there the glory of his race is magnified, which is yet farther honoured in that Christ according to the flesh was made of his seed. That seed of Abraham per eminentiam, was out of his loins; Jepthah indeed was driven out by his brethren, but not because that he was not of the seed of the Jews, and people of God, but because they would not have him to share of the inheritance among them. A Reverend Divine saith, Objections answered. That some persons may be notorious offenders (as known Atheists, mockers of Religion, Idolaters, Papists, Heretics, Witches) and yet profess before men the faith, seems to him to imply a contradiction. These (I confess) are plausible words to take with wellmeaning souls, that attend not to the language of the Scripture in this particular. And for the first, if he means Atheists in judgement, that professedly maintain in word, what David's fool said in his heart, that there is no God, and by mockers of Religion, not those alone that oppose the power, but with Lucian, all notion of Religion; and by Idolaters, those that professedly worship false gods, and worship not at all the Lord Jehovah, than it cannot be denied▪ that this is a contradiction: But Reverend Master Rutherford, whom he opposeth in that place▪ hath no such meaning; But for an Atheist in life, to be a professor of the faith, we have Paul expressly for it, Titus 1. 16. They profess that they know God, but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. The Apostle (we see) saw no contradiction in it; and for mockers of Religion, Peter did not foretell them to be out of the Church, but within the bosom of it, when he said, There shall come in the last day's scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 2 Pet. 3, 3. For Idolaters, if an Israelite might be an Idolater, than a Christian; How high were those in Idolatry mentioned, Psal. 106. 36, 37, 38, 39? and yet in covenant, ver. 45. For the Church of Corinth the Apostle is plain, A brother may be an Idolater, 1 Cor. 5. 11. It is within the Church, and not without, where men escape death by plagues, yet repent not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship Devils, and Idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood, which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk, Rev 9 20. For Papists, I marvel how they are distinguished from Idolaters and Heretics; for Heretics as false Prophets were of the Church of the Jews, so Heretics are of the Church in Gospel-times, 2 Pet. 2. 1. The Apostle tells the Elders of Ephesus, Acts 20. 30. Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them. For Witches, though there were a Law in Israel not to suffer a Witch to live, Exod. 22. 18. Yet Israel had Witches, as is seen in those that Saul put out of the Land, and her that in his distress he sought unto, 1 Sam. 28. Paul had never reckoned up witchcraft among those sins that shut out of the Kingdom of heaven, and certified the Churches of Galatia of it, had there been an impossibility that any such should be found of their number that made claim to it; This the Reverend Author doth as much as acknowledge in the words that follow, I deny not (saith he) but that in some sense, any such notorious offendor may have the essence and being of a member of the Church as visible, to wit, in this sense a corrupt and rotten member fit to be cut off. A member of the visible Church, (though formerly an inoffensive professor of the faith) may afterwards fall away into any of these notorious scandals, and yet for a while still retain the essence and being of a member of the Church as visible. Master Rutherford that is there opposed (I suppose) will affirm no more, Respective to the power of godliness, there is in them no soundness, nor yet in those that are better than these; Some say that one that is such in any known foul sin, to them is no better than a Heathen, as bad as a Turk, or Pagan, and nothing at all better for the name Christian. And I say, that to me they are as bad, as to them, and perhaps worse in the eyes of God. This privilege in which they stand thus interessed, is an aggravation of their sin, and a farther provocation of God against them; When the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons and of his daughters, Deut. 32. 19 yet such is God's long-suffering, and forbearance of them, that he is pleased to vouchsafe them farther and more large evidences of his favour, Nehem. 9 30. Jerusalem was corrupted more than Sodom and Samaria, in all her ways, Ezek. 16. 47. Sodom and her daughters, had not done as Jerusalem and her daughters, ver. 48. Samaria had not committed half her sins, ver. 51. In her abominations she had justified both of them; yet Jerusalem enjoyed those privileges, that Samaria and Sodom enjoyed not; Jerusalem was in covenant, ver. 16. when Sodom and Samaria were no covenant-people, but worshipped they knew not what, John 4. ver. 22. Corazin and Bethsaida, Cities of Israel, were no better in the eye of God than Tyre and Sidon, yea their sins deserved an heavier weight of judgement, Matth. 11. 22. It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sydon at the day of judgement, than for you, saith our Saviour; and so it was with Capernaum, compared to Sodom, ver. 23. yet Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, enjoyed those privileges from God, that Tyre, Sydon and Sodom wanted. As the Apostles zeal against the Samaritans▪ sins, Luke 9 54, did outstrip our Saviour's, when they would have fire from heaven to consume them; so our zeal outgoes Gods, when we would have such men, root and branch, parent and child struck out of covenant, before God hath sued out any Bill of divorce against them, or removed his Candlestick, and taken all covenant-priviledges from them. For the baptism of children of Apostates, there is a greater difficulty. Some of reverend worth say, They see not how justly a Parent's Apostasy should deprive the child of Baptism, and some Texts of Scripture seem strongly to favour that opinion, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. Moreover, thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured; Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, that thou hast slain my children, and delivered them, to cause them to pass through the fire for them?  
There could not be an higher evidence of Apostasy, than to give their children in sacrifice to a false god. It was one of the highest acts of obedience that Abraham could testify to the Lord, and yet these yield it to Idol-gods; They bring forth children to God, and give them to Moloch, Psal. 106. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 They were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works, and they served their Idols, which were a snare unto them, yea they sacrificed their sons and daughters unto devils. And shod innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the Idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood. Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions. These in this apostatised from God in covenant, yet God looks upon them as a covenant people, ver. 45. And he remembered for them his covenant, etc. But this seems to be but a partial Apostasy, taking in the worship of Idols, they did not totally cast off the worship of God. A line of profession was still (it seems) held up, God was not wholly cast off in Judah. They seem to be of those, that swore by the Lord and Malcham, Zeph. 1. 5. keeping up the worship of the true God, and yet take in the worship of a false god with him. As for those in whom Master Firmin instanceth; our Englishmen now in Turkey, apostatised from the Faith to that Religion; concerning whom quaeres are often put, it may seem equal, that as a man comes into covenant, and his posterity with him; So, totally rejecting the covenant, denying God as well in profession, as in his works; that he and his posterity should be out of covenant; Being before an holy root, to transmit holiness to his seed, now he becomes unholy, and put out of such capacity, and is disabled from making over any such privilege to them. But here we need not to trouble ourselves with the Baptism of such, having renounced Christ, they baptise not their infants in his name. A Minister shall have none of these rendered to him, and to baptise them into this body, when he well knows they must be never suffered to be of it, were an high taking of God's name in vain, and a mockery of so sacred an Ordinance. Now in case a grandfather shall take one of these children, and offer it unto Baptism; and being a Progenitor, shall undertake the education in the Christian Faith, and not in the Turkish abomination, whether in this case there be right to Baptism, is the question. Now these may be looked upon, either as mere Heathens, in the same condition, as if they never had an Ancestor in the Faith, or else as issuing out of the loins of mediate Ancestors, believing, and so coming from a root that hath been holy. If considered in the former way, they may have a title to Baptism according to many eminent Divines, by virtue of their Adoption. Reverend Master Cawdrey observes a threefold way to circumcision from Gen. 17. One is personal upon profession of Faith in a man's own person, so Abraham entered. A second is paternal, when a man comes in by right derived from his Parents, so Isaac and Ishmael had title. A third, adoptive, being taken into the family of a Believer according to that, Gen. 17. 12, 13. He that is eight days old among you, shall be circumcised, every man child in your generations, be that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed. He that is borne in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised, etc. Any bondman that he would take, and adopt into his family, in such case had right of circumcision: Rive●. on Gen. 17. Exercit. 8●. is clear of this judgement, and says, he remembers that it was so determined in the National Synods of the French Churches, quoting in like manner Prosper in his second Book, De vocatione gentium, Chap. 8. 
a Aliquando filiis infidelium praestatur baec gratia ut baptizentur cúm occultâ Dei providentiâ in manus piorum quomodocunque proveniunt.  Sometimes this privilege is vouchsafed to the children of Infidels, when by a secret providence they into the hands of the godly. Master Cotton I remember in his book of Infant-Baptisme is for it. Master Norton against Apollonius for present suspends his judgement, page 38. I had rather go his way, than theirs that determine it; and in my thoughts with submission to better judgements, I rather incline in present to the contrary. Those that Abraham bought with his money, I suppose were men of years, who were to be circumcised and their issue; But whether they were not first instructed, is the question. No uncircumcised person was to be in his house, and whether he might compel to circumcision may well be disputed. He found them explicitly in covenant with false gods, and whether he might give them the seal of the covenant of the true God in that state, I question. It is said, God's covenant shall be in their flesh, verse 13. and that this should be done, and no covenant with the true God at all professedly in their mouth, no notion of him by way of assent in their heart, to me is strange; I think it implies Abraham's work, first in instructing of them in the covenant, and upon their assent they were received, and their seed with them. Circumcision did denominate them a people of God, and that is a strong contradiction to have them circumcised, whose faith was in a false god; and who applied themselves to such worship; Their entrance I should rather take to be personal, than adoptive. Consider them then as descending from the loins of Christian progenitors, having fathers of their flesh heretofore in covenant with God, and we shall find them in a better condition than those Heathens that had ever been strangers. And here the Apostle will help us to a distinction, Rom. 11. 28. Speaking of the Jews cut off from the body of the Church visible. As concerning the Gospel, (saith he) they are enemies for your sakes. Their present condition is as Heathens, being alienated from God by reason of unbelief of the Gospel (which Apostasy of theirs hath given occasion to, and made way for the calling of the Gentiles:) But as touching the Election, they are friends, saith he; God hath respect to them, not totally to reject them for their father's sake; for the covenant which he entered with, and the love that he showed unto their forefathers, being beloved upon the account of their fathers; When there is a father found to do them that office, to take them out of the wild Olive, to put them into the true Olive; I do not doubt, but that they have title: Though Baptism should be denied to infants respective to all predecessors, pure Heathen (notwithstanding Adoption, which I will not determine) yet the Apostle speaking so much in favour of Jews, even in their state of blindness, respective to the hope of their future call; I do not doubt but it might be vouchsafed (upon this account of Adoption) to an infant. Jew, if we can have any ground fairly to conclude his descent from Abraham, much more where we can easily evidence a descent from parents that are Christian. And this I hope is some explication of my meaning where in answer to the demand of an adversary I say, That infants be capable of Baptism, by descent from parents, either within man's memory, or beyond it; when a line of profession holdi, or is again restored, that the infants may be received into the visible Church, and enjoy the saving Ordinances of Christ Jesus, page 68 of my answer; and some satisfaction to the question concerning the power of mediate Parents, giving title to Baptism, where out of the case of total Apostasy there is small difficulty. I shall conclude in the words of Rivet, 
a Si Parens carens verâ fide, cam tamen profiteatur & in externo Eclesiae coetupro fideli habeatur, aut olim habitus fuerit sub veteri Testamento infantes ex talibus nascentes erant foederati & promissionis participes; quia etiam promissio acceptata fluerit, à parentibus majoribus in gratiam nasciturae posteritatis cui non praejudicat immediati Parentis incredulitas aut hypocrisis quamdiu infans incredulitatem & hypocrisin Parentis imitari non potest. Rivet. in Gen. Cap. 17. Exercit. 88  If a parent wants true Faith, yet makes profession of it, and in the external society of the Church is accounted a Believer, or hath been accounted heretofore under the Old Testament; the infants borne of such parents; are in covenant with them, and partakers of the promise, even upon this account; because the promise was received of the Ancestors in behalf of the posterity that should issue from them which the unbelief or hypocrisy of the immediate parent, cannot make invalid as long as the infant cannot imitate the unbelief or hypocrisy of the parent.   

CHAP. LIX.  
A Defence of the former Doctrine respective to the latitude of Infant-Baptisme.  
A Reverend Author putting it to the Question, Whether the Ministers of England are bound by the Word of God to baptise the children which say they believe in Jesus Christ, but are grossly ignorant, scandalous in their conversations, scoffers at godliness, and refuse to submit at Church-discipline? determining it in the negative, a work most candidly carried on, must be ingeniously acknowledged, yet a work in which the Author appears rather diffident, than confident, more in suspicion, than assured of the verity of his own tenant, or warranty of his present practice. Sometimes he confesses himself at a disadvantage, and comes very weakly off it, page 13. Sometimes he calls for better fingers to untie the knot that he meets with, page 32. Sometimes he even yields all, as the state did stand not only with the Jews, but also as it doth stand with us, though it ought the jure to be otherwise, page 34. Sometimes he professes not to deny any infants, but to delay them, page 42. Sometimes he says he had rather grapple with those, who think he is too large, than with those who judge him to be too straight, page. 43. Suspecting his error (as indeed it doth) if Scripture may determine) to lie on that hand. I shall as briefly as may be take a view of it. He premises two things, page 1, 2. for the clearing of the question.  
First, Premises two grounds, on which he builds his discourse; 2. Puts the Question as above; 3. Brings arguments sor the negative, which I shall here take into consideration.  
First, The infant that is to be baptised, if we consider it in itself as abstracted from the parent, gives no reason for itself why it should be baptised. This we willingly yield, the infant hath no independent title, the right claimed is in relation to the parents, and thence I infer the infants right is somewhat, that parents can transmit to their children that gives the title, otherwise they might have regeneration from parents, as well as Baptism. It is not then inherent graces that we must look after, respective to the child's interest, but covenant-priviledge, covenant-holiness.  
A second ground is inferred from the former. All children then (saith he) are baptised by virtue of the parent, one or both, ever considering the child in relation to the parent, being the branch of such a root, and so I take in the child together with the parent. Hence we say commonly, they must be children borne in the Church, that is, of such parents as are members of the Church, being a society of visible Saints joined together, by way of covenant, to exercise an holy communion with God in Christ, and so one with another, according to the order of the Gospel: for I presume none are so sottish to understand a Church to be that place which by a Metonymy of the subject we call a Church, nor the Parishes that men live in which never were of Ecolesiastical constitution. I am utterly to seek what is meant by that place, which by a Metonymy of the subject we call a Church: our meeting places seem to be intended, but few children are borne there; and the Authonr speaks of a Church where children are borne. 
Covenant of Church-members either explicit or implicit.  For the covenant of which he speaks one with another, according to the order of the Gospel, which he seems to understand of a Congregational Church, constituting covenant, and puts into the definition of a Church; this should not have been premised, but proved. His adversaries in this thing, know no such explicit covenant. If an implicit one will serve, than the Parish inhabitants (which he says were never of Ecclesiastical constitution) are all in covenant; Men that profess God in Christ, and by virtue of conveniency of habitation, join in one, in the worship of God, in the use of Ordinances, tacitly and implicitly are in covenant together, and we take it to be no sottish thing to esteem these as Churches. If this be his meaning, to assert only an implicit covenant, where he says page 3. (This rule warrants any Minister comfortably to administer that Ordinance, Here is a parent, one or both visibly in covenant with God, and a visible member of Christ's Church; I do therefore administer the seal of the covenant unto this infant by virtue of this parent, according to that Command given to Abraham, the father of believers, with whom when the Lord entered into covenant, and laid the foundation of the Church visible in his family, he took his seed into covenant with him, and commanded that they with him should keep that Seal of his covenant,) we freely consent, and then the question is determined in the affirmative; I am sure the Church of the Jews took in such by circumcision, that some would exclude from Baptism. In case he means an explicit Church-covenant, over and above the covenant of grace, as the Jews had no such way, so neither had the Apostles or primitive Christians. Those converts, Acts 2. did not that first day of their conversion before their Baptism set up Congregational Churches with officers, 
The Apostles and primitive Christians knew no explicit Church-Covenant.  they dwelled in many remote places at great distance (whither they were to return to their respective families,) and therefore could not in this way embody themselves, in one distinct society for exercise of discipline. Assoon as the Eunuch by Philip's preaching of a Jewish proselyte, is made a Christian Disciple, he saith to Philip, See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptised? Acts 8. 36. Had Philip understood a necessity of confederation into a Churchway, over and above the covenant of grace before Baptism, he had doubtless informed him; and as Christ sent the Leper that he had cleansed, to show himself to the Priest, and offer the gift that Moses had Commanded, Matth. 8. 4. so Philip would have observed the Gospel-order appointed, and have sent him to some particular constituted visible Church, upon his covenant to have been received, and not hand over head, upon his bare profession that he believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, baptised him. When the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost, Peter said, Acts 10. 47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? had there been any such rule of a Church-covenant, orderly to have preceded, he might easily have seen that any man, upon that account might have forbidden it. Paul had made much more haste (as I may say) than good speed, Acts 16. In baptising the Jailor and his household, in case Jesus had set down an order of a preconfederation into a particular Church-society. Master Bartlet in his model of the Congregational way, saith, that those particular instances which are produced by divers reverend Divines, of the Eunuch, Centurions, Jaylours' Baptism, though not belonging to any particular Church against what we have laid down, are of little force and validity, in regard that which was done to those persons was by the hands of extraordinary officers, that were not tied to particular Churches, as ordinary Pastors and Teachers were then, and still are. But these persons whom they thus baptised, were not persons in any such extraordinary capacity, and they must come in, in a Gospel-way. This might have privileged the Leper cleansed by Christ, from offering his gift appointed by Moses, as well as it could privilege these new Converts from any covenant-way appointed by Christ; and the Eunuch saith, What doth hinder me to be baptised? without mention of any special privilege of an officer extraordinary, in a way otherwise irregular. And the like we may observe in the speech of Peter. (2.) They should show us where, when, and by what authority, any ordinary Pastors and Teachers tied themselves to such an order, to bring men into a Congregational Churchway, and to baptise into such particular Church Congregational, and not into the universal Church visible. (3.) Those of his judgement, may do well to give us their thoughts of their own Baptism. They had no independent right all their right was in relation to their parents. Their parents were not (as we conceive) thus in any particular Church federation, perhaps they were no fit persons in their judgement for admission, neither were they baptised by the hands of extraordinary Officers. If their Baptism was null, than they are yet to be baptised; if valid, they had then title to Baptism, and others in their condition are entitled. (4.) Then it is in the power of man, at pleasure to keep parent and child from the privilege of Ordinances, to have them pass as Heathens and Infidels, yea believing godly men and their children at their courtesy, must be reputed either of the number of dogs or of children, this cannot be denied. The majority of these have power at pleasure of admission of members. And to be no Church-member (with them) is the same as to be a Turk, or Indian, page 9 And how different their judgements are, who are fit to be received, and who are to be denied, is evident. Some of no obscure note have affirmed, though minded, be contrary minded, that to render a man capable of admission into Church-membership, grace is not sufficient, but he must have expressions, and so a father's slow tongue, shall exclude his child from admittance into the fellowship of the Saints; when upon the other hand upon the bare account of his father's glib tongue, (though there be scarce another commendable quality) another may be received, when these are not judged worthy of fellowship, who are not of abilities to sit in judgemeut with the Congregation, to admit members, to pass sentence upon delinquents, to judge of Doctrines, not only to elect, but to ordain Pastors and Church-Officers, we may easily guess how many they exclude as without, whom Christ receives. Such a way had it been taken, had deprived the Church of an Hezekiah, Josiah, and many others in their age renowned; How great a provocation is this to such children when once of growth to join with them with whom the Church ranks them? and to oppose with the uttermost of fury, such that (after the revolution of so many generations inheriting that privilege) now do debar them? And how great an encouragement to join with such in all holiness, with whom they are honoured with these privileges?  
As to the second, whether the Ministers of England are bound by the Word of God to baptise their children which say they believe in Jesus Christ, but are grossly ignorant, scandalous in their conversations, scoffers at godliness, and refuse to submit to Church-Discipline. Our Author puts a Question, What parent do you mean; the immediate parent only, or the predecessors? For suppose the immediate parent be as your question mentions; yet it may be the Grandfather, or some of the predecessors have been godly. And farther says, I perceive divers of our Divines help themselves here, and some in discourse are content to lose that ground of the immediate parent, and fly to this. Though I see no reason that any should fly hither, in hope of help, yet it is strange to me that he should stand for the immediate parent, excluding all mediate predecessors, who hath said enough for their power in giving of this interest to the children. He says, I do administer the Seal of the covenant unto this child by virtue of this parent, according to that Command given to Abraham, the father of Believers, with whom when the Lord entered into covenant, and laid the foundation of the Church visible in his family, he took his seed into covenant with him, and commanded that with him they should keep that Seal of his covenant, When God took Abraham into covenant and his seed with him, it was not only his immediate seed, but the issue of his flesh at the greatest distance, God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is mentioned in God's apparition to Moses, Exod. 3. 6. and was pleaded by Moses in his intercession with God for Israel, Exod. 32. 13. Moses then, and all Israel were in this confederation of Abraham, yea all Israel in succeeding ages, Levit. 26. 42. When the worst of Jew's make that plea, that they are Abraham's seed, the Lord Christ yields it, John 8. 37. and the Apostle concludes a holiness in the whole body upon that account, that the root at such a distance, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, were holy, Rom. 11. 16. I know not how we can bottom any thing upon the grand Charter of God, made to Abraham, and exclude the mediate parent from all power to confer this interest upon posterity. When Jacob calls Ephraim and Manasseh by the name of sons. Gen. 48. 9 as a father gives his blessing to them, putting his name, and the names of his fathers, Abraham and Isaac upon them, ver. 16. and 20. were they not to be reckoned for the sons and seed of Jacob? doth not their mediate Parent, as well as Joseph their immediate Father, confer an interest on them? Mr. Hooker was before our Author in this tenant, and his grounds are fully answered by Mr. Caudrey, 
Mr. Firmins' reasons and his replies to them.  in his Diatribe, concerning infant-baptisme. I shall only take into consideration our Author's Reasons.  
First, 
1.  he yields that England had Christians in Primitive-times. Thousands of Martyrs under Dioclesian, but after the waters grew brackish at Rome, and brings it to us in England; we held (saith he) the name Christianity under the Romish yoke, till of late the State threw it off, and then the people following the State concluding, I doubt not but God had his number in those dark times; but what were those few in comparison of the body of the people, or predecessors, since the time of the Gospel restored to its purity; God hath wonderfully appeared in England; but those who use the argument of predecessors run very high.  
Answ. 1. If the waters grew brackish at Rome, so that they gave their scent hither; so did the waters of Judea and Jerusalem grow as brackish, yea, and of a worse savour in the days of Ahaz; and at those times when they brought forth children to God and gave them to Moloch, Ezek. 16. 20.  
2. Neither do we look so far back (when we look back as far as Dioclesian) as the Jews in Christ time; as Paul that looked as far as Abraham in his time: yea, himself stays not till he come up to him, we are not necessitated to look so high. A pedigree in a shorter line as to this purpose will serve our turn; we are not tied to make it out that our Progenitors were really godly, to confer such covenant-interest upon us. Primitive-Christians were admitted upon the account of Profession, by our Authors confession, and not upon the account of reality of godliness, and they gave their posterity interest. We see how much reverend Master Hooker. speaking the opinion of his party, gives to the Church's connivance, negligence, or indulgence in this thing: If the Church (saith he) either through connivance, negligence, or indulgence shall tolerate such evils, and evil persons in that state of Church-membership, they cannot then deny them the privilege of Members. And I dare attribute as much to God's connivance, his indulgence, and long suffering; Till he sue out a bill of divorce, and openly casts a people off, (that they be none of his Kingdom, or called by his name,) they are in covenant, and their children with them. It seems Master Hooker judges that the Church may thus connive without sin; seeing he distinguisheth between connivance, indulgence, and negligence. I am sure God may, out of just prerogative; And to have the line broken off, assoon as the power of godliness, in a race declines, is to be infinitely above God, rigorous, and severe, and the ready way to bring in a strange and monstrous confusion. He goes on, and says he will a little consider the Text in reference to them; and then instances in that in the second Commandment, showing mercy unto thousands, of them that love me, and keep my Commandments, as though that were the alone Text we had, to rest upon. Though much might be spoke by way of Animadversion of his Answer, yet I forbear. Use may be made of that Text, to evidence that it is no unreasonable thing to carry on a privilege so far, from generation to generation, and an easy reply made to most that he hath spoken; Yet I build not a formal Argument upon it, therefore I shall not spend time in it. His second, third and fourth Argument come in to fill up his Comment on that Text, 
2, 3, 4.  and therefore might have been answers, not Arguments.  
Fifthly, 
5.  he says, that Text, 1 Cor. 7. 14. seems to tie the federal holiness of the child to the immediate parent; doth not say, the child is holy, etc. by virtue of a great grandfather: And so it seems to me also. Those Corinthians being new Converts, their issue had none but immediate Parents, from whom they might claim their interest; and by whom they might be entitled. As the Parents themselves did claim it from no Parents or progenitors at all, their Ancestors having no power to communicate it; Isaac and Ishmael had right of circumcision only from their immediate Parent; Abraham had right immediately from God, Jacob and his posterity had right from Parents, both mediate and immediate, and these Corinthians from their immediate Parents only, and their children from Parents mediate and immediate.  
Sixthly, 
6.  He says. If that promise doth give this power to predecessors, etc. then though there are none to educate this child, (For the ignorant profane parents will not but teach them how to break the covenant; The predecessors cannot, they are dead, and are not;) yet we must seal to this child, etc. Where do you see Churches take care of such children? they must be of some bigness, and understanding before the Church meddle with them; the immediate profane person brings him up in ignorance and profaneness, neither will take care to have his child instructed by the Church, as experience witnesseth too much? Answ. I understand here the covenant-promise, as Acts 2. 39 by virtue of which these Jews were children of the covenant Acts 2. 35. and not with limit to the second Commandment; and then speak to it.  
1. Here is enough spoke to conclude the child's interest, in case he shall be taught to break covenant, than he is in covenant. An Indians child breaks no covenant with God; And being in covenant, he is interessed in the privilege of the covenant.  
2. Let him make it up into formal Argument, and then it runs thus. That child whose immediate Parents will not bring it up in the power of godliness, hath no right to Baptism. This, though it carry some fair show, with those that are not able to judge; yet it is evidently false, Those that were witness to themselves, that they were the children of those that killed the Prophets, were of the circumcision, Matth. 23. 31. yea, those that had crucified Christ, were in covenant with God, and their children in confederation, Acts 2. 39 That counsel of the Prophet, Zach. 1. 4. Be ye not as your fathers, unto whom the former Prophets have cried, saying, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, Turn ye now from your evil ways, and your evil doings, etc. might have been spared, in case none had been received as Members in covenant; but those whose fathers took all care for their education in the power of godliness, and Stephen might have spared his reproof, Acts 7. 51, 52, 53. or rather had run upon a contradiction when he said, Ye stiffnecked, and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the Prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the just One, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers; who have received the Law by the disposition of Angels, and have not kept it. They stood vested with their children in that great prerogative, Rom. 3. 1. The case of such children is sad, but not desperate: Though the Church cannot do the whole duty incumbent on a godly Parent, yet it takes care for the dispensation of those Ordinances that are saving, and Scripture calls by the name of Salvation. I know some seeing the truth of title in such children to the covenant, and consequently to Baptism, and therefore dare not deny them; yet are so far scandalised with this loose education of children, that they will admit it only with this caution, that some undertake for their education; and so those of loose life, may have their children baptised; because (say they) some difference ought to be put in all divine Ordinances, between the pure and impure for the comfort of the godly, the censure of the wicked, and the edification of all. But I wonder how this difference of pure and impure is seen between child and child, that is tendered to Baptism. As to covenant-holiness they are both equal, otherwise these men's undertaking would very hardly give them admission; and as to real-holinesse, neither have it, by communication from their Parents; otherwise (say they) the Ordinances of God cannot be kept without blot and pollution. I wonder what pollution these mean; I know none in children but Original sin, and the child of the best Parents is tainted with it; and let us take heed of busying ourselves with more care for preservation of Ordinances, than ever God himself took about them. If these, thus borne, have no right at all, (I suppose) they should not be admitted with any caution whatsoever. Master Cawdry observes (and seems to be of that judgement,) that some think this proviso to be too hard: I confess, I am of that mind; If (notwithstanding so sad discomforts in such Parents) infants stand vested in any such Birth-right-priviledge; why should it be suspended on the courtesy of such undertakers? being by birth-interest Christians, they must not on this account pass for Heathens. And how hard is it to impose such a burden upon any that is not ready to adopt the issue as his own? and in such case, his undertaking upon that ground brings the charge of a father upon him. This will soon grow into the bare formality of former Susceptors, Godfathers, and Godmothers, without any real advantage to the child. If by education be meant, such as a godly Parent ought to give, none will be found to do it. If only education in the way of a Christian, as in opposition to Judaisme, Heathenism, it needs not to be doubted, and that implies a covenant. What farther is desired, must be lest to the blessing of God, by providence on Ordinances. The want of piety in the Parent is supplied by the piety of the Church, into which the infant is received.  
Seventhly, 
7.  saith he. If the Predecessor may by this promise give right to Baptism, without the immediate Parent; then I pray you tell us how far we may go for this Predecessor? how many generations? Where hath God's Word limited Ministers, you may go to this Predecessor, and no farther? 1. I know few that say the Predecessor gives right, without the immediate Parent, but all concur in a joint way to communicate a covenant-interest; but his question may have an easy answer.  
2. I demand in titles of Honour, and inheritance of Lands, which men claim by descent from their Ancestors, where it is that they stay? It will be soon answered that they stay, when they can rise no higher, to find any other Predecessors vested in such honours, or such inheritance. Some can make no claim at all from Parents, they are the first of their house, of honour or inheritance. This was the case of Abraham, he had no interest from Terah; such was the case of the Primitive Converts, and such is the case of the Indians, that now by a gracious providence are converted by the English. Some can go no farther than their immediate Parents; they were the first in honour, or that gained an inheritance to their house. This was the case of Isaac, and of those children called by the Apostle, holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. and will be the case of the children of the Indian Converts, Others can rise to the third or fourth generation; others can go as high as the Conquest; some can claim beyond the Conquest, by deeds beyond date: so it is with some Christians, all may go as high as Ancestors have been in Christianity.  
Eightly, 
8.  If by virtue of that promise Predecessors may without the immediate parent give right to Baptism, than the children of an immediate parent apostatised from the Faith, and excommunicated from the Church, may be baptised.  
I have spoke already to the children of Apostates, 
The interest of infants of excommunicate persons in Baptism.  and as to the children of excommunicate persons, I readily yield his conclusion, that I may baptise them, against which, he thus farther reasons.  
If I may baptise the children of an excommunicate parent, than I may baptise the children of one who is no Member of a Church, (for so is the excommunicate person); so consequently the children of a Turk or Indian, for they are no members of a Church, and the excommunicated person is no other, in respect of his communion in Church-priviledges.  
I answer, if excommunication be only out of a particular visible congregation (as some say,) then the reply is easy, being thus excommunicate his right, in the Church universal visible, still remains, and into this, it is that we admit Members by Baptism, 1 Cor. 12. 13. otherwise a Christian were a Christian respective only to one congregation, and that congregation falling, his Christianity must fall with it; and being taken into a new one, he must be also admitted-anew by Baptism.  
But I farther answer. A Church-Member may be considered, either quoad jus ad rem, or quoad jus in re; either respective to a fundamental proper right, or a present personal actual fruition of his interest. An excommunicate man in the former sense is a Church-Member, not in the later; This excommunication is a sequestration, not a confiscation. He himself is suspended from present benefit, not cut off from all title, as several ways may be made to appear.  
1. The Text saith, Let him be as an Heathen or a Publican (in respect of society with him or familiarity, saith Master Cawdrey, Diatribe pag. 218.) not an Heathen and Publican. That Text, 2 Thes. 3. 14. is ordinarily understood of Excommunication; yet there the caution is added, Count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother, vers. 15. A brother is a Church-member, an excommunicate person is a brother. That which is for cure, not only of the body, but of the member in particular, is not a total dismembering: But this sentence is for cure of the particular member, For the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord, 1 Cor. 5. 5. 
a Haec enim excommunicatio nou est iustar veneni, quod hosti datur ad exitium, sed medicina, quae fratri datur ad salutem.  Excommunication is not like poison that is given to an enemy for death, but a medicine that is given to a brother for life, saith Gomarus in 2 Thes. 3. 15. Certainly Gods casting out of his Kingdom, Matth. 8. 12. taking away his Kingdom, Mat. 21. 3. removal of his Candlestick, Rev. 2. 5. the breaking off from the Olive, Rom. 11. 17. is a sentence far above Excommunication. To let pass Authors of this mind, Zanchy, and Perkins, quoted by Master Firmin. The National Synod of France, 1583. The Divines of Geneva, Calvine, Dr. Ames. Danaeus, Brochman, quoted by Master Cawdrey, Diatribe, page 216. and examine it by reason. Either the excommunicate persons sin divests the child, or else the Church's censure; But neither the sin, nor the censure: Ergo. 1. Not the sin as may appear, 1. By an Argument, ad hominem. Our Dissenting Brethren (as we heard) allow the Baptism, notwithstanding sin before the sentence of Excommunication; It is not then the sin in their judgement that doth divest them. 2. By an Argument ad rem. No sin but that of nature descends to posterity; man transmits' not his personal vices, neither fault nor guilt, no more than his graces. And for the sentence that cannot reach the child, I never read that Church-censures were like that plague laid upon Gehazi, to cleave to him and to his seed. In any legal proceeding, the child is not to be punished for the father's fault; there was a Law against it, Deut. 24. 16. The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin; and Amaziah King of Judah is commended for observation of it, and (in his acts of justice) proceeding according to it, 2 Chron. 25. 34. and we read not that any Ecclesiastical censure should transcend it. The child of a thief is not committed with him to prison, & I see no reason that he should be committed with him to Satan: I say then there is right to Baptism in the child of an excommunicate person▪ I wish our Brethren would stick here, & not refuse those children, whose parents are under no Excommunication.  
As to the third, our Author; 1. Premises a question, Whether is this bare profession of Faith in Christ, (though Parents be grossly ignorant, scandalous, and refuse to subject to Church-discipline) sufficient to make a man, and continue him a Member of the Church visible. And then proceeds to arguments, as to his question; I wonder how he can imagine that it makes any thing to his question; and in case it were wholly yielded him, whether thence he could draw his conclusion, that Ministers in England should not baptise the infants of all that profess the Faith in Christ Jesus. He confesseth in this question he hath disadvantage. For if a man be looked upon (saith he) as a visible Saint, and reputed a Member of a true Church; if that Member be very scandalous, and the Church let him alone and not deal with him, that person may challenge any Ordinance in the Church, both Baptism and Lords Supper. But I conceive such a person is not sufficiently qualified to make a Member of a Church, nor aught to be continued a Member of the Church; but the Church ought to seek to reform him, or if not to cast him out: so that if the Church will let such a person alone, and give him these Ordinances, there will be guilt charged upon that Church.  
Here, is his acknowledgement that they are continued Church-Members, though they should not be continued, and see what he hath further; It is true, the wicked Jews being members of that National Church, so long as their Membership held; they might challenge circumcision, so for wicked persons so long as they continue members, and the Church lets them alone, they may challenge Baptism, and so upon his own grounds, they may of right challenge it, and Ministers then must needs do wrong in case they deny it, and so in all men's judgements, the question is concluded in the Affirmative; yea, should the Church pass to the highest of her censures, through all that is allowed to the highest top, yet still the person under censure continues in a fundamental right of Membership, though debarred of present fruition, and so their infants entitled, as we have seen, to Baptism. His Arguments are worthy of examination, in which he concludes such a one is not fit to be a Member.  
First, 
Arguments to carry the question in the negative answer.  Members of Churches according to the Gospel are Saints visible: But such a person as the question mentions, is not a visible Saint: Ergo. The Minor he proves, Such as will say that such a person as the Question mentions is a visible Saint, I think his eyes are not good. He that tells me, the Saints which Paul mentions in those places were no other than such a person as is in the Question, he must pardon me, though I believe him not.  
Answ. Visible Saint, is taken, either in regard of Separation for, and dedication to God, or for real qualifications according to the power of godliness, in the first sense, such are real Saints, that he mentions and rejects, in which sense we have shown [Saint] to be frequently taken, and such were most of the Members of the Church of Sardis, there being few that had not defiled their garments, and many such in the Church of Corinth: In the second sense (and I know not a third) his eyes are better than mine, that can determine concerning them. Inward graces only make a real Saint, and these to me are invisible: if he means so far as men's judgements can upon any fair ground conclude that they are such, than the Apostles will be involved in our guilt, who hand over head admitted members the same day they were converted, being in foul sins, and never staying time to make judgement of the hopeful truth of their graces. Paul calls all those that he persecuted, Saints, Acts 26. 10. So doth Ananias, Acts 9 13. all those for whom after conversion he ordered and made Collections 1 Cor. 16. 1. And these were some of them as bad as any that in his Epistles he reproves.  
Secondly, If a bare profession in Christ be sufficient to make a member of a Church, than no person can justly be excommunicated out of a Church for the vilest sins or heresies, provided he doth but hold this profession of his faith, the consequence is clear, the person is the same which he was when you took him into the Church. The consequence is clearly erroneous: for he made a profession of his faith, and not of sin, as we see in Simon Magus.  
Thirdly, He that manifestly opposeth Christ in his visible Kingdom, is not fit to be a member of a Church. But such a person as the question mentions doth manifestly oppose Christ in his visible kingdom. Ergo, Not fit to pass without censure, should have been added: but whiles he acts rebellion, he professeth subjection and in the Apostles language is a professor, Tit. 1. 2. Having thus made way he propounds several Arguments, that Ministers by the Gospel are not to baptise the children of such Parents.  
We come now to our Authors arguments; First, Such persons as de jure ought, and de facto are excluded by godly Ministers from the Lords Supper, ought also to be excluded from their children's Baptism; But such persons as the Question mentions de jure ought, and de facto are excluded from the Lords Supper: Ergo. The Major is proved, If Baptism doth seal to the same covenant which the Lord's Supper doth, and doth signify and seal as great blessings and privileges as the Lords Supper doth, than those who are excluded from the Lords Supper, ought also to be excluded from the●r children's Baptism: But the Antecedent is true: Ergo. The Consequent. This is Master Blackwoods' argument to keep infants from Baptism, because they are kept from the Supper: And if it be of any validity to serve our Author's turn, it is of as great force for Master Blackwood; Give me leave in Master Blackwoods' behalf to urge it in this manner, with the least change of words that is possible: If Baptism doth seal to the same covenant which the Lord's Supper doth, and doth signify and seal as great blessings and privileges as the Lords Supper doth: then those that are excluded from the Lords Supper ought also to be excluded from Baptism; But all infants are excluded from the Lords Supper eo nomine, because they are infants; and therefore they are to be excluded from Baptism. When Master Firmin hath given a fair and full answer to this Syllogism, he may easily fit it to his own, to give like satisfaction. An infant in covenant may be admitted by that sign and scale, in the use of which he is merely passive, and yet be kept back on the account of his infancy, from that sign and seal, which the Participants must actually improve for their spiritual benefit, and consequently a Parent may put a present bar to his actual admission (by reason of present guilt) to the one, when his innocent infant can put no bar to his admission to the other. The Parent stands de jure entitled, when for the present he may be for his spiritual benefit de facto suspended. Another reverend Author hath made use of this argument from the uniformity of the service of God in general, and in particular from the uniformity in the Sacraments to another purpose; not to exclude any infants at all who descend from Christian Parents, from Baptism, but for admission of all visible Church-Members, not under the sentence of Excommunication, to the Lords Supper. As one from the suspension of Parents from the Lords Supper would conclude the suspension of infants from Baptism; So, the other from the admission of all infants without difference to Baptism, would infer, not only a just warranty, but also a necessity of answerable admittance of their Parents to the Lords Supper: Let our Independents (saith he) answer, Why do you allow a Syntax in the service of God besides, and bring in a Quae genus of Anomales and Heteroclites only at this Ordinance? let some of our Presbyterians answer how can we admit of children as members of the visible Church being borne of Christian parents unto Baptism, and yet turn away the parents of those children from the Sacrament? Those that have gone about to answer this, had better haply have said nothing: for our free course of Baptism, and a denial of this is such a seam-rent, as will never be handsomely drawn up, though stitched together; nevertheless in yielding the one, they have granted the other; As to this passage, I first marvel how this is laid to the charge of Independents, that they allow a Syntax in the whole service of God besides, and bring in Anomalaes' and Heteroclites, only at this Ordinance; namely, the Lords Supper; when it is plain that they have as many Heteroclites in Baptism as the Lords Supper. And in both the Sacraments (as to those that they judge admittible) they keep the form as whole as himself contends it ought to be kept, how many rents soever they may make besides. The same latitude that they hold in admission of parents to the Supper, they hold in admission of children to Baptism. And for Presbyterians, their admission of infants to the one, will by no means conclude them under any necessity of admission of the parents to the other Sacrament; Nor on the contrary will their suspension of parents, conclude any necessity of like suspension of infants; Every tub must stand on its own bottom, every one must bear his own burden; when parents divolve a covenant-title, they do not divolve a covenant-breach upon their children. And I desire to know how he will keep up any such uniformity that he contends for, according to that which I conceive to be his own opinion. Persons under Excommunication are confessed to be uncapable of the Lords Supper; I desire to learn whether that sentence, cut off from the Church root and branch? Whether it be a sentence personal or hereditary? I much mistake my Author, in case he will maintain the latter, that that sword is held out with so keen an edge, to lop off both parent and child; If he admit the former, than the same rent is made, of which he so much complains. Presbyterians that keep those persons from the Sacrament as a degree of punishment in order to that sentence of Excommunication (as they use to speak) whom they judge to be in a way deserving it, and admit their infants to Baptism, make no other manner of rent in the worship of God, than those that keep back persons under actual excommunication, and give the like admission to infants. The state of Parent and child respective to the covenant is homogeneal. If the root be holy, the branch is holy, and so è contra, yet the parent by his misdemeanour may incur that censure of which his infant is not deserving. His argument should run thus, If the guilty parent be debarred of a privilege, than the innocent child ought to be debarred likewise: me thinks a difference might be put between a scandalous parent that is active, and an innocent child that is passive; a parent that cannot, will not improve it to his comfort, but to his judgement, and a child that cannot mis-improve it; My Argument (saith he) runs upon the first supposition, that the child brings nothing with it, considered as abstracted from the parent, but it is the parent gives the right. And the parent confers right in covenant, Though he breaks covenant, yet confers not the transgression of it; the Argument were as good that the child must necessarily be admitted to the Lords Table, because the father did worthily receive it. If it be said, the father is worthy, so is not the child; so we say, the father is unworthy of the one, i.e. tenders himself unworthy, and so doth not the child of the other.  
The second Argument. Such parents as if they themselves were now to be baptised, ought not to be baptised, cannot justly challenge Baptism for their children, neither are we bound to administer it. But such parents as the Question mentions, if they now were to be baptised, ought not to be baptised. Ergo. This argument is of the same stamp with the former, and needs no other answer, The parent hath contracted a great load of guilt, of which the infant is innocent; This argument well followed home might unbaptize a great part of those that are of this judgement, and render all their privileges in Church-Ordinances fruitless, for want of a previous Baptism.  
The third argument. If Ministers in baptising are bound to hold to their Commission, than the children of such parents as the question mentions, are not to be baptised. But the Antecedent is true, none will deny that; Ergo. The consequence is true. Ministers by their Commission, Matth. 28. 19 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) are bound to baptise Disciples, but these are no Disciples, Ergo. My argument tends to this, If the parent be not a Disciple, the child is none: But such a parent is none, Ergo. his child is none. Here he says, the Anabaptists triumph, and well they may, if there be any strength in this argument. But (saith he) we can easily distinguish; and I say we can distinguish as easily. Distinctions sufficient may be seen, chap. 38. where it is sufficiently made good that these in question are Disciples, Disciples as to the participation of Ordinances; Even a truantly untoward boy is of the number of Scholars, and, as he well deserves the lash, so he hath the privileges of the School.  
The fourth argument. To administer the Seal of the covenant of grace to a child by virtue of him who is visibly in covenant with Satan, must needs be a profaning of the Ordinance. But to administer Baptism to a child by virtue of such a one as the question mentions, is to administer the Seal of the covenant of grace to a child by virtue of one who is visibly in covenant with Satan. Ergo. The minor is thus by him proved. A person grossly ignorant in the fundamentals of Religion, his course of life, his trade is to live in sin, scandalous, etc. What shall we say of such a one, though he doth not formally make a covenant with the Devil, etc.  
To be visibly in covenant, and formally enter no covenant, is little less than a contradiction: put the argument into form. To administer the Seal of the covenant of Grace to a child, by virtue of him that is formally in covenant with God, and really does service to Satan, must needs be a profaning of the Ordinance; and then the weakness of his argument will appear visible, and no visibility of a covenant with Satan found. I do not know a man or woman in the world, whose child I could refuse on this account. Those to whom our Saviour speaks in the sharpest language, Joh. 8. 44. You are of your father the Devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do, were men in covenant with God, and had their children initiated with the sign and seal of the covenant, he farther saith, I wonder how Ministers pray, when they baptise the child of such a one, they cannot but have some eye to God's covenant, and do we not mention so much to the Lord, that he having taken the parent into covenant with himself, he doth also the seed of the parent, and so we plead the covenant, and a blessing, etc. but when a godly Minister shall carry the parent in his heart thus, doth not his heart check him, trouble him, in the thought of the parent? They may well pray that God will make his Ordinances (through his Spirit) of power, that the infant of a covenant-breaking father, may be a covenant-keeping child, that such an Abaz in covenant, and breaking covenant, may have an Hezekiah keeping covenant; such an Ammon, a Josiah, and this without the least check of conscience. This is frequently heard of God, and prayers for the children of godly parents frequently denied: David hath an Ammon and Absalon, Jehoshaphat a Jehoram and Josiah a Jehoaz; Their conscience would infinitely more check them, (if the word regulate their consciences) when providence confers privileges of Ordinances on such an infant to be received where salvation is, upon so weak, and as to Scripture unheard of plea, as his father's transgression to keep it out.  
For a fifth Argument. He hints two things which he would have seriously taken into examination, though he says he will not put them into form. 1. How exceedingly this Ordinance is slighted, abused through this heedless administering of the Ordinance; for we see persons never mind the Ordinance beforehand, nor after: But come let us have our children baptised, and that is all; if they can make a feast, and drink after it, that is well. This is the argument of Anabaptists against infant-Baptisme; Because some Reverend Divines complain that few improve their Baptism received in infancy, to any spiritual advantage to their souls, therefore it is in vain to Baptise infants. One is like the other, in Ordinances of God, to reason from the abuse, to the casting of them aside. Nonsingers of Psalms (which himself professes to oppose) may reason in this sort, and upon like ground some have warned men out of Christ not to pray, they ought to forbear till they are in Christ. And when a natural man blesses God for a good crop, that it were as good that he cursed him. If men were disposed to wrangle, here doubtless were more colour against such men's performances of duties, in which only themselves are interessed, than against parents tender of their infants to an Ordinance, in which of right they are entitled, though they lay not to heart a right and pious way of performance of it. Besides, (saith he) it is strange to see how we jumble the most holy and profane men together; If Master Greenham, Master Perkins, Master Rogers, Master Dod, or whom you will, should come and bring their children to be baptised, let the most ignorant sot, drunkard, swearer, unclean person, scorner of godliness, etc. come, he shall have his child baptised as well as they. Have they their children taken into covenant? so have I says the drunkard, swearer, etc. shall we own all these men alike under the covenant so as to give the seal of the covenant a like to all? This many a time hath been in my thoughts, and in nothing did I ever receive more full satisfaction, Not one of these holy men, would have made any such complaint, and in case the children of such should meet in this Ordinance, I could as easily difference them by their visage and features, as I could respective to their several interests or privileges. Parents are in covenant with God, as long as they keep up the name and profession of Christians; the one with all care walks up to the terms of the covenant, and the other are as lose and careless in it: Master Greenham, Master Perkins could not transmit to their children their graces; Neither do these transmit their personal wickedness: Look into the Commonwealth of Rome, and call out the most deserving Patriots, set against them Verres, Catiline, or who you will, freedom of birth, interest in native privileges is like to the issue of either, and so it is in the Church of God, the Commonweal of Israel: and it can be no otherwise; if there be any privilege divolved from parent to child; And when this falls, infant-Baptisme falls together with it; nothing in the child (as our Author well observes) without relation to the parent can give any interest.   

CHAP. LX.  
The application of the whole in several inferences.  
TO wind up the whole of this discourse of the birth-priviledge of the seed of Believers in some practical application.  
First, 
1. All possible engagements and obligations to holiness.  All possible engagements and obligations unto all holiness of conversation necessarily follows and flows from this royal privilege, and high advancement of birth-holinesse; If we contend for their dignity, and mind them not at all of duty, of the honour of their birth, and call them not to a suitable life; In the neglect of duty they may soon make forfeiture of their dignity, and turn this singular mercy into the highest aggravation of their misery: we blame those of noble and generous birth, that betake themselves to sordid and ignoble ways, Thus degenerating they are a blot to their families, a disgrace and reproach to their race; no birth equal in honour to that of Christians. Theodosius worthily esteemed it a greater honour that he was a Christian, than that he was an Emperor: None degenerate so foully and blame-worthily, as they when their conversation is unchristian, ways of sin are for sinners of the Gentiles, a way proper for Turks and Pagans, let the holy seed be holy, their demeanour suited to their honour. Sardanapalus the King may with less infamy spin among women, or Domitian the Emperor spend his time in catching of flies, works far below their dignities, than a Christian may sin with a Heathen. The Martyrs in Primitive times being moved to swear by the fortune of Caesar, thought that the answer was full, and fair, to say they were Christians: Such answer should he have that would tempt to ungodliness, should such a one as I fly? saith Nehemiah, Nehem. 6. 11. his honour would not suffer him to be so base; should such a man as a Christian (the least of whom is greater than Nehemiahs' better, Mat. 11, 11.) be for sin? He that is not a sinner by birth, should be no sinner in his life. Baptism is the greatest honour, such bear Christ's name, and wear his livery; they have that title in which Judas and James with other of the Apostles gloried, A servant of Jesus Christ. Baptism is the greatest engagement, Let every one that nameth Christ depart from iniquity, 2 Tim. 2. 19 To talk of Baptism, and to live in sin, is to wear the colours of one, and plot and fight for another; to wear Christ's colours, and fight for Satan. Baptism renders a sinner up to the heaviest punishment. The high favours showed to the Jews, made a Jew to far worse in the ways of sin than an Heathen, Amos 3. 2. The high favours showed to Christians make Christians to fare worse in sinful ways than Heathens, Heb. 2. 3. All in a Christians calling bespeaks this holiness. God by whom he is called, 1 Pet. 1. 15. The work to which he is called, 1 Thes. 4. 7. The company unto which he is joined, Ephes. 2. 19 The attendants by whom he is guarded, Matth. 25. 31. The rule whereby he is guided, Rom. 1. 2. The Seal by which he is confirmed, Ephes. 1. 13. And the place whither he makes and tends, Heb. 9 8. all are holy.  
Secondly, 
Parents must see that their children's breeding do answer their birth.  Let the parents of such seed, now see what education is expected. Breeding must answer birth and descent; A Christian is of the noblest birth, he must therefore have the most noble education; and the Apostle calls upon parents to bring up their Children in nurture and admonition of the Lord, Ephes. 6. 4. God may call on them thus to bring up his children, in nature theirs, in covenant Gods. Every Christian parent, hath a child of God committed to his care and tuition: How great a solecism is it, that Parents should dedicate children, so soon as borne unto Christ, professing to the world that they belong to him; and that with Hannah concerning Samuel, they intent them for him, when nothing appears in their education, but that they might have been given to Molok, somewhat worse than the mongrel seed that spoke half in the language of Canaan, and half in the language of Ashdod, Nehem. 13. 24. Scarce a word can be heard out of their mouths, to argue that they are Christians, lisping out oaths as soon as words; put to learn trades, and little regard had that they might know Christ Jesus. And how much is it to be desired, that authority would take order, for more careful catechistical teaching of youth in the ways of Christian Religion, that God may not complain of England, as of Israel, My people perish for want of knowledge, Hos. 4. 7. A people of God, and a people ignorant to perdition and destruction; England is highly honoured of God by this gracious call, with Capernaum lifted up to heaven; England would highly honour God, if care might be taken, that all might know God from the highest to the lowest; we shall never be a Gospellike people, till we be a knowing people, 〈◊〉 we take care, that as we are Jews by nature, so we may be Jew's in qualification, so borne, so bred, that as our youth is descended, so also they may be trained; That as God honours our children with his name, calling them his children, so they may honour his name, and advance his glory in all holiness of conversation.  
Thirdly, 
The danger of persecution.  Those may yet see whom they oppose, that stand in opposition of a people thus interessed, a people so ingratiated to God in covenant, that there is not the least infant in whom God hath not his title, and right of challenge. The aggravation of the Psalmists complaint is, that the Heathens are come into thine inheritance, the dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of thy. Saints unto the beasts of the Earth, Psalm 79. 1, 2, 3. The whole body of such a people, root and branch, stand in relation to God as the inheritance, the servants, the Saints of God; such inscriptions we find in Saint Paul's Epistles, not one of the whole body is excluded, but they are such by covenant, and such by calling. Enough hath been said to make it to appear that the denomination reaches even infants who are the Lords heritage, Psalm 127. 3. and Christ's name is upon them, Matth. 18. 5. As it is accounted an happy work to dash the little ones of Babylon against the wall, Psalm 137. 9 because of the hostility of that Nation against God and his people: so it is a like execration to intermeddle with the little ones of Zion, by reason of the holiness of such a people, their covenant-relations in which they stand interessed, 2 Kings 8. 12. Much is spoken in Scripture against the enemies of the righteous, the haters of them shall be desolate, he that offends against them shall not be innocent, Psalm 34. 21. God observes every carriage of the adversary towards them in misery, they speak not a word but God hath it against them; when Ammonites, Tyrians, cry Aha, against the people of God, they are witted with it, and threatened for it, Ezek. 26. 2. 36. 2. Not a proud word that they utter but it is brought in, to fill up the charge against them, Obad. 12. Psalm 137. 7. yea, every eye that is cast with approbation of the adversary, Obad. 13. 14. Every encouraging word they speak, and every act they do against such a people, yea injuries of elder times are kept in the deck, and laid to them, Deut. 25. 17. And all because they stand in this relation to God as his in covenant, which you cannot limit only to the personally righteous, but all that are of a Society and fellowship, that is, such as are interessed in a righteous cause. The holy anointing oil did make sacred when yet too often the man was wicked, and therefore David looked upon Saul as the Lords Anointed. It holds in Analogy and proportion unto all that have any unction from God, as all the called of God have. When they were but a few in number, yea very few, and strangers; when they went from one Nation to another, from one Kingdom to another people, he suffered no man to do them wrong, yea he reproved Kings for their sakes, saying, Touch not mine Anointed, Psalm 105. 12, 13, 14, 15. All the people of God have that Anointing from God, that none may dare to intermeddle for their harm. God promises his people that dwell in Zion, that the burden of Assyria shall be taken from off their shoulder, and his yoke from off their neck, and that the yoke shall be destroyed, because of the Anointing, Isaiah 10. 27. Some will say, as this is carried, The danger of intermeddling with any is with us a like: Even Papists and the worst of men that are called Protestants, are thus of a people that are called God's people, and go by the name of Christians. For answer I shall not enter upon that controversy, what there is of the being of a Church under the Papacy. The Papacy itself is none of it, but only a botch bred in it, and cleaving to it; only this I say, That he that shall oppose a Papist, under the notion of a Christian, shall bear his sin, and that upon the grounds that have been given. Though a Papists damnable errors in the faith shut him out from the happiness of Christians, yet such an adversaries persecution renders him guilty of opposing the faith of Christ Jesus. And he that follows with injuries a carnal Protestant, because of profession of the sincerity of Religion, in opposition to Antichristianisme, is formally guilty of persecution. The hearers resembled to the rocky ground suffer persecution for the Word, as doth the good ground that brings forth fruit with patience, Mat. 13. 21. But to come home with more clear satisfaction. A people of foully polluted Ordinance, standing in opposition to a people of a pure and untainted way, are as a people void of Ordinances, are as a people without God in comparison. The opposition of the purity of his service, God accounts as the opposition of his great name, though it be by a people that go under that name of his people. And therefore though Elijah take so much to heart the pulling down of Altars set up by Jeroboam, looking upon them as God's Altars, when it was done by Israel apostatising and turned to Baal, 1 Kings 19 10. and in opposition to the worship of Baal, makes that way of worship at Dan and ●achel a following of God; yet we know how the Prophet from the mouth of God did cry out against that Altar, which Jeroboam erected, and foretold the destruction of it, and the slaughter of the Priests that offered upon it, 1 Kings 13. 2. and with what honour that act of Josiah is mentioned in accomplishment of this prophecy, 2 Kings 23. 15. and the brand that lies upon Jeroboam himself in bringing in that worship of his, 2 Kings 15. 9 scarce the like on any man in Scripture, the man of sin only excepted, the high phrases also in which this worship is set out, making Priests for the high places, and devils, 2 Chron. 11. 14, 15. with the height of guilt to which he rose, in casting the Levites out from executing the Priest's office, Hosea 4. 6. And howsoever God often calls that people of the ten tribes by the name of his people as having Ordinances, though miserably polluted, yet in opposition to Judah where more pure Ordinances were enjoyed, they are said to be without God, without a teaching Priest, and without the law, 2 Chron. 15. 3. And fight against Judah (who could reckon up the particulars of the Ordinances of God in their purity) they are charged to fight against the Lord God of their fathers, 2 Chron. 13. 12. To come nearer home in an instance. If the Turkish power should fall upon a Popish State, under the name and notion of Christians, they were guilty with Saul of persecuting the Lord Jesus. If this Popish State fall upon a reformed Nation, they are much more guilty; A fouler sin for a people of God in name and title, to persecute his people in truth, than for a people, strangers to God, to persecute a people only in name and title. Scripture prayers against Heathens we may fitly apply in our sufferings under the hands of Papists. Pilate might have been guilty of persecution of a Pharisee, under the notion of a Jew, and yet that Nation was much more guilty in delivering up Christ into the hands of Pilate, though Christ had been no greater than the meanest of his Disciples. A Papist persecuting a formal carnal Protestant, under notion of a man protesting against Idolatrous ways, blasphemes and persecutes that faith which he holds in opposition against those Antichristian tenants. This man being thus persecuted, persecuting another for the power of godliness, professing the same truth is equally, ye more guilty. The very sin of Cain against his brother Abel, 1 John 3. 12. their Religions were both one and the same, but cain's was only, in form, and Abel's in power. The result of the whole is to let us see what it is to oppose a people under any notion of God's people, upon any such account as belonging to Christ. A man may have his reward, giving to any in the name of a Disciple, though he to whom he gives be such as God will never own for a Disciple, and answerably may incur vengeance in opposition of one under such a name, though (with those on the rocky ground) he be nothing less than such in deed and truth.  
Fourthly, 
Consolation.  Abundance of sweet consolations yet flow from this birth-priviledge and covenant-holiness, and that in several streams.  
1. In regard of Nations.  
2. In regard of Persons.  
In regard of Nations they have royal transcendency above all others as alone worthy the name of a people: 
1. To Nations thus honoured.  Nigh unto God: A people of hope: Enjoying light; when others are darkness, without hope, and without God in the world. The Psalmist reckons up many and sweet-blessings of a Nation. That our sons may be as plants grown up in their youth, that our daughters may be as corner-stones polished after the similitude of a palace, that our garners may be full, affording all manner of store, that our sheep may bring forth thousands, and ten thousands in our streets, that our Oxen may be strong to labour, that there be no breaking in nor going out, that there be no complaining in our streets, Psalm 144. 12, 13, 14. All these are singular National favours, but only serving to make up a comparative, not an absolute blessedness. This one riseth higher and makes it complete, Blessed are the people whose God is the Lord. The glory pertains to a Nation thus honoured, Rom. 9 4. Of such a people (though otherwise mean and despicable, as was Israel in the Wilderness, comparative to other Nations) it may be said, What Nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for? Deut. 4. 7. No people can so bottom their prayers against adversaries, as they who are the people of God's holiness; This mercy is a birth-mercy to all such persons whose parents with Timothy from one to another have been Believers, 2 Tim. 1. 5. and while national provocations break not forth (which alone with God have separating and deafening power) his ear is ready to hear, and his hand to help, while he sees not iniquity in Jacob, nor perverseness in Israel, (which I understand of National out-breaches from God, which by Balaams' counsel presently followed to Israel's danger) so long God is among them, as the shout of a King, and there is no sorcery nor divination against them, Num. 23. 21, 23. A Nation fast to God hath God fast to them, The Lord is with you, while ye are with him, 2 Chron. 15. 2.  
In regard of persons, for 

Themselves. 
2. To single persons.   
Posterity.    
For themselves, 
1. Respective to themselves.  it is much to be able with the Psalmist to say, Thou art he that took me out of the womb: Thou didst make me to hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb, thou art my God from my mother's belly, Psal. 22. 9, 10. This puts upon confidence in prayer (as an argument drawn from long continued acquaintance) as there follows, Be not far from me, for trouble is near, Ver. 11. Such have timely knowledge of God, sucking in somewhat of him while they suck milk from the breasts. An expression of height setting out this birth-happiness that hath sure more in it, then can be applied to sinners of the Gentiles; see how the Psalmist yet farther pleads it with God, O Lord, truly I am thy servant, I am thy servant, and the son of thy handmaid, Psal. 116. 16. an allusion to the law of servants who were the inheritance of the Master in whose house they were, Exod. 21. 4. Levit. 25. 16. I am such, saith the Psalmist (thy servant, thy servant) with all earnestness of affection, I am of thine inheritance, I am one of those that are thy house-borne-servants, my mother was thy handmaid, I have therefore this relation to plead; and this he pleads again and again in the same words, Psal. 86. 16. This great privilege Isaiah in like manner takes notice of, Isa. 49. 1. The Lord hath called me from the womb, from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. The Apostle minds the Ephesians of their former condition, and will have them to remember the time past, when they were without Christ, being aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, without God in the world: But there never was a time in which men of this birth-priviledge were in that condition, these are God's heritage from the womb, and with Timothy (some in greater, some in less measure) from children have the knowledge of the Scriptures, if not with John Baptist full of the Holy Ghost from the womb, Luke 1. 15. which yet doubtless is the happiness not of few, who are eminent in sanctification, whose growth in grace is seen, and yet the beginnings not known. Howsoever it is with them for personal qualifications, yet they are nigh when others are afar off, Ephes. 2. 13. at the pools brim waiting the Angels moving of the water, John 5. 3. Salvation is of the Jews, saith our Saviour, John 4. 22. Saving Ordinances are their inheritance; They are happily seated under that joyful sound which is able to save the soul, Jam. 1. 21. Salvation is of his house, who is the son of Abraham, Luke 19 9  
As it is full of consolation to Believers in respect of themselves, 
2. Respective to their posterity.  so also in reference to their posterity, their children are Gods children; they being the Lord's inheritance, their children are his heritage in like manner, they bring ●orth children to God; and he owns and challenges their seed as his, Ezek, 16. 20. An infinite love in God, an unspeakable comfort to a perent, when the Infant who by corruption of nature, is in Satan's jaws, and in no less danger of hell than Moses sometimes was of the water, and not so much as sensible of his condition, God pleases in this sad state to look upon him, and to make it the time of love, finding out ways for his freedom. What the Apostle speaks from the Prophet, Rom. 10. 10. of God's care of the Gentiles, is certainly true being applied to infants, I was found of them that sought me not, and made manifest to them that enquired not after me. Had we that hopeless opinion of our children, as Papists have of theirs that die without Baptism, what a wretched case were it with David to part with an infant out of the world? How could such mourn in any other way than as those that are without hope, parting with an infant without any part in Christ, and in no better posture towards God than the seed of the sinners of the Gentiles doomed both by the Psalmist and the Prophet Jeremy, Psalm. 79. 6. Jerem. 10. 25. Pour out thy wrath on the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the families that call not upon thy name; they might with Rachel weep for their children, and refuse to be comforted, because for eternity they are not. But we find God more rich in mercy, entering covenant with his and their seed, Christ himself embracing them in their infancy, and taking them into his special love, as those that bear his name: and though death should prevent their Baptism, whereby they have an actual interest in visible Church-priviledges, yet he that hath appointed Ordinances is not tied to them, but where he hath entered covenant can save without them. Bellarmine confesseth that the desire of Baptism in one that is in the number of the Catechumoni (instructed in the principles of Christ, and not baptised) doth save, though the text John 3. 5. so much urged by that party against the salvation of infants, understood with their Comment be in the letter against it; why then should not that grace which would show itself in like desires, when the person is of capacity, qualify for salvation in like manner? Finding this love in God, these bowels in Christ, we may safely conclude, that children have bliss, parents have comfort, parents and children have their interest in Church-Ordinances and Administrations.  
And let God have the glory.  
FINIS.   

AN ALPHABETICAL Table, Relating to the chief Heads handled in this Treatise.  

A  


Abraham.  
CIrcumcision was not a Seal of Faith peculiar to him. pag. 239.  
Arguments evincing it. ibid.  
All his seed were not in Covenant, but his seed by Promise only. pag. 298  
He was not taken into Covenant as a natural Father, but as a natural Father accepting Gods tender. pag. 299  
His seed is entitled to saving mercies on God's terms. ibid.  
His houshold-members out of Covenant not circumcised. page 425  
See Circumcision. Root.    


Actions.  
Immanent and transient. pag. 132  
See Justification    


Adam  
Was in Covenant with God. pag. 9  
His integrity was connatural. pag. 103  
Stood not in need of a Mediator. p. 91  
In what sense imperfect. ibid.  
In case he had stood▪ whether he had been translated out of Paradise into Heaven? p. 100  
He might have gone quick to Hell if Christ had not been promised. p. 102  
See Covenant    


Adoption  
Adoptive-right to Baptism questioned. p. 454    


Angels.  
In Covenant with God. p. 7  
Needed not a Mediator. p. 91  
In what sense their obedience was imperfect. ibid.    


Antiquity.  
For Infant-Baptisme cleared. p. 416    


Apostasy.  
Total and partial. p. 453    


Assembly.  
Of Divines vindicated. p. 406    


Assurance.  
Is to be gathered from the conditions of the Covenant. p. 195  
See Spirit.     

B.  


Baptism.  
SIgnifies not barely dipping, but every way of washing.  
It is the door for admission into the Church visible. p. 275  
Pharisees not denied it seeking, but being tendered, rejected it. p. 272  
Baptism into particular Church-societies examined. p. 461  
See Infants. Infant-Baptisme.    


Believers.  
Unregenerate persons have the name and outward privileges of Believers. p. 249    


Berith.  
In the most proper sense signifies a Covenant. p. 37    


Birth-priviledge.  
Birth-interest in Ancestours-priviledges, is of the nature of the things that descend from Parent to Child. p. 401 402  
It is so in civil Privileges, in all Kingdoms, States, Corporations. ibid.  
Upon this account Protestants are taken up by Jesuits, and the Orthodox by Anabaptists in their words. p. 403  
Birth-interest in Ancestours-priviledges, is held up in all other Religions. p. 405  
God owns Infants borne in the Church, upon account of their birth as his children, his servants. ibid.  
Birth-interest being denied, parent and child are heterogeneal. p. 406  
Children then brought up, not in Covenant, but for Covenant. ibid.  
According to Scripture-grounds, no hope left of their salvation. p. 407    


Branch.  
What with the Apostle it signifies, Rom. 11. 16. p. 325  
Branches of two sorts. Natural and engrafted. ibid.  
See Root.     

C  


Canaan.  
GIven to Abraham's natural issue by Promise. p. 301  
That gift was an appendent to the Covenant. p. 303  
The promise of it did not denominate the Covenant mixed. p. 226    


Carnal.  
See Covenant.    


Camero's.  
Assertion of an animal life in Paradise. p. 100  
His distinction of an absolute and conditional Covenant, of the Antecedent and consequent love of God. p. 46, 47    


Children  
Acts 2. 39 Comprizes Infants p. 322  
Not the same with sons and daughters of the Nation. vers. 17. p. 319  
See Promise.    


Christ.  
Is the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace, a fullness and fitness in him for that work. p. 92  
A Covenant made of God with him. p. 14  
This Covenant, not the same with the Covenant of Grace made with man, ibid.  
In the assumption of man's nature he did not change the law of nature. p. 57  
Whole Christ is to be received by Believers. p. 190  
Justification strictly so called, seems to be the fruit of Christ's passive righteousness. p. 123  
His active and passive obedience, both concur to man's full happiness. ibid.  
See Mediator.    


Christians.  
Unregenerate persons have the name and outward privileges of Christians. p. 252    


Church.  
The distinction into visible and invisible, asserted and explained. p. 267  
See Engraffing.    


Church visible.  
Distinguished into universal and particular. p. 269    


Universal visible.  
Asserted. p. 267 etc.  
It consists of all that make profession of Christian Religion. p. 268  
Interest in it is of equal latitude with the Covenant. p. 267    


Church particular.  
A man by Covenant with God interessed in the universal Church visible, needs nothing farther for his access and interest in particular Churches. p. 270  
Cohabitation makes not up a Church congregational. p. 273  
Yet it is necessarily required. ibid.  
A people cohabiting in a vicinity, ough to associate in Church-fellowship for Ordinances. ibid.  
Professing Christians in such cohabitation are to be esteemed particular Church-members. p. 274    


Church-Covenant.  
Explicite or implicit. p. 459  
Covenant explicit not essential to the relation of a particular Church-member. p. 460  
Without any Scripture-precedent. p. 272 460  
Where all is enjoyed for the being of a particular Church, much may be wanting for the well-being. p. 273    


Church, pure, impure.  
When to be judged pure. p. 277  
Impure Churches, have yet the being of Churches. ibid.  
Rome a Church of most impure being. ibid.  
That which especially denominates a Church, pure, or impure, is doctrine. p. 278  
Doctrines tending to the defilement of Churches, are tainted either in the foundation or superstruction. ibid.  
See Errors.    


Parochial Churches.  
Vindicated. p. 274  
See Place.    


Circumcision.  
A seal of spiritual mercies. p. 227  
Both a privilege and a bondage. p. 208  
Called by the name of Covenant. p. 423  
It was bottomed on the commandment. p. 297  
Which command had relation to the Covenant ibid.  
It was peculiar to Abraham's natural issue. p. 301.    


Cohabitation.  
See Church particular.    


Commands.  
Frequent and full under Moses his administration. p. 213  
See Law.    


Consent.  
In man of necessity to his being in Covenant with God. p. 3.    


Consequence.  
From Scripture justified. p. 416    


Conditions, Covenant.  
What a Covenant-condition is. p. 35  
Conditions of the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace on God's part seem to be the same. p. 99    


Conditions in the Covenant of Works.  
Were in man's power. p. 102, 103  
Kept man within himself for righteousness. p. 115, 116  
Their end was man's preservation. 117    


Conditions in the Covenant of Grace.  
Covenant of Grace hath its conditions, p. 33, 34  
Arguments asserting it. p. 34, etc.  
Objections answered. p. 36, etc.  
These conditions are not performed without special assistance of Grace. p. 104  
Arguments for special assistance in this work. p. 104, 105  
Objections answered. p. 113, etc.  
These conditions carry a man out of himself for righteousness. p. 116  
They are for man's restitution. p. 117  
A people thus in Covenant, must come up to the terms and conditions of the Covenant. p. 190, etc.  
No happiness or assurance but in performance of these conditions. p. 195  
Objections answered. p. 199    


Covenant in general.  
Figurative acceptions of the Word. p. 2  
Requisites in a Covenant. p. 3  
Mutual contracts of the nature of it. p. 38  
Distinguished. p. 4  
Defined. p. 5    


Covenant between God and Man.  
Reason's why God dealt in a Covenant-way with man. p. 6, 7  
Covenant between God and man defined. p. 8  
Definition asserted. p. 37, 38  
This Covenant distinguished into Covenant of Works, & Covenant of Grace. p. 8    


Covenant of Works and Grace.  
Their agreement. p. 86  
Their respective differences. p. 87, etc.    


Covenant of Works.  
Was entered in man's integrity. ibid.  
Was alone for his preservation. p. 88  
Did precede the Covenant of Grace. ibid.  
Was a small time in force. p. 90  
Had no Mediator. p. 91    


Covenant of God with Christ.  
Not the same with the Covenant of Grace entered with fallen man. p. 14, 15    


Covenant of Grace.  
Defined. p. 159  
Distinguished into the Old and New, or first and second. p. 202  
Hath its solemnities in the highest way. p. 5, 12  
Was entered in man's fallen estate. p. 87  
Is for man's restitution. p. 88  
Is in time after the Covenant of Works. ibid.  
Is of everlasting continuance. p. 90  
Is in, and by a Mediator. p. 91  
God in this Covenant so manifests his free grace, that he still keeps up his Sovereignty. p. 53    


Old and New, or first and second Covenant.  
Their agreement in 6. particul. p. 202 etc.  
They are one in substance. p. 204    


Old Covenant.  
Was administered and held forth by Servants, Prophets, Priests, etc. p. 205  
It received only the Jews. ibid.  
It had its date of time, and is antiquated for another to succeed. p. 206  
It was dedicated with the blood of Bulls and Goats. ibid.  
It held forth Christ only in a promise to be incarnate, to suffer. p. 207  
It held all out under types, figures and shadows. ibid.  
Under that dispensation knowledge dim; those under it in a state of darkness comparatiuè to Christians. p. 208  
Circumcision that painful sign, was the leading initiating seal of it. p. 209  
Nine positions tending to clear the Old Covenant under Old Testament-dispensations. p. 210, 211, 212, etc.  
See Moses.  
It was not made up of carnal promises. p. 219, etc.  
The charge of the Old Covenant to be merely carnal, serves divers interests.  
1. To bring down all honour and esteem of Old Testament-Scriptures. p. 220  
2. To take Infants out of Covenant. p. 221  
3. To keep Infants from Baptism. p. 222  
Testimonies evincing the spirituality of Old Covenant-Promises. ibid.  
This Old Covenant was a pure Gospel-Covenant, and not mixed. p. 224    


New Covenant.  
It is held forth by Christ the Mediator. p. 205  
It takes in all Nations. ibid. 206  
It must remain till the end of time. ibid.  
The dedication of it is in the blood of Christ. p. 207  
Christ already come in the flesh is set forth in it. ibid.  
Truth without type or-shadow held forth in it. p. 207, 208  
Light abounds, and knowledge is clear in it. p. 208  
Baptism is the initiating seal of it. p. 209  
It is not limited to the Elect Regenerate. p. 231  
The meaning of some Orthodox Divines, that in some expression seem to deny it. p. 233  
Several New Testament-Scriptures evincing it. p. 235, etc.  
Arguments asserting it. p. 205  
Absurdities following upon the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect regenerate. p. 252  
Objections answered. p. 257  
It comprizes professed Believers, and their issue. p. 246  
The question stated as to the issue of Abraham in several particulars. p. 296, 297, etc.  
Arguments from Old Testament-Scriptures, evincing the natural issue of Abraham  
to be in Covenant. p. 301.  
From New Testament-Scriptures. p. 304.  
The grand Objection, Rom. 9 6, 7, 8. answered. p. 309  
A second Objection that it is not in that latitude in New Testament-times answered. p. 316  
1. By Queries put. p. 317  
New Testament-authorities, Acts 2. 38, 39 Rom. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Gal. 4. 29. Matth. 19 14. p. 318  
3. Arguments evincing it. p. 401, etc.     

D.  


Death.  
WHat in Scripture it implies. p. 100 p. 101  
The same in the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The proper and most received signification denotes a Testament, and not a Covenant. p. 38, 39    


Disciple.  
Unregenerate persons have the name and outward privileges of Disciples. p. 251  
Whole Nations in capacity to be Discipled. p. 236  
Infants are Disciples. p. 413    


Discipline.  
God in the Covenant of Grace keeps up his Sovereignty in exercise of Discipline. p. 77, 78, etc. See Separation.     

E.  


Election.  
INto a Church-state. p. 340  
The Covenant of Grace not commensurate with Election. p. 98  
Election leads to salvation without any merit of works. p. 341 See Reprobation.    


Engraffing.  
There is no engraffing into the Church invisible. p. 336  
Engraffing by Faith according to Election is into Christ. ibid.  
Engraffing into the true Olive, Rom. 11. is into the Church as visible. Asserted by Arguments. p. 327, etc.    


Errors.  
Have their estimate more or less according as they are against Christ. p. 280  
Some tender Christ in an incapacity to be Mediator. ibid.  
Some are in whole or in part inconsistent with his Mediatorship. ibid.  
Errors either in the foundation, or in the superstructure. p. 278  
In the foundation more near, or more remote. p. 279    


Epample.  
The Argument, that there is no example for infant-baptisme answered. p. 414    


Extremes.  
In the worship of God dangerous. p. 439     

F  


Faith.  
IN Christ commanded in the Moral Law. p. 96, etc.  
Is a Condition of the Covenant of Grace. p. 118, etc.  
Propositions tending to clear it. p. 122  
Reasons to confirm it. p. 119  
Objections answered. p. 130, etc.  
As accepting Christ as a Lord it doth not justify. p. 125  
It justifies as an instrument. p. 126  
Truth explained. p. 127  
Objections answered. ibid. See instrument.  
Faith of profession entitles to Baptism. p. 289  
Arguments proving it. p. 290  
Faith and Repentance our conditions, not Gods. p. 144    


Faith of profession.  
Entitles to the Church visible. p. 334  
May be lost. p. 333. 334    


Flesh.  
Birth after the flesh gives a visible title to Church interest. p. 370, etc.  
Children of the flesh, those who in course of nature come from Abraham, ibid.     

G.  


Gentiles.  
SInners of the Gentiles, Gal. 2. 15.  
what it implies p. 305. 306  
Engraffing of the Jews and the Gentiles, Rom. 11. is into the Church visible p. 327 See Engraffing.  
Church of Jews and Gentiles one. p. 328.    


Gomarus.  
His answer to the Anabaptists Argument draw from Rom. 9 6, 7. p. 313, etc.    


Gospel.  
Where it is tendered and received, there is a Covenant. p. 161  
Where it is tendered and refused, there is no Covenant. ibid.    


Grace.  
Is the Fountain and rise of every Cov●●nant of God with man. p. 9  
The necessity of the concurrence of Grace in man's conversion. p. 111  
Arguments evincing it. p. 104 etc.  
Objections answered. p. 113, etc.  
Sufficiency of Gospel-grace in the Old Covenant, to convince men of sin for not believing. p. 215     

H.  


Holy, Holiness.  
Holiness 

of relation.  
of infusion. 

p. 326      
One and the same holiness in every branch of the Olive, Rom. 11. ibid.  
Holiness not legitimation. p. 357  
Not regenerate with the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. 14. ibid. See places.  
Holiness of relation of persons. p. 440  
Of unreasonable creatures. ibid.  
Persons holy in some peculiar way of service. p. 444  
In a more general way as separate from Idols to God. p. 447    


Heaven.  
See Kingdom     

I.  


Jew.  
A Jew by nature, is one in Covenant by birth. p. 306   

Infant.  
Those little ones that Christ received, and blessed, were infants. p. 394  
They were infants of Parents in Covenant. p. 394, 395  
They were themselves in Covenant. ibid.  
They were admitted upon a common right, and no special privilege above other infants in Israel. ibid.  
They were admitted to a Church-priviledge. p. 397  
The Disciples excluded them upon their minority, and Christ will have that to be no bar for their admittance. p. 399   

Infant-Baptisme.  
By Arguments asserted. p. 410, etc.  
Objections answered. p. 411, etc.  
Infants of all Christian Parents have right to Baptism. p. 448  
Infants of wicked Parents. p. 448  
Of misbelieving Parents. p. 449  
Of ignorant Parents. ibid.  
Of illegitimate birth. p. 450  
Of excommunicate persons. p. 468  
Right of infants of Apostates discussed. p. 453  
Infants have right to Baptism, as from immediate, so from mediate Parents. p. 465  
Infants within the verge of Baptism-institution. p. 411, 412  
Infants of Christian Parents entitled to the Lords Supper by jus ad rem, not jus in re. p. 436   

Instrument.  
The Word, the outward Faith, the inward instrument in justification. p. 129  
Faith more aptly said to be an instrument in justification than the word. ibid.  
Relative actions have not their instruments, fitly and properly so called as those that are absolute. p. 127  
Faith is the instrument of man in the work of justification, and because of man in a work of this nature, it is not unfitly called in instrument of God. p. 128  
See Faith, Justification.   

Ishmael.  
In Covenant when circumcised. p. 296  
Not to be branded with bastardy, ibid.  
He and his seed cast out of Covenant. p. 298   

Justification.  
Man's concurrence in it necessarily required in it as an acceptant, not as agent. p. 127  
It is a transient act of God, not an immanent. p. 132  
It is not from eternity. p. 131, etc.  
A justified man, a a fitted for every duty to which God calls. p. 135. See Faith. Instrument.     

K.  


Kingdom of Heaven.  
IN what sense taken, Matth. 19 14, etc. p. 399  
The Hinge of the controversy concerning infants interest in Covenant, hangs not on the interpretation of those words. ibid.  
Anabaptists reasons not sufficient to prove it to be meant of the Kingdom of Glory. p. 400  
Though understood of the Kingdom of Glory, it serves not to discovenant, or dischurch infants. p. 401     

L.  


Law.  
COnsidered as a Covenant to give life, is inconsistent with the Gospel. p. 55  
Moral-Law hath a commanding power over Believers. ibid.  
By Arguments asserted. ibid.  
Objections answered. p. 58  
In what sense a dead husband. p. 59 See Moses.  
A rule of our duty, not of our strength. p. 151.    


Life.  
What in Scripture it implies. p. 100  
The same in substance in the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. ibid.  
A Medium may be conceive, and is by some assigned between life and death in Scripture acceptation. p. 123    


Lord.  
The acceptation of Christ as Lord doth not justify. p. 125    


Love.  
To do a thing out of obedience to the Law, and by love not opposite. p. 61  
Love cleaves to Christ for communion, but recieves him not for justification. p. 125     

M.  


Master Marshal.  
VIndicated. p. 435    


Mediator.  
A fourfold work respective to the Covenant incumbent on the Mediator. p. 93, etc. See Christ, Moses.    


Metaphor.  
God's entering Covenant with man, no Metaphor. p. 10. 37    


Ministers.  
Must bring their people up to the terms of the Covenant, in pressing the necessity of Faith and Repentance. p. 188, etc.  
They must not sever the promise from the duty. p. 189    


Ministry.  
The necessity of a Ministry to bring me into Covenant, and to bring them up to the terms of the Covenant. p. 160.  
Reason's evincing that God hath appointed such a Ministry to be perpetuated through all ages. p. 162, etc.  
Reason's evincing the necessity of such an established Ministry. p. 165, etc.  
Objections answered. p. 168, 169  
An orderly call from God into the Ministerial function necessary. p. 180  
Reasons assigned p. 181, 182  
Several ways of calling to the work of The Ministry. p. 182 See Ordination.  
Ministry-maintenance p. 442    


Moses.  
The Law as delivered by Moses, binds Christians. p. 73, 74, 75  
He delivered a Covenant to the Jews. p. 210  
He delivered a Covenant of Grace to the Jews. p. 210, 211  
In his time commands were frequent and full, the directive and maledictive part for discovery of sin were open and clear, but promises for eternity little known. p. 213  
He was a Mediator in type.     

N.  


Nature.  
TAken for Birth-priviledge, or descent from Ancestors. p. 307  
Taken for qualifications of nature. ibid.  
Jew's by nature had privileges above Gentiles. p. 307, 308     

O.  


Obedience.  
See Righteousness.    


Olive.  
THe whole universal Church visible, Rom. 11. p. 325  
Fatness of the Olive, glory of Ordinances. p. 326    


Ordination.  
An orderly call by way of Ordination into the Ministerial function, necessary in all not gifted by immediate revelation. p. 182  
Ordination described. ibid.  
Men in Ministerial function, are to act in Ordination. p. 182, 183  
They are to set men apart as Presbyters and Elders. p. 184  
Ordination not to be passed, but upon examination and trial. p. 140  
To be solemnised with fasting and prayer. p. 185, 186  
Imposition of hands to be used. p. 187  
Objections answered. ibid.     

P.  


Pardon.  
NAtional and personal. p. 343    


My People.  
That phrase applied in New Testament-Scriptures to those that stand invisible relation to God. p. 258    


Places for worship.  
In New Testament-times have their warranty.  
In what sense holy. p. 441  
Places holy by divine institution, by divine approbation. p. 439  
Positions concerning places for worship in Gospel-times. p. 441  
Not in equipage with the Temple and Tabernacle. ibid.  
Temple and Tabernacle had the pre-eminence in four Particulars. ibid.  
Our places of meeting by good warranty called Churches. p. 441, etc.    


Position.  
This Position, that the Moral Law hath no commanding power over Believers examined. p. 58  
That position concerning the Old Covenant, to be both a Covenant of Works, and a Covenant of Grace examined. p. 210    


Power.  
Necessary in the call of Nations to a visible Church-state. p. 330    


Privilege.  
See Birth.    


Professors.  
Who to be accounted so before men. p. 450    


Promises.  
Made to the wiked, made good to the believing and penitent. p. 190  
Absolute promises yield not peace to him that is wanting in the conditions of God required. ibid. & p. 47  
Objections answered. p. 190  
Spiritual promises rare and obscure under Moses his administration. p. 213  
Scriptures evincing the spirituality of Old Testament-Promises. p. 222  
Temporal promises annexed, as appendants to spiritual in the Old Covenant p. 226    


Children of Promise.  
All the seed of Abraham by Isaac born, by virtue of that miraculous promise. p. 298     

Q.  


Queries.  
Put to those that restrain the New Covenant to the Elect regenerate. p. 234, etc.  
Put to those that put a limit to the New Covenant, respective to the issue. p. 317     

R.  


Reconciliation.  
GRadual or total, of persons, of Nations. p. 331    


Repentance.  
A distinct grace from faith. p. 136  
A condition of the Covenant of grace. ib.  
Considered in the prae-requisites. p. 137  
In the essential parts of it. ibid.  
Privative part which is cessation from sin is required in Covenant. p. 140  
Positive part which is a return to God, and an holy walk with God, is required in Covenant. p. 142  
See Righteousness.  
Objections answered. p. 144, etc.    


Reprobation.  
No cause of unbelief or sin. p. 341  
It leads not to condemnation without merit of sin, as Election leads to Salvation without merits of works. ibid.    


Righteousness.  
What degree of righteousness is required in the Covenant of Grace. p. 148  
Perfection of degrees is not so required, that upon the defection of it, the penalty is incurred. p. 149  
Perfection of degrees is not required; and sincerity accepted. p. 151  
Reasons assigned. ibid. etc.  
Objections answered. p. 153  
Our Evangelical righteousness is imperfect. p. 155, &c  
Sincerity is required and accepted p. 112, etc.    


Root and Branch.  
Denote parent and child, Rom. 11. 16. p. 325    


Root.  
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. ibid.  
Every natural parent a Root. p. 338  
Every natural believing Parent an holy Root. ibid.  
Abraham a Root by communication, not by example. p. 399     

S.  


Sacraments.  
ARe Gospel mysteries. p. 446    


Sacrilege.  
Defined. p. 440  
withholding infants of believing parents from Baptism is Sacrilege. p. 437, etc.    


Saints.  
Unregenerate persons have the name and outward privilege of Saints. p. 250    


Salvation.  
Put for saving Ordinance. p. 299, 300    


Schools.  
See University.    


Scholar.  
The name of Scholar is applied to man of learning justified. p. 176, etc.    


Scruple.  
Corinthians had their scruples about their unequal marriages. p. 350  
They had their scruple concerning their issue upon such marriage. ibid.  
Their scruples arose not from the Apostles words, 1 Cor. 5. 9 p. 352  
In all probability from Ezra. 9, and 10 Chap. p. 354  
The Apostle brings not formal concluding Arguments, to prove the lawfulness of such marriage-society, but removes scruples concerning their state with their issue. p. 360, etc.    


Seal.  
Title to the seal necessarily follows from interest in the Covenant. p. 422    


Separation.  
In what cases necessary. p. 280, etc.  
In what cases unwarrantable. p. 283  
Members of particular Church-congregations, ought much rather to endeavour, the reformation of abuses, than to make separation p. 276  
Corruption in conversation, scarce admits of separation. p. 283  
Corruption in Discipline scarce admits of separation. p. 284  
Old non-Conformists thoughts about it. p. 285  
Master Cottons indulgence towards it. p. 286  
Together Churches out of Churches in a way of separation unwarrantable. p. 288    


Sorrow.  
A praerequisite to repentance. p. 137  
Cautions concerning it. p. 139    


Sovereignty.  
Held up of God in man's estate of grace In keeping up his Commandments. p. 54  
In exercise of Discipline. p. 77    


Spirit.  
It's office in the work of Assurance. p. 197  
The immediate test of the Spirit questioned. p. 198  
Cautions that some have put to it, overthrew it. ibid.     

T.  


Tradition.  
Distinguished. p. 418  
Not the bottom of infant-baptism. p. 419     

U.  


Unclean.  
IS not Bastardy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. p. 357    


Universities.  
In order to a gifted Ministry necessary. p. 173, 174  
Reasons assigned. ibid.  
Examples of them in Old Testament-Scriptures, and Ecclesiastical Writers. p. 174, 175  
Objections answered. p. 174, 175     

W.  


Weakness.  
All weaknesses not Covenant-breaches. p. 294    


Will-worship.  
Infant-Baptism, no will-worship. p. 437, &c▪    


Work.  
Of man's salvation begins in an habit, not act. p. 112    


Works.  
In what manner called for in the Covenant of Grace. p. 146    


Wrath.  
Covenant-interest without coming up to the terms of the Covenant, delivers not from wrath. p. 315, 316      

A Table of those Scriptures which are occasionally cleared, briefly illustrated, or largely vindicated in this Treatise.  
Genesis. CHap. Verse Page. 1. 28. 101. 2. 17. 9, 100 3. 17. 37. 9 9, 10. 36.  27. 237, 204. 17. 1. 2.  7. 43, 422.  8. 301.  9 423  7, 9, 10. 422. 301, 297. 23. 15, 16. 3. 27. 34. 4. 48. 14. 186. Exodus. 12. 48. 209. 13. 14, 15. 228. 19 25. 213. 20. 18. 213. 21. 2. 2. 24. 6, 8. 12.  7, 8. 206. 34. 7. 122.  30, 33. 214. Leviticus. 1. 4. 186. 8. 10. 187. 24. 14. 186. 25. 39, etc. 405. Numbers. 6. 22, 23. 397. 20. 12. 78. Deuteronomy. 4. 1. 216.  13. 30, 2110, etc. 5. 1, 2. 15.  33. 216. 6. 4. 232.  24, 25. 216. 7. 7, 8. 343. 9 26, 27. 303. 10. 16. 228. 12. 5. 68 24. 16. 469. 26. 17, 18. 11, 15, 210.  18, 19 7. 29. 1, 2, 3, etc. 230, 231.  1, 4. 166.  10, 11. 15. 30. 6. 107, 2116.  16. 216. 33. 10. 176. 34. 9 186. 1 Samuel. 8. 15. 17. 11. 12. 3. 19 20. 174. 2 Samuel. 1. ult. 83. 12. 8, 9 13, 84, 85. 2 Kings. 6. 1. 174. 2 Chronicles. 34. 22. 175. Esther. 6. 13. 7. Job. 4. 18. 91. 5. 23. 2. 37. Psalms. 2. 8. 237. 4. 8. 7. 16. 35, etc. 26.  45. 26. 24. 5. 48. 44. 17. 152. 50. 1. 15, 294.  16, 17. 141. 72. 11. 238. 74. 7, 8. 442. 78. 8, 10. 255.  34. 234.  34, etc. 159. Chap. Verse Page. 79. 12. 48. Psalms. 86. 9 238. 94. 19 7. 105. 12, 13. 48. 106. 35, 36. 453. 110. 3. 131. 119. 6. 159.  12. 218. Proverbes. 3. 11, 12. 78. 5. 12. 167. 20. 2. 217. Canticles. 1. 4. 105. Isaiah. 2. 3. 54. 4. 1. 25. 24. 1, 2, 3, etc. 253, 254. 26. 12. 145. 42. 6, 7. 2. 53. 10, etc. 14, 112. 54. 5. 13. 55. 1, 2. 49.  5. 238.  7. 141. 58. 6, 7. 21. Jeremiah. 2. 5. 193. 14. 14. 181. 22. 15. 21.  15, 16. 109. 23. 13, 14. 175. 27. 15. 181. 31. 31, 32, 33. 20. 170.  32, 33. 259.  33. 2, 107. 34. 12. 2.  15, 16. 192.  18, etc. 253. Ezekiel. 13. 22. 189. 16. 20, 21. 406, 26. 35. 25, etc. 107. 39 23. 81.  23, 24. 194. Hosea. 2. 18. 3.  19 12.  19, 20. 247. 4. 14. 80. 6. 6. 172.  Joel.  2. 28, 29. 168, 319. Amos. 3. 1, 2. 224. 7. 14, 15. 169. Habakkuk. 3. 17, 18. 135. Zephaniah. 3. 2. 142. Zechariah. 1. 4. 446. 13. 12. 169.  5, 6. 180. Malachi. 1. 11. 162. 2. 6. 179. Matthew. 3. 2. 136. 4. 12, 17. 136. 5. 20. 147.  48. 153, etc. 8. 11, 12. 305. 10. 42. 413. 11. 13. 75. 16. 5. 206. 19 13. 186.  14. 393. 21. 23. 170.  31, 32. 432. 22. 21. 437. 28. 19 235, 162.   412.   473.  20. 163. 22. 14. 239, 267. 20. 16. 239. Mark. 6. 5. 186.  12. 136. 11. 7. 170. 10. 14. 393. 12. 34. 114. 10. 16. 186. 9 41. 413. Luke. 7. 5, 9 441, 442.  29, 30. 433. 10. 16. 75. 14. 27, 33. 252. 18. 16. 393. 20. 21. 170. 24. 25. 416.  25, 26. 215.  44. 55. John. 3. 16. 34. 5. 39 215.  46, 47. 211. 6. 44. 105. 7. 37. 128. 8. 51. 34. 10. 10. 100 Chap. Verse Page. 11. 40. 12. 26. 31. 12. Acts. 2. 16. 168.  38, 39 426, etc. 318.  39 415. 3. 19 190.  25. 412. 5. 31. 190. 7. 51, 52. 466. 8. 17. 186. 10. 43. 190.  47. 460. 11. 12. 95. 13. 2. 186. 14. 23. 183. 15. 17. 128.  18. 132. 16. 14. 139. 18. 7. 441. 20. 7. 415.  21. 136, 137.  29. 167. Romans. 2. 22. 439.  28. 37. 3. 1. 22.  19 123.  20. 138.  21. 123.  21, 22. 218.  31. 56. 7. 1, 2. 58, 59 9 1, 2, 3. 394.  6, 7, 8. 298, 309, etc.  9, 10, 11, 12. 298.  25. 258. 10. 3. 117, 214. 11. throughout. 304.  1, 2. etc. 323.  6. 126.  28, 29. 334. 1 Corinthians. 2. 6. 155.  12. 198.  14. 166. 4. 7. 110. 5. 5, 6. 287.  11. 449. 7. 14. 349, etc. 403, 464. 9 5, 6. 443.  9 74.  13, 14. 164. 10. 3. 229.  17. 415.  26. 163. 11. 28. 414.  30. 79. 12. 12. 18.  28. 184. 14. 21. 54.  34. 56, 57 15. 58. 143. 2 Corinthians. 3. 12, 13. 214. 6. 16. 258.  17. 140. 10. 7. 78. 13. 11. 153, 154. Galatians. 1. 12. 182. 2. 15. 305, 306. 3. 8. 18.  14. 127.  16. 16, 17.  18. 218.  19 18.  17. 42, 48. 4. 29. 366.  30. 424. 5. 3. 149.  6. 137, 143.  19, 20. 141.  21. 143. 6. 6. 442. Ephesians. 1. 18. 166.  19 105. 2. 1, 2. 104, 105.  6, 12. 94.  8. 113, 217.  10. 105, 145.  12. 161, 208, 408.  14. 55. 3. 17. 127, 128. 4. 11, 12. 162,167, 179. 5. 6. 142. 6. 4. 479.  6, 7. 157. Philipians. 2. 6 14.  12. 144, 145.  13. 112, 131. 3. 5, 6. 116. Colossians. 1. 12. 196. 3. 5, 6, 7, 8. 140.  16. 171. Thessalonians. 2. 12, 13. 120, 135. 5. 12, 13, 164.  11. 171. 2 Thessalonians. 2. 15. 419 3. 14. 469. 1 Timothy. 1. 22. 185. 3. 6. 185. Chap. Verse Page.  10. 185. 4. 8. 135.  13, 15. 174.  14. 183.  16. 217. 5. 22. 187. 6. 11. 142.  17, etc. 200. 2 Timothy. 2. 15. 185.  19 140  20. 240, 268. 4. 8 6. Titus. 1. 5. 183.  7, 8. 185.  16. 452. 2. 14. 257. 4. 4. 249. Hebrews. 4. 2. 129, 135. 6. 1. 137.  18. 7. 8. 13. 268.  12. 48. 9 16, 17. 39  19, 20, 21. 206. 10. 1. 207.  4. 93, 214, 207.  26. 90.  29. 241, etc. 12. 5, 6, 7, 79. 13. 17. 164. James. 1. 4. 153, 154.  25. 218.  26. 109.  27. 22. 2. 8. 57  21. 125. 1 Peter. 2. 9 243, etc. 1. 15, 16. 74. 3. 18. 123.  21. 197. 2 Peter. 2. 22. 194. 1 John. 3. 18, 19 201  21. 292.  21, 22. 200.  ●4. 198. Revelation. 3. 19 79. 11. 15. 237 18. 4. 259. 21. 3. 258. 22. 12. 147.  
FINIS.   

Paul's last Farewell, OR A SERMON, PREACHED At the Funeral of that Godly and Learned Minister of JESUS CHRIST, Mr. THOMAS BLAKE.  
By Anthony Burgess, Pastor of the Church at Sutton-Coldfield in Warwickshire.  
With a Funeral ORATION made at Mr. Blakes death by Samuel Shaw, than Schoolmaster of the Free-School at Tamworth.  
LONDON, Printed for Abel Roper, at the Sun against S. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet. 1658.   

To the Reader.  
READER,  
THat I might satisfy the desire of some worthy Friends, I do here present unto thee a Sermon with very little alteration) preached at the Funeral of that Godly and Learned Minister of Jesus Christ, Mr. Blake, now with God: Being the rather induced thereunto, because I know the memory of his Name, will be very grateful and welcome to such who were acquainted with him. How sadly his death was laid to heart, the deportment of many at that time did abundantly manifest, and Although I cannot speak the same which Nazianzen affirmeth concerning the Funeral solemnities of Basil, how that many thousands were there   

valedictory Sermon, we know not whether the matter, or the affection in the delivering of it, be more admirable: It's milk that cometh hot from the breast; excellent matter, without hearty affections, is like a Messenger without feet, and a Bird without wings. I shall not make a Sermon upon his Sermon, only in the general; by that discourse we have a description of a Pastor and Officer in the Church, in Idea and in subjecto: In Idea, or in the Thesi, there the Apostle describeth such by their name and titles, they are Overseers and Elders, v. 17. from the efficient cause the Holy Ghost hath made them so, from the relation they are in: The People are their Flock, and they are God's Church. And lastly, from the dignity and high thoughts put upon them by Christ, they were purchased with his own blood, shall we think our labour, our pains, our sweat, too much, when Christ thought not his blood too much?  
To enter upon the Controversy who these Elders and Overseers were, is repugnant to the occasion at this time: Then you have this office in subjecto, in Hypothesi; in the practice of it, you have the rule of a Pastor, and the example of a Ruler, and that is in Paul himself: O the zeal, watchfulness, the diligence, the courage, the purity of aim and ends, which he professeth in his Ministerial discharge! not that he speaketh these for ostentation, but imitation; for he would not have said thus much of himself, saith Grotius on the place, but that hereby he would leave a pattern or form of life to all successors; Insomuch, that no Minister reading Paul's expressions of himself in this place, but may cry out, O me! a clod of earth to such a Star, Ice to such a Fire, a worm to such an Angel! Though he were a Paul, as some think his name denoteth, little in stature of his body, yet he was a Giant in Gifts and Graces, so that Papists themselves cannot but give the pre-eminence to Paul above Peter, in respect of Doctrine and Ministerial abilities: He was the earthly Angel, the Cor Christi, the Tuba Evangelii, as the Ancients call him; yet I am not of Amyraldus his mind, consider. in cap. 7. ad Rom. who denying the Interpretation of the seventh of the Romans, to be understood personally of Paul, thinking this would be injurious to the Grace of God sanctifying of him, and making him so eminent a Servant in his Church: He affirmeth, that if God pleased so to adorn Paul with the gifts of the Spirit, that he should in this life arrive at that fullness and perfection of holiness, which other Believers obtain no where but in Heaven, that thereby he might be propounded as a perfect example to all Christians, and his Ministry be more happily efficacious; here was not (saith he) any thing to be blame-worthy: But though we grant Paul to have an elder Brother's portion in the Graces and Gifts of Christ, so that if no Minister could be saved, unless he were a Paul, woe be to us all; yet that Paul was not above the combat of the flesh and spirit within him, appeareth partly in that careful keeping down of his body, 1 Cor. 9 27. lest sin should prevail; as also in those buffet of Satan which he was exercised with, that he might not be lifted up above measure, 2 Cor. 12. 7. Well, however it be, the Apostle having both by rule and example, as you heard described what a Minister or Pastor is to be, we have the consequent of this in my Text: When he had thus spoken, thus of himself, and thus of a Gospel-Minister, he kneeled down and prayed.  
There are two actions of the body mentioned in Prayer, which denote that excellent deportment that should be at that time in the soul; kneeling of the body, that denoteth self-humiliation; lifting up the hands, that implieth faith and confidence: Thus descendendo ascenditur, how hardly do the people of God keep these two Graces co-operating together, but either their Humiliation abateth their Faith, or their Faith hindereth their Humiliation; both these together are the Calidum and the Humidum, which maintain the life of holy Duties; he Prayed as well as kneeled, for that is the only key to open Heaven, that is David's Harp, to allay all those unruly affections that are apt to disturb us.  
Lastly, here is the effect of all upon the Auditors, which is expressed, First, In their passion of weeping, with the aggravation. 1. They wept sore. 2. Their great love, They fell on Paul's neck and kissed him. 3. The motive of all this affectionate carriage, That which did open these Floodgates, it was because they should see his face no more; they should for ever lose him, enjoy no more of his Ministerial Labours and diligence: now this is recorded by the Evangelist, as a commendation; It was a spiritual, not a natural weeping; It was not like weeping for a dead Father, or a dead Wife, but for a dead Pastor, by whose spiritual labours their souls had made great proficiency; I shall from these words observe two doctrines suitable to the two considerable parts of this auditory, the one seasonable for the Ministers of the Gospel here present, The other opportune for the Congregation of Tamworth, now bereft of a faithful Pastor, whom I may see mourning and weeping, and that most of all, because you shall see his face no more, you shall not behold him in this place again, you shall not hear his voice from hence again. The first Observation is grounded upon these words, when he had thus spoken, This about the duty of a Minister, This about his Holy, Godly, and exemplary conversation; From whence observe,  
That a faithful discharge of the ministerial Office doth bring unspeakable comfort to such as can upon just grounds assume this to themselves; From this faithfulness we see often Paul receiving a great deal of comfort. 2 Tim. 4. 6, 7, 8. The time of his departure was at hand; doth not this then make him afraid? how shall he give an account concerning the improvement of his talents? No, I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, etc. We have the like glorious profession made by this holy Apostle, Thess. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. which is an excellent Copy for every Minister to write after, to live and breathe from thence; and in this he is so clear, that he saith, Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily, justly and unblamably, we have behaved ourselves amongst those that believe. But yet let none think that Paul doth thus magnify inherent grace, to exclude imputed grace, for 1 Cor. 4. 4. Though he saith, he knoweth nothing by himself, yet he concludeth, I am not thereby justified, but he that judgeth me is the Lord, he knew more evil in Paul, than Paul himself could do, and certainly, so great is this ministerial work, that Paul himself cried out, Who is sufficient for these things? chrysostom hath very discouraging passages, as if few Ministers could be saved, but his meaning must be, because few are careful, zealous, and diligent; Otherwise such as chrysostom himself, that is said to fear nothing but sin, and those that by their Doctrine and life, turn many from iniquities, shall have more than ordinary glory in heaven; To amplify this, I shall in some particulars or Characters describe how, or when the Ministry is faithfully discharged, what is ingredient thereunto, or constituent thereof; And first there is required an inward experimental savoury work of grace upon the Ministers own heart, that thereby he may more affectionately and cordially deal with others; when we know the terror of the Lord, and the love of Christ experimentally, this maketh us able in the work of the Ministry, 2 Cor. 5. 11. I do not say that the Office of a Minister is null, if he be not a regenerate man, or as if he were no Minister, or might not be useful in the Church of God, but as to himself, he cannot faithfully discharge this Office, so as to obtain a crown of glory hereafter, unless he be thus qualified; There is Theologia ratiocinativa and experimentalis, as Gerson speaketh. A man may know things, as Aquinas saith, per modum cognitionis, or, per modum inclinationis; now it is this experimental Divinity, that worketh besides Knowledge an inclination and propensity to the thing known, that maketh us able to discharge this duty; To Preach of Regeneration, of Faith, when a man hath no savoury understanding of these things, is to talk of the sweetness of honey, when we never tasted it, or of the excellency of such a Country, which we never were in, but know it by Maps only. If thou knowest the truths of God, but by Books, by Authors only, and thy own heart feeleth not the power of these things, Thou art but as the Conduit, that letteth out wine or refreshing water to others, but thou thyself tastest not of it, or like the hand that directeth the Passenger, but thou thyself standest still.  
2. To a faithful discharge, there is required a sound knowledge, judgement and skill in divine things; hence they are called lights, guide's, and Shepherds, they are required to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 3. 2. apt to teach, to reprove in all Doctrine. 2 Tim. 4. 2. It is not enough to cry out of Heresies or of sins, unless we rebuke with doctrine; The least Knowledge that Casuists condescend unto in a Minister is, that he must be learned, supra vulgus fidelium: Is he a fit Minister that can only Preach and pray by a prescript, or form from another? He is not a fit Physician, or a fit Lawyer, that should do so in his way; Ministers therefore should take that exhortation, which we see Paul gave even to Timothy, though so well accomplished. 1 Tim. 4. 15. Meditate upon these things, give thyself wholly to them, that thy profiting may appear, yea, vers. 13. Till I come, give attendance to reading. The circumstance of time is to be observed, for though Paul was to come shortly to him, yet that little time he was absent from Paul, must be improved in reading God's Word. Be thou ascribe instructed for the Kingdom of heaven, that can bring out of thy treasure, old and new; be a Fountain, not a cistern, that will quickly be dry; Cajetan Summula, Tit. Doctoratus, maketh it a mortal sin to approve any for a Doctor in Divinity, who is notably insufficient, because hereby he is testified to be a Physician of souls, when yet through his ignorance, may be the ruin of many; I dare not avouch that of Luther, who said it is a Germane Proverb, that young Divines fill Hell, only it is a good warning, that such be diligent in studying, that God may bless them with all knowledge and understanding, first in the Scripture, and then in all other parts of Divinity, whether controversal, positive or practical, especially add to thy Ministerial knowledge these two things; First a firm faith, for to read and to know much, but not to digest it, maketh us sceptical; Have faith, not reason or opinion in religious things, Calvin saith in Comment. 2. Epist. ad Corin. that the Ministers of of God, who go up into the Pulpit in the name of Christ, to preach his Word, aught to have such firmness of Faith in them, that they are assured that their Doctrine can no more be overthrown, than God himself; now truly, this faith is much to be commended to us, we may have much learning, much reading, but little Faith, be very sceptical, and deal in Divinity as we use to do in Philosophy, videtur quod sic, videtur quod non, Great Scholars are not always great believers, The want of this maketh a man of a Socinian faith, an Arminian faith, a Popish faith, as often as any plausible Argument, or carnal Interest interposeth.  
2. With this knowledge labour much after casuistical Divinity, whereby you may be able to direct the tempted in cases of Conscience, To guide the afflicted in soul, what they are to do; Indeed the Papists have a deal of casuistical divinity in large voluminous discourses, but it is for the most part calculated according to their meridians of superstitious usages and Customs, but it is pity that among us Protestants, our controversal Books are far more than our casuistical, yet remember the Scripture calleth it, the tongue of the Learned, Isa. 50. 4. To know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary; The wounds of Conscience are the most tender, and therefore require a Spiritual skilful Physician. The Consciences of men are the subject matter of your Office, and therefore look after that Ars Cordis, which is indeed a liberal art that will set us free.  
3. He that will faithfully discharge the Office of his Ministry, must regard the end of it, the finis operis, and finis operantis, the finis ministerii, and ministri, must be all one: The end of the Ministry is to exalt God & Christ, to dethrone Satan, to bring many out of their sins unto the obedience of the Gospel: Now if a man aim at other things in his Ministry then this he can never comfortably discharge it: To be a Minister for earthly profits, for ambition and vain glory, these will be like the gravel, that will presently stop the Ship in its passage; and truly herein we may much lament our entrance in to this work, how many set upon it as a profession to live upon, by that they hope to satisfy their needs, but if this end and motive do still reign in thee, it will be like a millstone about thy neck; outward maintenance may be a secondary end, but not the principal; still then a we thy soul with the end of thy office, that all other knowledge is exercised about the body, or men's Estates, or the nature of things; but thine is Theology, De Deo, à Deo, in Deum, its concerning God objectively, it's from God effectively, it's to God finally.  
4. He that will faithfully discharge this Office of the Ministry, must as Paul professeth, 2 Cor. 1. 12. have his conversation with all godly simplicity and sincerity: He is to carry on his work in Scripture-ways, avoiding those two Rocks, Media violentiae, and Media fraudulentiae; A man of a crafty multiplicity of Spirit, will turn into any shape dispute for any thing a lawful: This the Jesuit said to one (for so I understand it) who doubted about something he was to do, whether lawful or no, Aude (saith he) & nos efficiemus probabile, Jansen. St. August. lib. proaem. pag. 9 Be daring to do it, and we will make it probable; now this simplicity of Spirit in Ministerial employment, is greatly seen in an obediential dependence upon the word of God, whether in matter of Duty, or of Faith: What is it that maketh so many learned Men embrace Errors after Errors, but because they leave Faith, and attend to reason? They think we come to be Christians by Disputations and scientifical Demonstrations; as we come to be Philosophers, not by a single and plain captivating of our understandings to the scripture, whereas it is Christian Faith, not Christian reason: It is said to be Nazianzens' Emblem, Theologia nostra est Pythagorica, by this simplicity of Spirit, a man shall overcome those Temptations, which are usually in Scholars to bring, inaudita & invisa, strange and unheard things unto our People; especially let the Ministers of the Gospel be so guided by simplicity of Spirit, that they may avoid these three Rocks.  
First, that while they avoid a Popish blind obedience to men, examining things by Scripture, they therefore do not make all things uncertain: That of Durand is true, whosoever forsaketh reason because of humane Authority, incidit in insipientiam bestialem, maketh himself like a Beast; yet let not this liberty be abused to licentiousness, to believe nothing, to despise all those Ministerial helps which God hath vouchsafed to the Church, because he is to try all things; though he must try, yet he must not be always trying, but hold fast that which is good, 1 Thess. 5. 21. This liberty and particular Judgement of discerning, which God alloweth every man, is not to be opposed to that decisive Ministerial Judgement, which God hath appointed in his Church.  
Secondly, under pretence of a more moderate and impartial handling of things, as not being addicted unto parties, take heed thou do not make a party of thyself, as the Sect of Philosophers, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Diogen, Laert. in Proent. pretending they would be of no Sect, but choose the best Art of all; thus they made a Sect, while they condemned all.  
Lastly, Take heed of being deceived under the pretence that thou dost not bring in any new matter, but new words, or thou dost digest things into a better method; for by this means, men leaving that simplicity and Scripture-dependance they once had, have corrupted their Ministerial Office, instead of a faithful discharge of it.  
Fifthly, To a faithful discharge of this dreadful Office, there is required an excellent compound of many choice Graces, insomuch that a Ministers qualification, is like that Ointment that was to be made for the Priest only: There must be love and compassion to People's Souls, which was abundantly discovered in our Saviour himself: Paul compareth himself, sometimes to a Father, sometimes to a Mother, sometimes to a Nurse, because of this affectionate desire in him: There must be Zeal, Fortitude, and Courage, the spirit of love and of power also; he is not a Minister, that is not ad mille mortes paratus, said chrysostom; as a good Soldier endure hardship, saith Paul to Timothy, 1 Tim. 2. 3. There must be Prudence and Wisdom, else Love and Power will make us like Samson, without eyes; there must be salt in the Sacrifice, as well as fire; Oportet Pastor sit totus oculus, a Pastor must be an Argus, full of eyes.  
Again, there must be an Heavemly heart, contemning the world and all earthly advantages: The eye that is to see for others must not have dust falling into it: Austin maketh an Heretic to have some carnal profit or emolument that is attractive of him: There must be a desire to please God, and not men, as Paul saith, Gal. 1. for so a man cannot be a servant of Christ: This fear to displease men, whereby we do not reprove sin so Zealously, so Cordially and Faithfully as we should, hath eclipsed the comfort of some godly Ministers at their death. It is too true that the Wise man saith, The fear of a man is his snare, Prov. 29. 25. The Chameleon for fear, saith Aristotle, turneth into the likeness of every object it meeteth with.  
These are the special qualifications of a Godly Minister, whereby he will be able to say with Paul, I have fought a good fight. 1 Tim. 4. 7. Yea, with CHRIST, I have finished the work thou gavest me to do. John 17. 3. To all which must be added diligence and labour, all the names, they have denote labour more than glory, office more than dignity; now in all these things there is one particular, which doth much quicken, and that is temptation, one of those three things, Luther said, made a Divine; we are not to desire temptations, but God for the most part doth prepare those Ministers, whom he intends to be serviceable, by such exercises; This is the sawing, and the polishing of the stone, by this he is brought into the deep waters, and seeth the wonderful works of God, by this he is able to understand the depths of Satan, and by this he is adapted to be a most special Instrument to comfort and refresh others, when they shall see theirs is not a singular condition, they must not think none are tempted like them, for they shall find that even Paul's have had the buffet of Satan, and that by these soul temptations they have learned more than all Books or authors could teach them. And thus I leave the first Doctrine, and proceed to the second, which is.  
That a Godly People cannot but affectionately mourn under the loss of their faithful Ministers. 
Doct. 2.   
You see here what these Ephesians did, with what affection they were moved, because they should never see Paul's face more; Grace doth not lie in extinguishing, but regulating affections; Christ wept, and they argued from thence, behold how he loved him, Joh. 11. 35, 36. So that Nazianzens' commendation of his Mother Nonna, that she never wept under the many troubles she underwent, submitting all to God's hand, was rather Stoicism, than Christianity; It is said of Ambrose, when he heard of the death of any good Minister, he could not forbear weeping; how then can a people forbear, when their own Minister, their own Pastor is taken away, should not the Congregation be a valley of tears, or a place of mourners; now there are these grounds for it, 1. Because of that experimental soul-good, and spiritual advantage the Godly have reaped thereby; Oh! when thou shalt remember what quickenings, what melt, what warning of heart thou hast had, this will cause grief to think they are gone. Carnal natural men never are affected with the loss of a Minister, they never got any good by their Preaching; it was no converting Ministry, no enlightening, no comforting Ministry to them, and therefore the loss is no more troublesome.  
2. They must needs mourn, because they have just cause to fear, their sins have caused God to deprive them of such helps; your unthankfulness, your contempt, and low thoughts of the means of grace, your unprofitableness and negligence, may make you mourn, for if God upon the abuse of natural Creatures, will take away his Wine, his Bread, his flax, will he not much more remove the candlestick, for unfruitfulness under spiritual mercies; mourn then, lest thy sins, thy unfaithfulness, thy deadness and dulness of heart have provoked God to take such guides away; yea in the third place, may not some mourn, who by their Disobedience, and unwillingness to submit to Christ's yoke, and opposition to his way, have so filled the Minister's heart with grief and sadness, as thereby to hasten his death, making his life the more uncomfortable, and causing him to mourn in secret for your stubbornness and disobedience; Thus your sins, not only meritoriously, but efficiently may concur to the removing of him by death; Consider that place. Heb. 13. 17. Obey them that rule over you, etc. that they may give their account with joy, and not with grief; some make this particular to relate to the former, that they may watch over your souls with joy, and not with grief, for that is unprofitable for you. A grieved Minister, a discouraged Minister cannot do his duty, so powerfully, it will be unprofitable unto you, you will find it in his study, in his sermons; A dull people are apt to make a dull Minister.  
4. There is cause to mourn, because of the excellency of the relation between a Pastor and a People, in some respects, it is above all natural relations. They are spiritual Fathers, your souls receive good by them; They are Instrumental to bring you unto eternal glory, and therefore there is more cause of Mourning in this respect, then when God breaketh natural relations, no Father or Mother, or friend happily hath done that for thee which his Ministry hath done.  
5. There is cause to mourn, because it is a sign of God's anger and displeasure to a people, you are not so much to look upon it; as the loss of a man, as a token of God's anger to the congregation; The righteous man perisheth, and none layeth it to heart. Isaiah. 57 1. Who knoweth what soul-Judgements, what bodily Judgements may hereafter come upon you, and therefore it is for a people to be sensible, and mourn, when the desire of your eyes, so I may call the Minister (as well as the Wife) is taken away. The desire of your eyes, you long to see him in the Pulpit again, and the desire of your ears, you long to hear him again.  
6. There is cause to Mourn, because of the sad consequents that many times falls upon the death of a faithful Pastor; sometimes the learning and soundness of a Minister, keepeth a People from licentious errors, and corrupt opinions; His Gravity and Piety hath a special influence upon many, but upon his removal, than the weeds of a man's heart grows up: After my departure, saith Paul, Wolves will arise from among yourselves, Acts 20. 29. Paul's presence was a great means to hinder them.  
2. What good Foundation is laid in Faith, what Godly Order may be begun? there is danger, that all these will die, when a Faithful Minister dieth: I wonder that you are so soon removed, saith Paul, Gal. 1. Alas! that which the Ministers of God have with many years' diligence, many Prayers, and much opposition brought about, when the Minister is dead, may quickly be destroyed, so that we may wonder, how such a Town, such a place should be overrun with Briars and Thorns immediately.  
3. Another sad consequent is sometimes, divisions and breaches among the People, while a Godly Minister is alive, he is like a Corner Stone, that uniteth both sides of the Wall together, but when that falls, than the wall falls with it. Than one is for this Minister, and another for that, than one liketh this, and another the contrary, and thus seeds of contention and division are sown, which may come up too fast, hence the presence of a Godly, Grave, Wise Pastor is very necessary, it is the Spiritual defence of a People, which made him cry out, when the Prophet was taken, My father, my Father, the Chariots of Israel, and the horsemen thereof, 2 Kings 13. 14. And now we come from the Doctrinal part to the practical; And although my custom in such Sermons, is not to discourse about the Dead, they being like Anatomy Lectures, for the good of the living, yet because we are celebrating the Funerals of a Learned and Godly Brother, who by his Office, was in public station in the Church of God; I shall briefly speak to some few of those Ministerial qualifications, that were in him mentioned in the Doctrine, not imitating Nazianzen, who in his Funeral Orations of his Father, as also Athanasius, Basilius and others industriously gathereth up every thing that may make to their praise, if not hyperbolically exceeding sometimes; but I shall rather come short of what might be spoken. And first, his Doctrinal abilities, and parts in controusrsall points, are sufficiently known by the Books he hath written: those Children will resemble the Father, though he left no bodily ones. It is true, there were some particular opinions and contests he was fallen into with other Learned men, on whose side the truth did stand, you will not judge it meet for me to interpose, only because of the difference that is sometimes in Judgement between Godly men, we see some by profaneness, gladly have it in their mouths, saying, what heed is to be given to these Ministers, there are not two of a mind; They write against one another, they have Book against Book, and then some good people they are offended; what shall we do, say they, we look upon both as Godly, and yet they cannot agree; because I say, of this offence, I shall speak a little to it. First, that this difference amongst ourselves, is an old objection, The Pagans and the Jews urged it against Christianity, whose Arguments Clemens Alexandrinus answered, retorting upon them the same divisions; the Philosophers likewise objected this to the Christians, when that Synod was gathered together at Nice, as the Centuriators inform us; Though Augustine (lib. de vera religione) brandeth them for this, that the Heathens, though they had divers schools, yet they had Commune Templum, a Common temple, which argued, they worshipped their Gods more out of Custom, then because of their opinion.  
2. We are to know, that all the Godly do know only in part, perfection in knowledge, and unity is reserved for heaven; there will be no parties, no dividing opinions, there will be no different Forms, and ways of worshipping of God in that place, so that although this difference amongst the Godly be as Calvin said to Melanctlhon, pessimi exempli, of a very bad example, yet if we consider, that the measure of Light & grace in this world is imperfect, than we may not wonder at such breaches; had not Paul and Barnabas a Paroxysm, a sharp sit, for to understand the Word in a good sense, as some would, because the Word is used so. Heb. 10. 24. is very improbable. Austin and Hierome, chrysostom and Epiphanius had great contests.  
3. The differences of Godly Ministers are not in fundamentals; They all build gold and precious stones, though some may add hay and stubble  
Lastly, a brotherly and amicable disquisition into truths controversed, not fundamental, but between Godly men, though different in Judgements, is very lawful and useful, indeed if this be done with pride, passion, scornful and disdainful words, despising the gifts of others, This is not a dead fly, but a dead toad in the box of ointment, that maketh the wise Reader think, men do regard opinions, not so much as they are Gods Truths, but as they are their opinions, wherein they must have glory; But return we to our Learned Brother; as God had given him such Doctrinal Abilities, so also was he Prudent and Wise, and wise to direct such as were troubled in their mind, and perplexed about what they were to do; It is true, it pleased God before his sickness to exercise him with some sad and black thoughts, sometimes tending to the great dejection and discouragement of his soul, but by this we see, that comfort is not a flower growing in our Garden, that we can pluck up when we will, God is the God of Comfort only, he giveth it when he pleaseth, and he taketh it away again as he pleaseth. Christ had an Angel to comfort him in his Agonies, so that all, both Ministers and People, are to take Gospel-Consolations, as mercies from heaven, not as the work of our hands.  
In the next place, the diligence, constancy and faithful Preaching of your Godly Pastor is not unknown; These walls, these seats can sufficiently bear witness thereunto; Though you a great People, and he declining in age, yet a laborious Preacher to you, and a great Student in private: The Catechising also of the younger sort of people, discovered his vigilancy, and it was the earnest desire (as he would have you informed) and request of your dying Pastor, that the younger Persons of this place would readily and willingly submit to that order; Besides all this, his writing for the public good of the Church, still demonstrated his faithfulness and zeal herein; when the Persecutor had cut out Cyprians tongue, and then banished him, yet he made a supply by his Pen; but our Learned Brother was willing both by Tongue and Pen to edify the Church of God, so that both his opuscula, and his opera will praise him in the gates, His tenderness of Spirit likewise was exceeding much; and as in soft wood, worms sometimes breed to weaken it, so did (as you heard) discouragements sometimes lie upon his soul, but the Lord did quickly blow over the clouds, and as I am informed, his expression was, That he died with full satisfaction of Spirit, and communion with God.  
Lastly, you are not ignorant of the way he took about the Sacrament, that he was not for the promiscuous Admission of all thereunto; and therefore when a late Writer, Mr. Humphreys, would have gathered such conclusions from his principles, he was willing publicly to vindicate himself, and to show his dissent herein; All this, though comparatively little, I have spoken, not to exalt man, for what have we, that we have not received, but to bless God, and magnify him, who giveth such gifts to men; he that praiseth the gifts and graces of any, thereby extolleth God; as he that commendeth a Picture, magnifieth the Artificer that made it; and thus we take our dear and last farewell of him, and come to you, sheep left without a shepherd, to you on the Sea without a pilot; To you Orphans, without a Spiritual Father; and first you see what cause there is for our constant expectation and preparation for death; Gods own Ministers and servants must die, God needeth no man's labours or parts, Moses, Joshua, Paul, Peter must die, sola mors non habet fortasse, said Austin, only Death hath no may be; It may be thou mayest be rich, it may be thou mayest thrive in thy trading, it may be thou mayest have comfort in thy Children and friends, but thy death hath no may be; Oh! let not the world, let not your Shops, let not trading take off your hearts from this Meditation, but think you hear God speaking to you, set not your house, but your souls in order, for thou must die.  
And secondly, here is some comfort, though there be cause of much sorrow, that though your Faithful Pastor he dead, yet the chief Pastor of your souls is not; He that setteth Pastors and Teachers in the Church, he that sendeth forth labourers into his harvest, he liveth for ever; as one in the Ecclesiastical History, when news was brought him that his father was dead, Desine blasphemias loqui (saith he) pater enim meus immortalis est, cease to speak blasphemy, for my Father is immortal; Thus let this honey fall into your gall, this Wine into your water, The great and Chief Shepherd of your souls is not dead.  
Lastly, now the will of God is done, concerning our deceased Brother, your duty is to be much in Prayer to God, that there may be a Joshua after Moses, That God would join your hearts together as one man, to seek out a Pastor for you, which shall feed you according to his holy will; The Lord hath made a great breach upon you, be sensible of it, and seriously consider how all your soul-comforts and advantages are bound up in this matter; Ministers are compared to the Sun, and Salt, nihil sole & sale ut●lius; can you be without the Sun in the heavens? without bread for your body, so neither without this bread of life for your souls, or without this light to guide you in the wilderness of this World, to eternal happiness.  
FINIS.   

A Funeral Oration at the Death of the most desired Mr. Blake. By Mr. Samuel Shaw, than Schoolmaster of the Free-School at Tamworth.  
WIth a face sadder than usual, with an heart sadder than my face, but upon an occasion sadder than them both, I (who was deputed to this work by him to whom I now perform it) am here, rather to receive the expressions of your sorrow, then tell you the resentments of mine own. Being sensible of my stupefaction, (caused, not through the want of my affections, but the want of their object) I desire out of a pious policy, to supply my dryness, by taking your Tears, and putting them into my pump, so hoping to revive mine own, which yet I judge are rather drowned then dried up. And yet when I have done this, I know that all my expressions will fall short of the greatness of my grief, as much as my grief does of the greatness of its cause. This numerous Company of Pious groaners, these so many blacks, not made, but occasioned to be Mourners (badges of profession becoming badges of that grief, which for its greatness can be equalled by nothing but their former happiness which they once enjoyed) the universal gloommesses of this day, represents to me rather the funeral of a Town, than a man, and the fall of a Church, rather than a single pillar: and rather induces me to think that ye are come to quench the unmerciful heat of a fever, then only to bedew that which was the subject of one. But if it may be, hold a little, and suffer your eyes a while to a new employment, even to see where you are, what you are doing, whose Obsequies you are solemnising with so great devotion, and take the dimensions of your loss, if it be capable of any: which indeed is so great, that they only can know it, who knew not him, and they only can feel, who never enjoyed him; I speak not to aggravate your loss, but the sense of it, as for the cause of it, it admits of no addition. Whilst he lived, it was as impossible for him not to love you, as it was for you adequately to return his love: His care answered his love; and if his success had answered his care, we might happily have this day wanted an object of so great sorrow, in enjoying him. His writing▪ were not read without satisfaction: His Sermons were never heard without an approving silence, seldom without a following advantage. His kindness towards you could ●ot be considered without love, his awful gravity, and secretly-commanding presence, without reverence: Nor his conversation, without imitation. To see him live, was a provocation to a godly life; to see him dying, might have made any one weary of living▪ When God restrains him from this place (which was always happy in his company but now) he made his chamber a Church, and his bed a Pulpit, in which (in my hearing) he offered many a hearty prayer for you: And his death made him mindful of you, whose life made you unmindful of him, And I did not see that any thing made him so backward to resign up his ●ure soul to God, as his unparalleled care for you, and your proficiency in godliness, which seemed as little to him, in comparison of what he desired, as it does great to others in comparison of what they find; so that I sat by him, and I only, when with as great affluency of Tears, as words, he prayed, Lord (with some ingeminations) charge not on me the ignorance of this people. And indeed your ignorance had not been so remarkable, had not his Knowledge, and desire still to communicate it been so. With what a grace and majesty have you heard him Preaching, who is now (alas) confined to a worse wood. Could you ever resist the power by which he spoke; or find in your hearts to contradict any thing that ever he said, but when on his sickbed he said, I am a dying man? Ah! who would not there have contradicted him, if they should not have contradicted God's Decree! His Wisdom, Justice, and Tenderness were such predominant Graces in him, that it is as much my inability to describe them, as my unhappiness not to imitate them: And truly, to think to express them, were infinitely to injure their greatness. It is a sad thing that so many resplendent graces should never be so truly, nor so fully discovered, as by the loss of him that had them; and that we should not so justly consider that he had them, till we have not them. But yet your loss might be the better borne, if ye were sure it had nothing of a Judgement in it. But I fear that within a short time, it will appear as truly that God hath taken him away in anger, as now it appears sadly that he hath taken him away: And that it is not only a misery that must be repayred●y a change of Pastors, but also a sin which must be re●●est by the change of your lives: For, if your unworthiness have driven your teacher is to a corner, and you sinned him into his grave; your Repentance and Humiliation must raise another out of his ashes. So great, so saa, so general is this loss, that I am ready to excuse myself, and think it more reason than passion, if in my solitary mournings, and retired complaints, I cry out, My Father, my Father, the horsemen of England, and the Chariot thereof. To tell you of his worth in a measure proportionate to my experience, would require too long a discourse from your Infant-Orator. And to tell you of your loss, I have said too much already: which although it do not answer many of your expectations, yet I hope may conduce to the affecting of you to an attention to him, whose eloquence can represent your loss, and whose wisdom can teach you how to make the best use of it.   

ERRATA.  
Pag. 1. line ult. for And read In. p. 2. l. 24. a Ruler, r. the Rule. p. 5. l. 16. for This r. Thus. l. 17. for This r. Thus. p. 12. l. 11. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 13. for Art r. out. p. 20. l. 28. deal and wise